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


IllinoisBlue said:
Sad but probably true
Click to expand...

A few clubs have got knock off versions of lego stadiums, so maybe there's some hope yet:

Screenshot_20200214-223733_Chrome.webp


Or you can just buy a load of standard lego and build a home made version like this lid:

Screenshot_20200214-223404_Chrome.webp
 
Catfish Blues said:
I know your discussion relates to converting stands rather than BMD, but, given the thread's about a new stadium, it's worth pointing out that the club's images have shown a row depth of 750mm for the areas pencilled in for rail seating.

Ferco's rail seats ( just as an example ), have a depth of 50mm when not in use, which suggests that someone involved in the project has done their homework


layou8-1024x578.png


railseatdims.png
Click to expand...

Yes, this was questioned at the consultation. The legislation is in its infancy and as such is a bit of a work in progress. However, it was pointed out that the current green guide made 750mm (700mm clearway) an absolute minimum, and at that depth the envisaged maximum future capacity increase potential of just 50% (53%). This will be subject to further experimentation in use, but at that ratio it would require 16,000 convertible rail seats if the 60k capacity is ever to be realised, ie 36k seats and 24k standing (in standing mode). It was pointed out that the areas earmarked so far for standing don't appear to add up to that number, plus it was questioned if we would ever want that ratio of seats to standing in anycase (ie less seats than we have now).... with almost 1/3rd of those seats being the less comfortable straight-backed type in seated mode (for European games). Could this all be averted by adopting a wider tread than the absolute minimum to hopefully increase that capacity ratio? Or do we assume that 60k was never really on the cards?
 
Tom Hughes said:
Yes, this was questioned at the consultation. The legislation is in its infancy and as such is a bit of a work in progress. However, it was pointed out that the current green guide made 750mm (700mm clearway) an absolute minimum, and at that depth the envisaged maximum future capacity increase potential of just 50% (53%). This will be subject to further experimentation in use, but at that ratio it would require 16,000 convertible rail seats if the 60k capacity is ever to be realised, ie 36k seats and 24k standing (in standing mode). It was pointed out that the areas earmarked so far for standing don't appear to add up to that number, plus it was questioned if we would ever want that ratio of seats to standing in anycase (ie less seats than we have now).... with almost 1/3rd of those seats being the less comfortable straight-backed type in seated mode (for European games). Could this all be averted by adopting a wider tread than the absolute minimum to hopefully increase that capacity ratio? Or do we assume that 60k was never really on the cards?
Click to expand...
Tom Hughes said:
Yes, this was questioned at the consultation. The legislation is in its infancy and as such is a bit of a work in progress. However, it was pointed out that the current green guide made 750mm (700mm clearway) an absolute minimum, and at that depth the envisaged maximum future capacity increase potential of just 50% (53%). This will be subject to further experimentation in use, but at that ratio it would require 16,000 convertible rail seats if the 60k capacity is ever to be realised, ie 36k seats and 24k standing (in standing mode). It was pointed out that the areas earmarked so far for standing don't appear to add up to that number, plus it was questioned if we would ever want that ratio of seats to standing in anycase (ie less seats than we have now).... with almost 1/3rd of those seats being the less comfortable straight-backed type in seated mode (for European games). Could this all be averted by adopting a wider tread than the absolute minimum to hopefully increase that capacity ratio? Or do we assume that 60k was never really on the cards?
Click to expand...
The latter. Purely a pacifier when the outrageously low 52,000 capacity was announced.
 
I cant wait until this gets started, really think it will be the envy of alot of PL supporters, even if they dont admit it!

Right now I think 52-55k is right for where we are at. Now if Ancelotti comes in and does the business then in 4 years when it is expected to be completed I think we would need 60K plus.

All ifs and buts, but something I hope the club has thought about and not pinned all their hopes on safe standing because all the other PL clubs will be increasing their capacity in the same way by the same percentage.
 

Brisan123 said:
It’s like putting a carbuncle on top of a boil on the backside of Liverpool City
No one really cares
BMD is a totally different story
Click to expand...
Whilst I am inclined to agree with you that will be the second stand redevelopment. If they do find a way of completing all 4 to the same spec the end result will be decent and huge combined with them being able to remain at their spiritual home. The docks certainly has huge potential but I don’t suspect Liverpool fans would have swapped leaving a redeveloped Anfield for a new stadium on the docks if it was put to a vote. A location change like this suites us more.
 
I am guessing safe standing gives us an extra 4/5 thousand seats. That brings us to 56/57 thousand. Personally, I think that is perfect. Take 8,000 seats out and gain the extra 4,000. I think it will happen within a few years of moving there. I'm confident this has been factored into the concourse space and exits etc.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register
Back
Top