New Everton Stadium

[Neiler]

Also have to factor in inflation over a 40 year period. The contribution if fixed for the stadium annually will be neglable within seven years. It's also worth appraising the increased revenue s new facility will offer over a 40 year period. If we currently make over a million a game at Goodison per match day, it's very likely that income will jump, with significantly increased corporate facilities, increased capacity, European football, non match day events as use of facilities.

Figure like half a billion are hyperbole if you consider that Goodison makes 18 mill a year, that's Goodison making 720 mill over 40 years. Of course the potential of a new stadium to increase that figure is massive.

There is strong arguement to be made that the stadium pays for itself and then some.

 

[davek]

Football, sport in general really, has never has a long term cycle of declining income though. Some sports have been run poorly, or missed the commercial train, (Rugby League springs to mind).

But like anything, there is a limit to the amount of people watching it, paying to be associated with it, ergo, a limit to the income generated.

And to shoehorn my repeated point in, there is a much more important limit to Evertons chance of building a waterfront ground. We are actually at it.

Its literally, now. Or never.

Relative decline though. I'd imagine the club feel that the cost of stadium repayment (principal) will be taken care of by inflation. If the industry doesn't grow then that's going to hit on-field matters.

 

[davek]

Which was why my first sentence said I get the point you're making, but as someone who works in stats and data analysis I nearly vomited at your choice of indicators.

Other data would make it more interesting (to me), our max capacity in Each season - then the %. Then look at the high and low outliers for reasons - I.e when was the park end built so capacity temporarily reduced etc, also what was our league finish in each season, is there correlation.

When I get a chance, I'll dig a level deeper, but certainly EFC will have done hugely deep analysis of this.

Well, I could understand you baulking at them if they weren't representative of the trend, but they were.

I agree with the devil being in the detail like.

 

[roydo]

Relative decline though. I'd imagine the club feel that the cost of stadium repayment (principal) will be taken care of by inflation. If the industry doesn't grow then that's going to hit on-field matters.

Like I have said, it is not without risk. Nothing is.

But it is manageable, and seemingly, some big hitters seem to think the same way.

 

[orly]

Lots of talk of long and short cycles in here

*hides IV drip and launches pre-emptive defamation lawsuits

 

[Amw79]

Well, I could understand you baulking at them if they weren't representative of the trend, but they were.

I agree with the devil being in the detail like.

Anyone working in stats would baulk at that choice of numbers, believe me.

BuT I don't think they demonstrate the trend you do. you could categorise the attendances into chunks, and (at a glance) around 70% are over 35,000, and only 1 instance under 20,000.

Either side of the 15 year lull between 80-94 there's 2 quite steady sets of numbers.

 

[Neiler]

Relative decline though. I'd imagine the club feel that the cost of stadium repayment (principal) will be taken care of by inflation. If the industry doesn't grow then that's going to hit on-field matters.

Except that there is a cap on how much money can be spent on players through organic revenue a facility led income stream is the clever play and I would say decreases our dependency on TV money, if anything it's a fail safe against potentially changeable third party income streams. It's dependable income and expenditure that can be planned for.

 

[davek]

Anyone working in stats would baulk at that choice of numbers, believe me.

BuT I don't think they demonstrate the trend you do. you could categorise the attendances into chunks, and (at a glance) around 70% are over 35,000, and only 1 instance under 20,000.

Either side of the 15 year lull between 80-94 there's 2 quite steady sets of numbers.

lol "Lull"? Try "era"

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

...and that can never happen...of course.

It's the biggest risk factor, but not the angle you were coming from at all.

 

[Amw79]

lol "Lull"? Try "era"

That's your comeback to that? The choice of a word. Ok then, 15 year era. I'll grant you that, nothing hangs on that word.

Still 2 very steady sets of numbers either side, and anyone would do a cost analysis based on worst, best, likely scenarios.

 

[davek]

Except that there is a cap on how much money can be spent on players through organic revenue a facility led income stream is the clever play and I would say decreases our dependency on TV money, if anything it's a fail safe against potentially changeable third party income streams. It's dependable income and expenditure that can be planned for.

But in the near future the Moshiri led Everton will be cutting better commercial deals. And I wouldn't deny for one moment the necessity for a new and improved facility. I question the structure of the deal and maybe even the location given the likely final cost involved.

 

[roydo]

But in the near future the Moshiri led Everton will be cutting better commercial deals. And I wouldn't deny for one moment the necessity for a new and improved facility. I question the structure of the deal and maybe even the location given the likely final cost involved.

Without the location, we dont get the funding/SPV thing.

It is the single key component.

And there is only one. In the whole wide world.

 

[ashwuk76]

Without the location, we dont get the funding/SPV thing.

It is the single key component.

And there is only one. In the whole wide world.

Exactly this.. it's the location that will lead to the increased commercial deals etc. Without the location it wouldn't be as good.. take stone cross.. the income generated from commercial deal would be pathetic in comparison to a stadium on the waterfront.

If you can't see that then you are blind to the facts and nothing will persuade you.

 

[davek]

It's the biggest risk factor, but not the angle you were coming from at all.

I dont isolate myself from any factor. That's what I'm underlining here: all possible outcomes have to be factored in to declaring this either a worthwhile risk or a foolhardy one.

One thing has been achieved though, I feel: the last couple of days in this thread has got people more focussed on the possible pitfalls of this scheme as much as the benefits of it. That balance needs to be there because it's healthy to question such a crucial development.

 

[roydo]

I dont isolate myself from any factor. That's what I'm underlining here: all possible outcomes have to be factored in to declaring this either a worthwhile risk or a foolhardy one.

One thing has been achieved though, I feel: the last couple of days in this thread has got people more focussed on the possible pitfalls of this scheme as much as the cheerleading for it. That balance needs to be there because it's healthy to question such a curial developments.

A healthy debate about the pros and cons is certainly one that should be had. And based on what we know, its is, imo, sat firmly and squarely in the Worthwhile tent.