New Everton Stadium

Bedfordblue said:
But haven’t Feyenoord canned their new stadium, and current estimates for Roma are north of £500m now, while being 1 year behind schedule already?
Both ‘estimates’ look like pie in the sky now Tbf.
Click to expand...

The Meis design was dropped due to planning bureaucracy at the proposed site, and a new owner, not cost. I believe the new proposals are for a larger 62k stadium designed by Populous. Hence the higher cost.

Feyenoord were self financing using a large enabling development scheme, all of which was subject to post covid cost hikes. It was still costing less than our proposals. Conflicting reports about whether it is cancelled/shelved or if redevelopment of der Kuip will be revisited.
 
AndyRJ said:
To be fair, you can't compare the cost of Bramley Moore to a different stadium in a different country. Construction costs and consultants fees in the UK are among the highest in the world.

Not forgetting the enabling works package which added £100-150m, more complex sub-structure design from retention of the soft silts and existing dock walls, restoration of the Grade II listed Hydraulic Tower along with other heritage artefacts, new bridge structure, new water channel etc etc.

There is a significant cost associated with things you cannot see or are outside of the stadum envelope. Ultimately you are not comparing apples with apples.
Click to expand...

I was being broad-brush with just 2 examples that were related for different reasons, but if you want, you can apply construction indices for different countries and regions to compare costs more accurately. They are not massively dissimilar for Italy, Netherlands and NW England. Yes, London could possibly have a 20-40% mark up. Planning bureaucracy in Italy can be notoriously more hazardous as shown by the number of cancelled stadium projects in that country, including the Meis example.

However, the point I was making was regarding the relative complexity of those stadia as a comparison and their lower respective costs.... and all that in the context of regular conflation of whole project cost and stadium construction costs.... which is what really makes comparisons so difficult.
 
Jamiednm said:
I'm tempted to lobby the club to turn the stadium in to a luxury hotel resort complete with cheese and wine evenings, several indoor pools, a tropical dome and multiple world-leading restaurants. We can still play our games behind closed doors at Goodison, but broadcast them LIVE to the watching fans in a huge, classy auditorium within the BMD World resort.

Let our awful players toil away at an empty, cold, wet Goodison while the fans get to enjoy a fully immersive experience in the BMD World Resort Auditorium, complete with massaging seats, Chang on tap and artificial pitch side noises. It's the least the club can do to apologise for the misery they bring us year-in, year-out.
Click to expand...

*and cabaret evenings including live music, comedy and improv slam poetry.
 

Tom Hughes said:
I was being broad-brush with just 2 examples that were related for different reasons, but if you want, you can apply construction indices for different countries and regions to compare costs more accurately. They are not massively dissimilar for Italy, Netherlands and NW England. Yes, London could possibly have a 20-40% mark up. Planning bureaucracy in Italy can be notoriously more hazardous as shown by the number of cancelled stadium projects in that country, including the Meis example.

However, the point I was making was regarding the relative complexity of those stadia as a comparison and their lower respective costs.... and all that in the context of regular conflation of whole project cost and stadium construction costs.... which is what really makes comparisons so difficult.
Click to expand...
Ok then, happy for you to do that if you want to back up what you're saying?

The ARCADIS International Construction Costs index for 2022 puts Manchester and Liverpool in 14th and 16th place respecitvely out of 100 cities (London being No.1). Amsterdam were in 50th place and Rome in 54th. This suggests otherwise but would welcome some other data you may have that proves costs are comparable.

It's a known fact that labour and material costs in the UK have risen steeply, particularly since Brexit. I was reading an article recently which indicated that between 2015 and 2022 the cost of materials like cement, timber and steel increased by 60% in the UK whilst labour has gone up by 30% over the same period. In the EU this increase is only 30% and 14% respectively.

I also can't see how you can have sufficient knowledge or detail for each of those projects to suggest that Bramley Moore costs are over inflated. It's just your opinion based on what you perceive to be more complex stadia without understanding the whole picture. As i've pointed out, we are paying a significant premium in terms of construction costs based on the sites location.

Did either of those stadiums ever make it to tender stage? I know BAM were involved with the Feyenoord City Project and the main reason it got canned was due to the increase in cost to circa £425m and their refusal to agree a fixed price due to the high risk nature of the project. I don't know enough about Roma's new stadium but i'll bet it didn't get much further than planning stage and the enabling works costs would likely be nowhere near those at Bramley Moore. It also wasn't in a marine environment.

As I recall, our original stadium cost was mooted at £300m, that then shot up to £500m. The increase likely following contractor input, development of the scheme in more detail and a better understand of the costs associated with the dock infill process and the subsequent impact on the structure. I expect similar would have happened with both Feyenoord and Roma's stadia had they progressed.
 
This might be of interest to some people. Free to register and watch online.

https://www.ice.org.uk/events/latest-events/dock-filling-for-the-new-everton-stadium/

1677200985341.webp
 
Rich1878 said:
I honestly think it would be worth it.

The ammount of people trying to get tickets must be a few thousand?

I , for one struggle , and that doesn't include the shortlist for a ST
Click to expand...
You're not the one that would to shell out the extra few hundred million quid though.

The stadium is a financial decision, same as every new stadium. And if the finances don't work, it won't happen. Financial decisions don't consider willy waving as a criteria.

I would love us to have a 100,000 seater stadium but it is not practical. What we do have is 15000 extra seats.

A balance has to made between how many bums on seats we can realistically expect, against how much each extra seat costs. And the point where additional seats become unviable is the point where capacity stops.
 
SweetAmnesia672 said:
A lot of NFL/MLB teams in the US are currently dealing with building too much capacity in their stadiums during the 90s, when pro sports attendance likely peaked here. One of the challenges is that when tickets become too available in the secondary market, the people who suffer the most are season ticket holders, who suddenly have to eat the cost of a ticket that goes unused (or sell it under face value hoping to recoup something) because it's not as easy to get rid of. If that happens often enough, their season tickets become less attractive and they stop renewing, which makes the problem that much worse (i.e. there's even more tickets available now).

Logistically speaking, the PL is definitely different. First off, relegation is possible so there are far fewer 'meaningless' games in general. Likewise, even in good years, fans in the US often stop attending late season games because the upcoming playoff games become more important, both for the team competitively and for the fans in terms of interest. That's not an issue in the PL.

Still, the possibility of overbuilding is definitely real. I have no doubt that in a 60-65k stadium, they'll have no problem selling every seat for the biggest games, but imagine being a frustrated STH who has to eat the cost of terrible matchup multiple times a year.

As someone else in this thread pointed out, every seat they add is by definition the cheapest seat in the stadium, and it can only get purchased by a fan who is even more a casual supporter than everyone else in the stadium.

I'm not an expert on the matter by any means, but based on the numbers they published (31k season ticket holders, 17k waiting list), 53k doesn't seem that crazy.
Click to expand...
Got to hand it to you, season ticket holders not being able to sell their tickets is by far the most creative reason for a reduced capacity that I have seen for a long time.👏👏👏
 

WA Toffee said:
Got to hand it to you, season ticket holders not being able to sell their tickets is by far the most creative reason for a reduced capacity that I have seen for a long time.👏👏👏
Click to expand...

That’s not a touchy-feely comment. There’s a real economic cost to the team— when people perceive tickets as being easy to get, they don’t value season tickets as much. Worse yet, when they can’t attend and also can’t sell their ticket, it actually becomes a financial burden- they’re eating the cost of the ticket. That can and does encourage them to stop renewing. If you lose a diehard supporter who buys 23 tickets a year and try to replace them with 23 casual fans who will attend once, your cost of acquisition goes sky high and you likely have to price lower to even interest them.

This is an actual problem MLB and NFL teams in the US are dealing with right now. MLB teams are actively tearing out seats to reduce capacity and get more revenue from the fewer fans in attendance. NFL teams, even when they build new stadiums, are not going bigger- they’re staying in the same 65k-72k window, and that’s for teams in metro areas of 5-6M that only play 10-12x a year.
 
WA Toffee said:
You're not the one that would to shell out the extra few hundred million quid though.

The stadium is a financial decision, same as every new stadium. And if the finances don't work, it won't happen. Financial decisions don't consider willy waving as a criteria.

I would love us to have a 100,000 seater stadium but it is not practical. What we do have is 15000 extra seats.

A balance has to made between how many bums on seats we can realistically expect, against how much each extra seat costs. And the point where additional seats become unviable is the point where capacity stops.
Click to expand...
Thats the point, I think we could of easy filled more seats, so it does make financial sense , especially if we want to grow
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top