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

RobSpurs said:
Looking at the plans, as far as I can see the constraints come at the north and south of the site, not the east and west. Given that the corporate boxes, bars etc will mostly be in the east/west stands I don't think restraining capacity to make room for them makes sense. And you've already got an enormous (properly huge) fan park designated to the East of the ground, so it's not like they're short of space for that kind of thing either.

I genuinely think it's just a very tight site in one direction - that's why the proposed north stand is dinky in comparison to the other three stands, they literally can't build any further back. If there was room for more seats, that's where they'd go, but there isn't so they're filling that gap between the roof and the top of the north stand with Europe's biggest video screen instead.

meis-bmd-concept-2.jpg
Click to expand...

I think this is bang on. And that end is small as a result of having the opposite large end otherwise there could be 2 medium sized ends.

And given that restriction up against United Utilities in the north it would be interesting to know why we have opted not to have overlapping tiers down the east and west. Given the images released you wouldn't want to extend either of those stands as the seats would be so far away from the pitch it would be ridiculous for a new build (and ruin the 'one roof' aesthetic).
 
MickA said:
I think this is bang on. And that end is small as a result of having the opposite large end otherwise there could be 2 medium sized ends.

And given that restriction up against United Utilities in the north it would be interesting to know why we have opted not to have overlapping tiers down the east and west. Given the images released you wouldn't want to extend either of those stands as the seats would be so far away from the pitch it would be ridiculous for a new build (and ruin the 'one roof' aesthetic).
Click to expand...

Honestly, I just think that Meis' preferred solution and one he knows works with his concepts. A lot of his other stadium designs have the tiers like that as well, with the seats extending backwards rather than tiers overlapping (http://www.meisarchitects.com/stadia).

Reasons (my guesses): Not stratifying sections of the stadium makes it feel like 'one', even with the corporates, and that's something Meis has said he thinks is important. I also wonder if it's a cheaper solution overall. Again, he's pointed before out how he thinks modern stadiums are too overblown and expensive. Maybe it's not a coincidence he prefers this design solution?
 
Saint Domingo said:
If the tv money bubble bursts having a smaller stadium than the teams we want to compete against will be a death knell to future success. I don’t have to use City, I could use Arsenal, United, Liverpool even, they don’t get full houses for league games, yet they have expanded or are expanding because they know that in the big games the demand for tickets goes up hugely and you can sell numerous hospitality packets off the back of it. We’re already filling out Goodison, if we move to Bramley Moore and find that we’re filling it every week as well it’s not an achievement by Elstone or Meis it just means it’s too small! If we fill it watching an 8th places team, what happens if we become more successful and more people want to watch? The ticket prices go up as demand outstrips supply.

I literally cannot see any benefit to a smaller capacity. It feels shortsighted in the extreme.
Click to expand...

The only benefit to building a stadium with a smaller capacity than Spurs, Arsenal, West Ham, Liverpool, Man City and Newcastle etc will be that it’ll cost a little bit less in the short-term.

Very shortsighted.
 
gorgeousgeorgeEFC said:
The only benefit to building a stadium with a smaller capacity than Spurs, Arsenal, West Ham, Liverpool, Man City and Newcastle etc will be that it’ll cost a little bit less in the short-term.

Very shortsighted.
Click to expand...

No it isn’t.

Higher running costs, higher long term interest payments, more risk if we drop out of the Premier League.

Aside from all that though, disregarding a potentially significantly higher build cost as if its not a big concern is silly.
 

Barnfred 55 said:
This. 55k has to be considered the minimum we go for. The positioning and design of the stadium will make it stand out and unique, and if this comes at the cost of 5k seats then so be it.

At 55k the stadium will always be full and the increase in capacity (coupled with the hospitality arrangements), from the calculations I have seen, will make the stadium costs self serviceable over time. The infra structure being put in place will also make the venue attractive for other events.

Anything less than 55k will be an opportunity missed.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
meagher94 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Etihad is 56,000 and is about to be expanded.
 
If the cost of the number of additional extra seats was the only criterion to build a new stadium, there would never be a new one built. Spurs are spending over a billion for how many additional seats ?

It is the additional seats and all the other opportunities that a new stadium gives to make money that justifies the build.
The new stadium at BMD would be a magnate for visitors to the city, a new stadium in an iconic location would be on the agenda of bus tours around the city whereas Anfield is already on the tour but Goodison isn't
I was in Liverpool three weeks ago for the Liverpool Feis and on the Monday my wife wanted to take a bus tour around the city.
I refused to go on any one that went past Anfield.
 
There is no point in a 61,000 seat stadium. We won't fill it. 20,000 extra fans arnt gonna turn up every game. I would rather a 50,000 seater full every week, than a stadium that's gonna look empty every game.
 

55k would be sound. Not too bothered if we never hit 60k, I am bothered that every single tourist that comes to Liverpool will see our boss new stadium on the banks of the mersey. Every cruise ship on the mersey, the first thing they go past is our new stadium. The whole regeneration of a deprived area of Liverpool down to Everton and their stadium. I'm ok with 55k if it means these things.
 
I thought it will be 52K-55K according to the shareholders association the other day, just cant see it much higher. As for City expanding their capacity, strange one as they don't fill what they have. Maybe they want more capacity for concerts and other non-football events.
 
The capacity of between 52-55k doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We have 40k already, we have to pay for the entirety of a new stadium, so any values over 40k count extra. I know it's simplistic but if it's 10% more to build 60k than 55k it is worthwhile as you will get 20k additional as opposed to 15k (a 25% increase on a 10% outlay).

There has been much written on the numbers, I've done a piece a while back that I stand behind. The PL is a growth league with more new fans every year and we probably reached capacity 4 or 5 years ago. I would imagine we would average at the very least mid to high 40's in an older stadium, in an unfashionable part of the city often paying for seats with heavily obstructed views. The fact that every none obstructed view seat has probably been sold out for almost every match for the best part of a decade indicates where the demand is at.

This is backed up by alleged numbers. Even in a woeful season last year, with open protests against the club and manager pretty much every hime game sold out days in advance. We have 32k ST holders and we have to cap weeks before the season starts. Some say we have a waiting list of 11k, I am not sure on that but I think we'd have little difficulty selling 40k ST's if there was the demand.

If you start from that point, 40k ST then the capacity becomes an issue. We are told that they are looking at 5k premium seats and there will be around 3k for away fans (or 8k for the cups). On the league figures you would have 48k seats sold, with only 4k (at the lower end) or 7k (at the upper end) for walk up fans. This is similar to Goodison currently, although some of the walk up fans currently will get a ST, but the flip is people would not be paying 40 quid for a heavily obstructed view, but a good seat, in a state of the art Stadium in a prime location. Even at the 55k end, it's easy to see how demand will be very high. None of the above assumes room for new fans either, for aggressively rolling out more ST's.

I understand that scarcity may be an inevitable issue, but I don't see much point in building something from scratch, just the way you want it, to have it begin with scarcity. Thats my opinion though.

For me it should be 60k+ to allow us to continue to grow our fanbase both locally and further afield. Someone asked the question earlier about what benefit is there from having a smaller stadium. I think the biggest one for the board is it allows them to reward themselves for reaching the low expectations targets. They do not know how big a club Everton is or could be. If you approach Everton and the stadium that we are an also ran then it begins to make sense.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top