New Everton Stadium

Tom Hughes said:
I don't have to make any assumptions about finances.... our current predicament and much of that process is fairly clear and well-documented. No financial deal was secured at any point during the initial planning, nor any subsequent construction phase since. If there was, it would've been shouted from the roof tops. No banks would go near us. Yes, we spent a few tens of millions before the war.... we then continued to pump hundreds of millions into it after it started, despite knowing that a key element of the funding mechanism was no longer in place. As a consequence we have had to increase loans from other third parties.... one of which appearing to be able to scupper any others and may be falling foul of P&S legislation..... which could jeopardise the club's whole future!!

As regards redevelopment, the same or much higher capacity and corporate provision could've been provided for a fraction of the cost, as has been shown multiple times elsewhere..... That's what will determine income, and the same funding models can apply to both. I don't believe that over-looking Wallasey/New-Brighton/Vauxhall/Nelson Dock and certainly not the city's sewage plant (which may assault another sense, killing any view) adds any greater matchday income than say over-looking a grade 1 listed Victorian Park in an age-old architectural face-off with our near rivals, at the site of the world's first purpose built football stadium. Most of the world's greatest stadia/arenas barely have any outward facing windows.... why? Because the people are primarily there to watch the football or view the stadium's pitch/stands on non-match days. Picturesque external views (on 2 sides) are nice to have, but they're not money generators for stadia. The plaza is a good space and may offer some income opportunities, but the likes of Man City have far more space and have only elected to use a small part of that for fan zones because there isn't massive money in them and the majority of fans don't use them at all. Put it this way, you could place it Crosby Marina over-looking Liverpool bay and the Iron men with biggest fanzone in the world or similarly at Speke over-looking the Estuary, the business and retail parks and Speke Hall....reality is it would add nothing to matchday income by virtue of being close to water or views at all, and would be a complete disaster logistically.
Click to expand...

I've asked you multiple times how you make a business case for staying at Goodison (not skimping numbers) and you haven't. Any total redevelopment will not actually start earning us any money so it will be cost we have to service, I.e. detrimental to the first team. We could build one massive PE stand and perhaps gain but not from a total rebuild. If you don't think location is important that's up to you, I'm thinking the club disagree otherwise they would have chosen Stonebridge.

As I said in my previous post we'll see about finance and we haven't got that long to wait, by spring we should know one way or another.
 
The binman chronicles said:
I've asked you multiple times how you make a business case for staying at Goodison (not skimping numbers) and you haven't. Any total redevelopment will not actually start earning us any money so it will be cost we have to service, I.e. detrimental to the first team. We could build one massive PE stand and perhaps gain but not from a total rebuild. If you don't think location is important that's up to you, I'm thinking the club disagree otherwise they would have chosen Stonebridge.

As I said in my previous post we'll see about finance and we haven't got that long to wait, by spring we should know one way or another.
Click to expand...

Erm, you haven't asked me multiple times at all, otherwise I would've stated the blindingly obvious. The business case is the one you alluded to yourself only a couple of posts ago. No-one outside of London has built a whole new 50k+stadium ahead of the redevelopment option, because unless site constraints are completely insurmountable, they are generally not financially prohibitive and consequently redevelopment is almost always the most cost-effective option. Arsenal had to move because they were in a listed structure that was almost completely surrounded by other listed buildings. No-one else in the 50k+ category has moved, other than West Ham and Man City.... who got freebies.

The massively reduced cost of that option would've meant that we wouldn't have needed any borrowing, so why you're talking about paying off loans is beyond me. We spent £100m just prepping this site. LFC built a stand as big as those at Wembley with more corporate than the whole of BMD on its own for less than that. No whole new stadium has ROI remotely close to redevelopment because much of the existing capacity is recyclable, already paid for and subsidises the new capacity.

I haven't once said that location isn't important at all. It's absolutely essential, and I've said it so many times! Stone Bridge was a non-starter on transport, not on scenery. You said that matchday income would be higher because some corporates will have views of the water rather than a few victorian terraces. That's nonsense!

BMD was always about inflating perception and value to maximise sell on.... that's ok as long as the numbers balance and we're not completely hamstrung by debt. Guess what happened next! It was never about being cheaper than redevelopment.
 
Tom Hughes said:
ou said that matchday income would be higher because some corporates will have views of the water rather than a few victorian terraces. That's nonsense!
Click to expand...
I don't think that anybody seriously believes that Goodison will have the same attraction as BMD on matchday. If nothing else there will be lots of tourists milling around and I do also believe there will be corporate opportunities that simply would never be seen at Goodison.

BMD seems to be part of a much bigger Docklands project. This should present opportunities for the club long into the future,.
 
Tom Hughes said:
The massively reduced cost of that option would've meant that we wouldn't have needed any borrowing, so why you're talking about paying off loans is beyond me. We spent £100m just prepping this site. LFC built a stand as big as those at Wembley with more corporate than the whole of BMD on its own for less than that. No whole new stadium has ROI remotely close to redevelopment because much of the existing capacity is recyclable, already paid for and subsidises the new capacity.
Click to expand...

It just feels like we go around and around in circles with this to the point I'm very bored with it now. I have asked you before and you've given the same wishy-washy response as above.

I somehow think we would need to borrow money else how are we paying for this redevelopment?

So seeing you won't I'll do the detail for you. I did say we could build one stand and get away with it, say Moshiri covers that one as a freebie (80 or so million) and we add 8000 seats to the PE. We'll have a 47k stadium earing around 7 million extra per season plus food and beverages but bear in mind we have lost almost all the current fan zone and parking currently there. That 7-8 million I don't think is going to radically change our circumstances or wider perception. We'll still have the worst percentage of obstructed views and possibly the most cramped concourses in the other 3 sides of any ground in the country.

We also have an issue now that we aren't going to be able to gain as many seats per stand as easily as the PE as all the rest are larger to start with. If we aim for 60k that means we are only gaining 4k per stand at a cost of nearly 100 million for each one that are far more challenging in terms of footprint than the PE. The business case for such doesn't make sense, it would take 28 years to pay off each stand before interest comes into it. We could re-roof and block off the worst views at the back of the BR and GS thus hold up the upper tiers without pillars but then we've paid tens of millions to reduce the capacity and left with a carbuncle of stadium.

You keep referring to the Anfield road as a shining beacon of what to do, I see a development that was supposed to be 60 million, jumped to 80 million before this latest bit of drama which is surely going to end up moving that further upwards again and a year later they've got less seats in their stadium than they had to start with, They are now losing money now every game played which further adds to that total. All that and they had completely cleared the land required to build it beforehand.

If we had developed Goodison continually then it would make perfect sense to do what Villa are doing. The only way it would make sense now is to build one stand every 10 to 15 years making sure you pay the first before doing the next and in 40 odd years we'll end up with the same thing we are going to have next year. But BM will earn more money than Goodison because of the things already we have said a million times over and it would be doing the max from day 1 and not several decades in the future...
 

The binman chronicles said:
It just feels like we go around and around in circles with this to the point I'm very bored with it now. I have asked you before and you've given the same wishy-washy response as above.

I somehow think we would need to borrow money else how are we paying for this redevelopment?

So seeing you won't I'll do the detail for you. I did say we could build one stand and get away with it, say Moshiri covers that one as a freebie (80 or so million) and we add 8000 seats to the PE. We'll have a 47k stadium earing around 7 million extra per season plus food and beverages but bear in mind we have lost almost all the current fan zone and parking currently there. That 7-8 million I don't think is going to radically change our circumstances or wider perception. We'll still have the worst percentage of obstructed views and possibly the most cramped concourses in the other 3 sides of any ground in the country.

We also have an issue now that we aren't going to be able to gain as many seats per stand as easily as the PE as all the rest are larger to start with. If we aim for 60k that means we are only gaining 4k per stand at a cost of nearly 100 million for each one that are far more challenging in terms of footprint than the PE. The business case for such doesn't make sense, it would take 28 years to pay off each stand before interest comes into it. We could re-roof and block off the worst views at the back of the BR and GS thus hold up the upper tiers without pillars but then we've paid tens of millions to reduce the capacity and left with a carbuncle of stadium.

You keep referring to the Anfield road as a shining beacon of what to do, I see a development that was supposed to be 60 million, jumped to 80 million before this latest bit of drama which is surely going to end up moving that further upwards again and a year later they've got less seats in their stadium than they had to start with, They are now losing money now every game played which further adds to that total. All that and they had completely cleared the land required to build it beforehand.

If we had developed Goodison continually then it would make perfect sense to do what Villa are doing. The only way it would make sense now is to build one stand every 10 to 15 years making sure you pay the first before doing the next and in 40 odd years we'll end up with the same thing we are going to have next year. But BM will earn more money than Goodison because of the things already we have said a million times over and it would be doing the max from day 1 and not several decades in the future...
Click to expand...
Well put, if a tad convoluted

But with Everton, Moshiri, Kenwright nothing is ever that simple.
 
By the time Moshiri came to the club, the only realistic option for us was a new stadium.

It's such a futile exercise arguing we would have been better off acquiring houses and land around Goodison 20 - 30 years ago or developing stands and facilities gradually over time. It didn't happen!!

We were where we were in 2016. A new stadium was the only option. It's going to be great.
 
What seems to get overlooked in these calculations is the effect inflation will have over mid to long term.
A loan of £2/3/400m and its repayments will reduce relatively year on year as the value of money increases.
Revenue will increase based on today's prices, and this will increase even more when taking into consideration inflation.
We will look back in 10 years at a stadium cost of £750m as cheap when the going rate will be £1bn+
 
Tom Hughes said:
Erm, you haven't asked me multiple times at all, otherwise I would've stated the blindingly obvious. The business case is the one you alluded to yourself only a couple of posts ago. No-one outside of London has built a whole new 50k+stadium ahead of the redevelopment option, because unless site constraints are completely insurmountable, they are generally not financially prohibitive and consequently redevelopment is almost always the most cost-effective option. Arsenal had to move because they were in a listed structure that was almost completely surrounded by other listed buildings. No-one else in the 50k+ category has moved, other than West Ham and Man City.... who got freebies.

The massively reduced cost of that option would've meant that we wouldn't have needed any borrowing, so why you're talking about paying off loans is beyond me. We spent £100m just prepping this site. LFC built a stand as big as those at Wembley with more corporate than the whole of BMD on its own for less than that. No whole new stadium has ROI remotely close to redevelopment because much of the existing capacity is recyclable, already paid for and subsidises the new capacity.

I haven't once said that location isn't important at all. It's absolutely essential, and I've said it so many times! Stone Bridge was a non-starter on transport, not on scenery. You said that matchday income would be higher because some corporates will have views of the water rather than a few victorian terraces. That's nonsense!

BMD was always about inflating perception and value to maximise sell on.... that's ok as long as the numbers balance and we're not completely hamstrung by debt. Guess what happened next! It was never about being cheaper than redevelopment.
Click to expand...
I know right. If we go back to the root cause of all our problems we never should have left Anfield. We would have been the only team in a football made city and LFC would never have existed. I keep bringing this up but people aren’t acknowledging it or listening. In other words, bore off.
 

Jacko93 said:
I cant remember exactly what it consisted of, but there was an open letter to Arsenal from Usmanov years back which might shed some light on the funding approach that Moshiri is/was taking. Was definitely something to do with how the Emirates funding model (debt laden) was the reason for their fall in performance. Things have obviously changed, but maybe the plan was never to actually loan from external arties for all, but to offer shares as part if a cash injection.

I wonder if Kenwright has actually scuppered the whole thing with his shady deals and he's only being kept on to get us out of it.

Who knows...
Click to expand...
Usmanov Moshiri open letter to the Arsenal Board.
From para 8 onwards.
www.bbc.com

Usmanov letter to Arsenal board

Read in full Alisher Usmanov's letter to the Arsenal board.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
The binman chronicles said:
I've asked you multiple times how you make a business case for staying at Goodison (not skimping numbers) and you haven't. Any total redevelopment will not actually start earning us any money so it will be cost we have to service, I.e. detrimental to the first team. We could build one massive PE stand and perhaps gain but not from a total rebuild. If you don't think location is important that's up to you, I'm thinking the club disagree otherwise they would have chosen Stonebridge.

As I said in my previous post we'll see about finance and we haven't got that long to wait, by spring we should know one way or another.
Click to expand...

Stonebridge was never really an option, it was simply reported as an option to help the council out.
 
micknick said:
Once the stadium is built when will the extra revenue from it kick in? Genuine question... I remember Arsenal were suddenly able to start throwing some money around after a period of being frugal.
Click to expand...
I may well be wrong here, but the big difference is Arsenal didn't have issues funding their stadium, whereas if the itk's are correct, we do. Having to beg steal and borrow at extortionate amounts meaning that the potential upsides from the new stadium revenue may be wiped out by massive debts.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top