health & safety certificates at goodison

[HalewoodBlue]

(11-26-2009 09:10 PM)Morgan Wrote:  

(11-26-2009 09:08 PM)nyarko Wrote:  lets be honest, not getting kirby is a disaster and we're f*cked now.

It's the best possible news the club could of got.

Bullshit

[Morgan]

(11-26-2009 09:10 PM)nyarko Wrote:  so no new stadium is a good thing lad?

As has been said many times, everyone agrees that something has to be done. But it's got to be the right move, not just moving for the sake of it. A basic football ground in the middle of a retail park next to a giant Tesco, with poor transport links (mentioned as a major issue by the Secretary of State), which would of only generated an extra £6 million a year, is not the right move for this club

[HalewoodBlue]

(11-26-2009 09:14 PM)Morgan Wrote:  

(11-26-2009 09:10 PM)nyarko Wrote:  so no new stadium is a good thing lad?

As has been said many times, everyone agrees that something has to be done. But it's got to be the right move, not just moving for the sake of it. A basic football ground in the middle of a retail park next to a giant Tesco, with poor transport links (mentioned as a major issue by the Secretary of State), which would of only generated an extra £6 million a year, is not the right move for this club

The major reason it was rejected was the retail size, as it broke laws. The same laws L1 broke in abundance

[BAXTER THE FUTURE]

tell the truth im gutted all hope gone now,but im not a local so my vote dont count,The only way out now is a groundshare and have the best staduim in england

[Morgan]

(11-26-2009 09:19 PM)HalewoodBlue Wrote:  The major reason it was rejected was the retail size, as it broke laws. The same laws L1 broke in abundance

The Secretary of State identified 6 major issues against the Kirkby plans, one of which is

Whether the application promotes sustainable transport choices and reduces the need to travel by private transport as identified in PPG13:Transport

in which it states,

...it is far from certain that the aim to achieve a sustainable transport solution for football matches would be achieved (IR19.35).

EDIT:

And in response to anyone who thinks we're f*cked, or that Goodison is going to be in breach of safety requirements, just read this from the inspector's report.

9.1.101
...There is no question of Everton facing administration without this proposal or indeed any financial downturn. They are a successful club. It will not lead to their relegation, their existing ground is not in breach of any league regulations which threaten continued membership of the Premier League or participation in Europe.

[Toblerone Boots]

9.1.101
...There is no question of Everton facing administration without this proposal or indeed any financial downturn. They are a successful club. It will not lead to their relegation, their existing ground is not in breach of any league regulations which threaten continued membership of the Premier League or participation in Europe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's NOT what Sefton was on about in his OP - he was specifically on about safety certificates, can you say definitively that his info is wrong? As I seem to remember those "tell no lies" hero's of yours being totally emphatic about it during the debate.

[Morgan]

(11-26-2009 09:56 PM)Toblerone Boots Wrote:  That's NOT what Sefton was on about in his OP - he was specifically on about safety certificates, can you say definitively that his info is wrong? As I seem to remember those "tell no lies" hero's of yours being totally emphatic about it during the debate.

And as Wendy Burden wrote in her report,

their existing ground is not in breach of any league regulations which threaten continued membership of the Premier League or participation in Europe.

What more evidence do you need? An independant planning inspector, who i'm sure is fully aware of the legislation, has said that Goodison is not in breach of any league regulations which would threaten our continued membership in the league or in Europe. This of course suggests that when the ground, or each individual stand (i don't know how it's done) has their safety certificate reviewed, it will be in no danger of failing the standards needed.

[Toblerone Boots]

League regulations are not the same thing as the Bullens stand not meeting safety standards in 2011 are they? One stand not meeting those regulations wouldn't threaten EFC's particpation in any competition, but your assuming that that one sentence equates to Sefton being wrong.

[SEFTON]

(11-26-2009 10:09 PM)Morgan Wrote:  

(11-26-2009 09:56 PM)Toblerone Boots Wrote:  That's NOT what Sefton was on about in his OP - he was specifically on about safety certificates, can you say definitively that his info is wrong? As I seem to remember those "tell no lies" hero's of yours being totally emphatic about it during the debate.

And as Wendy Burden wrote in her report,

their existing ground is not in breach of any league regulations which threaten continued membership of the Premier League or participation in Europe.

What more evidence do you need? An independant planning inspector, who i'm sure is fully aware of the legislation, has said that Goodison is not in breach of any league regulations which would threaten our continued membership in the league or in Europe. This of course suggests that when the ground, or each individual stand (i don't know how it's done) has their safety certificate reviewed, it will be in no danger of failing the standards needed.

that is the point in question each stand has its own health and safety certificate,nothing was surgested about the club being in breech of health and safety ,the point i was making is that the bullens road health and safety certificate runs out in 2011 it won't be renewed hence the reason why i asked the question .

[bluejohn]

I assume that they would have to joined or one build to get 1 certificate.
the bullens road would be the stand that be easy to rejig if you took the the seating out and roof off it is prime for a redevlopment