New Everton Stadium

[nsno-chris]

If the capacity of the new stadium is as low as 50,000 I will run naked along County Road.

Even Crystal Palace have plans for a bigger capacity than that.

And Juve is 40k, i don't get this "oh it needs to be x amount". It'll be designed in a way that it can be expanded, as with most modern stadium. If 50k is the number then fine, as long as it's fit for purpose

 

[Neiler]

Your not going to believe this lads but I was just running some numbers:

Remember the 75 million USM deal for shirt and training ground sponsonsorship over 5 years?

Well divide 75mill by 5 years.

The magic number is 15 million.

The Stadium is 14.4mill a year.

Pure coincidence really isn't it.

Team Usmanov.

 

[Lee Smith]

One of the key things for me in all this, is that although it seems to be a pretty complex financial arrangement, we won't be "tennants" in the way as say West Ham are. We will for all intents and purposes be the "owners" of the ground, and we will retain all non-football related income which could be another very important revenue stream for us, especially in that location

 

[thirdmantackle]

stadiums can make more money on non match days than match days

conferences
tours
merchandise shops
museum
meetings
dining experience
photo shoots

 

[bluecol]

Still a way to go but I like what I see. We seem to have got LCC and Peel onside. The RS websites are in meltdown, the Green Eyed Monster in full flow.

 

[CDTENERIFE]

The heads of terms deal with Peel, is this purely for Bramley or is it for Bramley and Nelson as Esk previously stated.

 

[ToffeeTim]

And Juve is 40k, i don't get this "oh it needs to be x amount". It'll be designed in a way that it can be expanded, as with most modern stadium. If 50k is the number then fine, as long as it's fit for purpose

But what's the point of going low cause we could expand later. Why not do it now? I'm not saying it would be a half arsed effort, but I'd like to think we'd pull out all the stops. Stadiums are a once a century investment.

 

[Jib in lad]

Your not going to believe this lads but I was just running some numbers:

Remember the 75 million USM deal for shirt and training ground sponsonsorship over 5 years?

Well divide 75mill by 5 years.

The magic number is 15 million.

The Stadium is 14.4mill a year.

Pure coincidence really isn't it.

Team Usmanov.

Well that is just beyond beautiful.

 

[MartSlinger]

stadiums can make more money on non match days than match days

conferences
tours
merchandise shops
museum
meetings
dining experience
photo shoots

Be used for concerts also in the Summer time.

 

[nsno-chris]

But what's the point of going low cause we could expand later. Why not do it now? I'm not saying it would be a half arsed effort, but I'd like to think we'd pull out all the stops. Stadiums are a once a century investment.

Because there's extra cost with the build and extra ongoing costs for maintenance, matchday policing etc, unnecessary spend if it's not going to be filled.

Supply and demand, once we're kings of football and we have the demand then we will supply the extra seating

 

[4737carlin]

People moaning about 50k when nobody knows lol the one day when no blue should be moaning but some still find a reason to, even thou it's based on something that they and no one else really knows is correct, any excuse

 

[Neiler]

Well that is just beyond beautiful.

I'm not one for conspirocey theory's, but...........!

Take two things that we have never got sponsored before the training ground and sleeve, 15 mill per year additional revenue the stadium just happens to be 14.4mill, the 15 mill coming from a Usmanov company.

It's all very coincidental.

Team Alex.

 

[Tubey]

People moaning about 50k when nobody knows lol the one day when no blue should be moaning but some still find a reason to, even thou it's based on something that they and no one else really knows is correct, any excuse

Too early to moan of course, but not early enough to make it known what the marker is.

Bare minimum of 55k required in my view.

 

[Efcjake]

The way i read it, financing a Stadium this way will allow us to remain competitive on the pitch also.

As quoted by Red and White Holdings years ago; They seem to disagree with how Arsenal financed The Emirates.

"The previous decision by the Board to fund the building of the Emirates Stadium with long-term debt was, we believe, certainly not about self-financing. If it had been, it would have been funded through a mixture of debt and non-dividend equity. Instead it allowed, in our view, the major shareholders of the time, who happened to all be Board directors, to load the Club with a liability, to benefit from increased future revenue streams and consequent increase in the value of their holdings, whilst avoiding dilution of their equity. The Board of the time then appeared to pursue a policy of increasing ticket prices and squeezing the fans to cover the short term cost increases which allowed them to bridge until all of these shareholders and Board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits.

This policy does not seem to have changed. We have sought and been refused any meetings with Mr Kroenke despite the fact that we own almost 30% of the Club or to put another way almost 1 in every 3 seats in the stadium. It is clear that our stated policy for the major shareholders, namely Mr Kroenke and ourselves, to inject non-dividend paying equity into the Club by way of a rights issue to reduce the debt and invest in the future is of no interest to the Board. Mr Kroenke was sold a vision by the Board at the time that the Club could be successful without further investment, so he is pursuing a similar policy which is to run the Club without any investment and to avoid any dilution of his equity, a good part of which was funded by a loan from Deutsche Bank AG to KSE, UK, Inc. at the time of the mandatory offer. The status of that loan and whether it is still outstanding has not been clarified by Mr Kroenke.

As a consequence of this policy, which is dressed up as prudent financial planning, it is down to our manager, and not the shareholders, to have to deal with the Club's tight finances, carry the burden of repaying the stadium debt by selling his best players and having to continue to find cheaper replacements. All of that, naturally, comes at the expense of performance on the pitch."

I had forgotten about this,

That bit I've bolded makes for interesting reading today.

 

[bluerobert]

But what's the point of going low cause we could expand later. Why not do it now? I'm not saying it would be a half arsed effort, but I'd like to think we'd pull out all the stops. Stadiums are a once a century investment.

Because running a stadium costs more the bigger it is. You have to man it, stock it, light it, heat it, pay for the extra however many millions of tonnes worth of building materials etc etc. If they don't think they can fill a 80,000 then it's more effective to build a 50,000 seater. Let it make you money and then use that money to invest in the playing and coaching staff. Over time as the club becomes more successful we expand the stadium and our business model and it means we don't have to rely on a sugar daddy but instead moshiri has taught us to fish rather then just giving us a fish