New Everton Stadium

[blue61]

IF safe standing comes into place, it will be 1:1 ratio so the capacity will be exactly the same.

The ratio for safe standing can be 1.5:1 so areas for safe standing would increase capacity when used as standing areas.

 

[RobSpurs]

Assumption is it'll be 1:1. That's what was presented anyway...

 

[nikom court]

Only Everton could build a new stadium smaller than Liverpool’s even before they do another extension. 52k would be an utter death knell.

That is utter bollocks,you are more interested in what the RS think

 

[ProZ]

There is no easy expansion option. People need to understand this very clearly. BMD is a unique site. That has huge opportunities but in practical construction terms it presents big challenges. The site dimensions and heritage listed & protected dock wall constrain capacity. 60-65k might be possible to deliver day one if designed carefully with every opportunity utilised. Sites with more surrounding free space permit subsequent redevelopments including for stands to be subsequently repositioned/strengthened/expanded relatively easily. In contrast BMD is an extremely tough site to 'redevelop in use' as even a 55k stadium will fully utilise the footprint North-South limiting access for large scale construction vehicles & equipment once built. Realistically what we build is what we will always have (+/- 1000 seats or so which can be changed by reconfiguring corporate space).

Ok Dan

 

[charlie atkins]

Meis said you can fit just over 60,000.

For me it has to be 60,000.

I agree, hes gone quiet now though, I just want to see it moving, but yes the bigger the better
i

 

[toffee66]

The ratio for safe standing can be 1.5:1 so areas for safe standing would increase capacity when used as standing areas.

In theory it could be more than 1:1 but the current reality is that it is unclear/unlikely that there would be a majority in parliament for safe standing at all and those MPs willing to actively campaign for it are (currently, could change) talking about/assuming 1:1. From a design assumption/planning point of view this is the best assumption to make right now. Maybe in 10 years' time it will be a different environment. Maybe.

Meis talked about all of this and the site capacity restrictions/lack of scope for future expansion once built in his presentations that some of us attended. This stuff isn't 'speculation' it is that lead architects own position. Nothing is ever set in stone but right now the best information we have is that the capacity we build is the capacity we will have forever and that safe standing will not alter that.

This is why it is important to encourage the club for once in their last 40 years to be bold off the pitch. The decisions they take will define and potentially limit us for the next 50 years.

 

[meagher94]

This was telling.

Personally I’d be more than happy with 55-58k.

 

[Lmc2016]

We'll end up with about 48k capacity and wondering why we ever moved in the first place the way things are going.

From 60k+ to 58k, to 55k and now as small a capacity as 52k being mentioned in the press is worrying to say the least.

 

[Big Neville Southall]

This was telling.

Personally I’d be more than happy with 55-58k.

A huge part of football is size envy. The strive to be the best, to be bigger, to win more, to have more fans, to have that stadium prestige.

For that reason, 60000 versus 59999, means far more than 1 seat.

 

[meagher94]

A huge part of football is size envy. The strive to be the best, to be bigger, to win more, to have more fans, to have that stadium prestige.

For that reason, 60000 versus 59999, means far more than 1 seat.

Maybe a couple of seats in a stadium means a lot to some people on Twitter, but in the grand scheme of things it really doesn’t. If we get a brilliant new stadium in a prime location with state of the art features, 55k will happily do me. The Etihad is only 41k and most clubs in the country would kill for just half of City’s success.

 

[Flano21]

Maybe a couple of seats in a stadium means a lot to some people on Twitter, but in the grand scheme of things it really doesn’t. If we get a brilliant new stadium in a prime location with state of the art features, 55k will happily do me. The Etihad is only 41k and most clubs in the country would kill for just half of City’s success.

The Etihad is 55,000 now, expanded a few years ago and City are planning to expand to 61000 as wel

 

[welshtoffee]

I would be happy with a 55k brand new state of the art stadium, Not much fun being stuck behind a concrete pillar or being at the back of the lower bullens.

 

[meagher94]

The Etihad is 55,000 now, expanded a few years ago and City are planning to expand to 61000 as wel

Well don’t I look silly

But the point still stands really. Point is, it’s really not that big a deal if there’s a couple thousand extra seats, just so we can go “ha we’ve got a bigger stadium than you”. I don’t buy the envy angle.

Obviously we shouldn’t be too short sighted, so hopefully the site will give room for expansion, but at this moment in time 55k is more than enough.

 

[Jamiednm]

45,000 + conservatory would do for me. Get it built.

 

[Big Neville Southall]

Maybe a couple of seats in a stadium means a lot to some people on Twitter, but in the grand scheme of things it really doesn’t. If we get a brilliant new stadium in a prime location with state of the art features, 55k will happily do me. The Etihad is only 41k and most clubs in the country would kill for just half of City’s success.

Not for me. A couple of seats within anywhere from say 51-59k no I wouldn't care, but I think achieving that 60k+ is a statement, and that's a lot of what football is about. Being bigger and better in as many areas as possible.