New Everton Stadium

Tom Hughes said:
I never made the comparison with the yellow wall, the club did! My point was that it was hype and that the reduced 60rows, while a good size, is nothing really remarkable in that context.

The comparison with the Park end was purely about depth of a stand we're all familiar with, so that people could get a feel for what 60 rows meant. I qualified that with further more direct comparisons with several other big goal stands, but you've only homed in on the one related to a simple scale comparison with a comparatively small stand. If you simply added 20 rows to the Park end it would be a 9k stand..... would anyone think that was a large home end stand reminiscent of the yellow wall? No. Similar with the Gwladys street comparison. If the church wasn't there it would have the same or bigger capacity than the south stand, but would anyone say it was a massive home end? My assertion was that the answer for most people would again be no.

What would have a higher propensity to generate noise and spread chants: a 4 sided ground of say 20 rows or a one sided monster stand of 80 rows? That unity is generally proportional to the number of rows. Yes, bowl effect helps too, but again that applies to all other club's home ends too, especially if you're going to add people sitting in the corners to boost home-end capacity figures. Both ends at Old Trafford for instance would be over 20k each..... any Yellow Wall references?

Actually, the initial bigger design in full safe-standing mode (ie 2 steps per row at 2:1 capacity ratio) could've been very similar to the yellow wall. Unfortunately, the revised plans choice of 750mm treads meant that it will never be 2:1 ratio and only the first 27 rows are earmaked for that treatment in anycase. So there was a conscious down-sizing from the initial design which coined the whole yellow wall comparison at the first consultation stage.

You're right I haven't been inside BMD yet, but I've been in many similar sized stands and I have been to Dortmund a few times too.... the first time about 40yrs ago when it was approximately half its current depth, so I've seen (and heard) the difference between small and large versions and I can tell you it can be absolutely deafening in there now. The overall point being that I've been a bit wary of false advertising by EFC since the days of "Stadium for practically nothing" etc.
Click to expand...
and I’ve explained why they used the Yellow wall comparison but you keep banging on about rows etc.

I have absolutely no idea why you’re talking about Old Trafford and any yellow wall comparisons. Bit weird.

All in all, I haven’t got the inclination to keep going through this with you, Tom.

I’ll think what I think and you think what you think.
 
Last edited:
The binman chronicles said:
Why we need a new stadium...

View attachment 230525


55 quid...

It would be three decades easily to sort it all out if we chose to stay.
Click to expand...

What? Why? A redevelopment of Goodison could be quite easily phased. But anyway that's all hypothetical so never mind.


Tom Hughes said:
I never made the comparison with the yellow wall, the club did! My point was that it was hype and that the reduced 60rows, while a good size, is nothing really remarkable in that context.

The comparison with the Park end was purely about depth of a stand we're all familiar with, so that people could get a feel for what 60 rows meant. I qualified that with further more direct comparisons with several other big goal stands, but you've only homed in on the one related to a simple scale comparison with a comparatively small stand. If you simply added 20 rows to the Park end it would be a 9k stand..... would anyone think that was a large home end stand reminiscent of the yellow wall? No. Similar with the Gwladys street comparison. If the church wasn't there it would have the same or bigger capacity than the south stand, but would anyone say it was a massive home end? My assertion was that the answer for most people would again be no.

What would have a higher propensity to generate noise and spread chants: a 4 sided ground of say 20 rows or a one sided monster stand of 80 rows? That unity is generally proportional to the number of rows. Yes, bowl effect helps too, but again that applies to all other club's home ends too, especially if you're going to add people sitting in the corners to boost home-end capacity figures. Both ends at Old Trafford for instance would be over 20k each..... any Yellow Wall references?

Actually, the initial bigger design in full safe-standing mode (ie 2 steps per row at 2:1 capacity ratio) could've been very similar to the yellow wall. Unfortunately, the revised plans choice of 750mm treads meant that it will never be 2:1 ratio and only the first 27 rows are earmaked for that treatment in anycase. So there was a conscious down-sizing from the initial design which coined the whole yellow wall comparison at the first consultation stage.

You're right I haven't been inside BMD yet, but I've been in many similar sized stands and I have been to Dortmund a few times too.... the first time about 40yrs ago when it was approximately half its current depth, so I've seen (and heard) the difference between small and large versions and I can tell you it can be absolutely deafening in there now. The overall point being that I've been a bit wary of false advertising by EFC since the days of "Stadium for practically nothing" etc.
Click to expand...
Great Post.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1028.webp
    IMG_1028.webp
    954.9 KB · Views: 23
The binman chronicles said:
And you full of it too so it should make sense to you.
Click to expand...

Be specific or stick to justifying your own comment! I guarantee you cannot!

The offending roof support in your picture was costed for removal in the 80s by Littlewood's architecture department and again in the 90s by AFL I think. Referenced by Philip Carter in 2 or more AGMs. Cost: a pittance. 30 yrs? Have you a reference? I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense.

BMD is great stadium so let's desist with the Kenwright/Wyness/Elstone propaganda about Goodison. It was nonsense then, and is still no sense now.
 
Tom Hughes said:
Be specific or stick to justifying your own comment! I guarantee you cannot!

The offending roof support in your picture was costed for removal in the 80s by Littlewood's architecture department and again in the 90s by AFL I think. Referenced by Philip Carter in 2 or more AGMs. Cost: a pittance. 30 yrs? Have you a reference? I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense.

BMD is great stadium so let's desist with the Kenwright/Wyness/Elstone propaganda about Goodison. It was nonsense then, and is still no sense now.
Click to expand...

Adding cantilever roofs to the 3 exiting stands is the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig. Only very expensive lipstick that is going to cost tens of millions and it still doesn't address the host of other problems.

You know full well I'm talking about a phased reconstruction and I said 3 decades so as it stands that could be as little as 17 years although I would expect it to be closer to 30 years. For example Manchester City a club we can all agree have much more means than us have been redeveloping the Etihad since 2010, if you go from the actual stand redevelopment then you could say 2013 and it will be ready by 2025 so that's 12 years for two new tiers on existing stands with all the space ready to do so.

If we compare to our neighbours, we can go back to what 1991? They've been buying up houses for the best part of 30 years.

But we are just going to sweep through it in a few years? The club that don't have a pot to piss in. Okay...
 

The binman chronicles said:
Adding cantilever roofs to the 3 exiting stands is the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig. Only very expensive lipstick that is going to cost tens of millions and it still doesn't address the host of other problems.

You know full well I'm talking about a phased reconstruction and I said 3 decades so as it stands that could be as little as 17 years although I would expect it to be closer to 30 years. For example Manchester City a club we can all agree have much more means than us have been redeveloping the Etihad since 2010, if you go from the actual stand redevelopment then you could say 2013 and it will be ready by 2025 so that's 12 years for two new tiers on existing stands with all the space ready to do so.

If we compare to our neighbours, we can go back to what 1991? They've been buying up houses for the best part of 30 years.

But we are just going to sweep through it in a few years? The club that don't have a pot to piss in. Okay...
Click to expand...

Liverpool were moving into the Park under the previous owners, and the owners before that, so you can lose a couple of decades from your faux analysis straight away. Once FSG came in and they eventually decided to redevelop, CPOs were secured in months (including several listed buildings that they didn't own and far more houses than we would need...) the build followed shortly after. Not 30yrs at all.

Spurs did it not once but twice in the planning minefield that is London in a fraction of the time.

Your complaint about your seat was with regards to that roof support only. Cost of removal would be minimal, but rest assured if we spent less than half £750m on GP, it could be like the San Siro with knobs on....all hypothetical now of course, but that doesn't mean we should be bombarded with the same club propaganda that was rubbished by architects even before Kings Dock .
 
Was over on the dark side today, took the kids to New Brighton for a few hours. Wow! First time I have seen it from the Wirral, looks amazing, pic doesn't do it justice but great to now see it part of the historic waterfront from this view.
1000015931.webp


1000015928.webp



Was also an added bonus of this being in the corner of my phone when I took the photo too lol
1000015933.webp
 
Tom Hughes said:
Your complaint about your seat was with regards to that roof support only. Cost of removal would be minimal, but rest assured if we spent less than half £750m on GP, it could be like the San Siro with knobs on....all hypothetical now of course, but that doesn't mean we should be bombarded with the same club propaganda that was rubbished by architects even before Kings Dock .
Click to expand...

These are my own thoughts not propaganda, once you add realisim into the mix. I've already said that Goodison would never make the same amount of money that BM would - even with a bigger capacity and you'd hope naming rights will end up paying (in the end) half of the build cost anyhow so we are not much different there. We'd have built the 2nd tier on the PE and thereafter the financials would not have made sense. Except to you.
 
muckers said:
Absolutely text book Tom.

I don’t care how many rows, I care about how many people it can hold.

So despite it “only being 20 rows” bigger than the small park end, it is well over twice the capacity and could possibly hold nearly 3 times as much if/when the legislation changes.

And I have seen it in person a few times, you haven’t.

It is mightily impressive and the Park end is laughable in comparison.

And the Yellow wall was referenced as they meant the stadium would have a steep, single tier home end where the most passionate fans will be housed and will be the beating heart of the stadium.

They were hardly going to use the Kop for that point were they?

The Yellow wall has 120 rows you say? Even the bigger design wouldn’t come close to that which just illustrates my point.
Click to expand...
I care about rows and ive seen it in real life. Its not what was promised.
 


Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top