Stanley Park

[Robert Jarvis]

Looks like that lot over the way are in deep financial problems with their American owners, So much so that it is rather unlikey that they will be able to biuld their new stadium.

It would seem that actually although we are in debt, we may be in a better position than the other lot. So why can't we nick Stanley Park, did they actually buy the land? Who exactly owns it?

I am sure that we could get the finance to build there if allowed far more readily than moving to that other place which shall be nameless (to keep DaveK a little less despondent) I also think that we could stand a better chance of getting the finance than the other lot.

A ground there would repay itself far more readily than the "other".

So could we nick Stanley Park if that lot are doing nothing?

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

any attempts by us to utilise that venue will become a shared stadium, deffo. they wont stop them completely buyt didnt they tell them they had to get it underway or lose planning consent ?

 

[bluebloodinmyveins]

I wish. We all know we are treated differently to our neighbours. Any submitted plans would be rejected outright, just like they were before.

 

[BadWool76]

Please god , Allah , Buddha , Krishna whoever just let me live long enough to seem to shatter into a million pieces of pain .

 

[Neiler]

We cant afford a stadium independently without a retail partner i beleive the term is.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

maybe tesco could build a superstore on goodison road




*limpet mine i believe is the term

 

[SevertonT]

i want us to build a shared stadium.

makes sense

 

[BadWool76]

i want us to build a shared stadium.

makes sense

TAXI !

 

[SevertonT]

TAXI !

i dont need one, ta

 

[BadWool76]

i dont need one, ta

Youve had enough . Your slaughtered .

 

[Robert Jarvis]

Neiler that other lot do not have a retail partner so why should we. I think we could raise the loans as it would be a far better proposition than the other place.

 

[davek]

Liverpool's plan was/is not only to build a stadium but also to regenerate the whole Anfield-Breckfield area. An enormous project. Only on that basis did the council allow the planning permission to steamroller past conservation concerns for the listed Victorian park. Somehow I cant see Tesco wanting to co-fund with Everton social housing, a health centre, offices, public space development, leisure facilities etc etc.

It's out of Everton's league, basically.

 

[Robert Jarvis]

Well it is not going to happen Dave, that other lot are in a bit of a meltdown.

 

[Neiler]

Neiler that other lot do not have a retail partner so why should we. I think we could raise the loans as it would be a far better proposition than the other place.

It seems they cant afford it either though mate! Their turnover is greater then ours to and i think Dave made the point that they got funds through regeneration. If memory serves me correct we did put it to the council to move to Stanley park before them but it was rejected out of hand- that was the clubs offical word anyway! Id say Dave if anyone prob has more detail on it!

Personaly - and im not really against the move - i always wondered why the club didnt borrow signifcantly ala Arsenal to build in the city without a retail partner, as far as i can make out its not like borrowing for players or operating costs - its a salable asset, a revenue creating one at that. Long term repayments may not be as bad as we think, it would saddle the club with (more) long term debt though.

 

[davek]

Well it is not going to happen Dave, that other lot are in a bit of a meltdown.

I think even if Liverpool got new owners they'd look at that plan and think whoever agreed to it was crazy. Even allowing for the land being thrown in that's still some extra financial responsiblity attached to a stadium that in and of itself will cost £150M-£180M to build...for a capacity currently pegged back to 60,000!!

That model belongs to the pre-recession period.