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:
I hope from your pov the proposed design makes the expansion up to 62k is easy and cheap enough to do.
Click to expand...

Only one way to do that: build room to put extra seats in afterwards. Usual planning trick to circumvent the authorites, understate the capacity to get the transport plan passed.
 
Perseus said:
Only one way to do that: build room to put extra seats in afterwards. Usual planning trick to circumvent the authorites, understate the capacity to get the transport plan passed.
Click to expand...

If the original early stadium plan last Easter was anything to go by, then it's the north stand that would be the smallest (In a way like the redeveloped old WHL when one of the ends had a huge glass wall which was later added to). Or similar to the glass wall end of the Lucas Oil Stadium.

imagesLOS.webp
 

Great argument - if you ignore that their stadium used to be half full in the premier league and championship.

That was a one-off boxing day game. Most of them had probably been watching the Netflix documentary and were in the mood.
 
HongKongToffee said:
They have stellar commercial revenues that's why.

I'm amazed at this thread reading posts saying that the match day revenue will make our turnover go up substantially when that is not the case, it's the third or 4th most important revenue for clubs.

For CL clubs Commercial and TV are the bulk of a clubs revenue and CL revenues then match day.

Bayern's matchday revenue is 17% of their turnover of over £500 million pounds.

Juve's match day revenue is £24 million a year and they are ranked 8th place in the top 10 richest clubs.

City's match day is £52 million and they have a turnover of £500 million financially doped by over excessive over priced owner linked commercial deals by Shiekh Mansour at nearly £250 million a year.

Hilariously PSG match day revenue is around £120 million a year with a stadium around 45000, but we know like city they are financially doped by a human rights abusing oil rich regime.

And our latest turnover results are worrying when the bulk of our turnover is TV money with a pitiful commercial revenue stream and 77% of that turnover is being spent on wages.

Them across the park have a commercial enterprise that gone tenfold that's growing their turnover every year at 30%.

Commercial is what needs boosting,relying on match day revenues to get us up the money list is impossible.
Click to expand...
Second last paragraph, are you sure that first word is correct
 
paulbefc said:
Spurs attendance yesterday: 45k, attendance vs Cardiff: 43k, Southampton 33k
Click to expand...

Indeed, Wembley empty spaces yesterday looked just like GP for the last several minutes v Spurs. But yes, stadium sizing is a science it would appear. And we have spent long enough planning this, let's give the (external consultant) experts the benefit of the doubt at getting this right. 52 with potential to scale up sounds ok in the context of some of this week's figures.
 

If the capacity is only going to be 52,000 then the number of corporates/hospitality seats will have to be lower than the 5,000 that appears to have been in the original scoping -- and therein is the predicament.
What doesn't appear to have been fed into the decision over capacity is the 'new stadium effect' which has occurred at all new grounds and at all levels of football. Leicester City is one such example. In their last season at Filbert St the average gate was around 19,500, a fairly typical average for them. Since moving they have never had a single league gate below 20,000 and the initial uplift was of the order of 20%, a figure matched at many new grounds elsewhere. So even factoring in something like a 15% uplift at BM on the non-corporate/hospitality capacity at GP takes the absolute minimum new capacity requirement to around 45,000. The corporate capacity then takes it 50,000. And that's before allowing for the current excess demand for tickets -- even with a team that has won nothing in 23 years!
There is a view that the lower than expected capacity is a consequence of access and transport issues. But if so then that's been a somewhat belated realisation and so is surely an unlikely explanation.
I prefer one alternative explanation, the one in which the current controllers of Everton Football Club are seeing the new stadium primarily as a catalyst and a massive investment opportunity for the development of the whole north area, a development in which Moshiri, Usmanov, and other associates of extreme wealth would then hope to lead from the front in the attraction of the necessary investment. On this basis the actual capacity becomes of relatively less significance.
 
mrb85 said:
If the capacity is only going to be 52,000 then the number of corporates/hospitality seats will have to be lower than the 5,000 that appears to have been in the original scoping -- and therein is the predicament.
What doesn't appear to have been fed into the decision over capacity is the 'new stadium effect' which has occurred at all new grounds and at all levels of football. Leicester City is one such example. In their last season at Filbert St the average gate was around 19,500, a fairly typical average for them. Since moving they have never had a single league gate below 20,000 and the initial uplift was of the order of 20%, a figure matched at many new grounds elsewhere. So even factoring in something like a 15% uplift at BM on the non-corporate/hospitality capacity at GP takes the absolute minimum new capacity requirement to around 45,000. The corporate capacity then takes it 50,000. And that's before allowing for the current excess demand for tickets -- even with a team that has won nothing in 23 years!
There is a view that the lower than expected capacity is a consequence of access and transport issues. But if so then that's been a somewhat belated realisation and so is surely an unlikely explanation.
I prefer one alternative explanation, the one in which the current controllers of Everton Football Club are seeing the new stadium primarily as a catalyst and a massive investment opportunity for the development of the whole north area, a development in which Moshiri, Usmanov, and other associates of extreme wealth would then hope to lead from the front in the attraction of the necessary investment. On this basis the actual capacity becomes of relatively less significance.
Click to expand...

100% agree it had to be 55k at the minimum imo.
 
gorgeousgeorgeEFC said:
Sunderland's attendance yesterday was over 46,000.... and they're in League One.

You can't tell me we couldn't regularly fill a 60,000 stadium in the Premier League.
View attachment 52340
Click to expand...
Good on them, that’s wonderful!

They also averaged 27k last season, whilst I’d like to see any other fans from another Premier League club be able to produce similar attendance figures considering the position the club was in.

However that attendance from yesterday was just the one game, it’s not even remotely comparable.
 
RobSpurs said:
No! That's exactly the situation you're trying to move away from! Clubs like Liverpool/Arsenal/Utd have a much more healthy split between TV and matchday and that's partly what gives them a huge competitive edge because it's a differentiator from other clubs in the league.

Relying on TV money means the likes of Bournemtouth/Cardiff/Huddersfield get richer at the same rate as you. Building a stadium that brings in an extra - say - £50m a year though....that's where you can gain a competitive advantage, push up towards the richer clubs and create a gap to the others. And the thing is you've got the fanbase to do that, it just needs to be maximised. Of course, corporate will come into that as well.

I hope from your pov the proposed design makes the expansion up to 62k is easy and cheap enough to do.
Click to expand...

The £50m a year would be prior to paying back whatever loan right?
So, £20-£25m a year meaning realistically £25-£30m a year until the loan is paid back?

The second bit about expansion isn't so straight forward I would think.
Just trying to think of recent stadiums built in that way where they have gone on to expand.

Surely even filling in corners (if that's what the design looked like) or adding an extra tier would still be a huge cost if you're doing it retrospectively?
Added to that there's potential loss of matchday income if you're having to close off parts of the ground while you expand etc.
Isn't there also additional cost associated with transport infrastructure once you go over a certain capacity?

Just think it would be better to go big in the first place e.g. 55-60k. Do it once and do it properly.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top