New Everton Stadium

[pablo 1878]

While they probably should make that a required field on the form, it currently isn't...

It was on the form I just filled in

 

[RobSpurs]

I am not over enthused on how we plan to fund this. Arsenal didnt take 40 years to pay off their costs. Seems strange as I thought we would
endeavour to pay this off as quickly as possible. I wonder if there are any penalties for early repayment, I was hoping sponsership, naming rights etc would enable us to pay down this debt sooner.

The question is whether the club have been forced into this solution because no bank would lend to them without the council as a guarantor, or whether this is the preferred solution because, in theory, it means you've got more money to spend on players and wages in any given year. No reason, of course, that both can't be true.

 

[GwladysBlue]

Sounds like it is going to be 61878 to me...

Considerably bigger is not an extra 10,000 seats.

 

[eddy]

I just find it strange we would willingly hand that sort of money over if we did not have to. Everton worries me always have done and always will. Kenwright is from a bygone age of gentlemanly conduct that does not really exist today. Managed correctly I believe this debt could be paid off quite quickly, naming rights are huge this alone could pay a huge chunk off. I just hope we are not tied in any way to the full term

 

[CahillsCornerFlag]

Goodison holds approx 40,000, they say we've got another 10,000 on the waiting list for season ticket holders, therefore they'd be mental to make the new stadium 50,000. Can see it being nearer 60,000. Taking a complete punt on 58,672.

 

[allen]

It was on the form I just filled in

Yes, it's on the form, but it's not a required field.

 

[davek]

I realise that, however with increased revenue, inparticular naming rights and hopefully some shrewd moves with the uplift in value in the area
subletting etc to new ventures I would hope we are not `tied` to 40 years as the amount we will have to pay back could be huge, and would likely be so. The Council have a revenue stream from us for 40 years I am not suprised they are supportive. I just hope we have options to pay back without penalty. I realise some business debt can be good however a 40 year period is huge.
A simple example is 40 years x 4 million = 160 million approx half of the stadium cost! There is a saying `cash is king` why would a wealthy owner saddle us with a debt like that? Surely it would make financial sense to fund it yourself and get the return yourself
Just strikes me odd not having a go in anyway

Exactly.

 

[Brisan123]

I am not over enthused on how we plan to fund this. Arsenal didnt take 40 years to pay off their costs. Seems strange as I thought we would
endeavour to pay this off as quickly as possible. I wonder if there are any penalties for early repayment, I was hoping sponsership, naming rights etc would enable us to pay down this debt sooner. I wonder if Moshiris plan is `planning gain` get all the ducks in a row for the stadium, take up the option to buy the remaining 51% and hoof us on to the highest bidder

Plan is for naming rights , sponsorship etc to be invested in the squad.
The extra revenue the stadium provides will be used to pay down the debt.
A long mortgage gives you the chance to have a normal life and buy the necessities and luxuries in life.
You could double your mortgage payments every month and struggle to put food on the table
What's the point in that

 

[eddy]

Plan is for naming rights , sponsorship etc to be invested in the squad.
The extra revenue the stadium provides will be used to pay down the debt.
A long mortgage gives you the chance to have a normal life and buy the necessities and luxuries in life.
You could double your mortgage payments every month and struggle to put food on the table
What's the point in that

So we dont need Moshiri`s money then?

 

[davek]

The execution of this is key.

As an example - the Club 'engaged' with fans over that crest with the Everton Fans Forum who the club appoint, didn't they? On the sudden unveiling, there was the pictures with fans, all sat around a table saying the new crest was oh so wonderful. Then;

https://www.grandoldteam.com/2013/05/27/poll-99-33-percent-hate-new-everton-badge/

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ne-season-following-fans-twitter-8635197.html



Transparent being important here, cherry picking fans and coercing them to smile and wave as they did with that crest example isn't engaging the fan base.

Fans should be at the start of the decision making, rather than cherry picking fans and selected opinions to support what is already there.

So, badge consultation 1 would be bad. Bad consultation 2 would be better, but still in my opinion should have been improved.

Quite right.

With the badge, they presented the choices. It was a beauty contest for the Kenyon approved designs.

Same will be in situ for the design/capacity issues: a group of useful fools selected to nod through pre-prepared decisions.

 

[Brisan123]

So we dont need Moshiri`s money then ?

Of course we do
If he hadn't taken on the debt no bank / investors would touch us
He got the Finch Farm sponsorship over the line
The days of owners pumping millions into a club are gone thanks to FFP
As well as his money it's his influence , his contacts and his know how that are driving this plan.
He has a track record of getting things done and making money so investors trust him.

 

[Brisan123]

Quite right.

With the badge, they presented the choices. It was a beauty contest for the Kenyon approved designs.

Same will be in situ for the design/capacity issues: a group of useful fools selected to nod through pre-prepared decisions.

Are you applying Dave

 

[davek]

Are you applying Dave

Yes, yes I will.

 

[bluestevon]

The question is whether the club have been forced into this solution because no bank would lend to them without the council as a guarantor, or whether this is the preferred solution because, in theory, it means you've got more money to spend on players and wages in any given year. No reason, of course, that both can't be true.

Other option which a lot have overlooked.

Doing so in this manner gives the council a huge vested interest once they've committed to the idea (which they now have), now any future things the club needs council support on - you would have to imagine they will get 100%, be that infrastructure improvements, planning permissions, dealing with the World Heritage organisation etc

 

[davek]

What did people think of that: "we will continue to look closely at the economics of the new stadium".

I immediately thought that was a pointer to capacity and design that would then provide the parameters to focus groups about what's affordable.