New Everton Stadium

[LazarusMoon]

until there's actual news

 

[deipnosophist]

Interestingly, BMD will be our new football gaff...and a gaff is also a a stick with a hook or barbed spear, used for landing large fish.

...so all the piscatological references/puns are quite apt

 

[deipnosophist]

gaff should not be confused with gaffe: the latter is a blunder, a mistake. It is something at which Everton is very proficient.

 

[Mrtallywacker]

i need some time to work on my line buddy.

Please don't snort it all at once my son.

God bless.

 

[Jimishorts]

He would be a huge hit in the Lisbon on country and western night

Make sure you post a picture of yourself there when you visit, so we can all be happy for you

 

[CrustySack]

Interesting video, albeit not entirely accurate.

 

[cooperman]

Interesting video, albeit not entirely accurate.

Most of that top tier has a worse view than we currently have

 

[arch stanton]

Most of that top tier has a worse view than we currently have

that'll be a bonus

 

[Tom Hughes]

Why do some people still persist with Kenwright's mistruths from the time of the destination kirkby debacle? These have all long since been disproven.

Redevelopment of GP is entirely possible.... in fact for £600m you could probably redevelop it and half of Walton, but you wouldnt need to spend anywhere near that amount to match (or even surpass) BMD's capacity, as proven by several costed expansions elsewhere. Yes, some small footprint expansion would be required to get up to 53k capacity, but this needn't be too extensive or costly, especially given that the houses on Muriel and Diana St (off Bullens Rd) are literally the cheapest to be found outside any stadium in the country, and when just bridging the current road could readily yield a good capacity uplift on that side.

As regards knocking down people's houses, people seem to forget that we knocked over 100 houses down at the Park end (1990s) and Gwladys st (1930s) combined.... and I don't remember any furore or fuss whatsoever when the Park end's houses were demolished. Most people accepted that it was simply an expansion of one of the world's most historic stadiums. Indeed if the current homeowners and landlords were offered just £100k per house, they'd probably be only too happy to grab the opportunity, and would not thank you for faux moralising on their behalf. So 20 houses would only mean an outlay of just £2m, 40 houses just £4m etc. We're currently looking at well over £100m outlay to acquire and prep the BMD site before building anything.... so even a major footprint expansion at GP would be chicken feed by comparison.

The school is already earmarked for a long overdue redevelopment and there would be joint venture enabling opportunities there, so again hardly a great difficulty compared to some of the very expensive obstacles at BMD.

Replacing the upper Bullens and upper Gwladys St will get rid of all obstructed views on those sides, and there is a great opportunity to add capacity on one or both of those stands, especially if the lower tiers are converted to safe standing either fully or partially. The Park end could be expanded backwards to be considerably larger than the south stand in the BMD proposals, which after all is literally only a few rows deeper than the current number at the Gwladys St (upper+lower), and hardly the vast new home end Spurs have built. The Parkend could be as big as any end stand in the country, as the space is there, and ours already.

So, let's drop the "it can't be done" mantra.... several architects and many other clubs have shown otherwise.

Before the usual culprits get on their high horses.... I should say I'm as excited as most about BMD, but don't see the need to support it with these long outdated and false assertions regarding GP.... I also still have some slight reservations and concerns regarding the BMD plans to date:

We still don't know how it will be funded, and/or if we will be left with massive long term debt that might cut deeply into any benefit. As far as we have been shown there doesn't appear to be any enabling uplift to go towards those costs, that would often be a major motivator and financial lever for any stadium move. The transport plan is at best rudimentary with no major supporting infrastructure costed at a site that currently has no public transport services. The cost of £5-600m is roughly double that of MEIS design for Roma which was roughly the same capacity, and if anything more complex (above ground), and roughly £100-200m more than the Feyenoord stadium which is also bigger, more complex and has a closing roof. So yes, the videos are quite impressive and I'm even currently looking at apartments in Stanley Dock.... but not yet 100% convinced about every aspect.

 

[Eggsyblueskin]

Why do some people still persist with Kenwright's mistruths from the time of the destination kirkby debacle? These have all long since been disproven.

Redevelopment of GP is entirely possible.... in fact for £600m you could probably redevelop it and half of Walton, but you wouldnt need to spend anywhere near that amount to match (or even surpass) BMD's capacity, as proven by several costed expansions elsewhere. Yes, some small footprint expansion would be required to get up to 53k capacity, but this needn't be too extensive or costly, especially given that the houses on Muriel and Diana St (off Bullens Rd) are literally the cheapest to be found outside any stadium in the country, and when just bridging the current road could readily yield a good capacity uplift on that side.

As regards knocking down people's houses, people seem to forget that we knocked over 100 houses down at the Park end (1990s) and Gwladys st (1930s) combined.... and I don't remember any furore or fuss whatsoever when the Park end's houses were demolished. Most people accepted that it was simply an expansion of one of the world's most historic stadiums. Indeed if the current homeowners and landlords were offered just £100k per house, they'd probably be only too happy to grab the opportunity, and would not thank you for faux moralising on their behalf. So 20 houses would only mean an outlay of just £2m, 40 houses just £4m etc. We're currently looking at well over £100m outlay to acquire and prep the BMD site before building anything.... so even a major footprint expansion at GP would be chicken feed by comparison.

The school is already earmarked for a long overdue redevelopment and there would be joint venture enabling opportunities there, so again hardly a great difficulty compared to some of the very expensive obstacles at BMD.

Replacing the upper Bullens and upper Gwladys St will get rid of all obstructed views on those sides, and there is a great opportunity to add capacity on one or both of those stands, especially if the lower tiers are converted to safe standing either fully or partially. The Park end could be expanded backwards to be considerably larger than the south stand in the BMD proposals, which after all is literally only a few rows deeper than the current number at the Gwladys St (upper+lower), and hardly the vast new home end Spurs have built. The Parkend could be as big as any end stand in the country, as the space is there, and ours already.

So, let's drop the "it can't be done" mantra.... several architects and many other clubs have shown otherwise.

Before the usual culprits get on their high horses.... I should say I'm as excited as most about BMD, but don't see the need to support it with these long outdated and false assertions regarding GP.... I also still have some slight reservations and concerns regarding the BMD plans to date:

We still don't know how it will be funded, and/or if we will be left with massive long term debt that might cut deeply into any benefit. As far as we have been shown there doesn't appear to be any enabling uplift to go towards those costs, that would often be a major motivator and financial lever for any stadium move. The transport plan is at best rudimentary with no major supporting infrastructure costed at a site that currently has no public transport services. The cost of £5-600m is roughly double that of MEIS design for Roma which was roughly the same capacity, and if anything more complex (above ground), and roughly £100-200m more than the Feyenoord stadium which is also bigger, more complex and has a closing roof. So yes, the videos are quite impressive and I'm even currently looking at apartments in Stanley Dock.... but not yet 100% convinced about every aspect.

I think the ambition is to have a stadium which also functions as a venue outside of football thereby generating extra income.
In that context Goodison is less then ideal being embedded in a densely populated urban area and also in direct competition with Anfield without the kudos that place has thanks to our neighbours success.
Bramley Moore has a far more impressive waterfront location.

 

[Exeter_Gently]

Why do some people still persist with Kenwright's mistruths from the time of the destination kirkby debacle? These have all long since been disproven.

Redevelopment of GP is entirely possible.... in fact for £600m you could probably redevelop it and half of Walton, but you wouldnt need to spend anywhere near that amount to match (or even surpass) BMD's capacity, as proven by several costed expansions elsewhere. Yes, some small footprint expansion would be required to get up to 53k capacity, but this needn't be too extensive or costly, especially given that the houses on Muriel and Diana St (off Bullens Rd) are literally the cheapest to be found outside any stadium in the country, and when just bridging the current road could readily yield a good capacity uplift on that side.

As regards knocking down people's houses, people seem to forget that we knocked over 100 houses down at the Park end (1990s) and Gwladys st (1930s) combined.... and I don't remember any furore or fuss whatsoever when the Park end's houses were demolished. Most people accepted that it was simply an expansion of one of the world's most historic stadiums. Indeed if the current homeowners and landlords were offered just £100k per house, they'd probably be only too happy to grab the opportunity, and would not thank you for faux moralising on their behalf. So 20 houses would only mean an outlay of just £2m, 40 houses just £4m etc. We're currently looking at well over £100m outlay to acquire and prep the BMD site before building anything.... so even a major footprint expansion at GP would be chicken feed by comparison.

The school is already earmarked for a long overdue redevelopment and there would be joint venture enabling opportunities there, so again hardly a great difficulty compared to some of the very expensive obstacles at BMD.

Replacing the upper Bullens and upper Gwladys St will get rid of all obstructed views on those sides, and there is a great opportunity to add capacity on one or both of those stands, especially if the lower tiers are converted to safe standing either fully or partially. The Park end could be expanded backwards to be considerably larger than the south stand in the BMD proposals, which after all is literally only a few rows deeper than the current number at the Gwladys St (upper+lower), and hardly the vast new home end Spurs have built. The Parkend could be as big as any end stand in the country, as the space is there, and ours already.

So, let's drop the "it can't be done" mantra.... several architects and many other clubs have shown otherwise.

Before the usual culprits get on their high horses.... I should say I'm as excited as most about BMD, but don't see the need to support it with these long outdated and false assertions regarding GP.... I also still have some slight reservations and concerns regarding the BMD plans to date:

We still don't know how it will be funded, and/or if we will be left with massive long term debt that might cut deeply into any benefit. As far as we have been shown there doesn't appear to be any enabling uplift to go towards those costs, that would often be a major motivator and financial lever for any stadium move. The transport plan is at best rudimentary with no major supporting infrastructure costed at a site that currently has no public transport services. The cost of £5-600m is roughly double that of MEIS design for Roma which was roughly the same capacity, and if anything more complex (above ground), and roughly £100-200m more than the Feyenoord stadium which is also bigger, more complex and has a closing roof. So yes, the videos are quite impressive and I'm even currently looking at apartments in Stanley Dock.... but not yet 100% convinced about every aspect.

You're about 3 years to late with post unfortunately.

 

[BNJ1878]

I think the ambition is to have a stadium which also functions as a venue outside of football thereby generating extra income.
In that context Goodison is less then ideal being embedded in a densely populated urban area and also in direct competition with Anfield without the kudos that place has thanks to our neighbours success.
Bramley Moore has a far more impressive waterfront location.

Hard to argue with that.

You're about 3 years to late with post unfortunately.

To be fair to Tom he's been heavily involved with redevelopment plans for longer than a fair few posters here have been going to the game.

Various plans, timelines for staged build and solutions where presented and dismissed. A tonne of work went into the proposals only to be shot down with hardly a second glance from the club and a few prominent fans happy to be the clubs mouthpiece for an invite to the directors box twice a season.

That being said I still think BM trumps a redeveloped Goodison. Back when the proposals were first presented they should have been properly considered rather than tossed aside.

Oh well.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Hard to argue with that.

To be fair to Tom he's been heavily involved with redevelopment plans for longer than a fair few posters here have been going to the game.

Various plans, timelines for staged build and solutions where presented and dismissed. A tonne of work went into the proposals only to be shot down with hardly a second glance from the club and a few prominent fans happy to be the clubs mouthpiece for an invite to the directors box twice a season.

That being said I still think BM trumps a redeveloped Goodison. Back when the proposals were first presented they should have been properly considered rather than tossed aside.

Oh well.

As regards knocking down people's houses, people seem to forget that we knocked over 100 houses down at the Park end (1990s) and Gwladys st (1930s) combined.... and I don't remember any furore or fuss whatsoever when the Park end's houses were demolished. Most people accepted that it was simply an expansion of one of the world's most historic stadiums. Indeed if the current homeowners and landlords were offered just £100k per house, they'd probably be only too happy to grab the opportunity, and would not thank you for faux moralising on their behalf. So 20 houses would only mean an outlay of just £2m, 40 houses just £4m etc. We're currently looking at well over £100m outlay to acquire and prep the BMD site before building anything.... so even a major footprint expansion at GP would be chicken feed by comparison.

What do we always say about Anfield being a carbuncle of a ground? We can have a bunch of small stands and the world's biggest goal end stand so those in the PE can boo louder.

Obviously the GS and BR have had different things done over the years, namely new roofs and the terracing changes to make them all seater but radically changing them to add more capacity in my book would spoil them and what makes Goodison special in the first place.

As for buying up and knocking down hundreds of houses, God knows how long and how many legal cases will it take to sort. It's not a question of Y times X = Z calculation. Didn't we own almost all of the houses behind the PE stand which we bought over many years to house players? If the club had continued to do that around the whole of the plot then that would have made a difference. Starting from scratch now is like how long is a piece of string for a timescale, the business models may not stack up by the time any actual work begins. If we didn't have access to any cash then piecemeal upgrades to GP would have been the order of the day. While we can move to a larger footprint we have to.

 

[WA Toffee]

Why do some people still persist with Kenwright's mistruths from the time of the destination kirkby debacle? These have all long since been disproven.

Redevelopment of GP is entirely possible.... in fact for £600m you could probably redevelop it and half of Walton, but you wouldnt need to spend anywhere near that amount to match (or even surpass) BMD's capacity, as proven by several costed expansions elsewhere. Yes, some small footprint expansion would be required to get up to 53k capacity, but this needn't be too extensive or costly, especially given that the houses on Muriel and Diana St (off Bullens Rd) are literally the cheapest to be found outside any stadium in the country, and when just bridging the current road could readily yield a good capacity uplift on that side.

As regards knocking down people's houses, people seem to forget that we knocked over 100 houses down at the Park end (1990s) and Gwladys st (1930s) combined.... and I don't remember any furore or fuss whatsoever when the Park end's houses were demolished. Most people accepted that it was simply an expansion of one of the world's most historic stadiums. Indeed if the current homeowners and landlords were offered just £100k per house, they'd probably be only too happy to grab the opportunity, and would not thank you for faux moralising on their behalf. So 20 houses would only mean an outlay of just £2m, 40 houses just £4m etc. We're currently looking at well over £100m outlay to acquire and prep the BMD site before building anything.... so even a major footprint expansion at GP would be chicken feed by comparison.

The school is already earmarked for a long overdue redevelopment and there would be joint venture enabling opportunities there, so again hardly a great difficulty compared to some of the very expensive obstacles at BMD.

Replacing the upper Bullens and upper Gwladys St will get rid of all obstructed views on those sides, and there is a great opportunity to add capacity on one or both of those stands, especially if the lower tiers are converted to safe standing either fully or partially. The Park end could be expanded backwards to be considerably larger than the south stand in the BMD proposals, which after all is literally only a few rows deeper than the current number at the Gwladys St (upper+lower), and hardly the vast new home end Spurs have built. The Parkend could be as big as any end stand in the country, as the space is there, and ours already.

So, let's drop the "it can't be done" mantra.... several architects and many other clubs have shown otherwise.

Before the usual culprits get on their high horses.... I should say I'm as excited as most about BMD, but don't see the need to support it with these long outdated and false assertions regarding GP.... I also still have some slight reservations and concerns regarding the BMD plans to date:

We still don't know how it will be funded, and/or if we will be left with massive long term debt that might cut deeply into any benefit. As far as we have been shown there doesn't appear to be any enabling uplift to go towards those costs, that would often be a major motivator and financial lever for any stadium move. The transport plan is at best rudimentary with no major supporting infrastructure costed at a site that currently has no public transport services. The cost of £5-600m is roughly double that of MEIS design for Roma which was roughly the same capacity, and if anything more complex (above ground), and roughly £100-200m more than the Feyenoord stadium which is also bigger, more complex and has a closing roof. So yes, the videos are quite impressive and I'm even currently looking at apartments in Stanley Dock.... but not yet 100% convinced about every aspect.

I don't think anyone is still arguing that Goodison can't be refurbished. That discussion was a few years ago.
It's a good post (apart from suggesting that because we knocked some houses down 50 years ago, we should just be allowed to do it again), but did you forget to hit the "post" button in 2016?

 

[Davideeyore]

In the 80's I was all for redeveloping Goodison I wrote to Everton with my simple designs of adding a tier outwards on the Bullens, I'm sure they've done that at Ibrox.
In essense Tom is right about the removal of housing I think the Gwladys Street expansion was delayed for a decade or two because opposition not unlike the Kemlyn Road at the Hole Punch stadium. The removal of houses around Goodison Avenue was almost by stealth compared to that other team's destruction of a part of Anfield. The only thing is if we were to have stayed at Goodison we should have been continually buying up houses around the Bullens Rd and Gwladys St in the 90's never mind the last 20 years. It's way way too late. Like on the pitch we need a fix instantly and BMD it is. I'm still underwealmed by the capacity should be over 60k but that's Everton for you. The board that is. Just not quite ambitious enough. Not bold enough. Not enough faith we will fill it.

If enough people slate the club saying we're not a big club people will believe it.