Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

New Everton Stadium

The binman chronicles said:
As long as the loan is not hit with stupid interest rates then it more or less pays for itself with the extra customers, non matchday events and naming rights. At some point we would have had to have started rebuilding Goodison which given the hemmed in site would have costed far more than say the RS one, with no chance of the stand being left open while we build behind it like theirs - so less income generated across multiple seasons.

With no naming rights and having to compromise in the design to fit the unusual shape of the surroundings that would have likely been a far greater millstone.



No one does but most championship squads are built from tens of millions or less, so we could more or less replace the lot save for our defence and a few odd players here and there that are on the longer contracts very quickly. Who knows McNeil might tear up that league. Gray would certainly be one of the best players in it.



Naughty, naughty, very naughty.
Click to expand...

who’s paying the leccy bills for them lights?
 
The binman chronicles said:
As long as the loan is not hit with stupid interest rates then it more or less pays for itself with the extra customers, non matchday events and naming rights. At some point we would have had to have started rebuilding Goodison which given the hemmed in site would have costed far more than say the RS one, with no chance of the stand being left open while we build behind it like theirs - so less income generated across multiple seasons.

With no naming rights and having to compromise in the design to fit the unusual shape of the surroundings that would have likely been a far greater millstone.



No one does but most championship squads are built from tens of millions or less, so we could more or less replace the lot save for our defence and a few odd players here and there that are on the longer contracts very quickly. Who knows McNeil might tear up that league. Gray would certainly be one of the best players in it.



Naughty, naughty, very naughty.
Click to expand...
Think someone would snap up Gray in the PL tbh, he's mid table PL level
 
The binman chronicles said:
As long as the loan is not hit with stupid interest rates then it more or less pays for itself with the extra customers, non matchday events and naming rights. At some point we would have had to have started rebuilding Goodison which given the hemmed in site would have costed far more than say the RS one, with no chance of the stand being left open while we build behind it like theirs - so less income generated across multiple seasons.

With no naming rights and having to compromise in the design to fit the unusual shape of the surroundings that would have likely been a far greater millstone.



No one does but most championship squads are built from tens of millions or less, so we could more or less replace the lot save for our defence and a few odd players here and there that are on the longer contracts very quickly. Who knows McNeil might tear up that league. Gray would certainly be one of the best players in it.



Naughty, naughty, very naughty.
Click to expand...

The financial model for BMD has always been a bit sketchy. Initially it was heavily underpinned by the commonwealth games bid, which would've generated a lot of extra government funding. When that was brought forward by the collapse of the Durban games our bid's timeline was probably too tight, and Brum won it. There was then quite a long delay with more consultations, before the club announced the revised plans with a reduced 53k stadium. The finances were still sketchy but most turned a blind eye because USM had paid £30m just for first dibs on naming rights.... so there appeared to be no real concerns about paying for the build, and meeting any loan repayments going forward.

Of course, since then USM has been sanctioned (how permanently we don't know). On top of that Moshiri stated to the shareholders association in the summer that the costs had risen to £700-750m. We haven't been able to finalise any loan deal and we're still entirely reliant on bank of daddy.

I don't remember reading any real projections explaining how the costs were going to be covered, and have certainly not seen any that take account of the loss of USM and this construction cost hike (if real). I don't really believe increased capacity and new corporate will meet that shortfall alone. West Ham nearly doubled their capacity, yet their matchday income went down before increasing slightly. A lot will depend on how many wealthy blues and local companies are out there and the size of that latent support we want to tap. We won't be able to stack'em high and sell'em cheap to fill the place like West Ham.

As regards a comparison with redeveloping Goodison. Thats a false premise that was peddled by the club years ago, and long since disproven. Many of the larger clubs have shown that redevelopment is almost always the far cheaper option. Yes, it can be problematic in terms of acquiring more space etc, but generally adding 15-20k net new seats to an existing stadium will always be much cheaper than building 53k afresh. Let's face it, it cost £100m+ just to prep BMD. Liverpool created a stand as big as those at Wembley for less than that. Overall they will get to just under 62k for less than £200m construction costs. (Would've been less than £150m if they'd done both at the same time). That's a long way off the cost of BMD. Yes, naming rights might have been less attractive, but if USM was prepared to spend so much just for the right to be first choice, or to sponsor training grounds, then this certainly wasn't going to be an issue.

At present it looks like the whole thing is an exercise in packaging the club for a sale. Where that ultimate debt lands and how it is financed is anyone's guess.
 

Tom Hughes said:
The financial model for BMD has always been a bit sketchy. Initially it was heavily underpinned by the commonwealth games bid, which would've generated a lot of extra government funding. When that was brought forward by the collapse of the Durban games our bid's timeline was probably too tight, and Brum won it. There was then quite a long delay with more consultations, before the club announced the revised plans with a reduced 53k stadium. The finances were still sketchy but most turned a blind eye because USM had paid £30m just for first dibs on naming rights.... so there appeared to be no real concerns about paying for the build, and meeting any loan repayments going forward.

Of course, since then USM has been sanctioned (how permanently we don't know). On top of that Moshiri stated to the shareholders association in the summer that the costs had risen to £700-750m. We haven't been able to finalise any loan deal and we're still entirely reliant on bank of daddy.

I don't remember reading any real projections explaining how the costs were going to be covered, and have certainly not seen any that take account of the loss of USM and this construction cost hike (if real). I don't really believe increased capacity and new corporate will meet that shortfall alone. West Ham nearly doubled their capacity, yet their matchday income went down before increasing slightly. A lot will depend on how many wealthy blues and local companies are out there and the size of that latent support we want to tap. We won't be able to stack'em high and sell'em cheap to fill the place like West Ham.

As regards a comparison with redeveloping Goodison. Thats a false premise that was peddled by the club years ago, and long since disproven. Many of the larger clubs have shown that redevelopment is almost always the far cheaper option. Yes, it can be problematic in terms of acquiring more space etc, but generally adding 15-20k net new seats to an existing stadium will always be much cheaper than building 53k afresh. Let's face it, it cost £100m+ just to prep BMD. Liverpool created a stand as big as those at Wembley for less than that. Overall they will get to just under 62k for less than £200m construction costs. (Would've been less than £150m if they'd done both at the same time). That's a long way off the cost of BMD. Yes, naming rights might have been less attractive, but if USM was prepared to spend so much just for the right to be first choice, or to sponsor training grounds, then this certainly wasn't going to be an issue.

At present it looks like the whole thing is an exercise in packaging the club for a sale. Where that ultimate debt lands and how it is financed is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

You and I will have to respectfully disagree on building costs unless you have an up to date price from a reputable builder to replace at least 3 new stands around Goodison. If City paid 60 million to increase by 6k and the costs you have mentioned re Anfield (before serious inflation took hold aswell), all of those had plenty of space around the stands in question that make logistics and general building work much easier, therefore quicker, therefore less expensive.

That's before we even get to the fact if we aren't enlarging the footprint of the ground then likely these new stands will actually hold less people than what we currently have if you were to build to modern standards. Of course we could go up but as you are well aware multiple heavily overlapped tiers will cost WAY more to construct than the type we are building at BM and that's IF we don't get tied down in years of legal proceedings for blocking out people's light. What you could get away with 20 years ago won't fly today.

The West Ham point is moot as we are going to earn more than what we do at Goodison, wham moved to a stadium the supporters didn't want and therefore they cut prices to entice punters to come. It is totally different in our case where they will increase prices so the base level goes up before we even get onto the extra capacity both GA and premium. You are far too intelligent not to know this so I kind of think you are throwing it in as a distraction.

If you stack both business models up unless you build a huge Park End stand and remodel the rest (basically a huge bodge), to build something that looks shiny and new as a complete vision at Goodison will cost the best part if not more than £400 million, for that you get 10 thousand or so extra seats. No naming rights, no extra space to mill around so punters still go elsewhere by and large for food and drink, no day trippers, no extra sponsorship and not likely to pull events from Anfield. It is pretty easy to see moving is the better option, if Goodison was naturally more open then I'd wholeheartedly agree.
 
The binman chronicles said:
You and I will have to respectfully disagree on building costs unless you have an up to date price from a reputable builder to replace at least 3 new stands around Goodison. If City paid 60 million to increase by 6k and the costs you have mentioned re Anfield (before serious inflation took hold aswell), all of those had plenty of space around the stands in question that make logistics and general building work much easier, therefore quicker, therefore less expensive.

That's before we even get to the fact if we aren't enlarging the footprint of the ground then likely these new stands will actually hold less people than what we currently have if you were to build to modern standards. Of course we could go up but as you are well aware multiple heavily overlapped tiers will cost WAY more to construct than the type we are building at BM and that's IF we don't get tied down in years of legal proceedings for blocking out people's light. What you could get away with 20 years ago won't fly today.

The West Ham point is moot as we are going to earn more than what we do at Goodison, wham moved to a stadium the supporters didn't want and therefore they cut prices to entice punters to come. It is totally different in our case where they will increase prices so the base level goes up before we even get onto the extra capacity both GA and premium. You are far too intelligent not to know this so I kind of think you are throwing it in as a distraction.

If you stack both business models up unless you build a huge Park End stand and remodel the rest (basically a huge bodge), to build something that looks shiny and new as a complete vision at Goodison will cost the best part if not more than £400 million, for that you get 10 thousand or so extra seats. No naming rights, no extra space to mill around so punters still go elsewhere by and large for food and drink, no day trippers, no extra sponsorship and not likely to pull events from Anfield. It is pretty easy to see moving is the better option, if Goodison was naturally more open then I'd wholeheartedly agree.
Click to expand...

I have seen a few thoughts on remodelling Goodison, and not sure any of them come in as more expensive overall, but rarely do they include lost revenue from closed stands. In my opinion, the new stadium is better in all measurable areas of assessment (I don't count history and attachment as a measurable), apart from, maybe..... cost.
 

The binman chronicles said:
You and I will have to respectfully disagree on building costs unless you have an up to date price from a reputable builder to replace at least 3 new stands around Goodison. If City paid 60 million to increase by 6k and the costs you have mentioned re Anfield (before serious inflation took hold aswell), all of those had plenty of space around the stands in question that make logistics and general building work much easier, therefore quicker, therefore less expensive.

That's before we even get to the fact if we aren't enlarging the footprint of the ground then likely these new stands will actually hold less people than what we currently have if you were to build to modern standards. Of course we could go up but as you are well aware multiple heavily overlapped tiers will cost WAY more to construct than the type we are building at BM and that's IF we don't get tied down in years of legal proceedings for blocking out people's light. What you could get away with 20 years ago won't fly today.

The West Ham point is moot as we are going to earn more than what we do at Goodison, wham moved to a stadium the supporters didn't want and therefore they cut prices to entice punters to come. It is totally different in our case where they will increase prices so the base level goes up before we even get onto the extra capacity both GA and premium. You are far too intelligent not to know this so I kind of think you are throwing it in as a distraction.

If you stack both business models up unless you build a huge Park End stand and remodel the rest (basically a huge bodge), to build something that looks shiny and new as a complete vision at Goodison will cost the best part if not more than £400 million, for that you get 10 thousand or so extra seats. No naming rights, no extra space to mill around so punters still go elsewhere by and large for food and drink, no day trippers, no extra sponsorship and not likely to pull events from Anfield. It is pretty easy to see moving is the better option, if Goodison was naturally more open then I'd wholeheartedly agree.
Click to expand...

We're talking £550-750m outlay at BMD.

As I said.... it cost £100m just to prep the dock site. At a tiny fraction of that cost, the additional space on the Bullens side would easily have been acquired. The city planners even suggested it at the time of destination Kirkby, offering a school remodelling/relocation joint venture package proposals and cpo facilities for some residential. We did not have to replace 3 whole stands at all. There were a whole range of options. Replacing existing upper tiers does the job of erradicting all obstructed views and adding capacity and other facilities. Just a new larger Upper Bullens, removing all obstructed views on that side and a straight expansion of the Park end to adjoin could've been a much lower construction price per seat than LFC and Man City because the construction volume and height was significantly reduced. Those combined alone would have comfortably matched the capacity at BMD. Even at £10k construction cost per seat, a 54k total capacity wouldve been achievable for less than £200m. Remodelling of the mainstand to remove the bulk of the obstructed views and a new upper Gwladys St were all also achievable to further increase capacity above 60k..... none of which would've come remotely close to the cost of BMD. Again, there are multiple examples showing this approach (including without loss of capacity during construction).... which is why as I said, the majority of larger clubs have chosen redevelopment. Remodelling needn't be a bodge at all.... especially if you're spending hundreds of millions. Even Barcelona and Real Madrid are remodelling in situ, because a new build would cost multiples.

West ham is not a moot point.... ticket pricing and the cost elasticity of demand for increased supply very much influences ticket pricing and income. To fill their new ground they had to practically give tickets away. They could afford to do that because the stadium was practically a freebie and there is a massive floating vote of potential new fans in London and the home counties. Our stadium is far from a freebie and we don't have an unlimited supply of new fans to fill it! That's basic economics of supply and demand. Whilst I agree that income shouls increase, I haven't seen any projections to show it paying for itself without substantial naming rights uplift..... and certainly haven't seen anything suggesting that's the case in their absence. Whereas Spurs were able to show projections that did cover costs, even without naming rights. We have never seen the business cases for the existing plans never mind with increased cost, and the redevelopment option in the planning application was rehash of the discredited KSS addlib hastily put together at the time of Destination Kirkby.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top