New Everton Stadium

[MickA]

I have read it...and you didn't suggest any timelines at all or where we'll play when it's all happening....and it would certainly be more than one year, meaning we would be at least 2 seasons out of GP, or be left having to work with a drastically reduced capacity - and that's assuming we didn't run out of money during it all which is always possible. Are we going to play at Anfield or City of Manchester or somewhere when all of this work is going on? Add the cost of that to the demolition/rebuilding, the cost of affected match results, and the cost of supporters not show up to "home" games!

Newcastle, City (now), Villa, United, LFC off the top of my head have all redeveloped without having to play elsewhere.

As for costs and potentially running out of money, this won't be an issue if we have a sensible, realstic business plan in place. Something that this board have never produced for any major project hence the failing of Kings Dock, Kirkby and Goodison Place.

 

[Dithering Dougie]

There have been lots of posts suggesting that we can't redevelop goodison. I haven't quoted them all. But the suggestions that Goodison is landlocked etc and therefore can't be redeveloped are untrue. For a start we could build as big a stand as we wanted at the Park End (and that would just be a quick fix). There are actually many approaches we could take to redevelop it to provide both the increased capacity and corporate facilities.

Also, rather than seeing Goodisons age and condition as a burden, we should be playing on the fact that Goodison was the first purpose built football ground in the country, and has stands designed by Archibald Leitch.

I'll quote myself from the stadium thread where I discussed *one* of the approaches we could take. (Note there are many other ways this could be tackled... I just favoured this approach because it didn't require any land take)

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/...ate-within-months.66451/page-238#post-3361137


"When the main stand was built in 1970 they did it in such a way that would help future re-developments. That is why it doesn't line up with the pitch. The general idea would be:

1) Knock down the Park End
2) Move the pitch (towards the Park End) to be inline with the main stand (thus creating room at the Street End...)
3) Build a massive new Park End Stand with executive boxes. (Bear in mind that the Holte End at Villa has a seated capacity of > 13,000)
4) Knock down the Street End and build a new stand taking advantage of the increased space resulting from the pitch move. This would then solve the "church problem" - ie we wouldn't lose so much capacity from the space caused by the church.
5) Re-configure the main stand as follows:
5a) Build a new roof as per the original plans that doesn't need the big posts at the front (thus getting rid of most of the obstructed views)
5b) Add an executive tier below the top balcony (which gets rid of the rest of the obstructed views)
5c) Get rid of the existing lean-to executive boxes at the front and hence "re-claim" all of the enclosure

The above plan gives us new Park and Street End stands, a reconfigured main stand with no obstructed views, increased capacity, and a significant increase in our corporate capacity, without any need to land take.

The only remaining un-developed stand would be the Bullens road, which in the short term could (and should!) be kept as a heritage Archibald Leitch football stand. Again as mentioned earlier in the thread we could take off the iron-cladding and re-point the brickwork to show it off for the treasure that it is.

Ideas do exist for developing the Bullens Road, but of course this would require land take and re-locating the school, or including it in the new structure.

This is only one version of the Goodison redevelopment options available to us, but they just happen to be the ones that appeal to me. When I find the time I will upload the documents I have which show these plans in more detail."

If you moved the Park End back and the pitch towards it you'll not get much of a view from the main stand corner by the Gwladys Street, you'll also not be able to move the Gwladys street forward towards the new pitch without obstructing the corners of both the Main Stand and the Bullens Rd and you're going to get a big gap of nothing at the corner of the Park end and the Bullens Rd stand that's staying in place.

This idea is completely unworkable in an occupied stadium and wouldn't work at all keeping the Main stand and Bullens rd in situate.

 

[Kieno]

Yes it would need managing. But did United or Newcastle have to play elsewhere for 2 seasons when they re-developed their grounds. Are Liverpool having to?

And no I didn't suggest any timelines but you just plucked one out of thin air.

And yes of course we would have to pay for it. But then again the new stadium would of course be free so maybe you have got a point!

In their expansion in the late 90's, Newcastle lost less than 1,000 seats while work was going on. They didn't demolish at least half their stadium. The building work they did before that was done when they weren't even in the PL

And I may have a little bit of a useless left eye but I don't recall half or three-quarters of Old Trafford being demolished when that was being expanded either - or the pitch being moved. They were able to do it in such a way as to gradually add more and more capacity, not reduce it!

And your sarcasm is unbecoming. Building a new stadium does not incur a demolition cost, or a cost of reduced attendances/gate reciepts or consequent match results

 

[JordanianEmbassy]

In their expansion in the late 90's, Newcastle lost less than 1,000 seats while work was going on. They didn't demolish at least half their stadium. The building work they did before that was done when they weren't even in the PL

And I may have a little bit of a useless left eye but I don't recall half or three-quarters of Old Trafford being demolished when that was being expanded either - or the pitch being moved. They were able to do it in such a way as to gradually add more and more capacity, not reduce it!

Three quarters of Goodison wouldn't have to be demolished to achieve what I suggested. Just 2 stands. Which could be done one at a time.

And your sarcasm is unbecoming.

You are in no position to criticise my sarcasm after your own hastily written post which plucked figures out of the air and suggested we might "run out of money during it all which is always possible".

Building a new stadium does not incur a demolition cost, or a cost of reduced attendances/gate reciepts or consequent match results

No it doesn't. But on the other hand it can't be done in stages and therefore requires a much larger sum of money to be available in one go.

And finally you've completely avoided the fact that the original post you agreed with said redeveloping Goodison was impossible because of the footprint. This is quite simply not true

 

[JordanianEmbassy]

If you moved the Park End back and the pitch towards it you'll not get much of a view from the main stand corner by the Gwladys Street, you'll also not be able to move the Gwladys street forward towards the new pitch without obstructing the corners of both the Main Stand and the Bullens Rd and you're going to get a big gap of nothing at the corner of the Park end and the Bullens Rd stand that's staying in place.

This idea is completely unworkable in an occupied stadium and wouldn't work at all keeping the Main stand and Bullens rd in situate.

Sorry you've completely misunderstood the idea.

The pitch would be moved in line with the main stand so the view from the main stand would be perfect.

If you moved the Gladys Street foward it wouldn't obstruct ANY of the main stand.

Yes you would lose one corner of the Bullens but this could be dealt with. (You could convert the lost part to more toilet or other facilities).

You wouldn't get a gap at the corner of the Park End because you would fill it in when you build the new Park End.

Its totally workable.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Sorry you've completely misunderstood the idea.

The pitch would be moved in line with the main stand so the view from the main stand would be perfect.

If you moved the Gladys Street foward it wouldn't obstruct ANY of the main stand.

Yes you would lose one corner of the Bullens but this could be dealt with. (You could convert the lost part to more toilet or other facilities).

You wouldn't get a gap at the corner of the Park End because you would fill it in when you build the new Park End.

Its totally workable.

If really so. Why not do it?
Would be cheaper and we could keep our beloved GP

 

[JordanianEmbassy]

If really so. Why not do it?
Would be cheaper and we could keep our beloved GP

Exactly.

Probably because the people in charge have ulterior motives. I'm not sure.

The architect who drew up the plans I am talking about is planning to get together all his documents and open up a debate.

 

[Kieno]

Three quarters of Goodison wouldn't have to be demolished to achieve what I suggested. Just 2 stands. Which could be done one at a time.



You are in no position to criticise my sarcasm after your own hastily written post which plucked figures out of the air and suggested we might "run out of money during it all which is always possible".



No it doesn't. But on the other hand it can't be done in stages and therefore requires a much larger sum of money to be available in one go.

And finally you've completely avoided the fact that the original post you agreed with said redeveloping Goodison was impossible because of the footprint. This is quite simply not true

Saying the work you listed would take more than one year is not plucking a figure out of the air and it's not impossible that we would run out of money. Maybe you haven't notice our boards track record over the last 17 years? You seem to have lots of faith in them - except when it suits - because when it suits, you don't have much faith in their judgement that redeveloping Goodison is a non starter.

In any case, there's not much difference to me between plucking figures out of the air and plucking out an ill-thought out plan with no acknowledgement of the consequences of it. As for the bullens heritage stand, I have never seen any evidence of the Bullens stand being of any important "treasure" to the wider football world.

And yes, building a stadium can be done in stages.

And I still say redevoping GP is not workable!

 

[Deleted member 28206]

Sorry you've completely misunderstood the idea.

The pitch would be moved in line with the main stand so the view from the main stand would be perfect.

If you moved the Gladys Street foward it wouldn't obstruct ANY of the main stand.

Yes you would lose one corner of the Bullens but this could be dealt with. (You could convert the lost part to more toilet or other facilities).

You wouldn't get a gap at the corner of the Park End because you would fill it in when you build the new Park End.

Its totally workable.

No one would miss the Gwladys Street anyway

 

[Dithering Dougie]

Sorry you've completely misunderstood the idea.

The pitch would be moved in line with the main stand so the view from the main stand would be perfect.

If you moved the Gladys Street foward it wouldn't obstruct ANY of the main stand.

Yes you would lose one corner of the Bullens but this could be dealt with. (You could convert the lost part to more toilet or other facilities).

You wouldn't get a gap at the corner of the Park End because you would fill it in when you build the new Park End.

Its totally workable.

What part of the main stand would you in theory be lining it up with? I take it because you've talked about moving the pitch towards the Park End its towards Stanley Park? Therefore you're losing a lot of seating in both the Main stand, Glwadys St and the Bullens Rd if you simply try and move the Glwadys street forward as you've proposed.

You've also got the added factor of merging the two separate stands of varying heights and restrictions with two brand new stands at either end. The varying heights would be impossible to merge in any sort of aesthetically pleasing way that any sort of architect would be proud of. The idea that you could simply marry the new Park End stand into the Bullens rd Stand is ridiculious.

Goodison would end up looking like something a 6 year old had built with Lego, with no clear concept and simply mix and match as it goes along. It would look awful and would take a long time whilst depriving the club of finances from attendences and matchday revenue. It's a terrible idea.

Do you have any building experience or knowledge ?

 

[RaleighBlue]

I know of a major multi billion euro pan european company not far from goodison that has boxes at local sports teams including rugby league teams; who were considering facilities for corporate hospitality including meetings and events outside of football. Looked at Anfield (in their words "tatty") and Old Trafford.

Companies will only come to us when we have the faciltities to host them. Then they will be more inclined to give us money and publicly associate with us.

A new stadium helps attract better sponsorship & improves the corporate image.

At the very least it would show we are moving forward and have tangible upward mobility & aspirations.

Sunderland have more lucrative sponsorships now then they did when they were at Roker Park.

City have more lucrative sponsorships now then they did when they were at Maine Road.

Arsenal have more lucrative sponsorships now then they did when they were at Highbury.

By no means was I saying we don't need a stadium. That should be obvious. However, I am suggesting that a stadium is not necessary to begin the process of making more money. It's an excuse - like saying we need to win trophies to grow the fanbase. Yes, winning trophies and a new stadium are necessary things, but they are not required for us to progress from where we are.

Look at Spurs - they are far more fiscally successful than Everton without a new ground or trophies. Why? Marketing. (Don't say London, they're the only club in London without trophies that are as successful as they are). Now, they need a stadium for the next step. We need a stadium as well. But we can make progress before the stadium is sorted.

These things do not have to happen sequentially.

 

[Eggs]

...I assume they have had architects analyse the options for upgrading the old lady and concluded it isn't doable. The surrounding infrastructure doesn't help the cause, built in the middle of terraced housing does not allow one key requirement - space. Look at Anfield, the kop appears to be falling into the road behind it.

I appreciate it's an emotive subject.

 

[Ruairi77]

I'd actually like to see either a new stadium or a redev of Goodison. Both can be done, I just don't see either getting done. Forget about Kings Dock or Kirkby, they couldn't even get the building behind the park end off the ground. Bill looking for donations is bang on, and no one is going to donate to build a new stadium or a re done Goodison.

 

[JordanianEmbassy]

Saying the work you listed would take more than one year is not plucking a figure out of the air and it's not impossible that we would run out of money.

You didn't say the work would take more than one year. You said "we would be at least 2 seasons out of GP". This is a completely different thing to say and that is what I was taking issue with. Slightly changing your argument might work at 2 in the morning in a bar with a load of drunk people but it doesn't work on the internet when people can go back and read your previous posts.

Maybe you haven't notice our boards track record over the last 17 years? You seem to have lots of faith in them - except when it suits - because when it suits, you don't have much faith in their judgement that redeveloping Goodison is a non starter.

Of course I have noticed it. But you could use that argument against the possibility of building a new stadium too.

Re-development is possible. Building a new stadium is possible. The current board probably won't deliver either but thats not the point.

The reason I am posting is because people perpetuate the myth the re-developing Goodison is impossible. This is untrue and I posted *one* example of what could be done. Yes it would need to be managed. Yes it would need to be payed for. But it isn't impossible.

In any case, there's not much difference to me between plucking figures out of the air and plucking out an ill-thought out plan with no acknowledgement of the consequences of it.

I didn't "pluck it" out of the air. It was a summary of some plans drawn up by an architect.

As for the bullens heritage stand, I have never seen any evidence of the Bullens stand being of any important "treasure" to the wider football world.

Well you haven't spent any time looking into the history of football stadium design in this country then. Leitch designed and built many of the famous stands in the UK. Goodison, Ibrox, Villa Park and many more. There are books written about him and any enthusiast website will contain many pictures and articles about it. The Leitch stand at Fulham is a listed building.

And yes, building a stadium can be done in stages.

And I still say redevoping GP is not workable!

You've got your head buried in the sand then. United, Villa, Wolves, Newcastle and many others prove this to be so.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Exactly.

Probably because the people in charge have ulterior motives. I'm not sure.

The architect who drew up the plans I am talking about is planning to get together all his documents and open up a debate.

interesting...

i think if it really could be done it would be for the best..but im not sure if it actually could be done cause that option has been crossed over many times if im right. think there might be something puplic dont know about..renovating GP i mean....why would they otherwise deny its possibility so strongly(?)