Kings Dock - Update August 02

Kings Dock

Blue Kipper has been involved with the "Everton for Kings Dock" movement from the start.

Following months of silence, Everton have come out & said that everything is rosy in the garden, except for a few weeds. This was after a couple of shareholders asked a few questions at the meeting last night. The press got hold of it. Then bingo.

This is what the Daily Post had to say: Exclusive By Bill Gleeson Business Editor.

EVERTON'S hopes of building a new home at Kings Dock have suffered a serious setback as the club and other investors struggle to find the funds needed. The club's public sector partners, which include Liverpool City Council, are refusing to pay any further costs of the project until they get guarantees that

Everton and the scheme's other private sector investors can fund their share of the costs.

And Liverpool Vision, the regeneration company responsible for overseeing the development of Kings Dock, has for the first time begun considering alternative uses for the prime waterfront site. According to a report presented to the board of Liverpool Vision and obtained by the Daily Post, Everton have been told they will not get the go-ahead to develop Kings Dock until they can guarantee they have all the necessary funds in place to pay for the construction of the 55,000 seat arena. The club needs to raise £30m to pay for its 50pc stake in the completed arena. Liverpool Vision has now asked Paul Gregg, the theatre entrepreneur who co-owns Everton, to use his own personal wealth to offer a legally binding guarantee for Everton's contribution.

Mr Gregg said: "Every effort will be made to support the club and its ambition to build the stadium. But nobody in their right mind is going to turn around and say I'm going to write a cheque out for £30m." He said negotiations were continuing.

The report also reveals that construction group Bovis Lend Lease has backtracked on a plan for it to underwrite £32m of the building costs. That refusal has meant another firm, Liverpool-based Neptune Developments, is in talks to take over part of the Kings Dock scheme from Bovis. This includes building 1,020 homes on half of Kings Dock. However Neptune's involvement depends on it persuading other housebuilding groups to sign up for the project.

The latest hitches will mean further delays in obtaining planning permissions and knock on consequences for the completion of the project. Failure to secure any part of the funding will mean abandoning the stadium project altogether, according to the same report.

Everton's reply was this

Everton’s Head of Corporate Affairs and PR, Ian Ross said. “The private and public sectors are still working closely - negotiations are continuing. It is inevitable that problems will arise during the planning process for what is an expensive, expansive and hugely ambitious project. I think most people would concede that to propose, plan and construct an arena of this size and merit without the occasional hic-cup would be impossible. We still anticipate that a full planning application will be made for the King’s Waterfront project before the end of the year.”

The Everton for Kings Dock (EfKD) Group is as widely diverse a group of personalities as any other collection of human beings. But one thing they all have in common is a sense of commitment to our proposed move to the Kings Dock. That has been the motivating force in all of our actions. There has been no "leader" and, ipso facto, no "followers."

Nor has anybody ever taken anything for granted. Immediately Houston Securities won the bid for preferred bidder it was acknowledged a long rocky road lay ahead. Anything could happen. And so it transpired. The latest developments have to be viewed with that in mind. Leave the foam-flecked hysterical jeering to our infamous tiny minority of permanent whingers. In the end, they won't matter. Constructive things happen in spite of those arse-holes, not because of them.

What DOES matter is whether the project will go ahead or not. This essay examines the prospects and events of the last few days. It contains my opinions, nobody else's. I do not speak for EfKD, though I am a passionately committed member. You can take it or leave it. I am staying in support of the project whatever happens.

The present situation was really revealed a couple of weeks ago. Bill Kenwright was interviewed on BBC TV North West. During the course of the interview he said the planning application was due to be made in "six or eight months." This immediately alerted EfKD because the last slated planning application was for October at the latest. Moreover, if Kenwright was correct, it badly damaged the project programme. It became the third postponement of the application since the original date of last April/May………………………at which date the "preferred bidder" status also expired. A planning application next February or March would seriously endanger important construction completion dates and thus payment of European funds. The present tranche covers the period up to 2006. A planning application this October would just about squeeze into the programme.

The central question was and is: WHAT CAUSED THE ORIGINAL DELAY? You can safely dismiss any of the other claptrap you might have heard from the Melledrew Tendency. Once you had the cause of the delay you had the Achilles Heel of the project. In my opinion it has turned out to be what I had always said it was: crucial private funding of non-stadium elements. Not European funding. Not Everton funding. Not local authority/regional support.

EfKD immediately tried to re-establish its contacts to check the situation. Every lead was deathly quiet. I immediately said this could only indicate the project was in severe trouble. We were on the case long before anybody else and certainly long before the local media jumped aboard the bandwagon. It isn't rocket science, though an elementary knowledge of property development projects is helpful. And EfKD have a professional expertise in most relevant disciplines.

Ostensibly, the delay was to enable a full and detailed planning application to be made. The public explanation was that this would help to avoid a "call in" and a planning inquiry. But since I have designed and run projects which make the KD look like a toy village I knew this was utter nonsense. Any post-grad student who told me he would need six months to put such an application together would soon find himself sweeping up dog turds in the street. No, it had to be something else.

The stadium/arena design wasn't really a problem, give or take an ego or two. In any case, EfKD had seen the latest designs three months ago (long before the Echo claimed an "exclusive") and I can tell you they are breathtaking, much better than even the original one which sold it to the public. We were asked to keep them confidential and we did. No, it certainly wasn't the drawing or documents programme.

There was only one other thing which could delay the planning application and that was design of the non-stadium elements. In turn, this depended upon the committed presence of a private financial partner. Everything else was in place. (I'll come to the bogus delay of "Everton" share of the funding in a moment). All the other members of the consortium were on board: English Partnerships, North West Development Agency and Liverpool City Council. Obviously, non-stadium elements could not be designed until the private partner was on board. So there was and is your answer. All the rest was and is waffle.

Original unconfirmed reports claimed the private partner was going to be Bovis Lend Lease. Everton's funding was also in place and guaranteed. The individual who told me this couldn't be any higher in the pecking order……………………and he doesn't work for Everton Football Club. Either he lied to me or he was lied to, one or the other. Neither would surprise me. I haven't the slightest idea which is the case. The only thing I am interested in is securing the project for Everton Football Club and its fans. But I know what kind of nonsense surrounds almost any property deal anywhere in the world, and in many respects England is the worst of the lot because it is riddled with the kind of secret corruption which sometimes makes Italy look pristine. The Kings Dock is no exception and we never thought it would be.

However, today's focus has been on Paul Gregg's alleged refusal to confirm the guarantee on behalf of Houston Securities. And you better get this straight immediately: Houston Securities won the bid, NOT EVERTON FOOTBALL CLUB. If you can't get that through your head, then don't bother reading any further. You won't understand any of it. Indeed my contacts have emphasised the project wouldn't have proceeded at all if EFC had led the bid. I have explained all of this in a separate Blue Kipper essay. So any attempt to smear Everton falls at the first hurdle. Anyone who says (including a KPMG report) "Everton haven't got the money" is a dog cocking his leg aginst the wrong tree. Every time you read the word "Everton" in this context, substitute "Houston Securities" and you will see what I mean. Since no other Everton director owns any part of Houston Securities the only answerable man is Paul Gregg. Therefore if you help out in the smears you are helping only the enemies of Everton Football Club, as well as the personal enemies of Paul Gregg and Bill Kenwright.

You should note too that Gregg has refused to make the guarantee "on the terms and conditions proposed by Liverpool Vision." LV are the so-called enabling agency. We are entitled to know what are the terms and conditions. Gregg might be perfectly correct. But we can't know until the circle of secrecy is broken and we start getting some honest and clear answers instead of the absurd closed world which has engulfed the project from the start.

Local print media reports also claim there is a "power struggle" within the club, that Gregg wants changes before he will issue the formal guarantee. Having seen the alleged changes (Carter booted upstairs, Kenwright chairman, Dunford toast) I haven't the slightest problem with any of them. It's a normal business consolidation of power. It doesn't really increase Gregg's power, since he is already majority owner. All it indicates to me is that Gregg has run out of patience with the set up and has decided to get with an attitude. If it burns out the deadwood you won't find me complaining. Moreover, it completes the changes started after the takeover. What it boils down to is whether you trust Gregg or not. Your guess is as good as mine.

The upshot of the private partner-power struggle thing is straightforward. Once Gregg issues (or doesn't issue) the guarantee, we are still left with the problem of a private partner. Once the private partner is on board the rest should be relatively plain sailing, including other procedural matters. There might be one or two hiccups or loud, empty noises from the Melledrew Tendency but nothing more.

The so-called "power struggle" will be easily resolved. Paul Gregg will win because he holds all the aces.

The private partner issue is quite different. It will depend on one development company having the nouse to put together a series of viable development packages for separate companies for the non-stadium elements. Once that is done, the development company can raise the necessary dosh. The circle will be complete and the project can start in earnest. Alas, as I have pointed out, property development is full of the world's worst crooks and our beloved city is in no good shape to resist any of them. If the project fails, this is where it will go down, in a heap of greedy, squabbling Suits. If the squabbling goes on for another eight months then we can assume the scheme won't proceed. The same thing has happened on other notorious stadia projects.

It is also well worth bearing in mind that the proposed consortium has other bodies who should also be doing their best to attract private partners. As stated above, they are English Partnerships, North West Development Agency and Liverpool City Council. What are they doing? Sitting on their bureaucratic jobsworth arses, fiddling while KD burns? Whatever happened to public-private partnerships?

During the review of competing bids for the site EfKD distributed a pamphlet asking, "What's Going On At Kings Dock?" We have never received an answer. The masonic-like world of the English establishment isn't about to open up any time soon either.

It looks very much as though Liverpool Vision started this latest disturbing of the carrion through a leak to the local press. Likely it is calculated to force the issue or issues. Equally, all of the parties outside our club might be starting to clear the decks so they can distance themselves if it goes belly-up. In which case, guess who they will try to label as the culprits. That's right, "Everton Football Club."

As I have shown above, EFC are not involved in the financial intricacies. Probably our only internal involvement is to provide part of the hard cash to Houston Securities by selling Goodison and Bellefield. I long ago estimated the top whack for these as £20 million if we're lucky. That is still way short of the approximately £30-35 million Houston Securities need to provide as their (Gregg's) share. Once again the question arises: what terms and conditions are Liverpool Vision asking for? But more than that: why have they left it so long and so late in the process? After all, Houston Securities won the bid over eighteen months ago.

In my view the whole process was ill-advised and badly put together right from the beginning. It is typically English and typically tacky, just like Wembley and Pickett's Lock and gawd knows any other number of projects our establishment keep tripping over their own shoelaces on. They couldn't organise the proverbial piss-up in a brewery.

Needless to say the local media and politicians have been a complete disgrace in the matter. Both of them have used the project as an opportunity for their own ends. The local "new" Labour politicians have been nothing but a contemptible collection of party apparachiks of the worst type. The Post and Echo have played "good cop-bad cop" to increase their circulations without a single genuine thought for the good of our city. Which makes this editorial by the Post all the more sickening:

"A derailing of the King's Dock scheme would be disastrous……………Much of this is due to the complex funding equation and much due to lack of belief that a football club is a sensible risk as anchor tenant………………If this scheme dissolves, Liverpool's renaissance will be set back three years…………………It is vital that all stakeholders……overcome the obstacles and make Kings Dock happen."

I don't know about you but I find it hard to know whether to laugh, cry or throw up at those two-faced words. The Post's editorial policy, conceived and delivered by Alastair Machray, has been a particularly gutless concoction of half truths and weak kneed claptrap when it comes to Kings Dock.

Take the reference to "………a football club………as an anchor tenant………" Machray knows at least as well as you or I that the ONLY reason the scheme has got even this far is precisely BECAUSE of Everton's proposed guaranteed tenancy IN PERPETUITY. What other tenant will give such a guarantee and such a combination of social and cultural gains? Answer: none, none at all. But you can see the cowardly Machray's motive already; if the scheme goes down you can safely say goodbye to the Capital of Culture bid (already likely to go to Belfast for purely political reasons). People like Machray will have found a convenient scapegoat, Everton Football Club.

And who can forget the appalling Echo article "…………there are six good bids. Then there is Everton's." When this writer approached the Echo sports editor Ken Rogers for support of the project he responded with "….leave it to the powers that be." EfKD naturally ignored this wimpish approach. Three months later the Echo was all over the project like a cheap suit with their support. Fortunately I kept Rogers infamous reply in my data base. It may yet come back to haunt him.

Small wonder Evertonians have a deep loathing for both rags. They are at least as bad as Kilfoyle, McCarthy and the Abercromby Nimby Three - one of the latter, Anderson, is the new leader of "new" Labour in Liverpool.

In summary, this isn't the first scare the project has had. If it goes ahead I daresay it won't be the last. EfKD never expected anything else. I think we will know before Christmas whether it's a goer or not.

If it does go ahead we will have the best club stadium in the world. If it fails, watch the rats scuttle for cover and the carrion pick over its bones.

As for me, I hold my position. I support the project unequivocally. What a pity the establishment, local and national, didn't see fit to do the same and ensure its success. As for the mere moaners, they don't matter. They never have, except as an example of how not to get through your life, and maybe as a butt for humour.

If our city doesn't get the project it will be because we didn't have enough good men in the right positions. When you think about it, it's a typical English story really. Nothing new there, then.