New Everton Stadium

devo85 said:
Great pic of the south stand.
One point of note is that the marked white angled beams running from the base of the main support beams back up to the stand do not appear on any previous plans or images.

View attachment 171677

As can be seen from these images.

View attachment 171678View attachment 171679

Maybe not so significant in itself, but it does show that changes have been made to the design and we may be in for more surprises as the build develops.
Click to expand...

I like these. The real image unless a trick of the eye suggests it's very steep almost akin to the TB. This will be immense when built. Even if the capacity of the stand and stadium isn't as big as when first aired.
 
Davideeyore said:
I like these. The real image unless a trick of the eye suggests it's very steep almost akin to the TB. This will be immense when built. Even if the capacity of the stand and stadium isn't as big as when first aired.
Click to expand...
Dzd8SoHXgAMCER0.webp

It's not far off in terms of steepness, but a little further back
 
Davideeyore said:
It's not the right stand that stand is the west stand and that's the old version. But take your point on the comparison to the TB will be a great view behind the goal.
Click to expand...

Here's another picture, showing the 60k stadium and the reduced capacity one against the goodison main stand
Also, the top tier of Bramley Moore wraps round so that'll be the same steepness as the South stand

Screenshot_20220629-223645.webp
 

Gardocki said:
If they didn’t build the stadium would the managers have been less reckless with spending?

No.

There you go.

The stadium has had absolutely nothing to do with the way the club has failed in the transfer market or in selecting key staff.
Click to expand...
Or conversely the poor decision-making processes we've seen regarding manager/staff/team selection, that has also seen us fall ro the bottom of the FFP league may also be evident with the stadium project.

We have yet to see the financial model that underpins it. We still haven’t secured finances to fund it and lo and behold as we approach the completion of the first phases of construction, the current owner is looking to offload the lot.....

The scattergun spending might've been ok with USM in the background, but it looks like that is no longer the case.

I agree stadium and team building are separate funding mechanisms.... but if they start coming out of the same pot they are not entirely independent.
 
Tom Hughes said:
Or conversely the poor decision-making processes we've seen regarding manager/staff/team selection, that has also seen us fall ro the bottom of the FFP league may also be evident with the stadium project.

We have yet to see the financial model that underpins it. We still haven’t secured finances to fund it and lo and behold as we approach the completion of the first phases of construction, the current owner is looking to offload the lot.....

The scattergun spending might've been ok with USM in the background, but it looks like that is no longer the case.

I agree stadium and team building are separate funding mechanisms.... but if they start coming out of the same pot they are not entirely independent.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that its the same people making the decisions for everything, but that's not the point. The fact that they are making decisions on on the stadium has no bearing on the poor decisions they have made on the footballing side of things. To suggest we have made poor footballing decisions because we are building a stadium is a nonsense.
 
cooperman said:
Here's another picture, showing the 60k stadium and the reduced capacity one against the goodison main stand
Also, the top tier of Bramley Moore wraps round so that'll be the same steepness as the South stand

View attachment 171775
Click to expand...
The bigger version would have been amazing, but to be fair, the smaller version is still taller than the main stand - always seems to look massive. Yes, it will be a bit further back at the top, but not that much further back. The TP is almost on top of the pitch and would never be permitted these days. That overhang would be impossible in a bowl too without supporting pillars.
 
Gardocki said:
I don't disagree that its the same people making the decisions for everything, but that's not the point. The fact that they are making decisions on on the stadium has no bearing on the poor decisions they have made on the footballing side of things. To suggest we have made poor footballing decisions because we are building a stadium is a nonsense.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure anyone has said that.
 

Gardocki said:
The bigger version would have been amazing, but to be fair, the smaller version is still taller than the main stand - always seems to look massive. Yes, it will be a bit further back at the top, but not that much further back. The TP is almost on top of the pitch and would never be permitted these days. That overhang would be impossible in a bowl too without supporting pillars.
Click to expand...

The Top Balcony is 18 rows. That depth overhang is achieveable without supporting pillars. The North stand at Chelsea achieves that and I think the North bank upper tier at Highbury was 22 rows, both entirely cantilevered from the back. Of course such overhangs are even more achievable if they're part of a deeper structure or full bowl upper tier.
 
Tom Hughes said:
The Top Balcony is 18 rows. That depth overhang is achieveable without supporting pillars. The North stand at Chelsea achieves that and I think the North bank upper tier at Highbury was 22 rows, both entirely cantilevered from the back. Of course such overhangs are even more achievable if they're part of a deeper structure or full bowl upper tier.
Click to expand...
The north bank at Arsenal wasn't part of a bowl. It was able to support the upper tier with supporting pillars at either side - and probable a cross-bar' between the two. The 'goalpost' configuration.

Not sure about the Matthew Harding stand construction, but again its not a bowl. Even a cursory glance at a photograph will show that the overhang is nowhere near the overhang of the top balcony. Just look at the image. The back row of the top balcony is considerably further forward than the back row of the main stand below.

To compare the two is being disingenuous. Is it intentional? You seem to be taking a negative stand on every single thing to do with the stadium. Its getting tedious. Davek mark 2.
 
Gardocki said:
The north bank at Arsenal wasn't part of a bowl. It was able to support the upper tier with supporting pillars at either side - and probable a cross-bar' between the two. The 'goalpost' configuration.

Not sure about the Matthew Harding stand construction, but again its not a bowl. Even a cursory glance at a photograph will show that the overhang is nowhere near the overhang of the top balcony. Just look at the image. The back row of the top balcony is considerably further forward than the back row of the main stand below.

To compare the two is being disingenuous. Is it intentional? You seem to be taking a negative stand on every single thing to do with the stadium. Its getting tedious. Davek mark 2.
Click to expand...

The north bank upper tier has no pillars and is entirely supported from the rear .... only the roof is goalpost. The North stand at Stamford Bridge does turn the corners which would add much the same type of structural support as if it were a complete bowl, but that wasn't the point I was making. The upper tier is the same depth as the Top Balcony and doesn't require a supporting colums as you stated.

I didn't mention BMD, so how was I being negative towards it. Wasn't being disingenuous at all was simply responding to your point which was incorrect.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top