Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

New Everton Stadium

Debaser said:
How can you say that? You think this is an easy/fast project? They are keeping us informed when and with what they can. And I like the way its not being rushed. And do you think you know how to plan and build a stadium better than they do?
Click to expand...
Spurs fans had exactly the same complaints.
We will be told of the capacity and the financing when it’s settled not before then
Do you think the club will tell the world what avenues of finance they are exploring ?
 
It's all pretty negative on here as per usual, but with respect to costs, I really don't understand why you would not expect the club to want to get the best value for money design for the stadium. People have been putting themselves on both sides of the argument by complaining we don't want to be saddled by debt we can't afford on one hand, and on the other hand complaining we are doing this on the cheap.

Baffling.
 
all weve had so far, is a survey thats asked 10,000 fans if we would like a stadium over 50k seats...

in which 99% answered yes.


what a club we are..

if Moshiri is THIS stupid, then god help us
 
BigBlueNose said:
because it is sooo bleeeeding amateurish..

it explains why we , the fans, havent heard a single thing about this stadium project... they havent got a clue what they are doing.

saying one thing and then 3 months later back tracking on whats been said.

then theres the mysterious financial situation or lack of it.. the council are doing the hard bit yet we are struggling to do the rest.

its quite frankly bewildering, putting it politely
Click to expand...

Don’t get this daft over the top negative hyperbole
 

joey_macmo said:
Man City finished 16th their first season in the new stadium yet experienced a 40% bump in attendances, their biggest signing was Claudio Reyna for £2.5m. They went 16th, 8th, 15th, 14th, 9th & 10th in their first 6 seasons in the new stadium, people seem to have got the timescale of events at city totally wrong.

So yes they are a perfectly good example to use, again especially when you consider that they've had to expand twice since moving (at a much higher cost than an initial build) due to their recent success.
Click to expand...


Good point.

Man City's average attendance increased dramatically despite the fact that they had a crapper team than we have now.

New stadium = huge attendance increase.
 
davek said:
There's just no support for a stadium with a capacity of anything less than 55,000. The club are playing with fire over this issue and they'll get a severe backlash.

I understand their need to box clever and not promise stuff they cant defo deliver on - and (spiralling)costs will be an issue determining matters - but I doubt very much their own questionnaire they just outlined the results of showed anything like a majority for a sub-55,000 capacity.

55,000 has to be the floor in terms of how low the capacity can be. That was always the case with DK and made it palatable for so many as a move. That hasn't changed, no matter how fantastic the location.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree that anything less than 55k will receive a serious fan backlash.

Although I would prefer 60k, I think 55k is acceptable. Of course capacity will be a moot point if the stadium is a pile of shoite.
 
BigBlueNose said:
this is just the start of the doomed docks...

we are already downplaying and back peddling and considering delivering us with a downgraded stadium.

hardly iconic this.
Click to expand...
When you say "we" I take it you are referring to the contributors on for a such as this because I don't think I have ever heard anything from official club sources about capacity until yesterday and the referred to 50k plus or indeed stadium design.

You are criticising the club for something they have not done or said.
Backpeddling from what ?
A downgraded stadium... from what ?

We have not got a clue what the stadium will look like or what the capacity will be and yet you accuse the club of backpeddling and downgrading.

I think some are so determined to be negative that reality and commonsense as well as facts are ignored.
 

IllinoisBlue said:
It's all pretty negative on here as per usual, but with respect to costs, I really don't understand why you would not expect the club to want to get the best value for money design for the stadium. People have been putting themselves on both sides of the argument by complaining we don't want to be saddled by debt we can't afford on one hand, and on the other hand complaining we are doing this on the cheap.

Baffling.
Click to expand...

People want to go to sleep and wake up with a bright blue spanking new stadium at Bramley-Moore.

And preferably the exact same stadium they were dreaming of. Patience and sensibility goes out the window with some on here I’m afraid
 
davek said:
I think there's going to be a massive push from the club in social media to make anything in the 50,000+ range acceptable. They want that wriggle room. IMO though that sends a poor message out to supporters. They needed to state that the lowest the club would ever contemplate would be 55,000 with a build that will offer options in the future to raise the capacity. That would settle matters down.
Click to expand...
I think something more definite from the club about capacity would be helpful.
I do agree that 55k should be the minimum and I think it may also be close to optimum as long as future development potential is factored in.

I am not sure that the fans will be unhappy with that proposal.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top