Kirkby Move - Yes or No?

Yes or No to the move to Kirkby?

  • Total voters
    59
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
i read that atmosphere is exclusive to in town stadia and couldnt read the rest because i was laughing so hard at the sheer lack of credibility in such a statement i couldnt read on.

:fart:
 

that's partly the point, many people have season tickets to try & ensure a decent spec. - this may not be the case in kirkby where everybody should have a decent spec.
obviously "hassle" is a subjective matter & people will decide these things based on their own specific criteria. anyway, you guys don't seem to think the transport infrastructure will become an issue on matchdays, unless we decide to expand from 50,000 to 70,000. in which case some further investment may be necessary to cope with the extra 20,000 or so.
 
are you trying to sell that the stadium will just be thrown up and no provisions to the area considered?

really?

really really?
 
thrown up? why would you say that? apparently £10 million is allocated for infrastructure improvements, mind you that's for the whole development.
 

atrottel said:
"Ormeau Park"??

Did you cut and paste that from somewhere, Blue Lou, and if so, could you maybe provide a link?
Click to expand...

Yeah it was a cut and paste with town names replaced.. the report was carried out by the Belfast City council on what to choose, an intown stadium or a out of town one.

http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/news/stadiumreport.pdf right click and save target as, as it's 5mb and it may crash your browser. You need adobe acrobat reader installed to read it.

They also came to the conclusion that an inner city stadium is the way forward.
 
Last edited:
DENNIS STEVENS said:
now if the board wanted to be really adventurous belfast would have been an interesting place for relocation!
Click to expand...

Titanic Quarter would be a nice place for a ground. Problem for fans of Northern Ireland is that the government is convinced that a new ground belongs at the Maze. The football continues to get lost in the haze of politics.

I was drained on the stadium issue after the King's Dock plan died off. That was as near perfection as Everton are ever going to achieve on a new stadium. Once you gaze upon a great location like that, anything else just looks crap. It is like having a chance with Vida Guerra or Halle Berry, only to wind up in the end with Emma Thompson or Delia Smith: not all bad, but you're kicking yourself because you know you could've had better if you played your cards right.

The key for me now is that Everton finds itself with a ground allowing it to survive and thrive for the next 125-plus years. I think we can find that at Kirkby, although I'm not convinced the same couldn't be accomplished at Goodison Park using the kind of gradual approach Preston and other clubs have taken in redeveloping their grounds.

Regardless, the last thing I want to see is Everton (and partners) locked up in a revenue-draining fight with a consortium of NIMBY's just for the right to put a shovel into the dirt. That happened to Brighton with Falmer, and it came close to putting that club in crisis situation. This would take place at the very moment when it appears Everton are on the verge of something special on the pitch.
 
i think it's fair to say that from the moment the goldstone was sold brighton were in crisis. i can't imagine kenwright doing that to us & even if he did we wouldn't have to go such a long way to ground-share as poor old brighton did (it's over 70 miles to gillingham).
 

DENNIS STEVENS said:
i think it's fair to say that from the moment the goldstone was sold brighton were in crisis. i can't imagine kenwright doing that to us & even if he did we wouldn't have to go such a long way to ground-share as poor old brighton did (it's over 70 miles to gillingham).
Click to expand...

What fascinates me is that they actually got planning permission twice after review. The first time Mr. Prescot screwed up on a technical detail and the anti-Falmer groups were able to get the permission overturned. Cost Brighton millions.

I don't see Kenwright doing that to Everton. What worries me is that there seems to be quite a few organisations coalescing around an anti-stadium stance in Kirkby. They aren't the majority, but even small groups with the proper funding can cause tremendous delay in getting a stadium built.

I'm ambivalent. I can see the plusses and minuses with Kirkby and the other alternatives suggested by fans opposed to Kirkby. What swings me towards the "yes" category is a simple mantra that says "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth." A new stadium, subsidised with the help of partners, strikes me as the best means of taking this club forward in the long-term without drowning the real progress we're seeing presently in a mound of debt.
 
Blue Lou said:
Onslow, aside from naming rights what advantages do you see partners giving Everton at Kirkby?
Click to expand...

Assistance in the development of the ground and related infrastructure. I see this as the key advantage considering the financial clout, or lack thereof, of the current ownership at Everton. On a smaller scale, such assistance has helped Preston update their ground. I see this cooperation from outside partners as key when you're not fronted by a mega-billionaire.

Blue Lou, I'm not wildly enthusiastic about Kirkby. Again, it would be like waking up with Delia Smith in your bed. She's not much to look at. But she has money, knows how to cook, doesn't mind having a drink or two, and loves her football. There are advantages, but nothing that makes you go "WOW!" Kirkby is like that for me.

It begs the question: shouldn't Goodison's replacement be something that has that "WOW" factor? Or is it good enough to build a new ground setting the foundation for Everton to prosper for years to come?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top