New Everton Stadium

[Frang]

But isn't that sensible? Its thinking long term

not at all.. its just small time thinking from the get go.

thing is, if we had never seen the initial big renders , it wouldn't be such an issue. but weve seen how scaled back this new design really is, and it doesn't look good on the clubs owners... shows a complete lack of ambition

 

[4737carlin]

not at all.. its just small time thinking from the get go.

thing is, if we had never seen the initial big renders , it wouldn't be such an issue. but weve seen how scaled back this new design really is, and it doesn't look good on the clubs owners... shows a complete lack of ambition

Thing is this isnt scaled back, this is the design and capacity, but in future we can make it bigger, but we have to get there first. Better then doing a ground which is awkward to add onto later on.

 

[RobSpurs]

Leaves me wondering:
Is the site big enough?
How can the capacity go up to 62k as suggested? (which won't be through safe standing)
Why the side stands are not bigger, taller, more tiers?

Two of Meis previous stadiums Paul Brown and Lincoln Financial Field have much taller side stands. I don't know why ours doesn't. The roof would be higher of course. Is the overall capacity and height restricted due to satisfying UNESCO...

If there are physical limitations I doubt it'd be the height that's the problem. After all, isn't the plan to build a load of high-rise residential and commercial towers in the rest of the dock's regeneration zone?

My guess is the North-South scope of the site is just that bit too small for the ideal footprint for a 60k stadium, and maybe the stands can't extend back far enough without badly compromising other aspects. It's always looked tight when imposing other stadiums on top of aerial views. Maybe that's also convenient from a budget pov?

That does leave a bit of a question why the original drafts showed bigger stands. But the bigger stands were the East and West ones weren't they, not the N/S? The originally shown images had a decent sized south stand, big E&W stands and a tiny north stand. The new images show the south stand a bit smaller, the north stand a fair amount bigger and shrunken E&W stands. It's like they've equalised the whole thing so it's more uniform all the way round? So maybe capacity hasn't changed much between the original images and the new ones, it's just things have been moved around a bit?

 

[Pudsey]

Wasn't the steer to 52k from the club itself after a review of probable season ticket uptake, likely corporate interest and walk up sales. I'm sure I read that somewhere. Mind you I'm in the category of being wary until there is any sign of us responsibly financing the build, even though it is vital for our future and would help boost the area and encourage/aid further development by obscuring one blight.

There's too much blind desire to be bigger than Anfield or even Old Trafford on here. A new stadium is NEEDED as Goodison was unfit for purpose years ago and is a laughing stock compared with the Pit, OT or the Etihad. Bramley Moore capacity in the orientation shown will be future limited on three sides, so be glad we are making the most of the only riverside option we are likely to have.

Essay over, time for a scoop.

 

[Slippin Jimmy]

I think the original St Lukes were comparable with NWHL. This is all I could find. So why is it scaled back?

View attachment 65474

Was you getting a blow job of some slap head when you took that snap mate???

 

[Johnnytotal]

Was you getting a blow job of some slap head when you took that snap mate???

lol

 

[LEONARD]

Was you getting a blow job of some slap head when you took that snap mate???

It's a Giant Malteser I think, and not Dion Dublin as some childish people would suggest.

 

[GwladysBlue]

Do we really want a new stadium which is over 8,000 seats smaller than Anfield?

 

[Ebbo]

Do we really want a new stadium which is over 8,000 seats smaller than Anfield?

does it really matter? this constant penis comparison stuff gets tedious. All i care about is results on the pitch, as that is what football is about.

 

[Pudsey]

If you're one of the "gotta be bigger than Anfield" willy wavers then look for a site other than Bramley Moor. A new stadium is vital but bigger than the Pit is not an essential.

 

[GwladysBlue]

does it really matter? this constant penis comparison stuff gets tedious. All i care about is results on the pitch, as that is what football is about.

Yes it matters.

Liverpool - Planning their second expansion in three years.

Man Utd - Expanded Old Trafford numerous times.

Man City - Expanded Etihad, with another one in the pipeline.

Arsenal - new stadium

Tottenham - new stadium

What have they all got in common, despite being the leading clubs in the country, is that they've all aimed for over 60k stadiums.

So yes, it clearly does matter a great deal. If it didn't matter, why would these clubs bother going through the expense?

We have to make our potential stadium bigger.

 

[jayonenote]

does it really matter? this constant penis comparison stuff gets tedious. All i care about is results on the pitch, as that is what football is about.

Well yes..together with a stadium that invites an intimidating atmosphere towards opposing teams...I think if a few more thousand seats were found ( 55/56000 for example) then that would be a decent compromise

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

Yes it matters.

Liverpool - Planning their second expansion in three years.

Man Utd - Expanded Old Trafford numerous times.

Man City - Expanded Etihad, with another one in the pipeline.

Arsenal - new stadium

Tottenham - new stadium

What have they all got in common, despite being the leading clubs in the country, is that they've all aimed for over 60k stadiums.

So yes, it clearly does matter a great deal. If it didn't matter, why would these clubs bother going through the expense?

We have to make our potential stadium bigger.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Those clubs were all investing in their stadium after relative periods of success.

There's no sense spending money on seats that will never be filled or won't be filled for years.

 

[Ebbo]

What they all have in common, is success on the pitch! Trophies, titles, champions league football year after year. This drives supporters, overseas fans, sponsorship, investment.
We have none of that because we are mid table. Taking our team, and plonking it in a 75k stadium is not going to bring us instant success. If anything, it will have the reverse, as the debt payments on a half full stadium will cripple our transfer kitty.

Why can some people not see the bigger picture, and just fixate on one number? You really think the club hasn't factored all this stuff in and arrived at the best option? We won't fill 62k regularly (probably only 2 or 3 times in a season!), and we won't sell huge volumes of corporate boxes, simply because we aren't as successful and sexy as the established top 6!

 

[GwladysBlue]

You're putting the cart before the horse. Those clubs were all investing in their stadium after relative periods of success.

There's no sense spending money on seats that will never be filled or won't be filled for years.

The case is there for 60,000. At the very minimum we should be aiming for 55,000. Even Kenwright, as treacherous as he is, said the minimum an Everton stadium should be is 55,000.