STADIUM MANIA 2: CRUSHING MORE MYTHS
By
Mickey Blue Eyes

“There is always one moment in childhood when the door opens and lets the future in.”
GRAHAM GREENE, ‘The Power and the Glory,’ Chapter 1.

“And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death………..”
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, ‘Macbeth,’ act 5, sc. 5, l. 16.

If you are the kind of individual who believes fairy tales then this second piece on the stadium issue is not for you. Reality will probably be too inconvenient and too painful. If you cannot read even the most basic of drawings or maps then go no further. It might get too complicated. Once again it is time to engage in grown-up talk on the subject of a new stadium.

Which also means there will be some multisyllable words longer than “stagecoach” and “marmalade,” and even some as complicated as “protozoan.” Unfortunately for the naïve or the stone-brained this will be a somewhat brutal process. But you have been fairly warned. Best if you go play with your toy fluffy bunnies. And that’s as much of the knockabout stuff I can be bothered with this time round.

Firstly, the following facts remain true and bear repetition (note the words in capitals):

     · There are no plans to move Everton Football Club to a new location.

     · The club has signed an exclusivity deal with Knowsley Council to analyse the option of relocating to a site there. NOT AN AGREEMENT         TO MOVE.

     · During the life of the deal the club have agreed not to consider any other option from any other party.

     · Like almost all similar property deals there will be a series of milestones, which, IF not achieved to mutual satisfaction, means the        scheme will not proceed.

     · Only IF and when all the milestones are passed and IF the analysis shows the possibility to be financially and technically feasible will it        become a proposal. Until then either side could call it off for any number of reasons. In the meantime you can go and examine the current        concept proposals at Knowsley Planning Department, bearing in mind that, like any other similar project, they are subject to change.

     · That is the reality until you hear formally from both parties. Everything else is uninformed gossip.

In other words, nothing has changed or is going to change until the club says so. Keep that in mind next time you find yourself listening reluctantly to the usual minority pack-paranoia. For that mentality there’s always a secret scheme afoot, a villain to blame, and a new windmill to tilt at. Once the current cause has gone it will be replaced with another, then another, and so on ad nauseam, ad infinitum. It will never be any different and there’s little point thinking it will, even if we had a truly successful team. There is nothing to be done with that type of background twitter except use it as a minor source of amusement.

Secondly, the fairy tale of rebuilding an acceptable stadium WITHIN THE PRESENT SITE BOUNDARIES can be dismissed for the impracticality it is. Once that myth is crushed the debate can move on to sensible consideration of the remaining options, such as they are, all of them limited by access to finance. The reality is nothing happens on or off the pitch if you can’t get the finance. And, Catch-22, we can’t get any worthwhile money until we have a stadium which helps us raise some. The rest of the time is spent in financial juggling, as it is with every other club. The long-term consequences of stasis are obvious.

And if we can’t pull off a compromise deal (the only one possible since we can’t afford the full construction costs ourselves) then we might as well abandon any thought of ever restoring our fortunes. We could stay fortnightly in County Road pubs picking sad-reminiscent fluff out of our navel for all eternity, hoping something would turn up, while the rest of the footy world moves on, while even Doncaster have moved to a new ground and literally down the road a new 60,000 stadium dwarfs aged Goodison Park into near insignificance. Nor would it do any harm at all to point out that if our future is ever decided by the number of pubs in the locale then we really have come to a ludicrous pass. But to more important matters.

I repeat: The fact is an adequate stadium cannot be built on the existing site if Everton Football Club is to satisfy its aspirations for the future and bring the club into the modern era. Tough, that, for mere sentimentalists. For everyone else, learning from the past is only important as long as you don’t get bogged down in it. Let that happen and you might as well revert to voodoo, trickle down economics, writing with quill pen and cartridge paper, or lighting with oil lamps. Some clubs have learned this the hard way. Tottenham now seek to move from redeveloped White Hart Lane, as do Chelsea from redeveloped Stamford Bridge and West Ham from redeveloped Upton Park.

By “aspirations” I mean the will to provide a stadium of a minimum capacity of 60,000 with better spectator facilities for the fans, and thus help supply more finance for better players. If a lower capacity is adopted there should be an allowance for future expansion. If we stay with the existing ground in its existing condition, or even with a slight improvement, we will resign ourselves to an unending fight to make ends meet and a subsequent logical-conclusion to playing fortunes. In which case, sooner or later our playing luck would run out.

And there are risks, as there always are in any deal. You can’t have it both ways. If we stay as we are it means more of the same, or much worse, whoever the manager or owner is. A new stadium guarantees nothing except a better chance to face the future. But doing nothing is not a sensible choice; it is a recipe for decay. Waiting for a “sugar daddy” is not an option either and never will be. Not for sensible fans anyway. You might as well wait for Godot, or fall for the “promises” of the latest tenth-rate property spiv from Wirral or a takeover by someone like here-today-gone-tomorrow Rage Software or some dishonest salesman spouting the latest line in gobbledegook.

So far as I know the only spatial concept prepared for the existing site is that completed by architects Ward McHugh Associates in the late 90s for the GfE (see here http://www.toffeeweb.com/club/goodison/gfe/). However, according to Ward McHugh in an e-mail to me they were also commissioned to do further feasibility studies by the club. If so, none of these have been made public. If other studies do exist they can only confirm the conclusions I present in this opinion.

In fact I posed twelve questions by e-mail to Ward McHugh Associates and offered to post their response alongside my opinion. They have not taken up the offer. The questions are recorded in the Appendix at the end of this piece. I have also sent the relevant section of this opinion to them for comment but have received no response to that either. Should one arrive I will be only too pleased to help clear any part of the issue.

Meantime, the Ward McHugh scheme made public in the link above consists of concept plans, sections, elevations, computer perspectives and an accompanying small report in nine sections. The concept is for a stadium of 50,000 capacity. BUT THE STADIUM IS NOT WITHIN THE EXISTING SITE BOUNDARIES. IN FACT IT DEMONSTRATES PERFECTLY WHY THE EXISTING SITE IS TOO SMALL. In that respect the scheme has rendered an excellent service and is deserving of high praise. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the concept drawings in reasonable detail to understand the limitations of the existing site.

Now this is where it gets relatively difficult. To help you in this I have included four illustrations. They are:

ILLUSTRATION 1: Ordnance survey map at 1:2500 scale showing the triangular area bounded by Goodison Road, Gwladys Street and Walton Lane on two sides.

ILLUSTRATION 2: Ordnance survey map at 1:1250 scale showing the area bounded by Bullens Road, Gwladys Street and Walton Lane on two sides.

ILLUSTRATION 3: Ward McHugh plan showing their proposal for a 50,000 stadium PARTLY on the present site.

ILLUSTRATION 4: Overlay showing actual affect of the WM plan on property adjacent to Bullens Road.

So let’s take it a step at a time.

I suggest you do the following:

1. From Illustrations 1 and 2, count all the houses in Muriel Street. You will find 26 houses on the side nearest to the bottom of the page.
2. Similarly, count all the houses in Diana Street. You will find 22 on one side and 14 on the other side.
3. Note there is one house only (no. 1) in Bullens Road, at the end of Diana Street.
4. From Illustration 3, the Ward McHugh plan, count the same houses in the same streets. In this plan you will find five missing in Muriel Street, leaving a total of 21 on that side. You will find 4 missing on one side of Diana Street and 2 on the other, leaving totals of 18 and 12 respectively. No. 1 Bullens Road is missing.
5. From Illustration 3, the Ward McHugh plan, note Bullens Road is missing, a corner of the school site is taken, a corner of the Garage site is taken, and Muriel Street and Diana Street have been merged and diverted to link through to Walton Lane at the lower edge of the plan.
6. From Illustration 4 you can see more clearly what the Ward McHugh plan does not show – the position of excluded properties in relation to their proposal. In fact none of the annexed properties are even referred to in the report as published on the internet.

This fact is clear: Even to make this plan work it is necessary to annex a total of 12 houses, Bullens Road and some other adjoining property. THEREFORE, AGAIN, THE SCHEME IS NOT FOR A STADIUM WITHIN THE EXISTING SITE BOUNDARIES.

And if the scheme as drawn was adapted and squeezed between the existing boundaries it would result in a loss of about fifty percent of the proposed new Bullens Road stand, as shown in Illustration 4. According to Appendix 3 “Assumptions” of the internet report this comprises an Upper Tier of 5,175, a Middle Tier of 1,475 and a Lower Tier of 7,600, total 14,250. A loss of, say, 7,000 from this stand therefore reduces the proposed capacity to 50,000 minus 7,000 = 43,000. Thus, the gain would be a mere 3,000 seats for all the disruption and capital expenditure. Seat prices would have to reflect that since the lower the capacity, the greater the increase required to meet revenue requirements.

Nor is there anything to be gained by simply moving the Bullens Road stand further towards the Goodison Road side as it would merely reduce the Goodison Road stand capacity in proportion. You end up with the same figure of about 43,000.

Other related matters are:

(a) The stadium plan shows four radiused walls intruding into each corner of the stadium. I presume these are to conceal spectator circulation towers. However, this is a poor design element which visually and physically divides the stadium into four separate areas, excepting only a small seating area in front of each. As an analogy, imagine the existing church in the corner repeated in every other corner. The affect on appearance and “atmosphere” may be extrapolated.

(b) New stands in Goodison Road and Bullens Road are shown extending right up to pavement edges, against the school boundary and much closer to remaining houses in Muriel Street and Diana Street.

(c) The overall affect of the scheme is to make it look as though it has been crammed onto as much of the existing site as possible and then simply overlapped onto adjoining areas to suit, but STILL requiring annexation of adjoining properties to make it “work.” I doubt if any responsible planning officer would give it the time of day.

(d) But, as demonstrated above, it DOESN’T “work.” In fact external circulation is even worse than existing because of the elimination of Bullens Road. The club car park is virtually eliminated too; as is one vehicular access to the school from Bullens Road, though this could be accommodated by a “run-up.”

(e) By Ward McHugh’s own report it would take a total of four years to rebuild one stand at a time while still using the ground, though they do say the merging of two phases might save a little over a year (and reduce ongoing capacity in proportion). Merging two phases would mean going without two stands for that period.

(f) Illustration 4 shows clearly any development within the existing boundaries would result in a stadium of severely reduced capacity, perhaps to as little as three-quarters of our present capacity. But anyway the shape of the site limits design possibilities so much there is no prospect of ever obtaining a first class stadium on it.

Knowing all of this, if you now revert to Illustration 1 it is perfectly obvious what would be needed to build even a basic new stadium. ALL of the property would have to be acquired in the triangular area bounded by Goodison Road, Gwladys Street and Walton Lane. This assumes ALL parties would be agreeable and would include:

· The existing site.
· St. Luke’s church and church hall.
· Gwladys Street Community Primary and Nursery School.
· 14 houses in Gwladys Street.
· 38 houses in Muriel Street.
· 36 houses in Diana Street.
· 4 houses in Walton Lane.
· The Garage and associated land and buildings in Walton Lane.

To make this work it would be necessary to turn the stadium through ninety degrees until it was parallel with Gwladys Street. It may be imagined what would happen if just a few people refused to sell, as they did when Liverpool built their “new” Kemlyn Road stand. It could be held up for years. And even if (eventually) all this were attained what would be the point? Goodison and the original site would be gone. Moreover, the club would have to bear all the costs itself, something which is patently beyond its current finances.

Incidentally, you should beware of any amateurish attempts to superimpose aerial photographs of new stadia over an aerial photograph of the existing Goodison Park Site. Such an effort must be to accurate, matching scale and few of them are.

Whilst we are at it we might as well consider the concept of adding another tier to the Park End stand. In my view if we ever got to that point you could assume we have reached near-desperation. It would be a last throw of the dice, similar to Manchester City’s asymmetrical solution for the old Main Road Kippax Stand, Arsenal’s design mistake with the Clock Stand at Highbury, and Newcastle’s design “solution” at St James Park – the first two eventually and rightly abandoned for much better grounds. Yes, it is possible to put another tier on the Park End. But, once again, what FOR? Merely to stay on a finally restricted site and have a ground that looks exactly like a cobbled-together lopsided stadium that STILL has obstructed views on three sides, limited capacity and ageing and potentially dangerous wooden stands? In short, it is not a long-term solution at all. It is a mere gesture to nostalgia for a ground that long ago lost its status in the game and has now reached the end of its useful life. It is time to move on, not apply a bandage to an open wound.

So “redeveloping Goodison on the existing site” is not a practical option . The only way Goodison Park will be kept is if all other alternatives are exhausted or – much more likely – we can’t strike a suitable deal. And if we DO keep it then you can assume we will be unable to entertain any realistic, sustainable playing ambition for many years. In those circumstances there isn’t a single sane individual on the planet who would buy the club. In the present economic culture, who could blame them?

Thirdly, it is necessary to understand the implications of more extensive space requirements and the main materials to be used in any new stadium. Repeat, ANY stadium, WHEREVER it is built, including on the existing site. These will consist of steel, concrete and masonry. After the Bradford fire, timber is rightly a no-no in stadium structural design. Even older stadium walls were mostly constructed from ugly mass brickwork. Meantime, to comply with modern safety and comfort standards stadia spatial design has altered beyond all recognition. Thankfully the days are over of shoehorning human beings into cattle-pen standing-only spaces.

But next time you hear some misguided fan talk about stadia design you can draw his attention to the materials used in all the contained spaces below the stands at Goodison Park. You will know of course that these are virtually all constructed from concrete blockwork and exposed steelwork, usually painted over to add a bit of colour. There is nothing “soulful” about under-stands spaces in any ground, anywhere, old or new, let alone Goodison Park. The idea that these areas impart “atmosphere” is quite simply nonsense. Fans and great games generate “atmosphere,” not grounds. And that happens at the smallest and the largest grounds, new or old. The only internal public areas of any attraction are the lounges and administrative areas because these are the only areas that are relatively expensively decorated. In new stadia modern external circulation design standards require wide plazas – not the suffocation of narrow, litter-strewn streets or ageing terrace houses.

For instance Barcelona’s Nou Camp stadium is way out on the edge of the city and is a giant, mostly uncovered bowl next to the University campus. For unimportant games the so-called “atmosphere” is decidedly low-key, as it is anywhere else in the world. Odd exception apart, only major games fill the place and generate “atmosphere,” and even then it is only sustained if the match fulfills expectations. Last time I visited Barcelona were playing Celta Vigo and had to win to qualify for Europe. The gate was a half-full 45,000 and for most of the time you could hear a pin drop. The same applies in similar circumstances throughout the world. Great matches and “atmospheres” are remembered because they are EXCEPTIONAL, not the norm, and cannot be manufactured. And it is preposterous to pretend that The Old Lady generates “atmosphere” more than other grounds. It does nothing of the sort. Evertonians are no better and no worse than any other Premiership fans when it comes to vocal support. When important games are on, the crowd – ANY crowd, anywhere – generally are up for it.

These design requirements will not change in a new stadium unless we can supply facilities with realistic expectations of financial profit, as Arsenal have done – though they readily concede they took a fearful risk. Hopefully it pays off for them. Certainly the early signs are good with gates averaging sixty thousand and a consequent rise in revenue. Also at the top end of the scale Manchester United rake in two million sterling for each home game. Short of a reversion to the old gate receipts sharing of the Football League (which won’t happen any time soon), how on earth can any sensible fan expect us to compete reasonably against that? By standing still? Staying where we are? Adding a few thousand to the existing capacity? Get real. The longer we wait, the greater the gap, the greater the danger of a REAL fall from grace.

There’s no point whingeing about this if you want the club to afford better players and provide better facilities. Once again, you can’t have it both ways. Material improvements cost money. If you can’t absorb that simple arithmetic then you had best stop watching the game altogether and go take up team macramé, circuit knitting or marathon dominos. We live in a capitalist society, not a moral or “fair” society. Like it or not, that’s the way it is for the foreseeable future. You can whine all you want, every-which-way and up-and-down, but it won’t make a blind bit of difference.

Fourthly, a quick glance at the local council political scene and the reaction by City Council leader Warren Bradley to the possibility of a move to Kirkby. Bradley was elected leader of the City Council in December 2005 after former leader Mike Storey resigned following a breach of the Standards Code of Conduct in an internal argument with former City CEO David Henshaw, who went at the same time. Therefore, Bradley was in power for eight months until the prospective move to Kirkby was made public in August 2006. Prior to his succession there had been a number of serious failures by the LibDem city administration to deliver several major projects. The question is what did HE do on the stadium issue during that eight months? But now you can dump all the gossip. Nobody’s lied, nobody’s in conspiracy. It was just another failure, just another inability to organise a project.

On this basis I posed a total of eight questions to Warren Bradley and he responded to only one. See the Appendix.

I’ll keep this to its basics: The club was told for years BY PREVIOUS COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIONS that the site footprint couldn’t extend to annex adjacent properties. One look at the four illustrations will tell you why. It was Bradley’s party, the LibDems, who formed those administrations and made planning policy. If he wanted to change any of the major elements of the policy when he succeeded Mike Storey – of which, keeping Everton in the city ought to be one – then the onus was on HIM to come forward and say so, particularly where the existing site is concerned. Everton Football Club do not make or change the policies of the LibDems or the City Council. And every man and his dog has known of the club’s search for an alternative site for years – even Philip Carter years ago said publicly they had looked at thirteen alternatives. Until council policy is changed Everton (like everyone else) have to work with the last information. Which, quite rightly, they did.

Though they had years Liverpool City Council didn’t come up with a worthwhile scheme, Knowsley did. It’s as straightforward as that. By which time the club were already considering other relatively deliverable options, one of which was at Kirkby. Obviously, Warren Bradley’s option at Speke was not as good financially as the Kirkby one. Simple as. In short, the City Council were merely dilatory and showed no real enthusiasm or expertise in the matter.

Furthermore, “offering a site” isn’t the same thing as making a viable multi-millions property proposal. And if in the meantime Liverpool City Council can come up with something better than Knowsley, they’ll have to wait until the exclusivity agreement expires. That’s the harsh reality of real business dealing. It is a matter of carpe diem, not box-ticking.

For Evertonians it is time to abandon the sheer nonsense that we can obtain a modern, symmetrical, redeveloped stadium of sufficient capacity within the existing site boundaries. The idea is fantasy. Any building within that site cannot fulfill our needs if we want to get serious about our future. If we stay we might as well accept we have lower aspirations. In which case, there is no point whingeing about playing fortunes because we will never have sufficient money to improve them. Furthermore, no player or manager of ambition will want to join us and no sane financier is going to consider anything more than a horse laugh if asked to invest. Where at present we are just about holding our own, we could be looking instead at a slow decline into the lower divisions.

That being the case, let us move on to consider better and more serious options. And whilst we are it, consider this also: Even the complete triangle of land bounded by Goodison Road, Gwladys Street and Walton Lane would struggle to accommodate a modern 60,000 stadium in comfort and within contemporary design guidelines. And that will be the subject of my next piece on the subject.

As I said: It is time for grown-up talk.

APPENDIX – QUESTIONS POSED TO WARD McHUGH ASSOCIATES AND LEADER OF LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL, WARREN BRADLEY, IN OPEN E-MAIL LETTERS.

A. TO WARD McHUGH ASSOCIATES.

1. When were you commissioned to produce the concept?

2. Did your brief include a requirement to design within the existing site boundaries?

3. Did you carry out a measured survey of the site or did you work only from ordnance survey maps?

4. The proposed site layout appears to indicate a need to acquire five end terrace houses in Muriel Street, four in Diana Street on one side and two on the other side, one in Bullens Road, and to close off Bullens Road and annex a corner of the Gwladys Street school. Is this so?

5. If item 4 is true, why are the design and planning implications of this not mentioned in your accompanying report?

6. In your opinion is it possible to design and build a modern 50-55,000 capacity stadium within the existing site boundaries (presumably back of pavement right around the existing stadium)? If not, what do you “guesstimate” as the maximum capacity stadium you could get on the site?

7. At http://www.chesterfield-fc-premiumtv.co.uk/page/GroundPlansDetail/ a very similar stadium design (capacity 12-14,000) is shown and referred to as “the generic stadium.” Can you explain this term?

8. If it is a general term, does this mean the basic design was prepared to fit any club on any site?

9. The concept design for Goodison Park shows four corners with walls intruding into spectator spaces. Can you explain why this design form was selected?

10. Did you conduct any meetings with Liverpool city council planning officers before, during or after your design preparation? Have you ever presented the design to them for their response? If yes, what was their reaction?

11. Have you ever presented the concept design and site layout to any individual or group at Liverpool city council?

12. Have you ever consulted any of the local residents or school governors concerning possible compulsory purchase of properties in Bullens Road, Muriel Street and Diana Street, or part of the school in Gwladys Street?

B. TO LEADER OF LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL, WARREN BRADLEY.

1. When (not which) sites have been offered to Everton Football Club for new stadium development?

2. When you offered to discuss with Everton a possible extension of the existing site footprint at Goodison Park?

To repeat: both of these questions apply only to events since you have been Leader.
I do not seek details of specific proposals. I request only the dates you took this action.

(And later, after Bradley responded: “I received a piece of work done on our behalf, which was shared with Everton in July. I met with Keith Wyness in August to confirm the findings.

It was at this point Keith Wyness stated he would come back to me with future plans, prior to going public. This was never done.”)

1. Did your "piece of work " involve a change of council policy from previous decisions communicated to Everton Football Club by former leader Mike Storey and CEO David Henshaw? Were you aquainted with those previous policies?

2. On whose intitiative was the "piece of work" undertaken?

3. At your meeting with Mr. Wyness, did you offer a new site or offer to extend the existing site footprint? Once again, I do not request details, only the basis of the meeting.

4. If you offered a new site, did the offer comprise a thought-through business proposal, or was it identification of a site only?

5. Did you ever meet with and explain your "piece of work" to chairman Bill Kenwright? If so, when?

6. Knowing the club has been actively seeking a new stadium for years, why did it take so long for the council to respond as late as August 2006? Were you aware of negotiations with Knowsley Council and did this encourage you to respond and make a counter offer? (12/02/07)