Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

New Everton Stadium

Like most new builds, it was a compromise. The £100 plus million to fill a dock in, or 7000 more seats in a different location. Think we chose the best option.
Just all rough estimates but if it was cost viable they would have made it bigger.

I remember Dan Meis even saying that the last 10000 seats on a new stadium are the most expensive.

I disagree with this, but my opinion carries little weight compared to an architect.

I would argue that building the stadium from scratch (as we have done & from a wet dock) and having the base in place, that actually that would be the most expensive part of the build. The size could be bigger IMO at a cost that is not prohibitive.

I'd argue coming back in a number of years time to add another tier, would be an expense.

I would argue that building from scratch we had a once in a lifetime opportunity to 'level up' and catch up to our peers. Seemingly the club did not have the same 'peers' in mind.

Let's not forget, that without putting an actual figure on it, that the first plans were clearly based on 60,000. They've down sized. At a glance the plans were comparible to NWHL while their was slightly longer we had more in the corners. That means we should have had 60,000 from the off - but - cautious old Everton decided to scale back. Has that ever been questioned? Have they ever justified it?

We get this line that the last seats are the most expensive. And what?
 
I disagree with this, but my opinion carries little weight compared to an architect.

I would argue that building the stadium from scratch (as we have done & from a wet dock) and having the base in place, that actually that would be the most expensive part of the build. The size could be bigger IMO at a cost that is not prohibitive.

I'd argue coming back in a number of years time to add another tier, would be an expense.

I would argue that building from scratch we had a once in a lifetime opportunity to 'level up' and catch up to our peers. Seemingly the club did not have the same 'peers' in mind.

Let's not forget, that without putting an actual figure on it, that the first plans were clearly based on 60,000. They've down scaled. At a glance the plans were comparible to NWHL while their was slightly longer we had more in the corners. That means we should have had 60,000 from the off - but - cautious old Everton decided to scale back. Has that ever been questioned? Have they ever justified it?

We get this line that the last seats are the most expensive. And what?
I have always felt the capacity feels about right. It offers a significant step up on our current capacity. These 60k + stadiums lack intimacy for me. I have a feeling when it is finished West Ham fans would definitely trade with us given the option.
 
I have always felt the capacity feels about right. It offers a significant step up on our current capacity. These 60k + stadiums lack intimacy for me. I have a feeling when it is finished West Ham fans would definitely trade with us given the option.

Fair point, but that's the design of them stadiums. Nothing to do with the capacity.

Meis was tasked with making BMD intimate but this was achievable with 60,000. Just that cautious Everton
well you know the rest.

The hole punch stadium will soon be over 60,000 might be an ugly stadium but it still retains intimacy.
 
Fair point, but that's the design of them stadiums. Nothing to do with the capacity.

Meis was tasked with making BMD intimate but this was achievable with 60,000. Just that cautious Everton
well you know the rest.

The hole punch stadium will soon be over 60,000 might be an ugly stadium but it still retains intimacy.
The new spurs stadium maximised the regs re distances and rake and you still get a lot of their fans complaining about the atmosphere compared to their old ground. Could be as much to do with a dilution in the support with an increase in the ratio more casual to hard core fans
 
I disagree with this, but my opinion carries little weight compared to an architect.

I would argue that building the stadium from scratch (as we have done & from a wet dock) and having the base in place, that actually that would be the most expensive part of the build. The size could be bigger IMO at a cost that is not prohibitive.

I'd argue coming back in a number of years time to add another tier, would be an expense.

I would argue that building from scratch we had a once in a lifetime opportunity to 'level up' and catch up to our peers. Seemingly the club did not have the same 'peers' in mind.

Let's not forget, that without putting an actual figure on it, that the first plans were clearly based on 60,000. They've down sized. At a glance the plans were comparible to NWHL while their was slightly longer we had more in the corners. That means we should have had 60,000 from the off - but - cautious old Everton decided to scale back. Has that ever been questioned? Have they ever justified it?

We get this line that the last seats are the most expensive. And what?

Would you be prepared to pay 50% extra on your season ticket for a few thousands more seats at the new site?
 

I might start going to matches again if the corporate box packages are decent.

If I can go to a match, but close the doors and put something else on the TV while eating and drinking my fill, then I’ll be very interested. It also means that I can say that ‘I was there’ when we scrape a decent result once in a blue moon, but I don’t actually have to watch many games or listen to the moaning.
 
As I posted a day ago, a bigger capacity brings in more revenue, which should help lower the price of some tickets.

That would be logical, however here is what will happen, the capacity will increase, but also the price of an average ticket is going to jump in price.

There is a reason the stadium is closer to 50k then 60k, if you make it to big, you lower the demand and thus the price of an individual seat. Having to much of a product can be a bad thing to it’s overall value and worth, as someone else pointed out demand means you can charge more and not flood the market, all this would have been weighed and crafted.
 
I have always felt the capacity feels about right. It offers a significant step up on our current capacity. These 60k + stadiums lack intimacy for me. I have a feeling when it is finished West Ham fans would definitely trade with us given the option.

The one PL game I've attended was West Ham-Everton in London in March 2019. Part of the reason I went was that i wanted to see the craziness people always talk about with PL. It was really unenthusiastic and plastic. Also I must compliment myself on my ability to outwardly act disappointed when Everton scored both its goals that day :D

Luckily I'll get to see London Stadium again soon because my girlfriend's family are all huge Chicago Cubs fans.
 
The stadium capacity argument has rumbled on since those first consultation phases.

It has always been about juggling a set of simultaneous equations relating to both supply and demand, the price-elasticity of demand for our fanbase (plus any greater latent support out there), plus size and value of local corporate demand..... all overlayed by an almost exponential cost/capacity (Supply) curve.

The general rule of thumb often quoted in stadium design guides, is that average cost per seat increases dramatically with increased capacity..... sometimes doubling (or more) construction costs for every 10k increase. Of course there's a lot of wiggle room in that. It is also very much dependent on the design format chosen, structural and other complexity, cost of land acquisition, planning and preparation, quality and scale of outfitting and amenities etc. The resultant cost then has to be measured against the ticket-price/demand curve to hit the so called sweetspot and to maximise returns to cover those costs.... and ultimately increase the club's coffers.

When West Ham moved to the London stadium they had to cut their ticket prices to fill it.... so much so, that their matchday income barely changed despite almost doubling their capacity. In recent times that capacity has increased slightly and the matchday income has began to sneak up too. But they were able to stack'em high and sell'em cheap because they got the stadium for effectively free. Unless Moshiri is gifting us the stadium, that does not apply to us.... far from it in fact. Similar for the larger clubs who chose redevelopment.... their expansion costs have been significantly lower and ticket price increases have been minimised or not been necessary. When building from scratch there is no existing (free) capacity to subsidise new (expensive) capacity...... so you are less able build speculatively and not have to worry about filling every seat for every match. The large Spurs and Arsenal stadiums used multiple high-quality corporate tiers with layers of executive boxes to substantially offset those costs.... (some might say detrimentally in terms of atmosphere). Apparently there are only 20-22 boxes at BMD, the corporate offer is much smaller and isn't in its own dedicated exclusive tier or 3, as at those stadia.... so a larger proportion of any increased costs would have to be met by general admission tickets.... so, it isn't just a case of aiming as high as possible to compete with our traditional peers or future proof our club (however important that is too)..... It is quite a cost-critical balancing act, especially if the sugar-daddy naming rights is less lucrative than first thought or as elsewhere.

IMO, the original 60k+ stadium was almost certainly dependent on a massive cash injection from a successful Commonwealth Games bid. When the Durban games were cancelled, the time-frame changed and Brum won, probably on the strength of being the more prepared safer bet. There was a long silent spell after that decision. When the club eventually made it's next stadium announcement, the plans had been rationalised to the smaller capacity. I don't think it's any great mystery why. So much for the consultation process, where the 60k+ option gained the most votes?

I've always had my doubts about the stadium costs. Owners often beef them up to exaggerate the quality (and probably boost any sell on value), and to temper the fans desire to "go big".... so that they can control prices by limiting supply, as at Juventus. At the time of the proposals Feyenoord were quoting £400m for a structurally more complex 63k, triple-tier stadium, with closing roof and also on partly reclaimed land. Moshiri's own design for Roma was quoted as €300m for the same capacity, but again in many ways a structurally more complex design.... so, it was slightly difficult to see how our slightly more structurally basic 53k stadium was costing so much more. That's before the owner said the costs had risen by 50% post covid, which the club itself now denies.... of course project and construction costs are different, but often conflated to misrepresent.

Some great discussion about smaller meaning more intimacy and better atmosphere etc. That can be the case. Tight smaller bowls with lower roof lines generally give greater unity and accoustic enhancement than tall high roofed multi-tier stadia.... that fragment the more vociferous support etc. There are contradictions to that though, with the likes of the millenium/principality stadium in Cardiff being multi tier and probably more atmospheric than any other stadium in the UK or the San Paulo/Maradona stadium in Napoli San Siro, Milan etc. It is very much dependent on layout, proportions, roof geometry and proximity. The comparison between our 60k and 52k designs are not massively different in those design terms. It is literally just adding another few rows all around. If anything, there is probably slightly better accoustic catchment in the bigger version. Of course, much would then depend on if it was full or not.
 

I might start going to matches again if the corporate box packages are decent.

If I can go to a match, but close the doors and put something else on the TV while eating and drinking my fill, then I’ll be very interested. It also means that I can say that ‘I was there’ when we scrape a decent result once in a blue moon, but I don’t actually have to watch many games or listen to the moaning.
Save yourself a bit of money and get a regular ticket and just put one of these on your head;
D903C1BA-BC40-4CDA-B2D2-B9D2F5D9782B.webp

Maybe cut a hole in it for scran and ale.
 
The new spurs stadium maximised the regs re distances and rake and you still get a lot of their fans complaining about the atmosphere compared to their old ground. Could be as much to do with a dilution in the support with an increase in the ratio more casual to hard core fans
I think they mainly got it wrong in not trying to better replicate the old WHL. The desire for a massive Kop is not always the best route for great atmosphere. The old WHL was famous for its tight double-decker bowl... with good proportioned upper tiers in both end stands, but more importantly for having the popular section on the sides with the east stands shelf being home to the most vociferous. Goodison was once like this too with the old Goodison Rd enclosure holding over 20k.... creating a cross pitch roar that reverberated around the whole stadium. Similar for the Kippax at Maine Rd, Kop at Brum etc. That shorter cross field distance meant the place was more readily filled with noise echoing back off the nearer opposite stand and spreading chants around the whole stadium. They should've gone with a larger version of the old east stand double decker on one side, with a large safe-standing lower tier. Instead, they've chucked them all in the large south stand with a very slightly up turned high roof. The effect has not been the same but they at least got better proportions and unity than at the Emirates.
 
I think they mainly got it wrong in not trying to better replicate the old WHL. The desire for a massive Kop is not always the best route for great atmosphere. The old WHL was famous for its tight double-decker bowl... with good proportioned upper tiers in both end stands, but more importantly for having the popular section on the sides with the east stands shelf being home to the most vociferous. Goodison was once like this too with the old Goodison Rd enclosure holding over 20k.... creating a cross pitch roar that reverberated around the whole stadium. Similar for the Kippax at Maine Rd, Kop at Brum etc. That shorter cross field distance meant the place was more readily filled with noise echoing back off the nearer opposite stand and spreading chants around the whole stadium. They should've gone with a larger version of the old east stand double decker on one side, with a large safe-standing lower tier. Instead, they've chucked them all in the large south stand with a very slightly up turned high roof. The effect has not been the same but they at least got better proportions and unity than at the Emirates.
On a side note , my favourite part of Goodison used to be the old main stand it was a great atmosphere in it and visually impressive when in another part of the ground.
Always disliked the new main stand , it was a downgrade visually and atmospherically and it’s cost had a detrimental impact on our immediate future.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top