New Everton Stadium Discussion

Has anyone listened to the Echo podcast from last Friday? Gavin Buckland first says that we would possibly struggle to fill a 50k, then says we should keep the season ticket numbers down.

I did last night mate and it was really poor. I just couldn't understand his reasoning.

Firstly saying we don't have the demand, despite selling out an old 40K seater with awful views and minimum of modern facilities, having 33k season ticket holders and a waiting list, whilst watching rubbish football...

To then switching and saying we have too many season ticket holders and people can't get tickets (which doesn't make sense anyway as it's only the last few seasons this has happened so anyone with an interest in Everton would have found it easy to come see us in all the seasons prior and if they have desire now will definitely come to our shiny new stadium on the banks of the Mersey).

55K for me seems the limit. That's accounting for 10K more normal fans (let us say 5k more sts and 5k walk ups/casuals/tourists) and a few thousand extra premium. I don't think that is really ambitious.

Anything above that and you're stretching the fan base but with a side playing good football and winning things I think you could sell it.

Selling out a 60K is our max but why not just go for it.
 
I suspect when Spurs move into their new ground and the design doesn't save their atmosphere from the thousands of selfie-stick and Ipad waving tourists, folks will start to come around to the idea of a lower number than 60k to start with.
 

Fans demanding 60k or more is a vanity project. IMO.

I'm with you on this.

BUT, what about in future. we don't want to restrict ourselves at this point in time ??

it would be great if we could get 55k with further scope to 70k..

if we are truly limited to 55k and that's it. I don't know what to think. esp when all the other clubs are continuosly expanding around us.
 
Fans demanding 60k or more is a vanity project. IMO.

I think it's more that the 60k number was dangled before them early on and now their hearts are set on it for irrational reasons. I probably fell into that category until recently, too, but having read the opinions of other posters, I think better points have been made by those arguing that something in the 50s would be just as good, if not better. In addition, posts like "anything less than 55k would be a disgrace" convinced me to rethink who I was in agreement with. I haven't read a single post in this thread that made a convincing argument as to why building a 60k stadium would make us more competitive in any way that actually matters.

I wouldn't be stunned if we built a low-50ks seater stadium on BMD, allowing us to better preserve our atmosphere and the fans of clubs in larger stadiums ended up envious of us rather than the other way around.

Either way, I think these fans just love complaining and would, without even the vaguest hint of irony, be the most vocal in their anger if we did move into a 60-65k seater and the atmosphere ended up like the Etihad/Emirates.
 
Last edited:
I suspect when Spurs move into their new ground and the design doesn't save their atmosphere from the thousands of selfie-stick and Ipad waving tourists, folks will start to come around to the idea of a lower number than 60k to start with.

My maths says we'll be getting 9k in the new stadium who aren't ST holders, corporate/premium or away fans, and a lot of that 9k will be sold to members who aren't ST holders. After that there will be very few tickets left on General Sale which tourists can get hold of.

Our average attendance at Wembley has been 68k (the best supported club in Europe).

Yeah, I'm bragging, but my point is I think our two clubs are pretty similar in terms of size. Assume the biggest difference is corporate (sounds like you're looking at 5k for your stadium compared with NWHL's 8k) and the magic number is 59,000. So 55-60k would be where I'd be aiming for, below that and you'll really be putting the squeeze on non-ST members, nevermind worrying about tourists.
 
I think it's more that the 60k number was dangled before them early on and now their hearts are set on it for irrational reasons. I probably fell into that category until recently, too, but having read the opinions of other posters, I think better points have been made by those arguing that something in the 50s would be just as good, if not better. In addition, posts like "anything less than 55k would be a disgrace" convinced me to rethink who I was in agreement with. I haven't read a single post in this thread that made a convincing argument as to why building a 60k stadium would make us more competitive in any way that actually matters.

I wouldn't be stunned if we built a low-50ks seater stadium on BMD, allowing us to better preserve our atmosphere and the fans of clubs in larger stadiums ended up envious of us rather than the other way around.

Either way, I think these fans just love complaining and would, without even the vaguest hint of irony, be the most vocal in their anger if we did move into a 60-65k seater and the atmosphere ended up like the Etihad/Emirates.

I agree with quite a bit of what you say but personally think 55K should be the minimum after we have sold out 99% of home games for the last 2 seasons and we've seen the boost a new ground has given other clubs. I don't really understand why people are ashamed of empty seats either. How many clubs don't get empty seats? Arsenal do, West Ham, Man City etc.

For me, it would be better to build a 56K Stadium than a 52K and average 53-54K each season. Otherwise we're causing fans to miss out, and building a 52K seems to be very short sighted for where we want to end up as a club. People are understandably viewing it based on how the club is performing right now, but what if we started to break in to the top 4 or 5 and maybe even win a trophy? The demand will soar even higher and we'd then have the situation where 58-60K is needed and we'd have shot ourselves in the foot by aiming for such an underwhelming number like 52K which puts us on a par with Newcastle.

Doesn't scream ambition to me.
 
Some good recent posts here. I would accept 55k provided there is room for expansion built into the design.

The prospect of a 60k stadium seems already dead in the water but no stadium should be designed on the basis it's going to have full capacity immediately. Upper-tier seating can be incorporated in such a way that doesn't emphasise empty seats or take from the atmosphere.

50-52k seems too low, 55k is an acceptable compromise between our current scope and what we would hope to achieve in the future. Surely we have enough demand as it is to fill another 10k seats in a brand new stadium and push corporate seating to another 5k.

If we don't we would come very close anyway and then the onus is on the commercial team to get bums on seats.
 

I think it's more that the 60k number was dangled before them early on and now their hearts are set on it for irrational reasons. I probably fell into that category until recently, too, but having read the opinions of other posters, I think better points have been made by those arguing that something in the 50s would be just as good, if not better. In addition, posts like "anything less than 55k would be a disgrace" convinced me to rethink who I was in agreement with. I haven't read a single post in this thread that made a convincing argument as to why building a 60k stadium would make us more competitive in any way that actually matters.

I wouldn't be stunned if we built a low-50ks seater stadium on BMD, allowing us to better preserve our atmosphere and the fans of clubs in larger stadiums ended up envious of us rather than the other way around.

Either way, I think these fans just love complaining and would, without even the vaguest hint of irony, be the most vocal in their anger if we did move into a 60-65k seater and the atmosphere ended up like the Etihad/Emirates.
The best argument for a larger capacity, in my opinion, is access to tickets for new generations of fans. I've got two sons and getting tickets for them with me somewhere sensible in the ground typically involves StubHub. We've easily got the support for 40K plus season ticket holders, so any stadium with fewer than 55K seats leaves us with families scrabbling around looking for tickets as we are now. Personally, I'd rather have five thousand empty seats with 10,000 kids in the stands than 52,000 seats filled and the next generation of fans at home playing FIFA.
 
The best argument for a larger capacity, in my opinion, is access to tickets for new generations of fans. I've got two sons and getting tickets for them with me somewhere sensible in the ground typically involves StubHub. We've easily got the support for 40K plus season ticket holders, so any stadium with fewer than 55K seats leaves us with families scrabbling around looking for tickets as we are now. Personally, I'd rather have five thousand empty seats with 10,000 kids in the stands than 52,000 seats filled and the next generation of fans at home playing FIFA.

dan meis has already pointed out that there are several factors to consider when sizing the stadium, with financial being one.

we just may not be able to fund a larger stadium. funds might be restricting the size. which is laughable really, with a billionaire in charge

@davek
 
I would like to hear what Dan Meis and those around him in the stadium design have to say about what a new stadium can bring in the short, medium and long term... because that is what is most important.. the financial cost of the build will diminish with each passing year whereas the capacity needs to be right for the short, medium and long term.

The club must have a far better idea than any of us of the latent potential of a new stadium.
They must have a good idea from other grounds that have been built of what increase can be expected immediately.
There will be a certain amount of business from visitors to the city as well as a lift in commercial activity.

I would like to hear what their expectations are.
 
I would like to hear what Dan Meis and those around him in the stadium design have to say about what a new stadium can bring in the short, medium and long term... because that is what is most important.. the financial cost of the build will diminish with each passing year whereas the capacity needs to be right for the short, medium and long term.

The club must have a far better idea than any of us of the latent potential of a new stadium.
They must have a good idea from other grounds that have been built of what increase can be expected immediately.
There will be a certain amount of business from visitors to the city as well as a lift in commercial activity.

I would like to hear what their expectations are.

wouldn't we all.

don't hold your breath.

not once have they set out their plan for this project.

would be great to have Moshiri release a statement, saying that he is preparing to deliver us a stadium which competes with the elite and he will not let financials get in the way of delivering it, why build a sub standard stadium when we can achieve the best..

hahahahha
 
wouldn't we all.

don't hold your breath.

not once have they set out their plan for this project.

would be great to have Moshiri release a statement, saying that he is preparing to deliver us a stadium which competes with the elite and he will not let financials get in the way of delivering it, why build a sub standard stadium when we can achieve the best..

hahahahha
I would prefer a statement that outlined simply where we stand.
I just want to know where we stand. We are obviously constricted by budget and that is fine.
 

Top