New Everton Stadium

[blulouie]

Im a member of the Shareholder's association exec committee. He stated at a meeting with that group that the whole cost of the stadium including prep was originally £500m and that it has increased to £760m. Straight from the horse's mouth! Whether he is lying or inflating that figure, I have no idea.

We also have not secured the funding gap loan, our chief benefactor is sanctioned for the foreseeable and upto last year we were bottom of the FFP league with basketcase financial figures and an owner who had to capitalise massive previous debts.... I'm not sure what you/we have to gain from ignoring those facts.

Are the shareholder association meetings minuted Tom ?

You seem to hang onto to his word but yet not when he says he can fund the stadium himself ? you keep going on about this mysterious funding gap loan yet all signs point to a 2nd group of investors coming in.

Facts are the only thing I take notice of , as of yet you have yet to furnish any , only your misplaced opinion as you've never been behind this project from day one.

This is out of our control , we are mere bystanders and the movers & shakers are making this happen.

Tom , again ....Move on mate.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Several clubs have shown precisely what you're asking. Many have also redeveloped without any loss of capacity throughout the build. I've explained it several times. The Parkend could be extended to add 6-10k with a corner section and the the bulk of a new upper Bullens would be built above and behind the existing stand joining onto the extended Park end. Then the existing upper removed in close season and lower extended/reprofiled to add more new capacity. Much of this could be achieved at less cost per seat than the Anfield stands, as the construction volume is substantially less due to the considerably lower starting height. Therefore, the cost could be substantially lower than £300m, again as shown by these and other extensions elsewhere.

Approx 28-31k+ of the current capacity is reusable. There is no way that adding 21k or even 30k high value capacity to that will need to come close to the cost of half that of BMD..... and even it was that gap could never be narrowed. In fact, £300m would probably take that capacity comfortably over 60k with more corporate and more boxes than BMD.

That's why the majority of larger clubs have opted for redevelopment. Why the Bernabeu and Nou camp are doing similar... neither of those will look like cheap addlibs. Of course that's before you factor in the value of preservation of history or tradition or removing risk of unproven transport plans.

If we extended the Park End to have 10k more seats then we may as well stopped there. That would have been most cost effective and path of least resistance to not having to clear houses and businesses, but whatever we do from there it will be a carbuncle. We could cantilever roofs to get rid of most of the pillars but it will be lopsided as the hole punch stand. Again I know what is possible but you aren't acknowledging the business case for it. The PE has a case (at the detriment of the rest of the vision of a stadium) but then we are demolishing two stands for very little increase in income.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Are the shareholder association meetings minuted Tom ?

You seem to hang onto to his word but yet not when he says he can fund the stadium himself ? you keep going on about this mysterious funding gap loan yet all signs point to a 2nd group of investors coming in.

Facts are the only thing I take notice of , as of yet you have yet to furnish any , only your misplaced opinion as you've never been behind this project from day one.

This is out of our control , we are mere bystanders and the movers & shakers are making this happen.

Tom , again ....Move on mate.

Move on....? I was part of a group that were talking to Peel about a stadium on central docks nearly a decade before BMD was ever mentioned. So i probably moved on when you were voting for Kirkby. Regardless, redevelopment would've always cost significantly less..... the tipping point of redevelopment versus relocation was always based on cost:benefits, financials/risks and opportunities. For most larger clubs redevelopment wins unless their current site cannot be expanded. Of course when moneybags owners are prepared to foot the whole bill and offer inflated naming rights for anything and everything then the goal posts can move.

Shareholder meetings are almost always minuted. This was an informal zoom discussion including him and BK.... but I'm sure all who were there would happily confirm. I was not there as I was away. It was relayed to me by all of those present. That was last September I think, and was quoted by myself and several others on here at the time.... and the figure has since been confirmed publically a few times.

Nowhere have I disputed that he (or his backer) could not fund the whole build. However the fact is that he/they did not intend to initially (for obvious reasons), as stated at AGMs and in the planning docs. The issue is one of the ultimate debt to the club. Being a lover of facts....Can you tell me what that is? I guarantee you can't! Can you tell me what the interest payments will be and what the bottom line will be to support our manager? No you can't! For a lover of facts it is you who seems be glibly prepared to accept that you know so few.

I have never been against BMD at all. I have some concerns and reservations about certain aspects of the project.... and am not prepared to peddle the same Wyness/Elstone/Kenwright myths about redevelopment that were disproven even long before Destination Kirkby had its final death knell. That's before you consider the financial performance of the current decision-makers!

 

[arch stanton]

Has there been talk of increasing the capacity by 6k?

there is now

 

[TommyDavo]

There is a drone in here and for once it’s not Noggsy

 

[Tom Hughes]

If we extended the Park End to have 10k more seats then we may as well stopped there. That would have been most cost effective and path of least resistance to not having to clear houses and businesses, but whatever we do from there it will be a carbuncle. We could cantilever roofs to get rid of most of the pillars but it will be lopsided as the hole punch stand. Again I know what is possible but you aren't acknowledging the business case for it. The PE has a case (at the detriment of the rest of the vision of a stadium) but then we are demolishing two stands for very little increase in income.

Yes, the Park end alone would've bought that time for a second phase and/or footprint expansion negotiation.... which would've been further leveraged by the possibility of relocation if terms were not met. Incremental development also offers the benefit of shorter ROI and opportunities to test actual demand.
Helping to ensure that you don't build more capacity than required.

The San Siro, Nou Camp, Bernabeu are all heavily redeveloped stadia. They didn't always look like they do now. None are carbunkles. Nor need Goodison be for a fraction of the cost of BMD. Is BMD lopsided because the north stand is substantially lower than all of its neighbours? Physically yes, but aesthetically this is diluted by the continuous roof line. The same method could've been used at GP.... 3 stands all roughly the same height. With the Gwladys St lower..... expanded in the future if success demanded. Can BMD be easily expanded beyond 53k?

 

[arch stanton]

I have him on ignore but it's amusing reading the replies and knowing exactly what is in the blocked text.

I would wager he is still extolling the virtues of betamax over VHS on other fora

 

[AndyRJ]

Someone mentioned on SSC forum that if the American investors get involved they want to increase it by 6k and it can be done at this stage.

The area to the rear of where the upper deck of the west stand will go in does appear to have been built to the original 61K footprint, there is space there to build back further and higher on that deck if needed. Doesn’t appear to be as much space on the east stand side but.

Doable but would need a decision very quickly as the roof strusses start to arrive for the two sides of the stadium. Any adjustment to height either side would be very expensive (funds we don’t presently have) and recall the planning limited our height to what we presently have.

Could be done down the line (a la City) but don’t see it happening in the original build.

Can't see that being true at all.

We're too far down the line now to be making such significant changes to the capacity. Extending the terracing would need changes to the roof which they are already installing. We'd also need to go back in for planning which would take 6 months minimum.

Only way of doing it without significant structural changes would be more safe standing but that's on the assumption it would be greater than 1:1.

 

[blulouie]

Move on....? I was part of a group that were talking to Peel about a stadium on central docks nearly a decade before BMD was ever mentioned. So i probably moved on when you were voting for Kirkby. Regardless, redevelopment would've always cost significantly less..... the tipping point of redevelopment versus relocation was always based on cost:benefits, financials/risks and opportunities. For most larger clubs redevelopment wins unless their current site cannot be expanded. Of course when moneybags owners are prepared to foot the whole bill and offer inflated naming rights for anything and everything then the goal posts can move.

Shareholder meetings are almost always minuted. This was an informal zoom discussion including him and BK.... but I'm sure all who were there would happily confirm. I was not there as I was away. It was relayed to me by all of those present. That was last September I think, and was quoted by myself and several others on here at the time.... and the figure has since been confirmed publically a few times.

Nowhere have I disputed that he (or his backer) could not fund the whole build. However the fact is that he/they did not intend to initially (for obvious reasons), as stated at AGMs and in the planning docs. The issue is one of the ultimate debt to the club. Being a lover of facts....Can you tell me what that is? I guarantee you can't! Can you tell me what the interest payments will be and what the bottom line will be to support our manager? No you can't! For a lover of facts it is you who seems be glibly prepared to accept that you know so few.

I have never been against BMD at all. I have some concerns and reservations about certain aspects of the project.... and am not prepared to peddle the same Wyness/Elstone/Kenwright myths about redevelopment that were disproven even long before Destination Kirkby had its final death knell. That's before you consider the financial performance of the current decision-makers!

Moshiri has quoted £760 mil FOR THE TOTAL PROJECT not sure why you don't acknowledge that. Plus as reported the Stadium CONTRUCTION cost is £505 mil not sure why you won't acknowledge that either yet it has been widely reported.

The debt ? Well you nor any of us know anything about what it will be or what level , for all we know the whole lot could be bought out leaving no debt on the club yet giving the new owners a going concern with the long term value of the club & stadium giving them a profit when they eventually sell on.
The way you are putting it is like its a leverage buy out to put debt on the club via loans & that is banned by the Premier lge.

Btw I didn't vote for Kirby Tom.

But I wholeheartedly voted for Bramley Moore Dock ....did you ?

 

[Tom Hughes]

Moshiri has quoted £760 mil FOR THE TOTAL PROJECT not sure why you don't acknowledge that. Plus as reported the Stadium CONTRUCTION cost is £505 mil not sure why you won't acknowledge that either yet it has been widely reported.

The debt ? Well you nor any of us know anything about what it will be or what level , for all we know the whole lot could be bought out leaving no debt on the club yet giving the new owners a going concern with the long term value of the club & stadium giving them a profit when they eventually sell on.
The way you are putting it is like its a leverage buy out to put debt on the club via loans & that is banned by the Premier lge.

Btw I didn't vote for Kirby Tom.

But I wholeheartedly voted for Bramley Moore Dock ....did you ?

I'm happy to discuss the differences between project and stadium construction costs....I've worked on several.... but the fact remains that Moshiri stated that the cost has risen from £500m to £760m..... all preps and procurement costs were included in that cost as per planning docs...... as were some projected incomes etc. At £500m costs those finances were sketchy...... what you are attempting to now misquote is now widely reported partly because we mentioned it months before.

I'm glad that you now admit that you do not know what the debt will be, but that you think it will then vanish into the ether of an ensuing sale, when nothing is documented to that effect. You might be right, but then again we might be bought by carpet-bagging Americans who pass as much of that debt onto the club as they can...... do you think Moshiri will care who he sells too as long as he minimises his losses? Yes... there are potential mutual benefits of packaging the club for a sale with a shiny new stadium, but there are serious risks too if that cost vastly exceeds the value. We've seen the effects of their frivolous spending approach on the pitch.... similar with increased stadium costs could leave us more than hamstrung.

When did you vote for BMD? There wasn't a vote.

I voted for Kings Dock and against Kirkby..... and we were asking the owners about central docks and the Loop site long before BMD. So, I've proven repeatedly that I am not a bit averse to moving per se....

 

[blulouie]

I'm happy to discuss the differences between project and stadium construction costs....I've worked on several.... but the fact remains that Moshiri stated that the cost has risen from £500m to £760m..... all preps and procurement costs were included in that cost as per planning docs...... as were some projected incomes etc. At £500m costs those finances were sketchy...... what you are attempting to now misquote is now widely reported partly because we mentioned it months before.

I'm glad that you now admit that you do not know what the debt will be, but that you think it will then vanish into the ether of an ensuing sale, when nothing is documented to that effect. You might be right, but then again we might be bought by carpet-bagging Americans who pass as much of that debt onto the club as they can...... do you think Moshiri will care who he sells too as long as he minimises his losses? Yes... there are potential mutual benefits of packaging the club for a sale with a shiny new stadium, but there are serious risks too if that cost vastly exceeds the value. We've seen the effects of their frivolous spending approach on the pitch.... similar with increased stadium costs could leave us more than hamstrung.

When did you vote for BMD? There wasn't a vote.

I voted for Kings Dock and against Kirkby..... and we were asking the owners about central docks and the Loop site long before BMD. So, I've proven repeatedly that I am not a bit averse to moving per se....

You must have missed this then.

 

[Tom Hughes]

View attachment 203917

You must have missed this then.

A survey is not a vote.... votes normally involve a ballot and options. Hope this helps.

 

[blulouie]

A survey is not a vote.... votes normally involve a ballot and options. Hope this helps.

Bit picky there Tom

Blues vote overwhelmingly in favour.
Did you not partake ?

 

[Tom Hughes]

Bit picky there Tom

Blues vote overwhelmingly in favour.
Did you not partake ?

It was literally a survey about defining principles of BMD and no other option.... part of the consultation process for BMD. In essence a fait accompli...... and certainly not a vote. Otherwise, you would be able to point me at all architects drawings for the various other options for GP and/or elsewhere.

 

[Cjplennon]

It was literally a survey about defining principles of BMD and no other option.... part of the consultation process for BMD. In essence a fait accompli...... and certainly not a vote. Otherwise, you would be able to point me at all architects drawings for the various other options for GP and/or elsewhere.

If i were a football club owner i would not invest my money in a new 750million stadium on the back of what we are calling a democratic 'vote' or referendum . I mean this isnt politics and its run more like a business where fans have an input but dont really have a final say in whats going to happen. The fans have views but they dont know the full picture and also if you have a vote / refurendum there has to be some viable options to vote on. Im of the opinion that redeveloping Goodison park was not economically viable and maybe even impossible, so even if that option had appeared on a ballot paper (and i may have voted for it) whats the point if its not feasible and the owner dont want it. The fact they did a survey on BMD means they took fans views into account on items that are 'negotiable' when designing the new stadium and the fans from what i can see voted in high numbers so to me showing they are engaged and supportive of the BMD development.