New Everton Stadium

[MickA]

Can you remember if they gave an idea of the extra cost for the bronze package? I think the bronze one could be interesting as long as the beer prices are not exhuberent too

Not sure mate but I think it was a good few hundred more than my current Top Balc ticket. That package looked the best for me just like GA but with comfort and less hassle.

 

[Pabbers]

It's not the main reason, the main reason is Goodison is dated. But it's a load of reasons. Increasing capacity just one but it provides more opportunities. Bigger match day income, opportunity to accommodate more supporters existing fan base and new fan base or tourists. More corporate spaces. Opportunities to hold big games such as European finals. Seems to be lost on a few of you that the 52k is a bit low. About the same as Newcastle.

Look at Juve, Milan, Inter. Many clubs are lookking at smaller capacity....its really not THAT important.

Those last few thousand seats mean nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

The only reason some are so obsessed with it, is the is whole my dad is bigger than you dad argument with fans...and want ours bigger than other clubs just for that arguement.

Newcastle's could be 70k....even 80k, it would not be able to bring in more commercial deals and massive names sponsorsips than our new ground.
What has the 55k get them so far !?!?!

 

[Saint Domingo]

RA pulled the plug when he fell out with Govt. It was rumoured that when Lampard did ok in his 1st season, he was interested in it again, but since then, nada.

Either way, it shows the point that they had wanted to do it. They’ll probably return to it at some point. City expanded the capacity of the Etihad when they weren’t even filling it every week.

I understand the point about the increase in the concourse facilities allows us to have a greater standing capacity, but it just seems odd that all the top 6 teams are saying ‘we need a 60k plus stadium’ whereas Everton are saying ‘we don’t’.

Like I said if the size of the site dictates the capacity thats fine, but if it’s just caution from the club it seems very very cautious.

 

[PhilM]

Just a quick response, that's not the point I was making. We will have to face an increase in ticket prices, I'm sure. But to have a balance so to keep a proportion of the ticket prices down, a bigger capacity/matchday attendance will generate more matchday income. To offset the lower prices. It will be harder to do this with 52k compared to say 60k.

Any comparison with any other club can have pros and cons. We can't compare to London clubs, we can't compare to Liverpool or United, for their world wide fan base, or City because of their recent success. To me they're all clubs that Everton should be seen as equal to but if the club and some fans think we're no longer a top club and can't compete at their level where we were not too long ago, then of course we'll settle for a less ambitious capacity.

Yes it will, but you would then have to offset the additional costs of building said extra seats, which are proportionality more expensive than those before them.

In the simplest terms, the club would spend on average more money per seat for said increase and that's likely to see a subsequent rise in overall prices.

It's not as simple as, 'Oh, there's more seats so there's more revenue' as that revenue would have to go back to pay off said debt - look at Arsenal for example.

If the extra eight thousand seats costs £50 million, a seat costing £40 per home game would take seven years to pay off and that's before debt servicing.

With the restrictions of the size of the site and the complexity of the design, an extra £50million cost has been put as a very, very conservative estimate.

Put simply, it would put up ticket prices for the average user and offer very little in return to the club financially; in fact, it's more likely to restrict our finances.

And in terms of ambition, I don't equate the size of a stadium as the only measure of comparison because there's a multitude of other factors included.

Shouldn't it be silverware? Success? We should be equivalent to or a bigger club than Spurs and Arsenal, but it's naive to not consider their advantages.

The average salary in Liverpool is £1,805 compared to nearly £3,000 in London; London has 357,200 millionaires with 25% of all tax income from LDN and SE.

Simply, the likelihood of filling a large capacity stadium is greater in London, and that's before looking at the uptake of the more profitable premium seats.

As I previously said, in an ideal world it would be great to have a larger capacity that we would regularly fill, but we do not live in an ideal world hence the realism.

 

[Kever10]

Absolutely. The site itself is a constraint. There is a link between amount of people and concourse/facility provision, concourse provision is more of a constraint than available seats. For example, at Goodison, with todays regulations, even if you stripped out every seat in the ground, you could not increase the capacity by a single person. BMD has been designed to hold a larger number of people than there is seats, the concourses and facilities can service more fans. This is not an accident, it is by design. People want the atmosphere of a Goodison Park under the lights, like it was against Fiorentina. What if, by reducing available seats, installing rail seating and gambling on a ratio of approximately 1.8 being allowed, they could deliver Bayern. I have used the example before, but with Spurs, they have maxed out on capacity by finding the balance between available concourse and available seats. If they installed rail seating in place of every seat, their capacity will remain the same, same at Anfield, same at Old Trafford. Ours can increase, we can be closer, more vocal, more intimidating that it is when all seated and get more people in, potentially increasing capacity to the 60k+ that the concourses have been designed for.

This.

Also, as a matter of interest, if the safe standing was at 1:1.8, that would mean that a standing section of 11,238 seats would result in an increase of 8990 new seats, or the magic 61,878.

Interesting

 

[roydo]

This.

Also, as a matter of interest, if the safe standing was at 1:1.8, that would mean that a standing section of 11,238 seats would result in an increase of 8990 new seats, or the magic 61,878.

Interesting

Where has this 1:1.8 ratio come from? I thought the rules say 1:1.

 

[Kever10]

Where has this 1:1.8 ratio come from? I thought the rules say 1:1.

Just what was mentioned earlier. That the 1:1 at spurs maybe down to the capacity of site location meaning any move to safe standing would not actually lead to any increase in capacity, whereas hypothetically, a smaller maximum seated capacity with extra site capacity could lead to a greater increase at still less than 1:2 people.

Maybe its all wrong in which case it would be irrelevant, but thought it was interesting nonetheless.

 

[PaddyJames]

Look at Juve, Milan, Inter. Many clubs are lookking at smaller capacity....its really not THAT important.

Those last few thousand seats mean nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

The only reason some are so obsessed with it, is the is whole my dad is bigger than you dad argument with fans...and want ours bigger than other clubs just for that arguement.

Newcastle's could be 70k....even 80k, it would not be able to bring in more commercial deals and massive names sponsorsips than our new ground.
What has the 55k get them so far !?!?!

This. Vast stadiums don't mean zip. The atmosphere at wembley is rubbish even when full. Thats why Goodison frightens players. Juve got it right. The stadio delle alpi whatever it was called was soulless. Now their ground a thunderdome. Well not now because covid etc but you get my point.

 

[roydo]

Just what was mentioned earlier. That the 1:1 at spurs maybe down to the capacity of site location meaning any move to safe standing would not actually lead to any increase in capacity, whereas hypothetically, a smaller maximum seated capacity with extra site capacity could lead to a greater increase at still less than 1:2 people.

Maybe its all wrong in which case it would be irrelevant, but thought it was interesting nonetheless.

Gotcha. Ta.

 

[The binman chronicles]

I dont think it does, the lack of "gifting" in modern corporate means you dont have institutions buying them the way you would have in years gone by, the trend seems to be moving towards "Premium" seating (ie a middle tier), with comfy seats

Oh I agree, I think it's done. Companies are very bribe adverse nowadays and want to look whiter than white. But things tend to come around in fashion again if you wait long enough. I think the number we have is spot on and like I said very easy to retro fit at a later date, so no point spending money kitting these out and then not selling them.

is there a case that newer builds are now factoring safe standing at greater than 1:1 also? Comparing to new grounds built specifically for seating or 1:1 only may not be as valid as we think. Our build is 52,888 but by opening it could easily be 58k without changing anything.

It could be but then new WHL will be pushing 70k and although @Jacko93 is right that others in older grounds should in theory stay the 1 to 1 it won't take long to extend the size of the exits and concourses if they can ram more people in...which leads to:

Look at Juve, Milan, Inter. Many clubs are lookking at smaller capacity....its really not THAT important.

Those last few thousand seats mean nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

The only reason some are so obsessed with it, is the is whole my dad is bigger than you dad argument with fans...and want ours bigger than other clubs just for that arguement.

Newcastle's could be 70k....even 80k, it would not be able to bring in more commercial deals and massive names sponsorsips than our new ground.
What has the 55k get them so far !?!?!

When Newcastle first extended SJP they were doing well, that was in part due to the larger income generated from a bigger crowd. Yes with the TV rights bonanza it's not as important as it once was, but who knows when that dissappears and match day income becomes the primary source again. If we are already charging less and then have less supporters in it will make a difference if you haven’t got a benefactor to make up the difference.

I remember writing a long time ago in this thread we could have put a second tier on the park end for roughly 2 million. Someone decided we were never going to fill it or it was too big of an investment, seeing the PE is the one that is mostly filled and has the most expensive tickets we've lot a minimum of 75 million over the years.

That is income to pay down debt, maybe move to king's dock, buy better players and so on. Think small, don't be surprised when over clubs start overtaking you.

Re the first point, Italian clubs have dwindling capacities due to fans not wanting to go anymore for a variety of reasons. We have a growing waiting list and all our direct rivals are building bigger. It's not the same.

 

[ste d' indica]

Must be the most Marmite ground I have ever seen that one.

I liked it, think I was in the minority though.

 

[OneTrueLegend]

Just read online that the club now have to apply for a licence to begin work in a marine environment, because the Dock is being filled in, application being granted is subject to a 28 day consultation period. It seems mad to me that you can get planning permission and there are still more hoops to jump through before you can start

Everton take important next step towards beginning stadium work

Everton have taken the next step in their bid to start the first tranche at Bramley-Moore Dock following on from big news on the new stadium from to finish last week

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

 

[roydo]

I liked it, think I was in the minority though.

I am still not sure! It was very impressive, thats for sure, but it wasnt a "beautiful" stadium, not in my eyes anyrate.

BMD looks beautiful to me. Would say the same whoever it was built for.

 

[number4.]

This. Vast stadiums don't mean zip. The atmosphere at wembley is rubbish even when full. Thats why Goodison frightens players. Juve got it right. The stadio delle alpi whatever it was called was soulless. Now their ground a thunderdome. Well not now because covid etc but you get my point.

Look at Juve, Milan, Inter. Many clubs are lookking at smaller capacity....its really not THAT important.

Those last few thousand seats mean nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

The only reason some are so obsessed with it, is the is whole my dad is bigger than you dad argument with fans...and want ours bigger than other clubs just for that arguement.

Newcastle's could be 70k....even 80k, it would not be able to bring in more commercial deals and massive names sponsorsips than our new ground.
What has the 55k get them so far !?!?!

This is spot on, there is a post in here about a 1000 pages ago, that showed the estimated cost of incremental seats about 50000 and so on.

In short the last seat is the most expensive & a 66,000 seat stadium would be way more than 10% more expensive than a 60,000 and so on. When you think about it, it makes sense, more cement, more steel and so on.

The sweet spot for a new stadium is not the maximum it might fill twice a year, I suspect you would get 70k for a derby etc; but the optimum amount of % occupancy all the time, it is better to sell out and have 1000 people disappointed, than the flip of 20000 extra seats, with 19000 empty

 

[catcherintherye]

This is spot on, there is a post in here about a 1000 pages ago, that showed the estimated cost of incremental seats about 50000 and so on.

In short the last seat is the most expensive & a 66,000 seat stadium would be way more than 10% more expensive than a 60,000 and so on. When you think about it, it makes sense, more cement, more steel and so on.

The sweet spot for a new stadium is not the maximum it might fill twice a year, I suspect you would get 70k for a derby etc; but the optimum amount of % occupancy all the time, it is better to sell out and have 1000 people disappointed, than the flip of 20000 extra seats, with 19000 empty

I did some analysis a couple of years back, looked at varuious different trends, and to be honest we show pretty strong evidence that we could sell out 60k fairly consistently, without even an uplift of greater success.

We have sold out 40k every week for years.

However, if they are looking to ush the price point up, which they could be, it makes sense. Yoy have demnad for 60-65k for example, and then fit that into 52/53k. It allows you to push prices up say 30% quite easily.