New Everton Stadium Discussion

U
I don't feel the need to laugh at them or even say anything. I just get the warm glow of smug satisfaction that one of the richest clubs in the world was shortsighted enough not to build a proper stadium. And yet their pauper neighbours did.

It's like they have not learned anything from us. Of course the inbuilt advantages are going to keep them probably okay, had this been the sixties all this could have bitten them on the bum for not doing the right thing. Like when we took shortcuts with the main stand and then the PE.

Liverpool's biggest mistake was not planning to fully utilise the corners properly. If they had simply continued the mainstand around into the Anfield Rd, they would now be at approx 66k and on course to deliver 75k+ seats over another phase or two (if the transport issues can be resolved). They looked at building afresh on the Park, but that, and the funding model of their then owners was scuppered by the credit-crunch, forcing them to sell up to avoid administration (not massively dissimilar to Moshiri). Their current owners were far more pragmatic and simply wanted to get to 60k+ with as quick a ROI as possible, and they did what Gillette/Hicks insisted was not viable. Yes, there have been hiccups with the Anfield Rd stand and there is little unity with the rest of the ground overall. However, they'll point to a bigger capacity, more corporate and far higher matchday income, all at a fraction of our outlay..... and all while still challenging at the top.

In the 70s, their response to our £1m triple-decker mainstand was to simply add approx 20 rows to the back of their 1906 Leitch mainstand, with a new roof. Quite a few thought it was neat and tidy but lacked ambition at the time, but it didn't cripple them financially, and it didn't stop them going on to dominate football throughout the following decade. I can only assume that they'll be hoping for a similar medium to long term outcome now. That, and our obvious recent parlous financial state is why there is little to none of the oft-mentioned angst, envy or vitreol towards BMD on their forums or in the local press.
 
….in respect of the ‘Liverpool Central Docks house building’ recently announced by Rachel Reeves;

1) it’s a Peel development, so I assume the houses will be inside the Dock wall (unless Peel own land on the other side of the Dock Rd)?
2) Apparently close to BMD, but anybody know exactly where they’ll be and will it require more dock being filled in?
3) Government strategy is for ‘affordable/social homes’ but would this be the plan for the waterfront?
 
….in respect of the ‘Liverpool Central Docks house building’ recently announced by Rachel Reeves;

1) it’s a Peel development, so I assume the houses will be inside the Dock wall (unless Peel own land on the other side of the Dock Rd)?
2) Apparently close to BMD, but anybody know exactly where they’ll be and will it require more dock being filled in?
3) Government strategy is for ‘affordable/social homes’ but would this be the plan for the waterfront?

Isn't the central docks the part that is already filled in? They may part fill in another dock but I think BM was the last that was to totally be reclaimed.

On this map it should be where there is no water and it is behind the dock wall.

Screenshot_20240713_115132_Chrome.jpg



 

For all the dislike of Moshri and all the years of torment we have had to adhere to, at least this is something he can be proud to leave us when he goes and he deserves a lot of credit for it. Eventually when he does go, we should see the start of a brighter future for the best club in the world. We deserve this amazing stadium and we should be rewarded for what we have had to put up with. UTFT COYB 😀
 
….in respect of the ‘Liverpool Central Docks house building’ recently announced by Rachel Reeves;

1) it’s a Peel development, so I assume the houses will be inside the Dock wall (unless Peel own land on the other side of the Dock Rd)?
2) Apparently close to BMD, but anybody know exactly where they’ll be and will it require more dock being filled in?
3) Government strategy is for ‘affordable/social homes’ but would this be the plan for the waterfront?

As mentioned, Central Docks is already filled in and all the other docks will remain.
Princes Dock further up is to eventually see a new cruise liner terminal and a couple of hotels.
The only development of theirs over the other side of the wall is in the King Edward Triangle, that will feature a number of tall buildings including Liverpool's tallest skyscraper.
 
Isn't the central docks the part that is already filled in? They may part fill in another dock but I think BM was the last that was to totally be reclaimed.

On this map it should be where there is no water and it is behind the dock wall.

View attachment 264430


Correct. That's classed as the Central Docks, or Trafalgar Dock. It was infilled circa 20 years or more ago and the channel cut through for the extension of the Leeds-Liverpool Canal through to the Albert Dock.

Central Docks is where the new park is going that Peel are proposing. It think they're essentially doing that as an enabler to attract developers to build out the rest of that area.

I'm sure there will be an element of social/affordable housing, as there is with most new developments, but given the location the majority will be traditional open market purchase/rent.
 

Liverpool's biggest mistake was not planning to fully utilise the corners properly. If they had simply continued the mainstand around into the Anfield Rd, they would now be at approx 66k and on course to deliver 75k+ seats over another phase or two (if the transport issues can be resolved). They looked at building afresh on the Park, but that, and the funding model of their then owners was scuppered by the credit-crunch, forcing them to sell up to avoid administration (not massively dissimilar to Moshiri). Their current owners were far more pragmatic and simply wanted to get to 60k+ with as quick a ROI as possible, and they did what Gillette/Hicks insisted was not viable. Yes, there have been hiccups with the Anfield Rd stand and there is little unity with the rest of the ground overall. However, they'll point to a bigger capacity, more corporate and far higher matchday income, all at a fraction of our outlay..... and all while still challenging at the top.

In the 70s, their response to our £1m triple-decker mainstand was to simply add approx 20 rows to the back of their 1906 Leitch mainstand, with a new roof. Quite a few thought it was neat and tidy but lacked ambition at the time, but it didn't cripple them financially, and it didn't stop them going on to dominate football throughout the following decade. I can only assume that they'll be hoping for a similar medium to long term outcome now. That, and our obvious recent parlous financial state is why there is little to none of the oft-mentioned angst, envy or vitreol towards BMD on their forums or in the local press.
They have plans to extend the Kop over Walton Breck Road, which is why all but The Park has been cleared. That will eventually go.
 
They have plans to extend the Kop over Walton Breck Road, which is why all but The Park has been cleared. That will eventually go.
It would be way too costly to do that.

There wouldn’t be any hospitality and therefore their owners wouldn’t get the ROI they’d need to spend the money.

Plus, transport issues are a huge hurdle.
 
U

Liverpool's biggest mistake was not planning to fully utilise the corners properly. If they had simply continued the mainstand around into the Anfield Rd, they would now be at approx 66k and on course to deliver 75k+ seats over another phase or two (if the transport issues can be resolved). They looked at building afresh on the Park, but that, and the funding model of their then owners was scuppered by the credit-crunch, forcing them to sell up to avoid administration (not massively dissimilar to Moshiri). Their current owners were far more pragmatic and simply wanted to get to 60k+ with as quick a ROI as possible, and they did what Gillette/Hicks insisted was not viable. Yes, there have been hiccups with the Anfield Rd stand and there is little unity with the rest of the ground overall. However, they'll point to a bigger capacity, more corporate and far higher matchday income, all at a fraction of our outlay..... and all while still challenging at the top.

In the 70s, their response to our £1m triple-decker mainstand was to simply add approx 20 rows to the back of their 1906 Leitch mainstand, with a new roof. Quite a few thought it was neat and tidy but lacked ambition at the time, but it didn't cripple them financially, and it didn't stop them going on to dominate football throughout the following decade. I can only assume that they'll be hoping for a similar medium to long term outcome now. That, and our obvious recent parlous financial state is why there is little to none of the oft-mentioned angst, envy or vitreol towards BMD on their forums or in the local press.
Yes I don’t believe there is much envy of us due to the smaller capacity. I do wonder though if in a few years time United deliver a 90k high spec new build then they might start questioning their strategy
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top