New Everton Stadium

[Goat]

Once the stadium is built when will the extra revenue from it kick in? Genuine question... I remember Arsenal were suddenly able to start throwing some money around after a period of being frugal.

In about 25 years, once we have paid for it I reckon.

This isnt even banter, its a reality.

 

[Tom Hughes]

It just feels like we go around and around in circles with this to the point I'm very bored with it now. I have asked you before and you've given the same wishy-washy response as above.

I somehow think we would need to borrow money else how are we paying for this redevelopment?

So seeing you won't I'll do the detail for you. I did say we could build one stand and get away with it, say Moshiri covers that one as a freebie (80 or so million) and we add 8000 seats to the PE. We'll have a 47k stadium earing around 7 million extra per season plus food and beverages but bear in mind we have lost almost all the current fan zone and parking currently there. That 7-8 million I don't think is going to radically change our circumstances or wider perception. We'll still have the worst percentage of obstructed views and possibly the most cramped concourses in the other 3 sides of any ground in the country.

We also have an issue now that we aren't going to be able to gain as many seats per stand as easily as the PE as all the rest are larger to start with. If we aim for 60k that means we are only gaining 4k per stand at a cost of nearly 100 million for each one that are far more challenging in terms of footprint than the PE. The business case for such doesn't make sense, it would take 28 years to pay off each stand before interest comes into it. We could re-roof and block off the worst views at the back of the BR and GS thus hold up the upper tiers without pillars but then we've paid tens of millions to reduce the capacity and left with a carbuncle of stadium.

You keep referring to the Anfield road as a shining beacon of what to do, I see a development that was supposed to be 60 million, jumped to 80 million before this latest bit of drama which is surely going to end up moving that further upwards again and a year later they've got less seats in their stadium than they had to start with, They are now losing money now every game played which further adds to that total. All that and they had completely cleared the land required to build it beforehand.

If we had developed Goodison continually then it would make perfect sense to do what Villa are doing. The only way it would make sense now is to build one stand every 10 to 15 years making sure you pay the first before doing the next and in 40 odd years we'll end up with the same thing we are going to have next year. But BM will earn more money than Goodison because of the things already we have said a million times over and it would be doing the max from day 1 and not several decades in the future...

Not wishy washy at all, i didn't really want to go into something I've explained multiple times before.

I stated a simple fact that didn't require any real detail..... and offered an example with real numbers. I could do it several times over with other clubs who've extended. The point is.... Generally, in the absence of any major enabling leverage, NO whole new 50k+ build can be more cost-effective than redevelopment, or have a better ROI. Feel free to try to disprove this with your own example(s), but I guarantee you can't. That simple rule of thumb applies right across the board for all larger clubs, because cost per seat of construction rises almost exponentially with capacity. From Man. Utd, Newcastle to Real Madrid and Barcelona, it doesn't matter, and that's why they all chose redevelopment, often even when highly problematic. So you're building an argument based on entirely false premise, with nonsensical methodology, and made up numbers.

I'm a bit busy at the moment to dissect your effort, but if you want detail I'm sure Toffeeweb may still have my old redevelopment articles archived with outline cost figures verified by stadium design architects from both during and since Destination Kirkby. Or if you don't
want mine you could look at GFEs effort that was done by Ward McHugh (of Twickenham fame) for 2 different capacity options and little or no land take. Or Trevor Skempton's work (of Newcastle and others fame) for KEIOC. Of course the costs will be out of date, but you'll find far more detail than what you've attempted there, and the principles still apply.

The simple fact is for most examples, there is no cost equivalence. LFC was just one example from nearby that we're all familiar with. I'm not going to argue the relative merits of what they've done, but the fact remains that they got to 54k with double our corporate, 3 times our exec boxes for less than the cost of our site acquisition and prep alone. Think about that for one second! They will soon get up to almost 62k for just another £80m+, with a matchday income that will be multiples of ours, with barely a dock in sight. In the meantime, partly because of that prudence, they've been able to almost continually outspend us on players (without a billionaire owner) and win actual trophies, without the remotest fear of relegation. They may soon be selling one of them for an amount that will make all their redevelopment practically free! Apart from the rare exception, we can barely give our players away and are practically bankcrupt!!

For some reason you've painted a most basic redevelopment scenario. There were multiple options for redevelopment. The Park End could've been extended 40rows to make it the biggest single tier end stand in the country. Adding say 6k plus 3k+ wrap around corner would cost around £60-90m now. The car park and fanzone could've still been accommodated beneath, at ground level or over a second floor.

The Old Leitch upper tiers could've been kept and extended (as at Ibrox), or completely replaced to remove all obstructed views on those sides. A small land take on the Bullens side could've added easily 7-9k on that side, depending on depth/format chosen. If replacing the whole upper Bullens with a larger upper tier. The cost per seat would be less than the new structures at Anfield because of the construction starting height of the existing lower tier. So for instance: 10 new rows in the bottom tier gives 2500 new seats at approx £2-4k per seat construction cost. New upper tier of say 45 rows gives approx 9k seats at £6-9k per seat construction cost (dependent on back of house facilities and number of floors).

Those 2 sides, redeveloped to those levels alone could of got GP up to 56-58k. Which, if I've done my sums right would be between £120-200m. 15-30 houses at approx £150k each (well above market value) is £2.5-4.5m. Say £20m contribution to Joint venture for school. I make that only approx £530-610m less than BMD. With plenty of change to do the rest, if ever required.... take it up to 65k or put on a sliding roof and 100 boxes if we're ever actually successful. Just one of multiple potential approaches. You're right though, those execs wouldn't get too look at Seacombe. Yes, some made-up numbers in there, but they're ball park. No pun intended.

 

[micknick]

In about 25 years, once we have paid for it I reckon.

This isnt even banter, its a reality.

Just think naming rights, additional hosp, additional tickets especially in first couple of years could be a fair amount more than we currently get.

I know everyone thinks we're going to go bust and its all doom and gloom but we still benefit from huge revenues from TV and modest match day income that the additional from Bramley Moore should hopefully make a difference fairly quickly.

 

[Goat]

Just think naming rights, additional hosp, additional tickets especially in first couple of years could be a fair amount more than we currently get.

I know everyone thinks we're going to go bust and its all doom and gloom but we still benefit from huge revenues from TV and modest match day income that the additional from Bramley Moore should hopefully make a difference fairly quickly.

Im just applying reality, yes, im very much doom and gloom.

But.

Spurs still dont have a naming rights deal. Hospitality is impossible to predict, for me anyway.

But normal tickets, lets assume average ST price of 500 = 6million per year extra. Again, no idea on Hospitality.

But its going to cost 750million to build, Moshiri hasnt gifted us that money, its money the club has to find, still has to find as well.

Dont get me wrong, the Stadium was needed and its going to be great, but I personally feel its not the game changer it was going to be. I naively assumed that it wouldnt create as many issues as it has, but its a big problem currently and I dont see how it gets built without creating issues we will feel for a number of years.

Its also a reality that prices will have to increase, A LOT. I can only speak for myself, but theres a real danger that some people will be priced out and if its not full, its not making money.

 

[Mikey O]

It's interesting to read the different opinions on our new ground and I find myself swayed by some of the financial arguments on earlier pages but overall I see the move a chance for a new, positive reboot for the club. That said, it really doesn't matter what I think as the decision's been made and the dye is cast. I just hope it provides a positive springboard for the club.

 

[micknick]

Im just applying reality, yes, im very much doom and gloom.

But.

Spurs still dont have a naming rights deal. Hospitality is impossible to predict, for me anyway.

But normal tickets, lets assume average ST price of 500 = 6million per year extra. Again, no idea on Hospitality.

But its going to cost 750million to build, Moshiri hasnt gifted us that money, its money the club has to find, still has to find as well.

Dont get me wrong, the Stadium was needed and its going to be great, but I personally feel its not the game changer it was going to be. I naively assumed that it wouldnt create as many issues as it has, but its a big problem currently and I dont see how it gets built without creating issues we will feel for a number of years.

Its also a reality that prices will have to increase, A LOT. I can only speak for myself, but theres a real danger that some people will be priced out and if its not full, its not making money.

First two years hospitality will be sold out, capacity crowds. Even if that is topped up by day trippers.

 

[Goat]

First two years hospitality will be sold out, capacity crowds. Even if that is topped up by day trippers.

And how much is that worth to us?

Bear in mind that 750million over 25 years is 30million a year, lets say 10million a year for normal seats, again, no idea how much Hosp is worth to us.

So unless its worth at least 20million a year, we barely break even.

Happy for you to highlight how im wrong with some data or a counter to my matchbox maths.

 

[Leylo]

Maybe once stadium is complete and we are up a running there our hope is we become a attractive investment for some billionaire to buy. like city had with their new stadium.

 

[Goat]

Maybe once stadium is complete and we are up a running there our hope is we become a attractive investment for some billionaire to buy. like city had with their new stadium.

Well that has certainly always been the plan.

 

[muckers]

Has there ever been any blue, anywhere, who’s so quick to talk up LFC and put down EFC as Tom Hughes?

I genuinely find it utterly bizarre.

 

[Furey1878]

Not wishy washy at all, i didn't really want to go into something I've explained multiple times before.

I stated a simple fact that didn't require any real detail..... and offered an example with real numbers. I could do it several times over with other clubs who've extended. The point is.... Generally, in the absence of any major enabling leverage, NO whole new 50k+ build can be more cost-effective than redevelopment, or have a better ROI. Feel free to try to disprove this with your own example(s), but I guarantee you can't. That simple rule of thumb applies right across the board for all larger clubs, because cost per seat of construction rises almost exponentially with capacity. From Man. Utd, Newcastle to Real Madrid and Barcelona, it doesn't matter, and that's why they all chose redevelopment, often even when highly problematic. So you're building an argument based on entirely false premise, with nonsensical methodology, and made up numbers.

I'm a bit busy at the moment to dissect your effort, but if you want detail I'm sure Toffeeweb may still have my old redevelopment articles archived with outline cost figures verified by stadium design architects from both during and since Destination Kirkby. Or if you don't
want mine you could look at GFEs effort that was done by Ward McHugh (of Twickenham fame) for 2 different capacity options and little or no land take. Or Trevor Skempton's work (of Newcastle and others fame) for KEIOC. Of course the costs will be out of date, but you'll find far more detail than what you've attempted there, and the principles still apply.

The simple fact is for most examples, there is no cost equivalence. LFC was just one example from nearby that we're all familiar with. I'm not going to argue the relative merits of what they've done, but the fact remains that they got to 54k with double our corporate, 3 times our exec boxes for less than the cost of our site acquisition and prep alone. Think about that for one second! They will soon get up to almost 62k for just another £80m+, with a matchday income that will be multiples of ours, with barely a dock in sight. In the meantime, partly because of that prudence, they've been able to almost continually outspend us on players (without a billionaire owner) and win actual trophies, without the remotest fear of relegation. They may soon be selling one of them for an amount that will make all their redevelopment practically free! Apart from the rare exception, we can barely give our players away and are practically bankcrupt!!

For some reason you've painted a most basic redevelopment scenario. There were multiple options for redevelopment. The Park End could've been extended 40rows to make it the biggest single tier end stand in the country. Adding say 6k plus 3k+ wrap around corner would cost around £60-90m now. The car park and fanzone could've still been accommodated beneath, at ground level or over a second floor.

The Old Leitch upper tiers could've been kept and extended (as at Ibrox), or completely replaced to remove all obstructed views on those sides. A small land take on the Bullens side could've added easily 7-9k on that side, depending on depth/format chosen. If replacing the whole upper Bullens with a larger upper tier. The cost per seat would be less than the new structures at Anfield because of the construction starting height of the existing lower tier. So for instance: 10 new rows in the bottom tier gives 2500 new seats at approx £2-4k per seat construction cost. New upper tier of say 45 rows gives approx 9k seats at £6-9k per seat construction cost (dependent on back of house facilities and number of floors).

Those 2 sides, redeveloped to those levels alone could of got GP up to 56-58k. Which, if I've done my sums right would be between £120-200m. 15-30 houses at approx £150k each (well above market value) is £2.5-4.5m. Say £20m contribution to Joint venture for school. I make that only approx £530-610m less than BMD. With plenty of change to do the rest, if ever required.... take it up to 65k or put on a sliding roof and 100 boxes if we're ever actually successful. Just one of multiple potential approaches. You're right though, those execs wouldn't get too look at Seacombe. Yes, some made-up numbers in there, but they're ball park. No pun intended.

Tom, please tell me more about how you advocate Everton evicting people from their homes.

 

[The binman chronicles]

First two years hospitality will be sold out, capacity crowds. Even if that is topped up by day trippers.

People have to sign up for 3 years I believe.

And how much is that worth to us?

Bear in mind that 750million over 25 years is 30million a year, lets say 10million a year for normal seats, again, no idea how much Hosp is worth to us.

So unless its worth at least 20million a year, we barely break even.

Happy for you to highlight how im wrong with some data or a counter to my matchbox maths.

Base figures show premium coming out to 12 million, the extra capacity 12-15 million. Add a naming sponsor (we won't be holding out like Spurs are for the top dollars) and it should balance out the repayment. Then you can say all the extra food and beverages, stadium tours, conferences/events, concerts, possible England games, Tournaments, Europa finals(?) can go into the pot to try and make us better on the pitch. Immediately.

 

[roydo]

People have to sign up for 3 years I believe.



Base figures show premium coming out to 12 million, the extra capacity 12-15 million. Add a naming sponsor (we won't be holding out like Spurs are for the top dollars) and it should balance out the repayment. Then you can say all the extra food and beverages, stadium tours, conferences/events, concerts, possible England games, Tournaments, Europa finals(?) can go into the pot to try and make us better on the pitch. Immediately.

Quite. Any half decent commercial manager of BMD could sweat it 365 days a year. Give or take.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Tom, please tell me more about how you advocate Everton evicting people from their homes.

Perhaps the same way they did with the dozens of houses that were on the Park end in the 90s and no-one said anything about what-so-ever..... not necessarily like when the whole one side of the Gwladys St was knocked down in the 30s to build the upper Gwladys st and turn GP into the finest football stadium in the country, that everyone had also forgotten about.

Personally, I'd like to think they would be very well remunerated given the hundreds of £millions saved. After all these are literally the cheapest houses next to any football stadium in the country. Perhaps if you asked those people, they would'nt thank anyone for stopping them getting such a one-off windfall.

 

[Goat]

People have to sign up for 3 years I believe.



Base figures show premium coming out to 12 million, the extra capacity 12-15 million. Add a naming sponsor (we won't be holding out like Spurs are for the top dollars) and it should balance out the repayment. Then you can say all the extra food and beverages, stadium tours, conferences/events, concerts, possible England games, Tournaments, Europa finals(?) can go into the pot to try and make us better on the pitch. Immediately.

I hope you are right, I just dont see the Stadium being the white knight that most do.