New Everton Stadium

[Dublin blue 75]

It would be ruinously expensive and would not make a very solid business case however Real Madrid are demonstrating an extra layer (or two) of seating levels can be added up to below roof level. See up top here.

Word of caution that the budget went from 500m to 700m to 1bn now. But it is technically possible.

 

[Tom Hughes]

I was thinking about this. Will this be like the Gwladys Street used to be like, two sections? But still use the same concourse.
@AndyC will be familiar with this one.

View attachment 193161

Great old photo.... I'm certainly in their somewhere, mostly just under the stand towards the church.

As regards the new south stand, last time I looked there appeared to be 2 concourses. One for the upper and one for the lower sections.

 

[Ferguson1878]

I don't understand the hate Tom gets here.

He probably knows more about stadium design than any other poster but is shouted down as being negative when he points out facts.

The amount of work he (and others) did around the time of the Kirkby debacle, when Mr. Everton thought it was perfectly acceptable to continually lie about Goodison means he should be respected for his views.

Well said ,I remeber that GFE group they where sound them and we’re right onto that thing they where trying to build in Kirkby

 

[PhilM]

Great old photo.... I'm certainly in their somewhere, mostly just under the stand towards the church.

As regards the new south stand, last time I looked there appeared to be 2 concourses. One for the upper and one for the lower sections.

It'll be a shame if they're not interconnected, but it would make sense due to the size and design.

 

[Tom Hughes]

No, I’m not. I simply replied with some facts of my own.

Straight forward, hard facts.

“It’ll be an amazing stadium” and yet people are still complaining about it.

Once the standing legislation changes, we’ll have the most intimate, intimidating 58k stadium in world football.

Spurs South stand holds 17.5k and the capacity can’t be increased when the safe standing rules change. Our capacity will rise to 16k, 4k bigger than the Kop, Holte End etc. All on a tighter footprint. It’ll be sensational.

If we’d built the 60k seats version, then safe standing legislation changes, we’d be looking at a near 70k stadium (assuming we’d have had the same amount of safe standing places)

We’d have thousands of empty seats in that for a lot of games.

The club have gotten it spot on.

The basic fact is that 60 rows is not a particularly large stand, and certainly not the mega stand we were originally sold.


It's IF the safestanding law changes, not "Once it changes". Furthermore, that would also apply to Spurs who have larger tread depths in their stand (and any other clubs who can reprofile/redevelop existing stands sightline/concourse permitting). So hardly hard facts at all.

Colin Chong was asked at a shareholders meeting why the club had gone for just the minimum 750mm treads, which would limit any safestanding uplift to possibly as low as 1.3:1 according to current green guide recommendations (In which case the South stands capacity would barely raise by 2k). He said that in his opinion that he didn't feel that increased ratios would happen and that any future capacity increase would take place on the sides. The obvious next question was how would we increase the stadium height to which he replied planning permission is easier for an established stadium. It isn't so much a case of if the the club has got the capacity right or not, but more a case of future proofing the project.

BTW a 60k stadium with safe standing still only has 60k seats. So even if capacity is uplifted 100k there will still only be the same number of empty seats for any given attendance.

 

[Tom Hughes]

It would be ruinously expensive and would not make a very solid business case however Real Madrid are demonstrating an extra layer (or two) of seating levels can be added up to below roof level. See up top here.

Word of caution that the budget went from 500m to 700m to 1bn now. But it is technically possible.

It can be expensive to extend retrospectively but Tbf, they've also completely rebuilt the old lower tier, added more corporate, an extended upper tier, a closing roof, foldaway pitch, new outer skin and all the interactive tech too.

 

[John BCN]

I haven't been in Spur's South stand yet (hopefully next season), but have been on the South Tribune a few times (the first time it was half the current size). Last time I was there most of it was an old fashioned terrace, with only the rear section as rail seats. For European games it was fully seated. The South tribune standing has a much bigger capacity than the Spurs stand and if you include the seated corners is probably almost twice the capacity. It also has a down sloping roof which really holds and funnels the noise. Great atmosphere and view as far as I can remember. If greater ratio safestanding is ever allowed that gap would close a bit for both ours and Spurs end stands.

I was in the upper section at Dortmund and didn't realise the lower part was terracing. You can see it better in this photo. Apparently for Champions League games they adjust the rails to make sure everyone sits down.

 

[Ferguson1878]

I was in the upper section at Dortmund and didn't realise the lower part was terracing. You can see it better in this photo. Apparently for Champions League games they adjust the rails to make sure everyone sits down.View attachment 193222

Huge that

 

[The binman chronicles]

It would be ruinously expensive and would not make a very solid business case however Real Madrid are demonstrating an extra layer (or two) of seating levels can be added up to below roof level. See up top here.

Word of caution that the budget went from 500m to 700m to 1bn now. But it is technically possible.

Of course anything is possible but this is Everton so it will remain the way it is built until it's so crumbly we have to rebuild. We will carry this debt forward for the 40/50 years at least anyhow.

It is a shame we didn't go bigger, even if not used. For instance say we had the space and owned the land behind the North stand then that would be a somewhat cheaper expansion to add capacity there, rather than taking down the whole roof structure and adding that way. In theory they could have raised and expanded the footprint of the roof to allow a number of rows to be added at later date, should it ever be required, for not that much more cash.

 

[muckers]

The basic fact is that 60 rows is not a particularly large stand, and certainly not the mega stand we were originally sold.


It's IF the safestanding law changes, not "Once it changes". Furthermore, that would also apply to Spurs who have larger tread depths in their stand (and any other clubs who can reprofile/redevelop existing stands sightline/concourse permitting). So hardly hard facts at all.

Colin Chong was asked at a shareholders meeting why the club had gone for just the minimum 750mm treads, hich would limit any safestanding uplift to possibly as low as 1.3:1 according to current green guide recommendations (In which case the South stands capacity would barely raise by 2k). He said that in his opinion that he didn't feel that increased ratios would happen and that any future capacity increase would take place on the sides. The obvious next question was how would we increase the stadium height to which he replied planning permission is easier for an established stadium. It isn't so much a case of if the the club has got the capacity right or not, but more a case of future proofing the project.

BTW a 60k stadium with safe standing still only has 60k seats. So even if capacity is uplifted 100k there will still only be the same number of empty seats for any given attendance.

Spurs stadium will only ever be 1:1 no matter what the legislation changes too.

Who care what Colin Chongs opinion is? I’ll go with Jon Darch from the Safe Standing road show who accurately predicted when safe standing would come in and now believes the legislation will change to 1:1.5 in England within 3 years.

“Which would limit any safe standing uplift to possibly as low as 1.3:1”

I’ve never seen any sentence more you that that above. The tread depth we have gone for is more likely to allow the ratio to be 1.1:5, and that’s coming from Jon Darch also which would allow for a 3k uplift in the South Stand.

I’m not bothered how many seats there are, the total capacity of the stadium is more important.

Absolutely no one considers Dortmunds stadium a 65k stadium, even though that’s how many seats it has. Everyone considers it a 81k stadium, because that’s what it can hold.

 

[Davideeyore]

The pointing on them panels look shoddy tbh, they'll have to come down.

Note to self... don't stand under panels when at the game

Feel free to feed it back to the lads

 

[tommye]

Spurs stadium will only ever be 1:1 no matter what the legislation changes too.

Who care what Colin Chongs opinion is? I’ll go with Jon Darch from the Safe Standing road show who accurately predicted when safe standing would come in and now believes the legislation will change to 1:1.5 in England within 3 years.

“Which would limit any safe standing uplift to possibly as low as 1.3:1”

I’ve never seen any sentence more you that that above. The tread depth we have gone for is more likely to allow the ratio to be 1.1:5, and that’s coming from Jon Darch also which would allow for a 3k uplift in the South Stand.

I’m not bothered how many seats there are, the total capacity of the stadium is more important.

Absolutely no one considers Dortmunds stadium a 65k stadium, even though that’s how many seats it has. Everyone considers it a 81k stadium, because that’s what it can hold.

Tom has a dog in the fight, so to speak. Was a massive part of the redevelopment of GP idea, so ultimatley his shot at immortality will now forever be consigned to an architect's model and a few drawings.

Take everything he says, usually disparaging, about the new gaff with a massive pinch of salt(-iness)

 

[Davideeyore]

No, I’m not. I simply replied with some facts of my own.

Straight forward, hard facts.

“It’ll be an amazing stadium” and yet people are still complaining about it.

Once the standing legislation changes, we’ll have the most intimate, intimidating 58k stadium in world football.

Spurs South stand holds 17.5k and the capacity can’t be increased when the safe standing rules change. Our capacity will rise to 16k, 4k bigger than the Kop, Holte End etc. All on a tighter footprint. It’ll be sensational.

If we’d built the 60k seats version, then safe standing legislation changes, we’d be looking at a near 70k stadium (assuming we’d have had the same amount of safe standing places)

We’d have thousands of empty seats in that for a lot of games.

The club have gotten it spot on.

Love this guy. Complains about people complaining.

You see people "complaining".

I see people making observations (like myself).

The new ground will be amazing. But it could have been even better.

As for the capacity. I don't think increasing the safe standing ratio is in the pipeline. Therefore there will be no increase due to safe standing. So in my opinion 52/53000 is well short of what we should have been aiming for.

I've said this before many times. IF we had 52,000 at Goodison these days, we'd fill it. That's with the old stadium, posts etc.

Moving to the new ground will have so many benefits it will have a new stadium bounce, it will be on the waterfront and close to town, it will be a crowd puller. But it will also have zero obstructive views. 52,000 WILL be sold each match at BMD. That doesn't offer room to build. Which a 60,000 plus would.

My anger, and frustration, is at the club. I want us to be seen as a big club again, I want the club to be acting big. Even if the results on the pitch are shoddy.
One of them is a big stadium.

Also, personally I don't get this empty seats negativity. There are ways around it if there are lower attendances. Who made this law that seated grounds had to be full?

 

[muckers]

Tom has a dog in the fight, so to speak. Was a massive part of the redevelopment of GP idea, so ultimatley his shot at immortality will now forever be consigned to an architect's model and a few drawings.

Take everything he says, usually disparaging, about the new gaff with a massive pinch of salt(-iness

Tom has a dog in the fight, so to speak. Was a massive part of the redevelopment of GP idea, so ultimatley his shot at immortality will now forever be consigned to an architect's model and a few drawings.

Take everything he says, usually disparaging, about the new gaff with a massive pinch of salt(-iness)

I know you’re spot on but I just can’t understand how any Evertonian can be constantly negative about it.

Everyone can point out something they’d prefer to be different but he just constantly criticises everything.

 

[muckers]

Love this guy. Complains about people complaining.

You see people "complaining".

I see people making observations (like myself).

The new ground will be amazing. But it could have been even better.

As for the capacity. I don't think increasing the safe standing ratio is in the pipeline. Therefore there will be no increase due to safe standing. So in my opinion 52/53000 is well short of what we should have been aiming for.

I've said this before many times. IF we had 52,000 at Goodison these days, we'd fill it. That's with the old stadium, posts etc.

Moving to the new ground will have so many benefits it will have a new stadium bounce, it will be on the waterfront and close to town, it will be a crowd puller. But it will also have zero obstructive views. 52,000 WILL be sold each match at BMD. That doesn't offer room to build. Which a 60,000 plus would.

My anger, and frustration, is at the club. I want us to be seen as a big club again, I want the club to be acting big. Even if the results on the pitch are shoddy.
One of them is a big stadium.

Also, personally I don't get this empty seats negativity. There are ways around it if there are lower attendances. Who made this law that seated grounds had to be full?

Love this guy.

You’ve just given your completely uneducated opinion, and then passed it off as fact.

“I don’t think increasing the safe standing ration is in the pipeline. Therefore there will be no increase in capacity”

I defer to people like John Darch who has been researching, and campaigning for safe standing for years now, he’s been spot on on it being introduced and when it would be introduced.

He disagrees with your opinion.