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

We'll have the 10th biggest stadium in the premier league when Chelsea and Wolves sort out their expansions.

I'm sure other clubs will be looking at potentially expanding putting us further down.
 
Given all the work involved in getting to this stage I think it's pretty obvious that the site itself has huge limitations involved with it, we already knew that was going to be the case and I think most would still prefer that location. I would have liked to see at least 55k but there's clearly not much room to work, even the 62k figure will probably be difficult to achieve, they're probably leaving just enough space to allow to any future plans to work based on how the club itself is doing.
 
johnjoeefc said:
I totally agree with you. Of course when getting a new stadium it's nice to think that we would be getting a stadium that's bigger and better than the rest. However from a more practical point of view I feel that 52000 is probably more or less spot on for where we are now as a club. Then if we reach our potential the 62000 upgrade would cater for that.

As long as we are filling the 52000 and the stadium is the atmospheric brilliant modern stadium we are hoping for then surely we must be happy with that.

I'm not disputing what some say that we could potentially fill a 60000+ stadium, but realistically if we are having a season where we are towards the bottom of the table then there likely would be a lot of empty seats and that just wouldn't be good. So yeah I think having thought about it a bit more I think the club have got it spot on.
Click to expand...

Agree wholly mate

Personally, i think this is a strategy by the club and eventually the capacity will be 55k after the fan consultation, it will also take it above Mordor, which will sate a lot of our fans.

For me its not about filling or not filling, no doubt we could fill 60k in certain matches, the derby, cup quarterfinals etc, European games etc. But there are particular games we are no way filling a 60k stadium for the likes of home games against Watford, Bournemouth, Huddersfield, Palace, Brighton, Cardiff, Fulham, Wolves, Southampton etc in my opinion, it will be a push to fill 52k, to be honest for those games. When you look at it logically its actually a bit foolish to build anything beyond 50-55k.

You have to physically think of a stadium of 52k size, i dont know if people have been to St James Park or the Eithed but they are the closest, they are fine and huge modern grounds that would suit us down to the ground and we can be proud of the ground if they are similar, i actually think The Eithed and Sames James Park are more atmospheric and electric then say 60k stadiums like the Emirates or The Olympic Stadium. Not to mention our ground is going to be an iconic site. It really could be an absolute Gem.

I am big into the GAA in Ireland and i go to Croke Park regularly, Dublin the biggest team (population 1.3mill) in Gaa play their home games in Croke Park and its an 80k stadium. In early games in the championship or league over here, you are lucky to get 20-30k and the place resembles a morgue. Its fine come a semi final and final, but for the majority of the games there, the stadium is to big for the event and really affects the atmosphere and experience.
 
Last edited:

GwladysPhil said:
We'll have the 10th biggest stadium in the premier league when Chelsea and Wolves sort out their expansions.

I'm sure other clubs will be looking at potentially expanding putting us further down.
Click to expand...

The question is would Wolves or Chelsea fill the grounds on a weekly basis. Chelsea currently do not fill Stamford Bridge and like Man City and West Ham base there attendance on tickets sold and given away. Chelsea real average attendance is around 7% lower than announced.

Last thing we want is loads of empty seats
 
banno said:
The question is would Wolves or Chelsea fill the grounds on a weekly basis. Chelsea currently do not fill Stamford Bridge and like Man City and West Ham base there attendance on tickets sold and given away. Chelsea real average attendance is around 7% lower than announced.

Last thing we want is loads of empty seats
Click to expand...

 
Charro said:
So they’re just building a new ground next to the old one.

We’re building ours on a world heritage site, on the banks of the river Mersey as part of a massive regeneration scheme that will attract investors from all over the world.

I know what one I’d rather have.
Click to expand...

Also if that agent leaves them they'll turn back into a nothing club.
 

johnjoeefc said:
I totally agree with you. Of course when getting a new stadium it's nice to think that we would be getting a stadium that's bigger and better than the rest. However from a more practical point of view I feel that 52000 is probably more or less spot on for where we are now as a club. Then if we reach our potential the 62000 upgrade would cater for that.

As long as we are filling the 52000 and the stadium is the atmospheric brilliant modern stadium we are hoping for then surely we must be happy with that.

I'm not disputing what some say that we could potentially fill a 60000+ stadium, but realistically if we are having a season where we are towards the bottom of the table then there likely would be a lot of empty seats and that just wouldn't be good. So yeah I think having thought about it a bit more I think the club have got it spot on.
Click to expand...

100% agree.

Once it's built and people see it sitting on the banks of the river, close to the city centre, how brilliant this will be will start to sink in.

With 52k, we needn't worry about many issues, at least in the short-term, that plague e.g. the London stadium, Emirates and likely the new Spurs stadium in terms of atmosphere, empty seats, influx of tourists changing matchday experience for long-term regulars and we may build ours considerably cheaper than Spurs', too.

We could (if the designs are good) have an "iconic", large stadium in a superb location, built for atmosphere which will actually be full every other week and will vastly improve our matchday revenue, while also likely becoming the premier venue in the city for high-profile events beyond football.

And still the possibility of increasing the capacity to as much as Spurs' stadium is there.
 
I've previously done my assessment it should be 60k+, the article is still there. I won't repeat the justifications.

All I will say though, coming from the last 24 hours or so is we have seen a number of things that concern me slightly. They mainly seem to stem from the club as ever not being massively clear in it's statements or how it's arrived at the number it has got too.

If 52k was the maximum that could fit, come out and communicate it. While I am critical I will accept that this remained the best option, far more so than an inferior location with a bigger ground. Until that is done though, it is hard to not be critical.

Likewise I am seeing some suggestions the increase is due in part to rail seats. Some suggestion we could go to 55k with seats and another 7k when rail seating laws might be relaxed. If this is the case there is very little logic to me in this. We are saying we cannot sell out 55k seats, but maybe we can sell 62k (7-10k of which will be standing in area that was designed for 4-6k seated fans). Building a plan on selling an inferior quality of product to more people doesn't make sense to me.
 
paulbefc said:
100% agree.

Once it's built and people see it sitting on the banks of the river, close to the city centre, how brilliant this will be will start to sink in.

With 52k, we needn't worry about many issues, at least in the short-term, that plague e.g. the London stadium, Emirates and likely the new Spurs stadium in terms of atmosphere, empty seats, influx of tourists changing matchday experience for long-term regulars and we may build ours considerably cheaper than Spurs', too.

We could (if the designs are good) have an "iconic", large stadium in a superb location, built for atmosphere which will actually be full every other week and will vastly improve our matchday revenue, while also likely becoming the premier venue in the city for high-profile events beyond football.

And still the possibility of increasing the capacity to as much as Spurs' stadium is there.
Click to expand...
Talking too much sense Paul, wait for the doom merchants
 
gorgeousgeorgeEFC said:
I started supporting Everton when we had a bigger and better stadium than Newcastle and West Ham, and even the RS. That's why I have/had higher expectations.

52,000 might not get us any Uefa finals and it won't make us as attractive as Anfield in terms of big music concerts but I suppose I will have to get behind it now.
Click to expand...

if you look at the stadiums for the for the 2016 and 2017 europa league finals, they were both around 50,000 capacity, it was more about them being modern with good facilities. The music concert I sort of agree with, but actually one end of the stadium will have more seats than the other, so when its set out for a concert, we may still be larger than Anfield (because they use one end for the stage and then fill the pitch with people). For me the worst thing is still not having the retractable roof and pitch. I thought I had come to terms with it, but I haven't :(
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top