Stadium Thread - ALL Kirkby/Stadium Discussion Here

Status
Not open for further replies.

Si-NSNO said:
No idea what that means in English, but thanks anyway
Click to expand...

Okay. The double standards displayed when, despite attacking Everton's ability to fund Kirkby, Liverpool City Council confirmed it had never seen proof of funding before granting Liverpool FC's Stanley Park permission.

IE - You said LFC rejected all the other sites as not viable because they wanted Standley Park and nothing else, just like we're doing with DK. LFC cant afford a stadium on Standley Park but LCC let them have it but bitch to us about funding DK.

Leading onto....



Si-NSNO said:
So there are viable sites, just not affordable sites?

Sound
Click to expand...


Is that what you dont get? Viable means feasible: capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are - SO BUILDING A FUUUCKING £250-300MILLION STADIUM IS NOT VIABLE!!!!! THE SITES AVAILIABLE IN LIVERPOOL ARE NOT VIABLE DUE TO COST AND THEY WONT WORK. Unless the whole point is just to prove there are viable sites other than Kirkby? Which is like saying "Ohhh there's a Ferrari over there. Wish I had that car. Ok I cant afford it like but its there...." What does that prove? Nothing but its there. Great.

LFC could pick anyone of those 35 sites then but they wont. Why? Because they got Standley Park? Like their owners give a [Poor language removed]? They cant afford it why dont they pick a site more affordable?
 

chicoazul said:
Can we just call this a stalemate as its over 1,500 post of tedium.

You'll never agree so just sit back and see what happens. And stop being melts.
Click to expand...

Sorry lid, but I took offence to his last reply to me and got all furious - you know the whole breaking down of a post and just giving the one line answers of "you're a thick twaat" without actually saying it....you know, a smart arse.

I'm gonna masturbate.....sleep well lids.b)
 
kenada_blue said:
Sorry lid, but I took offence to his last reply to me and got all furious - you know the whole breaking down of a post and just giving the one line answers of "you're a thick twaat" without actually saying it....you know, a smart arse.

I'm gonna masturbate.....sleep well lids.b)
Click to expand...

Its ok lid. It wasnt aimed at you. You give reasonable answers.

Make that 105.
 

kenada_blue said:
Okay. The double standards displayed when, despite attacking Everton's ability to fund Kirkby, Liverpool City Council confirmed it had never seen proof of funding before granting Liverpool FC's Stanley Park permission.

IE - You said LFC rejected all the other sites as not viable because they wanted Standley Park and nothing else, just like we're doing with DK. LFC cant afford a stadium on Standley Park but LCC let them have it but bitch to us about funding DK.
Click to expand...

I don't support Liverpool, so I don't know the specifics. I do, however, remember some hubbub in the local media about the Kopites being forced to show they could afford their share of the stadium in order to get some kind of grant - possibly Objective One money?

I also remember them celebrating getting the money....so I'm guessing they proved they could afford it

kenada_blue said:
Is that what you dont get? Viable means feasible: capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are - SO BUILDING A FUUUCKING £250-300MILLION STADIUM IS NOT VIABLE!!!!! THE SITES AVAILIABLE IN LIVERPOOL ARE NOT VIABLE DUE TO COST AND THEY WONT WORK. Unless the whole point is just to prove there are viable sites other than Kirkby? Which is like saying "Ohhh there's a Ferrari over there. Wish I had that car. Ok I cant afford it like but its there...." What does that prove? Nothing but its there. Great.
Click to expand...

Affordable is transient.

Chelsea couldn't afford Shaun Wright Phillips until the Russian arrived....

kenada_blue said:
LFC could pick anyone of those 35 sites then but they wont. Why? Because they got Standley Park? Like their owners give a [Poor language removed]? They cant afford it why dont they pick a site more affordable?
Click to expand...

Of course LFC's owners care what their paying customers think - can you honestly ever see Liverpool moving to Kirkby?

Not in a million years - not even if it was free.

Stanley Park is the right site for both clubs (if we could both build on it without sharing) and is the perfect site for either club (us first) - it's also the least perfect site as in it's public land and shouldn't be given away to any private company. Us or them.

Liverpool could easily turn their stadium round and build where they stand - it'd probably be cheaper than Stanley Park - but they want the prestige of Stanley Park.

Everton? We're just happy to get out from under their feet and scurry off to the suburbs to lick our wounds - so long as it's cheap.

Robert Elstone admitted at the Inquiry that the club have so far raised zero pounds and zero pennies towards the move to Kirkby. Yet they expect to be playing there in 30 months?

Not a cat in hell's chance!
 

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