Dan Meis Workshop

[Saint Domingo]

54 K is perfect . WE will have the corporate seats , one big home stand and there will be demand every match . With every match available on handheld devices , i dont think all teams in England will continue to expand beyond 60 K . having 10-15 K of corporate seats and a big home stand ( Wall ) will be the main motive of any new stadium built going forward ..55k or 65 k wont be the difference . We will miss out on the cheapest 10K seats which will be filled only when we face the uniteds and liverpools of this world .

and what if that does occur and suddenly match tickets are cheaper and people actually want to go to the game rather than watch it on their phone? Or over the next few decades the tv bubble bursts and we go back to relying on matchday income?

Building extra seats is a one off cost now that even if it doesn’t pay off in any short term projections over the long term you will always make more money on it. This is our home for the next 100 years potentially so why are we quibbling over whether there’s short term loan repayment value in an extra 10k seats?

It’s about ambition, about wanting to be there with the best and at the moment there’s no single feature on the stadium that does that. As usual Everton are seemingly building to the brief of ‘we will have the nicest stadium in the league’, but I would bet any money that the brief will not be to have the best.

The only redeeming feature on the initial plans I can see is the waterfront location. Everything else is not even revolutionary for the premier league as of now never mind forward looking.

We’ve apparently copied the yellow wall by planning to build a di glow tier which will be smaller than Spurs and possibly Villa’s, it might only be 1.5k more than the Galaxy’s Street is and will be miles behind the kop when it’s expanded.

 

[Saint Domingo]

City will have 61k within a couple of seasons. They are adding a third tier to the 2 tier end.

Exactly, so all the top 6 have it will have 60k stadiums and we are building one basically at a similar capacity to Newcastle and potentially even less than the current Anfield. City can’t even fill the Etihad now yet want to expand, because they have ambition and we don’t.

 

[Big Neville Southall]

Meis did discuss the overhang issue.

Basically if you had the overhang the the top deck needs to be steeper to maintain viewing angles at the back of the top deck, and they’re already at maximum steepness within current regulations.

Thanks. That means a couple of things then. We can't expand, and the average distance of the fan would be at a maximum rather than at a minimum.

Why not make the lower tier shallower meaning that the fans are closer to the pitch? That would allow the higher tier to be brought closer.

The stand looks imposing but the fans are as a whole going to be on average further away, so it's an illusion of closeness.

800mm with no overhang, maximum steepness means fans are going to be far away from the pitch so it's not intimate.

I love the tiered sides and the single tier and the corners, I just think that they can bring it in a bit closer.

 

[Gardocki]

Yes it is a good sign he's talking about it with those plans. What's crossed my mind is that it says about tread depths of 800mm. That's quite large, for comparison the Park End is the largest in Goodison at 700mm. Assuming it's 800mm all over (it does say average) then you could cut that down in both the Ends to 700mm and that would free up room for an extra 10-15 rows to be added to the North Stand.


One interesting aspect on the North Stand, on one angle it looks as though the North Stand upper overhangs the lower, whereas another angle it doesn't?

On the sides I'm surprised that the upper tier isn't brought closer to the action by making that overhang.

The comparison to the kop shows that they have 76 rows on the same footprint to less than 60 on ours, implying that they have more fans closer to the action there than us. So I'm wondering if the average viewing distance is as good as it appears on ours?

If you look at the section comparison with NWHL, the upper tier is very similar to theirs. The bottom tier of BM has a steeper gradient. Makes me think that there probably isn't much scope for an overhang there. It's probably more comparable to the stadium in Munich where there is steep sides but not much overhang between the tiers.

 

[blulouie]

Large Home end ?
This was one of the plans for WHP.

 

[Big Neville Southall]

If you look at the section comparison with NWHL, the upper tier is very similar to theirs. The bottom tier of BM has a steeper gradient. Makes me think that there probably isn't much scope for an overhang there. It's probably more comparable to the stadium in Munich where there is steep sides but not much overhang between the tiers.

Possibly. You'd probably work backwards on designing a tiered stand. Top tier first as that would hit the maximum rake. . ie you draw an angle with a gradient of 34 degrees from the touchline and your upper tier joins on to that, and all you do is adjust the closeness but that has a knock on effect on the tiers below.

Then the tiers underneath you'd find a way of maximising their capacity, a lower rake on the lower tiers means you can fit more fans under the upper, rather than stopping below the front of the upper.

So rather than the upper tier overlapping, the lower tiers run under the uppers more.

I'd guess then the capacity of our Main Stand is lower than Tottenham's Main Stand?

So essentially the same thing but you would approach the design differently.

That makes sense in my head anyway.

 

[GARY_EVERTONIAN]

and what if that does occur and suddenly match tickets are cheaper and people actually want to go to the game rather than watch it on their phone? Or over the next few decades the tv bubble bursts and we go back to relying on matchday income?

Building extra seats is a one off cost now that even if it doesn’t pay off in any short term projections over the long term you will always make more money on it. This is our home for the next 100 years potentially so why are we quibbling over whether there’s short term loan repayment value in an extra 10k seats?

It’s about ambition, about wanting to be there with the best and at the moment there’s no single feature on the stadium that does that. As usual Everton are seemingly building to the brief of ‘we will have the nicest stadium in the league’, but I would bet any money that the brief will not be to have the best.

The only redeeming feature on the initial plans I can see is the waterfront location. Everything else is not even revolutionary for the premier league as of now never mind forward looking.

We’ve apparently copied the yellow wall by planning to build a di glow tier which will be smaller than Spurs and possibly Villa’s, it might only be 1.5k more than the Galaxy’s Street is and will be miles behind the kop when it’s expanded.

I beg to disagree . Lets not forget the location aspect . Juve springs to my mind as example . Roma and milan teams have been playing and plannig (for their proposed new stadiums ) a 60k plus capacity . But juve realised that being in turin , they dont have the demand which city of rome pr milan has . They came up with this realistic 40k capacity with nice corporate seats . Now if capcity decided ambitions , real would have been travelling to san siro tonight instead of turin . The capcity being discussed is realistic . Stadium size does not reflect ambition . Else roman abrahimovic , the most ambitious owner in england would have planned to build a 90k stadium by now

 

[kithnou]

Exactly, so all the top 6 have it will have 60k stadiums and we are building one basically at a similar capacity to Newcastle and potentially even less than the current Anfield. City can’t even fill the Etihad now yet want to expand, because they have ambition and we don’t.

No mate. They have the money, we don’t. Not about ambition.

 

[Saint Domingo]

I beg to disagree . Lets not forget the location aspect . Juve springs to my mind as example . Roma and milan teams have been playing and plannig (for their proposed new stadiums ) a 60k plus capacity . But juve realised that being in turin , they dont have the demand which city of rome pr milan has . They came up with this realistic 40k capacity with nice corporate seats . Now if capcity decided ambitions , real would have been travelling to san siro tonight instead of turin . The capcity being discussed is realistic . Stadium size does not reflect ambition . Else roman abrahimovic , the most ambitious owner in england would have planned to build a 90k stadium by now

Real have been to the San Siro plenty of times as Milan have won 7 CLs to Juve’s 2. Do you know who else goes to the San Siro? Absolutely loads of people who travel to watch games there as s bucket list item because they want to see the San Siro one of the top stadiums in Europe and the best in Italy. Exactly the same way they do with the Nou Camp or Bernabeu, or Dortmund’s ground. I can’t remember too many people saying ‘I really want to watch a game in the Juventus stadium’.

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for us and once again we’re positioning ourselves behind the pack. Abramovich is building a new stadium at massive expense despite Chelsea’s success because he understands the importance of not being left behind, something Everton’s board don’t.

 

[GARY_EVERTONIAN]

Real have been to the San Siro plenty of times as Milan have won 7 CLs to Juve’s 2. Do you know who else goes to the San Siro? Absolutely loads of people who travel to watch games there as s bucket list item because they want to see the San Siro one of the top stadiums in Europe and the best in Italy. Exactly the same way they do with the Nou Camp or Bernabeu, or Dortmund’s ground. I can’t remember too many people saying ‘I really want to watch a game in the Juventus stadium’.

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for us and once again we’re positioning ourselves behind the pack. Abramovich is building a new stadium at massive expense despite Chelsea’s success because he understands the importance of not being left behind, something Everton’s board don’t.

And what is the guarentee that we wont end up like valencia while trying to build a very large stadium and taking a lot of debt for that

 

[kithnou]

Abramovich is building a new stadium at massive expense despite Chelsea’s success because he understands the importance of not being left behind, something Everton’s board don’t.

Once again as I said above about Man City, no mate. They have the money, we don’t. Not about ambition.

 

[Saint Domingo]

And what is the guarentee that we wont end up like valencia while trying to build a very large stadium and taking a lot of debt for that

Valencia who win stuff and challenge for CL positions?

We used to be the club of firsts. We took the risks because it meant we retained our competitive edge. Now the ‘be careful what you wish for’ mantra has seeped right through the club and parts of the fan base.

 

[Pabbers]

Real have been to the San Siro plenty of times as Milan have won 7 CLs to Juve’s 2. Do you know who else goes to the San Siro? Absolutely loads of people who travel to watch games there as s bucket list item because they want to see the San Siro one of the top stadiums in Europe and the best in Italy. Exactly the same way they do with the Nou Camp or Bernabeu, or Dortmund’s ground. I can’t remember too many people saying ‘I really want to watch a game in the Juventus stadium’.

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for us and once again we’re positioning ourselves behind the pack. Abramovich is building a new stadium at massive expense despite Chelsea’s success because he understands the importance of not being left behind, something Everton’s board don’t.

Why are Roma moving to a smaller stadium then ???
Why are Inter looking to move to a smaller stadium ??
Why have AC Milan been looking at 48k seater new stadium designs ??
Why did Juventus ??

Ambiton is NOT tied to capacity, these clubs prove you wrong.

 

[MickA]

Yes it is a good sign he's talking about it with those plans. What's crossed my mind is that it says about tread depths of 800mm. That's quite large, for comparison the Park End is the largest in Goodison at 700mm. Assuming it's 800mm all over (it does say average) then you could cut that down in both the Ends to 700mm and that would free up room for an extra 10-15 rows to be added to the North Stand.


One interesting aspect on the North Stand, on one angle it looks as though the North Stand upper overhangs the lower, whereas another angle it doesn't?

On the sides I'm surprised that the upper tier isn't brought closer to the action by making that overhang.

The comparison to the kop shows that they have 76 rows on the same footprint to less than 60 on ours, implying that they have more fans closer to the action there than us. So I'm wondering if the average viewing distance is as good as it appears on ours?

Certainly looks like they have gone for steepness as a priority, maybe it's also a consideration of the site itself. Personally I think that having everybody under one roof for the first time will be a decent trade off for being slightly further away.

 

[neil999]

Why are Roma moving to a smaller stadium then ???
Why are Inter looking to move to a smaller stadium ??
Why have AC Milan been looking at 48k seater new stadium designs ??
Why did Juventus ??

Ambiton is NOT tied to capacity, these clubs prove you wrong.

Italians are generally a smaller people