New Everton Stadium

[BNJ1878]

Out of interest, were you the Mike H who used to incessantly argue in favour of Destination Kirkby by any chance?

There was a Golf Club wielding Mike H on another forum who was constantly chatting bollocks over Kirkby.

Reputedly quite short in stature, perhaps that was the driver behind his aggressive posting style.

 

[mahermi1]

The usual suspects using the discovery of unexploded ordinance as another excuse to beg for attention with their typical doom-mongering

It would have been fairly surprising if they HADN’T found any.

Just for clarity, weren't we supposed to have had done an extensive search for unexploded bombs as such, before hand, as part of our preparation work ? If so whoever done it never made a good job of it.

 

[Tom Hughes]

That's a lie, unless suddenly you've changed your tune. I've fell victim to your 'off topic' polices a while back and ended up banned 'for high maintenance'.
Funny it was discussions with the the esk about Moshiri in a Usmanov thread.
But by asking for clarity of claims / replying to people I got banned.

Yet somehow this thread can be mansplained over with Goodison redevelopment plans - nothing said. I ain't personally bothered, but no real consistency on your part, I'm guessing because it's not a personal friend being questioned it's fair game to continue.

Anyhow, if / when we do move without don't any level of current success, we'll be mutton dressed as lamb. A new stadium won't make us successful, and it won't suddenly be the missing piece whereby our fortunes change, we need to make some positive inroads now.

That said, its the one and only positive we've to look forward to, not linger to a bygone idea of developing Goodison

No one is suggesting that anyone should linger in any bygone era at all..... he's explained it to you perfectly clearly that i responded directly to posters saying it was not possible. Suggesting otherwise is misrepresentation!

As an extension to that, I then said that any new project is generally given BCR testing..... that applies to any general major capital investment, and in the case of stadium moves will always be measured against all other options (including redevelopment). If it isn't, it either represents extreme malpractise or potentially ulterior motives. Of course if money is no object, then some of those standard formalities to establish best value of investment may be less onerous. However, if the resultant debt is loaded onto the club via whatever mechanism and not covered by naming rights andother uplifts, then it obviously is an issue. Nothing particularly contentious!

 

[Tom Hughes]

There was a Golf Club wielding Mike H on another forum who was constantly chatting bollocks over Kirkby.

Reputedly quite short in stature, perhaps that was the driver behind his aggressive posting style.

View attachment 138855

Yes, that is who I thought he was too. Backed every Destination Kirkby lie to the hilt, until they were exposed one by one at the inquiry and it collapsed ..... then like the rest vanished quicker than a 1930's Blackshirt in 1940s Britain.

Thought he'd returned with an axe to grind.... which would be really quite ironic.

Apparently it's not him though!

 

[roydo]

That's a lie, unless suddenly you've changed your tune. I've fell victim to your 'off topic' polices a while back and ended up banned 'for high maintenance'.
Funny it was discussions with the the esk about Moshiri in a Usmanov thread.
But by asking for clarity of claims / replying to people I got banned.

Yet somehow this thread can be mansplained over with Goodison redevelopment plans - nothing said. I ain't personally bothered, but no real consistency on your part, I'm guessing because it's not a personal friend being questioned it's fair game to continue.

Anyhow, if / when we do move without don't any level of current success, we'll be mutton dressed as lamb. A new stadium won't make us successful, and it won't suddenly be the missing piece whereby our fortunes change, we need to make some positive inroads now.

That said, its the one and only positive we've to look forward to, not linger to a bygone idea of developing Goodison

You have had one warning (language) since 2016 when you signed up.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Just for clarity, weren't we supposed to have had done an extensive search for unexploded bombs as such, before hand, as part of our preparation work ? If so whoever done it never made a good job of it.

It's a fair point, unless it's still an ongoing process and that is how this smaller object has only just been found. It might necessitate the dock being sealed at its western boundary and pumping out rather than infill displacement.

On a historical note, it poses the question as to how an artillery shell could've landed there. There were Royal Navy and munitions ships in the port (one famously blowing up), but dropping of live ordinance is not a minor issue.

 

[chazzle_dazzle]

Thread went a bit mental then...

Am all about the drone updates at the moment.... thats where the fun is, that and exploring bombs on the beach is always fun...

Anyways, any drone updates?

 

[Jacko93]

The figures are a bit dated now, but they were for outline design concepts only.... and were verified by 2 stadium design companies and an independent estimators dept, based on costs of similar projects at that time.

As regards the exterior.... they were generally left blank in any of the graphics I produced.... although an architect added a tower to one scheme to show how a substantial commercial enabling development could be built into the site to help fund it. There was no real effort to produce anything regards externals as I've always believed them to be superficial and subservient to internals for stadia. Of all building types only stadia are always best judged by their interior..... the arrangement of tiers and stands etc, as that is what will dictate its performance as a viewing platform, atmosphere enhancer and its general feel for the vast majority of our interaction with it.

As regards construction phasing and any remaining obstructed views etc.... again, these were verified by stadium architects and planners at the time. Obstructed views were very much dependent on the amount of refurbishment chosen.... but the scheme produced for KEIOC had only a very few remaining in a higher capacity (more unobstructed views) than BMD, with no obstructions at all on 3 sides and much reduced on the fourth. At levels of investment of £200m+ there needn't be any, with all new upper-tiers cantilevered or obstructed spaces re-assigned.

Whether or not BMD is better looking than Anfield is subjective and possibly quite irrelevant. They could argue that they prefer 4 traditionally independent stands with separate identities (they do argue this). They could also argue that they will achieve significantly higher capacity with a much larger corporate offer, all at a fraction of the price of BMD, snd they would be right.... all at a world famous site with history preserved. Paying it off far sooner and being able to invest in players too. If they get planning permission to rejig the Kop to safe standing at say 1.5 ratio they could even end up reaching 70k+. So will they really be bothered about BMD's shiny exterior then? Most Kopites I know hope we build it, so I'm not sure how threatened or envious they feel.

I very much doubt they will. The internal capacity of the Kop isn't able to safely house more fans than it already has. They would have to rebuild the stand itself to get anywhere near 1.5. The width required for a standing person is larger than that of a seated person. So to get more than 0.8:1 they would have to find rows to put the extra people on. That's even before they consider amenieties, provision of which is more governed now that it was prior to the Taylor report, as i'm sure you know. Would be the same for Everton if we were to make GS all standing. we would likely lose capacity given todays regulations.

 

[tommye]

You have had one warning (language) since 2016 when you signed up.

How many have I had mate?

 

[allen]

Thread went a bit mental then...

Am all about the drone updates at the moment.... thats where the fun is, that and exploring bombs on the beach is always fun...

Anyways, any drone updates?

This is me, too. I'd love a daily drone. The YouTube lads ought to pool their resources so we can just drone it up.

 

[Big Neville Southall]

I very much doubt they will. The internal capacity of the Kop isn't able to safely house more fans than it already has. They would have to rebuild the stand itself to get anywhere near 1.5. The width required for a standing person is larger than that of a seated person. So to get more than 0.8:1 they would have to find rows to put the extra people on. That's even before they consider amenieties, provision of which is more governed now that it was prior to the Taylor report, as i'm sure you know. Would be the same for Everton if we were to make GS all standing. we would likely lose capacity given todays regulations.

Yes that's my understanding of it too.

The Park End corner could have a little standing area in the back cornerPE6 and PE5, last 10 to 15 rows. Probably 1 to 1 ratio so it would be about the standing rather than the income.

I've always thought that the fenced off area at the back middle of the Park End where they have their own bar would be a great standing area. Great position plus use of the bar to all get wellied together beforehand.

Or another before we move, move the away fans by the Gwladys St for a one off Cup match and see how that affects the dynamics.

 

[bcblue1878]

Those wishing to discuss redevelopment of Goodison please make another thread.

Your ruining the only positive thread on the site.

Regards.

It's truly bizarre there are people still going on about it! The redevelopment was considered, investigated and discussed at length for years and years, looking at costs and every possible implication and option! Yet here we are having started at BMD on the build of what will be a truly iconic stadium and the "lets stay at Goodison " shouts have resurfaced - weird!

 

[Tom Hughes]

I very much doubt they will. The internal capacity of the Kop isn't able to safely house more fans than it already has. They would have to rebuild the stand itself to get anywhere near 1.5. The width required for a standing person is larger than that of a seated person. So to get more than 0.8:1 they would have to find rows to put the extra people on. That's even before they consider amenieties, provision of which is more governed now that it was prior to the Taylor report, as i'm sure you know. Would be the same for Everton if we were to make GS all standing. we would likely lose capacity given todays regulations.

I don't disagree..... but by rejig i meant proper reprofiling... ie stripping the stringers and increasing tread depths to the minimum for safestanding at increased ratios, which isn't massively expensive. It would result in a reduction of seated capacity but a proportionate increase in standing mode if increased ratios are ever allowed. Of course that is dependent on if the sightlines work for standing. Only been on the Kop a few times as a stand.... and in the corners it wasn't great when everyone stood as far a I remember.... so you might be right in saying it'll need a new build which I believe there are concept drawings for.

As regards the Gwladys St.... yes, in terms of rail seats on the current steppings, it possibly could result in a small decrease. But as a traditional terrace, as seen at most Rugby grounds, it would increase. It depends where that legislation goes. Historically, the lower Gwladys held 14,200 (If I remember rightly) up to 1989. I think it is less than 6k now.... so there would be some wiggle room there.

 

[Jacko93]

It's truly bizarre there are people still going on about it! The redevelopment was considered, investigated and discussed at length for years and years, looking at costs and every possible implication and option! Yet here we are having started at BMD on the build of what will be a truly iconic stadium and the "lets stay at Goodison " shouts have resurfaced - weird!

Tbf, I'm not sure "Lets stay at Goodison" shouts have resurfaced. It seems to me that Tom answered a a few questions that were fielded, and attempted to put right some 'misconceptions'. I'm not sure what is wrong with that to be honest.

Its fairly difficult to deny progress is being made on a new stadium, but as anybody on here is free to do, encouraged in fact, he has just aired some concerns that he has. Concerns that are born of experience and knowledge that includes work done on a GP remodel.

 

[Jacko93]

I don't disagree..... but by rejig i meant proper reprofiling... ie stripping the stringers and increasing tread depths to the minimum for safestanding at increased ratios, which isn't massively expensive. It would result in a reduction of seated capacity but a proportionate increase in standing mode if increased ratios are ever allowed. Of course that is dependent on if the sightlines work for standing. Only been on the Kop a few times as a stand.... and in the corners it wasn't great when everyone stood as far a I remember.... so you might be right in saying it'll need a new build which I believe there are concept drawings for.

As regards the Gwladys St.... yes, in terms of rail seats on the current steppings, it possibly could result in a small decrease. But as a traditional terrace, as seen at most Rugby grounds, it would increase. It depends where that legislation goes. Historically, the lower Gwladys held 14,200 (If I remember rightly) up to 1989. I think it is less than 6k now.... so there would be some wiggle room there.

My point is more that the most restrictive regulations are those for enclosed spaces, i.e sanitary provision, access/egress rates. An existing stand the age of Gwladys Street or the Kop looking to increase capacity by any sort of numbers beyond triple figures would find it very difficult.