Well its just that you seem happy to call people Flat Earthers when you admit you've no direct knowledge of the area.
Now you're right that Walton isn't exactly the West End. But it's central to the core support and surrounding it there are many facilities that can be utilised by the fans.
Take a look at a map of the area. Everything you see on it from Kirkby to the west and south is mixed Everton/Liverpool. Everything to the north and east is no-man's land as far as Everton is concerned. There are Evertonians there, but they're outnumbered significantly by Man United and Liverpool supporters.
I suppose the nearest I can think of is this would be like Tottenham moving to Watford, West Ham moving to Thamesmead (that's the closet I can think of as an example actually), Chelsea popping down to Balham, Arsenal upping sticks to Friern Barnet. All those areas have supporters of each club, but they're all wrong for those clubs.
You use the term Flat Earthers like people are so stupid that they prefer to ignore all evidence that their theory is wrong. But that's not the case with the anti-Kirkby people at all. There is compelling evidence to suggest that a move to Kirkby is wrong for Everton, the same as it would be for Liverpool. Fair enough that you're a guy that thinks progress concerning Everton is measured by the first change offered. But I think you should leave the Flat earth references to areas that they deserve to be applied. Just like I wouldn't call a pro-Kirby person a Philistine, or a gullible type, you shouldn't assume that an anti-Kirkby person is a Flat Earther, bent on ignoring all compelling reasons as to why his theory of the universe is hideously wrong.
I take your point. But When I say Flat Earth Society, I am specifically referring to KEIOC and not to those against Kirkby per sey. I should make that clear in future posts.
While I may not appreciate them, I can see some of the points as to why people are against Kirby. The problem for me is that they have been poorly articulated. For example, arguing that "a move to Kirkby, means no more big time" deserves a fuller explanation. To use an example, we turn on a light, we know that in simple terms electricity moves in a certain direction to give light to the lightbulb, its called cause and effect.
It would be really good if someone could articulate cause and effect such as " a move to Kirkby = x = w = z". Unless someone can articulate that I aint buying into the hate. My criticism of the KEIOC article was that on reviewing the article the arguments could be applied to any stadia that KEIOC don't approve (whether in the city of liverpool or not) and was not a specific anti-kirkby article, except in relation to transport. I was totally unmoved by it.
People talk about "other options" as if they're falling off a plate. Well OK, I first of all except that Everton's research into other options has probably not been as efficient as it could be, but after reviewing
35 sites within the city of liverpool, can someone suggest what more can be done?
We could of course stay at GP and wait until the rs spaceship dwarfs us. Perhaps then people MIGHT realise that moving or re-development (if we have the money), is really the only option. Or we could continue to not generate enough match day income in a lovely but old stadia with its obstructed views, lovely tent (oh, sorry Marquee) and poor match facilities, poring good money after bad in a stadia which will only improve if knocked down and rebuilt.
I think I am trying to argue for realism, not romatic idealism. That went out the window the day football was re-invented by Sky.
