New Everton Stadium

[marty mcfly]

Er. If there is a flood of property developments onto the market that decreases property prices.

That reduces profits or the likelihood of profit from those developments and increases the risk of creditors investing in them. Therefore funding also dries up.

Basically it's a balancing act.

To make adequate development land available versus deflating the market so much it becomes not worthwhile.

Less tin hat. More real world economics.

The tin hat part is that the planning permission controlled by the government artificially keeps this price high intentionally rather than allow the market to operate freely.

 

[marty mcfly]

When I'm in a happy place, I can ignore the Club's average attendance record where we've achieved a 50,000 average on only a couple of occasions. In more sober mood, I wonder whether a thirty year debt period wouldn't include at least one severe recession hitting personal finances & therefore attendance. Or if with money poured in to the stadium would cripple wages and recruitment meaning a dip in form, and again hitting attendance.

You can see @the esk 's figures. If we had a deposit that comes down to around 11m a year but even if we say 17m-20m. The TV deal is going to go above 100m a year. It would hardly over-extend us. Besides once a stadium is built the chances of attracting a buyer who can wipe that debt increase.

 

[marty mcfly]

Well after the huge spend of a net 10m I hope that means we're building a stadium.

 

[bizzaro]

The tin hat part is that the planning permission controlled by the government artificially keeps this price high intentionally rather than allow the market to operate freely.

Planning is something else entirely and on the one part yes does contribute to higher land prices

but on the other stops people building totally inappropriate buildings in areas and ruining the local environment for everyone else.

things like building sheds in the back garden or splitting houses into two and doing stupid things to for example: house illegal immigrants in conditions that aren't fit for humans which is rife in London at the moment.

You have to have planning or building just turns into the wild west.

 

[marty mcfly]

Planning is something else entirely and on the one part yes does contribute to higher land prices

but on the other stops people building totally inappropriate buildings in areas and ruining the local environment for everyone else.

things like building sheds in the back garden or splitting houses into two and doing stupid things to for example: house illegal immigrants in conditions that aren't fit for humans which is rife in London at the moment.

You have to have planning or building just turns into the wild west.

Ruining the environment. That old chest nut. There's plenty of space.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

"The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales."

I'm not saying we shouldn't have planning permission what I'm saying is that it is used for the wrong reason and it depends on who you know. OK this is off topic so no need to continue.

 

[bizzaro]

Ruining the environment. That old chest nut. There's plenty of space.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

"The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales."

I'm not saying we shouldn't have planning permission what I'm saying is that it is used for the wrong reason. OK this is off topic so no need to continue.

Yes. Its only that way now because planning puts blocks in place to prevent urban sprawl ruining the environment!

 

[1966efc]

Looked at @the esk's figures & wouldn't dream of questioning them. Nor would I, for one second, question your desire to see Everton move on.

I'm basing what I say on two things: attendance figures over a very lengthy period offer no suggestion that an average attendance of 50,000 could be achieved but they do offer clear evidence of two things: in a period of economic stress, the numbers nosedive (big surprise, I know); and that when things get tough on the pitch, a number of supporters steer clear of the place.

So, is it likely that in a thirty year period the country would avoid at least one deep recession? What effect would a drop of four or five thousand have on our ability to pay the bills? And again, are we likely to avoid drops in form over that period?

As you say, it might be the case that a wealthy individual or consortium is permitted to take over but there's no guarantee. Do we base our forward strategy on a risky chance such as that, particularly given the above?

I can't see any objective reason why people would want to throw money at Everton's various problems. Hope I'm wrong but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[The Esk]

Looked at @the esk's figures & wouldn't dream of questioning them. Nor would I, for one second, question your desire to see Everton move on.

I'm basing what I say on two things: attendance figures over a very lengthy period offer no suggestion that an average attendance of 50,000 could be achieved but they do offer clear evidence of two things: in a period of economic stress, the numbers nosedive (big surprise, I know); and that when things get tough on the pitch, a number of supporters steer clear of the place.

So, is it likely that in a thirty year period the country would avoid at least one deep recession? What effect would a drop of four or five thousand have on our ability to pay the bills? And again, are we likely to avoid drops in form over that period?

As you say, it might be the case that a wealthy individual or consortium is permitted to take over but there's no guarantee. Do we base our forward strategy on a risky chance such as that, particularly given the above?

I can't see any objective reason why people would want to throw money at Everton's various problems. Hope I'm wrong but I'm not holding my breath.

I think you make excellent points which I agree with totally. My figures are based on an un-tested assumption that we could maintain average attendances of 50,000. Even if this was the case (including 2,000 new corporate clients each game) the revenue gains are marginal if the club relies heavily on debt.

My whole point is the stadium is only viable if there is investment in the form of equity into the club.

It is not viable through debt financing, something which I suspect the board will have to acknowledge at the point the council update us on the situation, if not before.

 

[The Esk]

You can see @the esk 's figures. If we had a deposit that comes down to around 11m a year but even if we say 17m-20m. The TV deal is going to go above 100m a year. It would hardly over-extend us. Besides once a stadium is built the chances of attracting a buyer who can wipe that debt increase.

That is blue sky thinking at its very best. We will need to use the TV revenue to fund squad development to remain competitive on the pitch. We do not have the capital in the business to build a stadium and remain competitive from a playing perspective. This has been our problem from day 1 of this Board's tenure. The increase in broadcasting revenues makes the problems greater not smaller.

 

[mrb85]

Looked at @the esk's figures & wouldn't dream of questioning them. Nor would I, for one second, question your desire to see Everton move on.

I'm basing what I say on two things: attendance figures over a very lengthy period offer no suggestion that an average attendance of 50,000 could be achieved but they do offer clear evidence of two things: in a period of economic stress, the numbers nosedive (big surprise, I know); and that when things get tough on the pitch, a number of supporters steer clear of the place.

So, is it likely that in a thirty year period the country would avoid at least one deep recession? What effect would a drop of four or five thousand have on our ability to pay the bills? And again, are we likely to avoid drops in form over that period?

As you say, it might be the case that a wealthy individual or consortium is permitted to take over but there's no guarantee. Do we base our forward strategy on a risky chance such as that, particularly given the above?

I can't see any objective reason why people would want to throw money at Everton's various problems. Hope I'm wrong but I'm not holding my breath.

Not too sure ours nosedived after the global crash of 2008.

 

[1966efc]

Not too sure ours nosedived after the global crash of 2008.

Held steady for a couple of years then dropped by three k.

 

[Azzurri]

We'd get higher attendances in a new stadium, I reckon. There's about 3,000 seats at Goodison where you can't see half the pitch. I think our attendances are affected by that.

 

[marty mcfly]

Looked at @the esk's figures & wouldn't dream of questioning them. Nor would I, for one second, question your desire to see Everton move on.

I'm basing what I say on two things: attendance figures over a very lengthy period offer no suggestion that an average attendance of 50,000 could be achieved but they do offer clear evidence of two things: in a period of economic stress, the numbers nosedive (big surprise, I know); and that when things get tough on the pitch, a number of supporters steer clear of the place.

So, is it likely that in a thirty year period the country would avoid at least one deep recession? What effect would a drop of four or five thousand have on our ability to pay the bills? And again, are we likely to avoid drops in form over that period?

As you say, it might be the case that a wealthy individual or consortium is permitted to take over but there's no guarantee. Do we base our forward strategy on a risky chance such as that, particularly given the above?

I can't see any objective reason why people would want to throw money at Everton's various problems. Hope I'm wrong but I'm not holding my breath.

You have to also remember that with inflation (especially football inflation if it continues) that 10m-20m a year will be chump change in 10 years.

Probably the amount of one unknown CB from Argentina

 

[marty mcfly]

That is blue sky thinking at its very best. We will need to use the TV revenue to fund squad development to remain competitive on the pitch. We do not have the capital in the business to build a stadium and remain competitive from a playing perspective. This has been our problem from day 1 of this Board's tenure. The increase in broadcasting revenues makes the problems greater not smaller.

We aren't competitive now and this window has shown us that. We are a top 8 team and would only risky dropping a few places.

If we don't increase our revenue potential revenue relative to the other clubs we will continue to drop further down the league as the other teams do exactly that either from investment or from new stadiums.

Obviously the best course of action would be to get new owners but the board are never going to sell so we should be putting pressure on them to build a stadium. At least then they would have to run a tight ship and have less opportunity to pay of Green and Earl though their dodgy dealings.

We have the capital. Our revenue has increased 50m a year in the last 4 years. Our costs certainly haven't as this window has shown again.

Assume you are the Everton board @the esk. If you didn't want to sell what would you do now and what outcome would that have?

 

[The Esk]

Assume you are the Everton board @the esk. If you didn't want to sell what would you do now and what outcome would that have?

I'd be asking my fellow directors to put their hands in their pockets (alongside me) or I'd be issuing new equity to new investors. Without investment the equity value will begin to fall as we continue to fall behind financially.