New Everton Stadium Discussion

[The binman chronicles]

so that's why it gone from 55'000 originally to 52'000, think we should do what Foreverblue said and do it back to 55'000, once unesco do one.

Perhaps keeping it the same height as nearby buildings has reduced the capacity but at the same time if they were more concerned with the number of bums on seats they could have chosen a less bulbous roof design in the first place.

 

[gazzaa2]

If Unesco have been holding the plans back why can't we push straight ahead with the 62,000 now? Sod them. The club have bent over backwards for these sandal wearing divvies.

Just build the higher capacity now, rather than wait to expand once it is built.

 

[SpongeBob brown shoes]

If Unesco have been holding the plans back why can't we push straight ahead with the 62,000 now? Sod them. The club have bent over backwards for these sandal wearing divvies.

Just build the higher capacity now, rather than wait to expand once it is built.

Thats what I was thinking, go back to a three tiered stadium

 

[Davideeyore]

so that's why it gone from 55'000 originally to 52'000, think we should do what Foreverblue said and do it back to 55'000, once unesco do one.

Never been 55,000 originally.

 

[Moomin]

If Unesco have been holding the plans back why can't we push straight ahead with the 62,000 now? Sod them. The club have bent over backwards for these sandal wearing divvies.

Just build the higher capacity now, rather than wait to expand once it is built.

It's not as simple as that. The additional costs for another 10k of seats would be through the roof.

The original budget for doing the stadium at 500 million will be blown out of the water now. Easily looking at 600 plus million with the rise in material costs , labour etc etc

Probably looking at additional costs of 25% for additional 10k of seats. So would be around the 800 million mark for that capacity.

 

[gazzaa2]

It's not as simple as that. The additional costs for another 10k of seats would be through the roof.

The original budget for doing the stadium at 500 million will be blown out of the water now. Easily looking at 600 plus million with the rise in material costs , labour etc etc

Probably looking at additional costs of 25% for additional 10k of seats. So would be around the 800 million mark for that capacity.

The ambition is there. Go for it.

The stadium costs won't matter with FFP.

 

[allen]

The capacity wasn't reduced because of UNESCO, and the loss of World Heritage Status won't increase it again.

 

[Davideeyore]

The Unesco damage was about the height / size of the stadium (as well as how it looked).

The original "St Lukes" presentation footprint was 60,000. (Benitez - fact). It has come down because the club lacks backbone. They don't think we would fill it. They're also following the laws of supply and demand. So at 52,000 if we get more then they will sell all the seats.

I've always said if we had 52-55,000 at Goodison now (pre covid) we would fill it. So by logic a new ground, on the waterfront, no obstructed views, new stadium pull, we would have many more fans attending.

I think size thing has been played down by various people including Meis. Using words like "size envy". Elstone wanted an "intimate" stadium so people assume inimate means smaller capacity.

Then there's the fear factor, of having thousands of empty seats. I asked Meis directly about having a variable capacity. No. You see with the covid games how even basic covering can mask empty seats.

I always wanted around 65,000. If you have an unattractive game you can both reduce the seating capacity by taking out a section of seats, and also have price reductions/offers.

Most (big) clubs are in one way or another going for more than 60,000 we're too cautious.

 

[ToffeeMonster]

It's not as simple as that. The additional costs for another 10k of seats would be through the roof.

The original budget for doing the stadium at 500 million will be blown out of the water now. Easily looking at 600 plus million with the rise in material costs , labour etc etc

Probably looking at additional costs of 25% for additional 10k of seats. So would be around the 800 million mark for that capacity.

If Mosh and Uzi are serious about this then they'll spare no expense.

 

[ashwuk76]

If Mosh and Uzi are serious about this then they'll spare no expense.

Think you might be getting confused with John Hammond.....

 

[gazzaa2]

The Unesco damage was about the height / size of the stadium (as well as how it looked).

The original "St Lukes" presentation footprint was 60,000. (Benitez - fact). It has come down because the club lacks backbone. They don't think we would fill it. They're also following the laws of supply and demand. So at 52,000 if we get more then they will sell all the seats.

I've always said if we had 52-55,000 at Goodison now (pre covid) we would fill it. So by logic a new ground, on the waterfront, no obstructed views, new stadium pull, we would have many more fans attending.

I think size thing has been played down by various people including Meis. Using words like "size envy". Elstone wanted an "intimate" stadium so people assume inimate means smaller capacity.

Then there's the fear factor, of having thousands of empty seats. I asked Meis directly about having a variable capacity. No. You see with the covid games how even basic covering can mask empty seats.

I always wanted around 65,000. If you have an unattractive game you can both reduce the seating capacity by taking out a section of seats, and also have price reductions/offers.

Most (big) clubs are in one way or another going for more than 60,000 we're too cautious.

It should have been 60,000 as an absolute minimum.

 

[Moomin]

If Mosh and Uzi are serious about this then they'll spare no expense.

They will have crunched the numbers and looked at the ROI and weighed up the finance costs.

If it was in their benefit to be 60k they would build to that but the additional costs to get to that capacity is not worth it.

As with most things in life, it all comes down to cost.

 

[Sharpattack]

If the rumours are true and we appoint the Fat Spanish Waiter then so many people have threatened to blow us off that a capacity of about 20k ought to be sufficient.

 

[LEONARD]

If the rumours are true and we appoint the Fat Spanish Waiter then so many people have threatened to blow us off that a capacity of about 20k ought to be sufficient.

Even if we appoint the Caldy Fat ball, he will not be here, by the time we eventually move to BMD.

 

[gwladysnight]

They will have crunched the numbers and looked at the ROI and weighed up the finance costs.

If it was in their benefit to be 60k they would build to that but the additional costs to get to that capacity is not worth it.

As with most things in life, it all comes down to cost.

It isn't just about adding 10k seats, as you say. Those seats are up in the gods and much more expensive to build. They are also the least desirable seats. So you get to charge less for them, can't really use them for hospitality purposes, and above all they make the more expensive seats harder to sell.

For the BMD to be feasible, we need to generate more revenue per seat. To do that, you want to keep demand ahead of supply. Building hugely expensive to construct seats that lower the revenue per seat is madness.