New Everton Stadium

[Tom Hughes]

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.

I agree that should indeed be another factor with BMD, but therefore would've expected features such as a closing roof, moving/folding pitch to help facilitate multi-function as say at Lille. There are also only a tiny number of exec boxes which could've been convertible to hotel rooms for 365 day income streams.... so the multi-use aspect doesn't appear to be a great priority....

 

[Tom Hughes]

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

My original post long predates BMD (or kirkby)

 

[Exeter_Gently]

My original post long predates BMD (or kirkby)

Then I stand corrected,Kind Sir.

 

[Eggsyblueskin]

I agree that should indeed be another factor with BMD, but therefore would've expected features such as a closing roof, moving/folding pitch to help facilitate multi-function as say at Lille. There are also only a tiny number of exec boxes which could've been convertible to hotel rooms for 365 day income streams.... so the multi-use aspect doesn't appear to be a great priority....

No doubt the additions you list would have facilitated even greater opportunities for non football events, however the cost would obviously be far greater.
None the less I think there is ample opportunity and intention to use the stadium for conferences , examinations, and exhibitions.
The large plaza area can also stage events.
I believe an application for staging a small number of concerts has also been lodged and /or possibly granted?
So I do think that multi use opportunities featured prominently in the the decision to build there.

 

[Tom Hughes]

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.

I'm not advocating a one large stand ground or piecemeal expansion at GP at all. The new Bullens, existing Mainstand and extended Park end would all be roughly the same height and could knit together relatively seamlessly. Even at BMD the north stand is similarly lower than the other 3 sides. However, at GP we could also eventually increase capacity at the Gwladys St too if success demanded it, whereas we'll never be able to add capacity on 3 sides of BMD, with the only real prospect being via adoption of safe-standing at a greater than 1:1 ratio.

Whether you consider Anfield a carbunkle or not is irrelevant.... the fact is, they achieved a bigger capacity than BMD for less than £100m construction costs. They will soon go over 60k capacity for just another £60m.... the ROI is just a few years with their new mainstand already nearly paying for itself... there are preliminary plans to go higher too.

As regards the number of houses required at GP: there are only 2 streets abutting the Bullens. Just 10-20 end terrace houses would clear enough space to bridge the Bullens, with a few more for negotiated right of light conflicts. Literally thousands of these type of houses have been cleared all over the city in the last few decades, so this hardly represents a mass clearance of any significance, with a far greater number of empty properties currently in the locality. As far as being problematic or time consuming, LFC were granted CPOs and completed this process on a far bigger scale in no time at all, when they changed their minds about redevelopment.... including several listed and recently refurbished properties. So, i don't believe that to be a major issue at all.

 

[Toffefc]

Just read through the marine licence application, which is quite complex, I can see why it is taking so long to grant it, by the looks of it there is a lot to go through and it is not a straightforward application, one thing that caught my attention is that they anticipate commencement in Q3, please see below cutted and pasted from the application.

For the purposes of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) submitted as part of this licence application, it has been assumed that the ‘opening year’ for all development within the application site is 2023, with construction anticipated to commence in Q3 2020.

 

[mightymoyes]

Just read through the marine licence application, which is quite complex, I can see why it is taking so long to grant it, by the looks of it there is a lot to go through and it is not a straightforward application, one thing that caught my attention is that they anticipate commencement in Q3, please see below cutted and pasted from the application.

For the purposes of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) submitted as part of this licence application, it has been assumed that the ‘opening year’ for all development within the application site is 2023, with construction anticipated to commence in Q3 2020.

Did you mean Q3 2020 or is that a typo?

 

[Toffefc]

Did you mean Q3 2020 or is that a typo?

Sorry meant 2021 but that could mean the end of August before work commences.

 

[Toffefc]

Sorry meant 2021 but that could mean the end of August before work commences.

 

[T LEAFE]

I will be long gone before
A. We move to a new stadium
B. We win another trophy
In the meantime it's mid table mediocrity at best

 

[jonnyboy316]

I'm not advocating a one large stand ground or piecemeal expansion at GP at all. The new Bullens, existing Mainstand and extended Park end would all be roughly the same height and could knit together relatively seamlessly. Even at BMD the north stand is similarly lower than the other 3 sides. However, at GP we could also eventually increase capacity at the Gwladys St too if success demanded it, whereas we'll never be able to add capacity on 3 sides of BMD, with the only real prospect being via adoption of safe-standing at a greater than 1:1 ratio.

Whether you consider Anfield a carbunkle or not is irrelevant.... the fact is, they achieved a bigger capacity than BMD for less than £100m construction costs. They will soon go over 60k capacity for just another £60m.... the ROI is just a few years with their new mainstand already nearly paying for itself... there are preliminary plans to go higher too.

As regards the number of houses required at GP: there are only 2 streets abutting the Bullens. Just 10-20 end terrace houses would clear enough space to bridge the Bullens, with a few more for negotiated right of light conflicts. Literally thousands of these type of houses have been cleared all over the city in the last few decades, so this hardly represents a mass clearance of any significance, with a far greater number of empty properties currently in the locality. As far as being problematic or time consuming, LFC were granted CPOs and completed this process on a far bigger scale in no time at all, when they changed their minds about redevelopment.... including several listed and recently refurbished properties. So, i don't believe that to be a major issue at all.

You have to think this will be a very good move long term. Although sadly it probably won’t be realised until the dust has long settled on my ageing bones. That area will see significant development.

 

[Tom Hughes]

No doubt the additions you list would have facilitated even greater opportunities for non football events, however the cost would obviously be far greater.
None the less I think there is ample opportunity and intention to use the stadium for conferences , examinations, and exhibitions.
The large plaza area can also stage events.
I believe an application for staging a small number of concerts has also been lodged and /or possibly granted?
So I do think that multi use opportunities featured prominently in the the decision to build there.

It would be more expense but at £600m you would've thought that could've been achieved (as per the examples I mentioned). However, as I said the key enablers for proper multi-functionality haven't been included at the design stage.... and when I specifically asked DBB about this at a shareholder's meeting, she stressed that the priority was not for multi-purpose usage but to create a true football stadium. I wasn't sure how a retractable roof or moving/folding pitch would detract from that. Yes, improved facilities within the stands would provide some conferous opportunities, but don't think this comes remotely close to matching the potential for creating the biggest covered multifunctional arena in northern UK. What will significantly set this apart from Anfield in this regard, which already has larger corporate facilities to host conferences, and a growing track record for other events?

 

[Tom Hughes]

You have to think this will be a very good move long term. Although sadly it probably won’t be realised until the dust has long settled on my ageing bones. That area will see significant development.

I'd like to think it could/should be a very good move in the medium or even short term too. Indeed, I think it has to be for it to take full advantage of any "new stadium effect" and hit all the buttons.... especially regarding accessibility/transport, and increased revenue to not only help cover our construction costs, but to add to any manager's spending power. We're not yet fully informed on how all those aspects come together.

Yes, it is hoped that the stadium will help facilitate/prompt an acceleration in the development of the long-stalled Liverpool waters scheme, but we will always be at the extremities of that and not much closer to our major national rail hub at Lime Street station than we are now..... which again is why I would've thought that true multi-functionality should've featured far more strongly, as a major draw to increase connectivity.

 

[Gardocki]

Surely any serious development of GP (assuming dozens of house purchases can happen without delaying it by a decade or more) would involve completely rebuilding the existing stands to to meet modern standards. Removing the Upper Bullens would be like tearing the heart out of Goodison. Redeveloping those old stands would kill everything we love about it and defeat much of the appeal for staying.

Expanding the Park End would be just increasing the size of the bit that never really worked. It has zero charm, and always felt like a temporary solution. Whenever I see old coverage of the 1980s I see the Park End and think 'now THAT'S Goodison'.

 

[dockroad]

Getting back to the topic of BMD isn't it about time we got our fishing licence ?