New Everton Stadium

[hibbo'sclass]

Depends entirely on how steep the stands are in the first place.

The first 10 rows of a steep stand will probably be sufficent.

Football pitch is about 105m +10either end in length so 125 m say.
The basic track if tight to the wall is 177 m, so minimum 52 metres of the stands are lost. Allow even 3m around the side so there's 58 metres to find in that direction.
Width-wise about 75m for for a pitch, 98 min for track.
Width wise you should include a long jump pit on either side, so about 93 + 12, so 30 metres to find roughly.
Don't think 10 rows shallow rake would do it, let alone steep rake mate.
Vault my comment re Wembley.

 

[allen]

That doesn't stand up mathematicaly.

10 rows would give only an extra 7-8 metres.

Athletics need 177 metres from end to end.

Standard length EUFA/FIFA pitch is only 105 metres. Add on the gap at each end (6 metres) gives you 105 + 6 + 6 = 117
Add on your ten rows
117 + 7 + 7 = 151

Still 26 metres too short

That's another 13m from each end I.E. another 18 rows from each end!

Bringing the math. Good man.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

That doesn't stand up mathematicaly.

10 rows would give only an extra 7-8 metres.

Athletics need 177 metres from end to end.

Standard length EUFA/FIFA pitch is only 105 metres. Add on the gap at each end (6 metres) gives you 105 + 6 + 6 = 117
Add on your ten rows
117 + 7 + 7 = 151

Still 26 metres too short

That's another 13m from each end I.E. another 18 rows from each end!

Didn't plagiarise!

 

[Scilachi]

What about retractable ends? Fantasy or plausible so the ends or portion of them can be pushed in an out for the track to fit?

 

[Trueblue1878]

Depends entirely on how steep the stands are in the first place.

The first 10 rows of a steep stand will probably be sufficent.

?

How do you work that out? It's not the height required to fit in a athletics track rather the length?

You could have 1m height from one row to the next but if the depth is still 0.700mm you'd still need to lose 30+ rows.

 

[Gardocki]

Again why would he lie about it? He would be completely neutral about it all and not commit to anything, but he has commode to atmosphere and intimacy FACT

Nobody has said he is lying. But EFC are his client, and he's an advocate for them. There's no way that accommodating an athletics track doesn't compromise the design.

 

[Kev50]

Did you read Anderson's letter and just assume the complete opposite of everything he wrote?

It doesn't matter how he spells it out, he's wanting a running track

 

[allen]

Nobody has said he is lying. But EFC are his client, and he's an advocate for them. There's no way that accommodating an athletics track doesn't compromise the design.

It'll certainly compromise it either as a football stadium or an athletics stadium.

As long as it's terrible for athletics, we're good.

 

[Gardocki]

Not a chance. Will have to be much much higher, especially with a steep raked stand. Still possible though. If Hampden lost 5 or so rows you can see how many we would need if the stands remain tight to the pitch.

Edit: just read Hampden lost 8 rows

Have you ever seen Hampden in football mode? It's miles back from the pitch, especially behind the goals. Pretty much like the old Wembley.

This can not be done well, even by removing a lower tier. Anyone believing the Joe Anderson statement is gullible and worse at judging distances than my wife.

 

[Exeter Gently]

Are Everton the most gigantic mugs or what?
We've got a stadium to be used for athletics, the cost of which is to be funded entirely by the club, and with our billionaire owner putting in not one penny. I find it interesting that this unwelcome information is sandwiched between our highly unusual splurge in the transfer market

Is this serious?

 

[Exeter Gently]

The Pseudo fume over this on Twitter and in here today has been worse than anything I've seen in the transfer thread.

 

[Exeter Gently]

After today lets get one thing straight is that Dan Meis now knows how many helmets support the club.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Have you ever seen Hampden in football mode? It's miles back from the pitch, especially behind the goals. Pretty much like the old Wembley.

This can not be done well, even by removing a lower tier. Anyone believing the Joe Anderson statement is gullible and worse at judging distances than my wife.

Judging distances... I know mate, that's why I was using it as an example if they lost 8 rows we would need to lose a a hell of a lot more.

It is possible though, be it through retractable seating and/or moveable stands. That's the point i'm trying to make. Perhaps the lower tier will have 45 or so rows and we just lose the lot leaving a 25k or so capacity for the games.

Meis will have done the sums so it must be more than just adequate. We just have to wait to see what it would look like, if we don't like what we see, then that's the time to get the hounds and pitch forks out.

 

[allen]

After today lets get one thing straight is that Dan Meis now knows how many helmets support the club.

60,000, minimum.

 

[Moomin]

Just putting it in here as well.

@orly weasel index please. Score him up

Except pretty much none of that is true or likely.
Mayor won't 'exert pressure' for there to be a running track.
Already been repeatedly established by Meis that it won't be a bowl.
There won't be a running track.
And the chances are we won't get the Commonwealth Games. They've already started publicly floating the idea of sharing with Manchester. 'Manchester could host some events...' (e.g. Athletics). It's dead in the water.

Or it just suggests I was a bit distracted whilst posting and made a very minor error that I explained in a subsequent post. The gist of what I was getting at was that 'Glasgow 2014' had events in other cities, like Edinburgh. The athletics, if by some chance Liverpool actually got the games, would take place in Manchester, as intimated by Anderson's recent comments.

People can believe what they like. You're entitled to believe I'm full of it. You'd be wrong like, but that's up to you. As I wrote earlier I know there's some people who will doubt this and that's fine - I personally doubt a lot of the supposed ITKs on here too, usually because they're wrong.

It's a tough one, because I'm a Blue, I like posting on here. You get a bit of info and you want to share it with your fellow blues. I'd love to go into more detail but I can't because I'd be betraying confidences and they'd know who was giving this info then.

In this instance though, I know I'm 100% right. Just thought I'd share my bit in the thread due to the constant talk of a running track that is not going to be a feature.

Aye, I've found that out to my cost.

Should have just said 'there won't be a running track' and left it at that.

Then you'd be incorrect. My info could not be more accurate, and it's from one person. And it's not Esk.

Move on lads, you've established your opinion and provided plenty of vaulting material for when the truth comes out.

Meis isn't the one talking about a running track mate. It's trolls on here who keep bringing it up because they find it amusing.

Hilarious that mate. Sides are splitting here.

As long as people remember what I wrote for when it gets announced, hopefully there won't be too long a list of people owing me an apology on here.

Imagine refusing to even contemplate someone might be telling the truth on here, to the extent you post a comment on their profile page accusing them of lying.

You know, instead of just reading something, either believing or not believing it, then going about your life. Actually going out of your way to call someone a liar, you being so angered by someone having the temerity to suggest they have a bit of inside info.