New Everton Stadium

[Diogenes the Cynic]

@The Esk

Please make the case for forgetting about 50,000 - 55,000 capacity increases

Rather please make the economic case for 65,000 with a ticket price reduction and major hospitality improvements.

Given that if the club is investing over £100million - its no point just making piecemeal capacity increases when we need to go 1:1 with the likes of Spurs. Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester City

My view is stadia-omics is about getting as many people in as possible. 50k or 55k is simply not enough.


As you're one of the best posters on this forum. I'd like your view @The Esk on the matter. So that public viewers to the forum get to see it.


PS. @davek = 'the man'

@davek @The Esk @GrandOldTeam

The irony of people worrying about West Ham's and Manchester City's season ticket sales

almost 1 YEAR after the topic and urgency was raised in regard to Everton's competitiveness - is not lost on me.

Yet again people wake up to a threat far too late.


The good news:

- We have a billionaire businessman who owns 49.9% (and increasing of the club) who has gone on public record when invested in another club; about his views on funding stadium developments in such a way that does not damage fans or the club in general.

- If anyone will get Everton a 65,000 seater stadium developed in the near term it is - Mr Moshiri.

To my mind the panic of July 2015 is lessened in that genuine plans for a stadium major capacity increase are afoot.

We can survive now another 18 months without being directly competitive with Spurs and West Ham and Man City and Liverpool (added to United and Arsenal) in gates terms.

Mainly since the end is now 'in site' for resolving the stadium question.

- Had there been no Moshiri. It would just get worse for us from here on in. However. Our glorious leader isn't doing stupid things spending stupid money on stupid things (re: Randy Lerner)

So we are all good.

I would only say this to the forum @davek @The Esk @MoutsGoat ... if someone raises a percieved and emerging financial threat to the club. Certain forum posters shouldn't just dismiss it. As no doubt you'll end up talking about it months later!

See the last few pages in this thread!

 

[chicoazul]

Damo! Damo! DAMO! DAMO!

 

[The Cowboy]

65k is ludicrous chat.

 

[Onwards Evertonians]

65k is ludicrous chat.

In equal measure so was the 50,000 quoted for whp, we have to aim higher than that. I'm thinking more 55/57.000?

 

[bizzaro]

65k is ludicrous chat.

65,000 is needed.

You only need to look at our season ticket sales plus attendences despite restricted views.

Equally. You don't invest over £100million to build something with capacity you needed 5 years ago.

You build something with the capacity you need for the next 10-15 years.

Equally to compete with Spurs (62,000). Man City (64,000) Liverpool (55,000), Arsenal (60,000), West Ham (60,000) Newcastle (55,000)

I'm looking forward to @The Esk making the case for a bigger stadium build than some short sighted people are thinking is adequate.

It's no good building something too small to then find nothing has changed. Since the build some think is acceptable. Was something we should have had 10 to 5 years ago.


@davek

'Go big or go home'

 

[kithnou]

65,000 is needed.

You only need to look at our season ticket sales plus attendences despite restricted views.

Equally. You don't invest over £100million to build something with capacity you needed 5 years ago.

You build something with the capacity you need for the next 10-15 years.

Equally to compete with Spurs (62,000). Man City (64,000) Liverpool (55,000), Arsenal (60,000), West Ham (60,000) Newcastle (55,000)

I'm looking forward to @The Esk making the case for a bigger stadium build than some short sighted people are thinking is adequate.

It's no good building something too small to then find nothing has changed. Since the build some think is acceptable. Was something we should have had 10 to 5 years ago.


@davek

'Go big or go home'

@The Esk. Taking his good time.

 

[Onwards Evertonians]

It probably makes sense at 60,000 then seen as our competition is there or there abouts.

 

[The Cowboy]

It probably makes sense at 60,000 then seen as our competition is there or there abouts.

Best solution would be a flexible seating solution, 60-65k when we're playing West Brom or Swansea is going to be embarrassing.

Folk talking about having capacity for the future and comparing us to Spurs, Man City and West Ham are overlooking some key factors: 2 are in London and will always command a large fan base, the other were given a to stadium which directly led to a monster investor propelling them to the top of the table. Mosh is big league but our prospects of topping the table are slim right now to say the least. And we'd need that sort of success to draw in the extra fans we'd need to fill such a stadium.

 

[toffeejack]

possibly to start off with a 50,000 that has the ability to be extended based on success ala man city - "fans" these days are glory hunters, if we win more, more people will come.

 

[The Esk]

Any model has to have assumptions built behind it, so I'll explain the assumptions then offer a conclusion.

Assumptions:

Revenue:
Revenue per regular seat rises from current net £20 per seat per game to £25 per seat per game.

Executive seats generate net £200 per seat per game.

Costs:

Build costs: £6,000 per seat
Financing costs: 6% per annum over 25 years.

Capital contribution: £150 million, all other costs met by debt.

Whilst I agree we need to build a stadium appropriate for our future needs, interestingly the capacity of the stadium makes no difference in cashflow terms whether it be 55,000, 60,000 or 65,000.

The key to the financial contribution a new stadium makes is the number of "executive seats" built and sold.

50,000 regular seats and 5,000 executive seat stadium

Additional regular seat revenues: £9.3 m
Additional executive seat revenue: £19 m
Cost of stadium: £330 million
Debt £180 million
Financing costs pa £13.9 m

Net positive cash flow: £14.4 m p.a.

55,000 regular seat and 5,000 executive seat stadium

Additional regular seat revenues: £14.1 m
Additional executive seat revenue: £19 m
Cost of stadium: £390 million
Debt £240 million
Financing costs pa £18.6 m

Net positive cash flow: £14.5 m p.a.

60,000 regular seats and 5,000 executive seat stadium

Additional regular seat revenues: £14.1m
Additional executive seat revenue: £19 m
Cost of stadium: £330 million
Debt £180 million
Financing costs pa £18.3 m

Net positive cash flow: £14.8 m p.a.

Therefore the size of the stadium is largely a function of the future anticipated demand for seats, and the willingness of Mr Moshiri to debt fund the construction.

The key is the number of executive seats the club can sell and at what price not the total capacity of the ground.

A 50,000 regular seat stadium and 7,000 executive seats makes more commercial sense than a 55,000 regular seat and 5,000 executive seat stadium.

Every 1,000 executive seats sold is worth £3.8 million a year. (At £200 net per seat)

 

[Onwards Evertonians]

possibly to start off with a 50,000 that has the ability to be extended based on success ala man city - "fans" these days are glory hunters, if we win more, more people will come.

That's way too small I feel, to reach the heights we want to reach we have to think bigger.

 

[BiggyRat]

Bring back standing room I say! We'll get 100,000 in there easy!

 

[MACCA75]

55k

 

[Fresh Prince of Belle Val]

It needs to be bigger than the New Nou Camp.

 

[Eggs]

Any model has to have assumptions built behind it, so I'll explain the assumptions then offer a conclusion.

Assumptions:

Revenue:
Revenue per regular seat rises from current net £20 per seat per game to £25 per seat per game.

Executive seats generate net £200 per seat per game.

Costs:

Build costs: £6,000 per seat
Financing costs: 6% per annum over 25 years.

Capital contribution: £150 million, all other costs met by debt.

Whilst I agree we need to build a stadium appropriate for our future needs, interestingly the capacity of the stadium makes no difference in cashflow terms whether it be 55,000, 60,000 or 65,000.

The key to the financial contribution a new stadium makes is the number of "executive seats" built and sold.

50,000 regular seats and 5,000 executive seat stadium

Additional regular seat revenues: £9.3 m
Additional executive seat revenue: £19 m
Cost of stadium: £330 million
Debt £180 million
Financing costs pa £13.9 m

Net positive cash flow: £14.4 m p.a.

55,000 regular seat and 5,000 executive seat stadium

Additional regular seat revenues: £14.1 m
Additional executive seat revenue: £19 m
Cost of stadium: £390 million
Debt £240 million
Financing costs pa £18.6 m

Net positive cash flow: £14.5 m p.a.

60,000 regular seats and 5,000 executive seat stadium

Additional regular seat revenues: £9.3 m
Additional executive seat revenue: £19 m
Cost of stadium: £330 million
Debt £180 million
Financing costs pa £13.9 m

Net positive cash flow: £14.4 m p.a.

Therefore the size of the stadium is largely a function of the future anticipated demand for seats, and the willingness of Mr Moshiri to debt fund the construction.

The key is the number of executive seats the club can sell and at what price not the total capacity of the ground.

A 50,000 regular seat stadium and 7,000 executive seats makes more commercial sense than a 55,000 regular seat and 5,000 executive seat stadium.

Every 1,000 executive seats sold is worth £3.8 million a year. (At £200 net per seat)

.....so I presume an assumption is the 'anticipated demand for seats' which I also presume has a dependency on performance on the pitch. Saying that, it is amazing that despite the home form there are usually only restricted views left to buy.