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

Disgruntledgoat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fair view. I would still argue 52k is too low or underestimating the support.

I've always said if Goodison was 52,000 NOW we'd fill it. The demand i'm sure is there for 52k. This is Goodison remember. This is sold out last few seasons when we've been pretty average to say the least.

Move to BMD with all mod cons and a waterfront location, tourists and success (here's hoping).. Is 52k enough?

There is no size envy as Meis said it's just getting to the level of the other teams that we want to emulate.
 
Ebbo said:
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!
Click to expand...

whilst i get point about success, spurs are not successful
 
where is the case for 60k? are you referring to those amateur calculations from the Esk?

The club will have done numerous surveys to fans, public, companies around demand and ticket uptake. Based on their ACTUAL INFORMATION they have arrived at 52k (albeit still under consultation).
Us fans have no clue whatsoever about demand and what capacity we can fill. We are purely guessing.

Most companies in the area will already have boxes at Anfield. They aren't going to ditch those and come running to Bramley more as they want to impress clients. If you were an exec at a major company, would you take clients to Liverpool, with their exciting play and international success, or to Mid table Everton? These are the kind of things you need to consider. It's sustained success on the pitch that allows the bigger clubs to fill their stadiums.
 
Davideeyore said:
Fair view. I would still argue 52k is too low or underestimating the support.

I've always said if Goodison was 52,000 NOW we'd fill it. The demand i'm sure is there for 52k. This is Goodison remember. This is sold out last few seasons when we've been pretty average to say the least.

Move to BMD with all mod cons and a waterfront location, tourists and success (here's hoping).. Is 52k enough?

There is no size envy as Meis said it's just getting to the level of the other teams that we want to emulate.
Click to expand...


Maybe the public consultation will lead to changes to the design.. but I'm quite sure the club haven't just arrived at 52,000 off the top of their collective head. There'll be some reasoning behind that number.

BMD in it's existing form is in creasing the capacity by a full third. That;s already a massive increase.
 

GwladysPhil said:
That 3 tiered stand looked much more intimidating
Click to expand...

The home end on the original release looked the nuts.

RobSpurs said:
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?
Click to expand...

The original was the full fat 60k version, I don't think the north stand's size has changed it just looks bigger because the rest has been taken down and the upper tier can then follow around the E/W making it more uniformed.

I would hazard a guess it is all for budget reasons. Interestingly enough though you can see under the clear section of the roof that there appears to be space to add the rows that were there originally. Whether the angle allows you to see the other side of the pitch without raising the roof I don't know. If you looked straight you would just see a load of trusses.
 
Without being an engineer or architect, my clear understanding is that the most expensive seat in any stadium, is the last one. ie: it costs much more per seat the bigger a stadium gets and this cost gets higher and higher as planned capacity grows from anything above a 35-40k stadium. With this in mind, the right thing to do is drop the capacity ego's and get the right stadium for Everton, nailing the sweetspot of construction cost per seat V's % likelihood to be full on Matchday.

a 52000 seater stadium with an average attendance of 51,500 and a few 1000 disspointed 2/3 times per season is far more economically viable that a 62,000 seater stadium with and average attendance of 54,000 with higher construction per seat costs, especially for the 9,000 extra seats.
 

The binman chronicles said:
The home end on the original release looked the nuts.



The original was the full fat 60k version, I don't think the north stand's size has changed it just looks bigger because the rest has been taken down and the upper tier can then follow around the E/W making it more uniformed.

I would hazard a guess it is all for budget reasons. Interestingly enough though you can see under the clear section of the roof that there appears to be space to add the rows that were there originally. Whether the angle allows you to see the other side of the pitch without raising the roof I don't know. If you looked straight you would just see a load of trusses.
Click to expand...

Spot on it was the full fat 60k version. We can all help with the survey to get it back to that level.

Even Richard Kenyon says "we want to hear positive feedback, we want to hear things that people think could be added to".

It sounds obvious but I think the club want us as fans to push the proposals on. If we don't say anything they will give us what we have seen and that's that.
 
sharkey1001 said:
The price difference in a 52k to a 60+K all-seater stadium is substantial according to Meis.

However safe standing is coming - if that increased capacity to 62k within the existing budget then we are laughing! Better atmosphere, more people (safely) packed in. Win Win
Click to expand...
Except that the likelihood of safe standing, if approved, being anything other than 1:1 is highly doubtful.
Therefore if BMD is built to 52,000 it's highly likely to stay at 52,000.
 
sharkey1001 said:
The price difference in a 52k to a 60+K all-seater stadium is substantial according to Meis.

However safe standing is coming - if that increased capacity to 62k within the existing budget then we are laughing! Better atmosphere, more people (safely) packed in. Win Win
Click to expand...
Meis also said in his presentations at St.Lukes 18 months ago that he personally favoured 52,000 as the final capacity, while also admitting that the BMD site could be built to 60,000 if the club were willing to finance it.
 
sharkey1001 said:
The price difference in a 52k to a 60+K all-seater stadium is substantial according to Meis.

However safe standing is coming - if that increased capacity to 62k within the existing budget then we are laughing! Better atmosphere, more people (safely) packed in. Win Win
Click to expand...

The UK and the spacing for each row will not allow us to have 62K seats.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top