New Everton Stadium

[Tom Hughes]

all the tread depths are 750mm so I presume they can all be converted to safe standing at the 1:1.5 ratio?

Only if the supporting concourses can support the increases without becoming too crammed. Of course, it is also a balancing act in that, for (a 1.5 :1 ratio) each new standing space, you lose 2 seats. As shown in my last post, it doesn't take long before you get to point of having less seats than at GP (albeit with a much increased overall capacity). I think Dortmund's Stadium goes from 65k all seated (for internationals) to 81k for club matches. If the whole south stand at BMD became standing (at increased ratio) it would be approx 20k capacity. There is always a reduction in c-value when going from seated to standing, so without doing the calcs, I'm not sure what the views would be like near the back as a result. It is that steep that it may still be good/acceptable.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Doing nothing has led to our demise. Just got to hope this lifts us back up to where we belong. Like buying anything really expensive, the first few years will be the hardest but it gets easier and we will start to feel more and more of the

Unfortunately, that argument goes both ways though. Buying something very expensive that bankrupts you in the process, could also lead to your real and full demise (far more quickly)..... before you've even had a chance to sit in it, nevermind seeing any benefit! Especially if your only prospective new owners are carpet-bagging, ambulance-chasing, loan-shark chancers..... !! So yes, investing to increase revenue/value/perception/status is essential.....but it also always has its limits.

More importantly however, it was never a question of having either a dilapidated Goodison or a brand new BMD. There were always a range of options, with multiple incremental alternatives in between. We could've also had a modernised Goodison with £100m, £150m spent on it to achieve 53k+ capacity, or £200m upto say £400m spent on it, that could've easily yielded a much larger 65k+ capacity stadium, with history/tradition preserved, and tried and tested public transport already in place. Admittedly, no Royal blue Mersey on the doorstep (hasn't stopped us singing about it for generations). But probably the finest stadium face-off in World football. With no FFP/PSR wolves at the door and no possibility of administration staring us right in the face.

 

[The binman chronicles]

 

[The binman chronicles]

Unfortunately, that argument goes both ways though. Buying something very expensive that bankrupts you in the process, could also lead to your real and full demise (far more quickly)..... before you've even had a chance to sit in it, nevermind seeing any benefit! Especially if your only prospective new owners are carpet-bagging, ambulance-chasing, loan-shark chancers..... !! So yes, investing to increase revenue/value/perception/status is essential.....but it also always has its limits.

More importantly however, it was never a question of having either a dilapidated Goodison or a brand new BMD. There were always a range of options, with multiple incremental alternatives in between. We could've also had a modernised Goodison with £100m, £150m spent on it to achieve 53k+ capacity, or £200m upto say £400m spent on it, that could've easily yielded a much larger 65k+ capacity stadium, with history/tradition preserved, and tried and tested public transport already in place. Admittedly, no Royal blue Mersey on the doorstep (hasn't stopped us singing about it for generations). But probably the finest stadium face-off in World football. With no FFP/PSR wolves at the door and no possibility of administration staring us right in the face.

Stay at Goodison, no naming rights, no massive boost in hospitality, as like it or not only a select handful of people are paying what they are at BM. That is the power of that change of location and the beauty of the stadium bringing a fresh start to a worn out support base. It will bring in more sponsorship too for the same reasons. It will even give us new supporters who might choose us through stadium looks alone.

Or saddle ourselves with huge debts at Goodison, without those benefits to have a mishmash design like our neighbours. All for 10-15k supporters paying not much more than what they are now. That equals zero benefit to the club on pitch as everything put into the rebuild goes back into the repayments, and in this financial climate a similar chance of going bust.

The time to have rebuilt Goodison came and went in the 90's. Had they doubled up the Park End, bought up houses and straightend Goodison Road whilst it was far cheaper to do so, then yes a couple of hundred million to finish the stadium sounds reasonable. To start now and modernise every stand is double that easily and as stated above leaves us almost in the same situation as we are now once you offset the naming rights etc. that we would only get at BM.

Had covid/Ukraine not occurred we would have been fine as it would have costed 50% less with much lower interest payments. We've obviously made mistakes not taking the council loan and/or private sector loans at 4% but that was at a time the base rate was 0.5% so you can understand why they didn't want to take those offers at the time. Events dear boy shat on our best laid plans, as we are getting to the point now with income receipts of the hospitality take up and the fact the banks can see the stadium for what it will be that they would started to have made decent offers. Carpetbaggers or not they have given us the chance to move forward in the biggest way possible, else we were just going to slowly go backwards to utter insignificance.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Stay at Goodison, no naming rights, no massive boost in hospitality, as like it or not only a select handful of people are paying what they are at BM. That is the power of that change of location and the beauty of the stadium bringing a fresh start to a worn out support base. It will bring in more sponsorship too for the same reasons. It will even give us new supporters who might choose us through stadium looks alone.

Or saddle ourselves with huge debts at Goodison, without those benefits to have a mishmash design like our neighbours. All for 10-15k supporters paying not much more than what they are now. That equals zero benefit to the club on pitch as everything put into the rebuild goes back into the repayments, and in this financial climate a similar chance of going bust.

The time to have rebuilt Goodison came and went in the 90's. Had they doubled up the Park End, bought up houses and straightend Goodison Road whilst it was far cheaper to do so, then yes a couple of hundred million to finish the stadium sounds reasonable. To start now and modernise every stand is double that easily and as stated above leaves us almost in the same situation as we are now once you offset the naming rights etc. that we would only get at BM.

Had covid/Ukraine not occurred we would have been fine as it would have costed 50% less with much lower interest payments. We've obviously made mistakes not taking the council loan and/or private sector loans at 4% but that was at a time the base rate was 0.5% so you can understand why they didn't want to take those offers at the time. Events dear boy shat on our best laid plans, as we are getting to the point now with income receipts of the hospitality take up and the fact the banks can see the stadium for what it will be that they would started to have made decent offers. Carpetbaggers or not they have given us the chance to move forward in the biggest way possible, else we were just going to slowly go backwards to utter insignificance.

Any club can sell stadium naming rights. A fully transformed Goodison could've had naming rights too. The Nou Camp is currently being redeveloped and naming rights are already secured forcover £300m, so that doesn't preclude it at all. Multiple older stadia have had several naming rights sponsors. However, the main point here was that USM even sponsored the training ground and paid just to have first dibs at naming rights for BMD, so that was never a real impediment for the club..... the fella was practically sponsoring fresh air just to keep our books balanced.

As regards not being able to build new corporate at an older ground..... that is disproved by the fact that several redeveloped stadia in the UK have significantly more corporate/hospitality than BMD, which will include one of the lowest numbers of high-end box seats in the prem (even in the whole four English leagues). The costs for redevelopment were never going to be anything like as high as BMD, as proven repeatedly everywhere else. So that argument holds absolutely no water. If you're having to acquire a new site, fill in a dock, plus expensively conserve multiple historic features, effectively spending £150m+ before you even start constructing a stadium, that can never be the case. In terms of construction costs alone, LFC got to 61k with 3 times the number of boxes and nearly double the hospitality for spending as much spent on site prep. There is absolutely no chance that redevelopment need be remotely close in cost. Which is of course why the vast majority of larger clubs choose redevelopment.

As regards the war in the Ukraine, that did not double the costs of the new Anfield Rd or Etihad extensions. The other thing of course was that there was hardly anything above ground when the USM tap was turned off. Moshiri had already said that the costs had gone up to £750m only a few months later..... yet we plodded on regardless knowing full well the sums didn't add up. Many said it didn't matter because Billionaire Moshiri said he would cover it..... he didn't and now can't get rid quick enough and we're teetering on the edge of an abyss!

The truth is, the main reason we could not get reasonable finance deals was apparent long before the war. The financial plan was practically non-existent. It consisted of Bank of Daddy, plus half external secured finance underpinned by a naming rights deal. Even at the original projected £500m total costs, no financial institutions would go near us.... despite the biggest investment banks here and the US searching for investment for well over a year. Hence, the Liverpool council scheme that also seemed to disappear through the rotating doors with Joe Anderson.

Yes, of course the war was massively detrimental, but the complete failure to secure any financial package at any point shows that this scheme was always top heavy, high risk and highly speculative. It was always going to be totally reliant on the owners completing it, and staying in position long enough to secure any debt and substantiate/establish any increased value to sell on. It is now looking that Moshiri will have to sell the whole club for far less than the cost of the stadium alone, which hardly reflects the lucrative financial position your claiming for the new stadium option.

The way I see it, our only get out of jail card is if Moshiri takes that massive hit and that someone of real wealth comes in, who can absorb/restructure a much lower debt..... and of course Dyche keeps us up on a zero budget. None of which was on the brochure!

 

[The binman chronicles]

øAny club can sell stadium naming rights. A fully transformed Goodison could've had naming rights too.

You know a lot about design but this comment shows you have minimal business sense, or realistic business sense. Like St James Park dalliance with sports direct, we as a fan base would rebel against it, which just equates to bad publicity for the company involved. Sure if we are owned by a big corporation like USM who don't care about it being called by it's name might get away with it but even they didn't want to mess with the fan base.

By your understanding of it, Stamford Bridge, Old Trafford and Anfield would all be having a piece of the 'free' money pie. There is a big reason why they aren't. Spanish clubs might get away with it but you wouldn't in this country.

As regards not being able to build new corporate at an older ground.....

i didn't say we couldn't build corporate, I said it wouldn't get anywhere near the numbers that BM would pull in. Zoom out further, if we weren't moving stadium do you really think Goodison would be full given the crap we've watched the last few seasons? That would have decimated hospitality giving less reasons to build more. Same with GA, everyone sat behind a post now would think better of buying a ticket. Would a redevelopment bring the same numbers given the situation? Not sure.

As regards the war in the Ukraine, that did not double the costs of the new Anfield Rd or Etihad extensions.

The Anfield Road was 60m, jumped to 80m, God knows how much it will end up costing in the end as it still isn't finished 8 months after it should have been. What's your point? All it does is show how complex a rebuild can be despite them having a serviceable lower tier and all the space in the world at the back of it. We have one stand in that position. Can we afford to sink 100 million into a stand redevelopment and be left with 4k less paying punters for half a season like they have had to? All those costs add up too. Even the RS owners wouldn't start building one stand before they started the next and as we don't charge near £100 a ticket, or have the number of tourists queuing up who will pay for premium seats. How long would it take to pay off the first before we move on and how much inflation adds to the next one. None of this you consider.

You also say about site costs before we can build, try sticking our new stadium over Goodison and see how much more land we would need first. The three other stands will need compulsory purchases and how many legal challenges. How much it costs to clear in the end who knows, could be a fair percentage of the 100m it cost to fill in the dock. Again Goodison comes out cheaper but does it return the same amount of benefits longer term.

yet we plodded on regardless

What are supposed to do stop after sinking in a couple of hundred million? With by the way a commitment to restoring the dock if we don't use it. How does that then help us in any way, shape, or form?

he didn't and now can't get rid quick enough and we're teetering on the edge of an abyss!

The stadium is nearly built from here it will be finished and we will play in it. If we go into administration, get relegated - we will have more prospective owners, lost a large amount of debt and have a better footing to move forward than we've had for the past 20 years. It isn't ideal, but it's hardly an abyss that the doom mongers say it is.

I love Goodison. You don't know how much I am willing to pay for some seats once it comes down, but you are flogging a dead horse like it was a national winner. You only look for the sunny points in your plan and dismiss any of the simular issues you are pointing out at BM.

If it's Goodison at a total cost of (at least) 400 million with an unknown time frame and an uncertain amount of what can then be put back into the footballing side or even taken out, or BM where we are rolling the dice and front loading but at the end of the day a 750m build subtracting the naming rights and other benefits put it in around the same cost of the Goodison rebuild. To be ready in 4 years time and be at worst cost neutral to us (+/-) 5 or so million, and after the first few years should start becoming a massive help on the footballing side. I choose the latter.

 

[tommye]

You know a lot about design but this comment shows you have minimal business sense, or realistic business sense. Like St James Park dalliance with sports direct, we as a fan base would rebel against it, which just equates to bad publicity for the company involved. Sure if we are owned by a big corporation like USM who don't care about it being called by it's name might get away with it but even they didn't want to mess with the fan base.

By your understanding of it, Stamford Bridge, Old Trafford and Anfield would all be having a piece of the 'free' money pie. There is a big reason why they aren't. Spanish clubs might get away with it but you wouldn't in this country.



i didn't say we couldn't build corporate, I said it wouldn't get anywhere near the numbers that BM would pull in. Zoom out further, if we weren't moving stadium do you really think Goodison would be full given the crap we've watched the last few seasons? That would have decimated hospitality giving less reasons to build more. Same with GA, everyone sat behind a post now would think better of buying a ticket. Would a redevelopment bring the same numbers given the situation? Not sure.



The Anfield Road was 60m, jumped to 80m, God knows how much it will end up costing in the end as it still isn't finished 8 months after it should have been. What's your point? All it does is show how complex a rebuild can be despite them having a serviceable lower tier and all the space in the world at the back of it. We have one stand in that position. Can we afford to sink 100 million into a stand redevelopment and be left with 4k less paying punters for half a season like they have had to? All those costs add up too. Even the RS owners wouldn't start building one stand before they started the next and as we don't charge near £100 a ticket, or have the number of tourists queuing up who will pay for premium seats. How long would it take to pay off the first before we move on and how much inflation adds to the next one. None of this you consider.

You also say about site costs before we can build, try sticking our new stadium over Goodison and see how much more land we would need first. The three other stands will need compulsory purchases and how many legal challenges. How much it costs to clear in the end who knows, could be a fair percentage of the 100m it cost to fill in the dock. Again Goodison comes out cheaper but does it return the same amount of benefits longer term.



What are supposed to do stop after sinking in a couple of hundred million? With by the way a commitment to restoring the dock if we don't use it. How does that then help us in any way, shape, or form?



The stadium is nearly built from here it will be finished and we will play in it. If we go into administration, get relegated - we will have more prospective owners, lost a large amount of debt and have a better footing to move forward than we've had for the past 20 years. It isn't ideal, but it's hardly an abyss that the doom mongers say it is.

I love Goodison. You don't know how much I am willing to pay for some seats once it comes down, but you are flogging a dead horse like it was a national winner. You only look for the sunny points in your plan and dismiss any of the simular issues you are pointing out at BM.

If it's Goodison at a total cost of (at least) 400 million with an unknown time frame and an uncertain amount of what can then be put back into the footballing side or even taken out, or BM where we are rolling the dice and front loading but at the end of the day a 750m build subtracting the naming rights and other benefits put it in around the same cost of the Goodison rebuild. To be ready in 4 years time and be at worst cost neutral to us (+/-) 5 or so million, and after the first few years should start becoming a massive help on the footballing side. I choose the latter.

 

[glorydaze]

It’s funny how you can have someone on ignore and still know exactly what they’re saying by just reading the replies.

 

[kev]

It’s funny how you can have someone on ignore and still know exactly what they’re saying by just reading the replies.

THIS

 

[Toffeeslam]

You know a lot about design but this comment shows you have minimal business sense, or realistic business sense. Like St James Park dalliance with sports direct, we as a fan base would rebel against it, which just equates to bad publicity for the company involved. Sure if we are owned by a big corporation like USM who don't care about it being called by it's name might get away with it but even they didn't want to mess with the fan base.

By your understanding of it, Stamford Bridge, Old Trafford and Anfield would all be having a piece of the 'free' money pie. There is a big reason why they aren't. Spanish clubs might get away with it but you wouldn't in this country.



i didn't say we couldn't build corporate, I said it wouldn't get anywhere near the numbers that BM would pull in. Zoom out further, if we weren't moving stadium do you really think Goodison would be full given the crap we've watched the last few seasons? That would have decimated hospitality giving less reasons to build more. Same with GA, everyone sat behind a post now would think better of buying a ticket. Would a redevelopment bring the same numbers given the situation? Not sure.



The Anfield Road was 60m, jumped to 80m, God knows how much it will end up costing in the end as it still isn't finished 8 months after it should have been. What's your point? All it does is show how complex a rebuild can be despite them having a serviceable lower tier and all the space in the world at the back of it. We have one stand in that position. Can we afford to sink 100 million into a stand redevelopment and be left with 4k less paying punters for half a season like they have had to? All those costs add up too. Even the RS owners wouldn't start building one stand before they started the next and as we don't charge near £100 a ticket, or have the number of tourists queuing up who will pay for premium seats. How long would it take to pay off the first before we move on and how much inflation adds to the next one. None of this you consider.

You also say about site costs before we can build, try sticking our new stadium over Goodison and see how much more land we would need first. The three other stands will need compulsory purchases and how many legal challenges. How much it costs to clear in the end who knows, could be a fair percentage of the 100m it cost to fill in the dock. Again Goodison comes out cheaper but does it return the same amount of benefits longer term.



What are supposed to do stop after sinking in a couple of hundred million? With by the way a commitment to restoring the dock if we don't use it. How does that then help us in any way, shape, or form?



The stadium is nearly built from here it will be finished and we will play in it. If we go into administration, get relegated - we will have more prospective owners, lost a large amount of debt and have a better footing to move forward than we've had for the past 20 years. It isn't ideal, but it's hardly an abyss that the doom mongers say it is.

I love Goodison. You don't know how much I am willing to pay for some seats once it comes down, but you are flogging a dead horse like it was a national winner. You only look for the sunny points in your plan and dismiss any of the simular issues you are pointing out at BM.

If it's Goodison at a total cost of (at least) 400 million with an unknown time frame and an uncertain amount of what can then be put back into the footballing side or even taken out, or BM where we are rolling the dice and front loading but at the end of the day a 750m build subtracting the naming rights and other benefits put it in around the same cost of the Goodison rebuild. To be ready in 4 years time and be at worst cost neutral to us (+/-) 5 or so million, and after the first few years should start becoming a massive help on the footballing side. I choose the latter.

Well said mate

Staying put would have condemned us to slow death and rebuilding Goodison would have taken decades and cost the club infinitely more.

The stadium built now is the best we could of hoped for in the fact that’s it’s a huge upgrade on what we have and it’s closer to the city centre with an iconic design and location (even with the poo station next door) rather then a flat pack soulless stadium in somewhere like Kirby.

The reason for the state of the club is the reckless spending on average players given huge wages buy the club hierarchy at the time which has crippled us.

Where Tom is right that we need a takeover of the club with individuals with the nouse and pockets to take us forward.

Without this stadium that would have never happened anyway

 

[Tom Hughes]

You know a lot about design but this comment shows you have minimal business sense, or realistic business sense. Like St James Park dalliance with sports direct, we as a fan base would rebel against it, which just equates to bad publicity for the company involved. Sure if we are owned by a big corporation like USM who don't care about it being called by it's name might get away with it but even they didn't want to mess with the fan base.

By your understanding of it, Stamford Bridge, Old Trafford and Anfield would all be having a piece of the 'free' money pie. There is a big reason why they aren't. Spanish clubs might get away with it but you wouldn't in this country.



i didn't say we couldn't build corporate, I said it wouldn't get anywhere near the numbers that BM would pull in. Zoom out further, if we weren't moving stadium do you really think Goodison would be full given the crap we've watched the last few seasons? That would have decimated hospitality giving less reasons to build more. Same with GA, everyone sat behind a post now would think better of buying a ticket. Would a redevelopment bring the same numbers given the situation? Not sure.



The Anfield Road was 60m, jumped to 80m, God knows how much it will end up costing in the end as it still isn't finished 8 months after it should have been. What's your point? All it does is show how complex a rebuild can be despite them having a serviceable lower tier and all the space in the world at the back of it. We have one stand in that position. Can we afford to sink 100 million into a stand redevelopment and be left with 4k less paying punters for half a season like they have had to? All those costs add up too. Even the RS owners wouldn't start building one stand before they started the next and as we don't charge near £100 a ticket, or have the number of tourists queuing up who will pay for premium seats. How long would it take to pay off the first before we move on and how much inflation adds to the next one. None of this you consider.

You also say about site costs before we can build, try sticking our new stadium over Goodison and see how much more land we would need first. The three other stands will need compulsory purchases and how many legal challenges. How much it costs to clear in the end who knows, could be a fair percentage of the 100m it cost to fill in the dock. Again Goodison comes out cheaper but does it return the same amount of benefits longer term.



What are supposed to do stop after sinking in a couple of hundred million? With by the way a commitment to restoring the dock if we don't use it. How does that then help us in any way, shape, or form?



The stadium is nearly built from here it will be finished and we will play in it. If we go into administration, get relegated - we will have more prospective owners, lost a large amount of debt and have a better footing to move forward than we've had for the past 20 years. It isn't ideal, but it's hardly an abyss that the doom mongers say it is.

I love Goodison. You don't know how much I am willing to pay for some seats once it comes down, but you are flogging a dead horse like it was a national winner. You only look for the sunny points in your plan and dismiss any of the simular issues you are pointing out at BM.

If it's Goodison at a total cost of (at least) 400 million with an unknown time frame and an uncertain amount of what can then be put back into the footballing side or even taken out, or BM where we are rolling the dice and front loading but at the end of the day a 750m build subtracting the naming rights and other benefits put it in around the same cost of the Goodison rebuild. To be ready in 4 years time and be at worst cost neutral to us (+/-) 5 or so million, and after the first few years should start becoming a massive help on the footballing side. I choose the latter.

I don't profess to be a great business man at all, but my maths is solid and my business doesn't do too badly thanks.

Why would we as a fanbase rebel against someone giving us free money to help pay for new infrastructure? Did we complain about USM plastering their name all over Goodison, sponsoring the training ground or putting up £30m to have first dibs at BMD? How is it business sense to suggest otherwise? Even LFC and Man Utd are considering naming rights.... so it's not as sacrilegious as you think. Some UK stadia have had multiple sponsors. It certainly wouldn't have been an issue for USM.

Again, with regards to corporate capacity, as I said before.... all of the larger redeveloped stadia (even some smaller ones) have managed to build at least the equivalent or significantly more of it into their new stands. Again, the business case being that if you're not having to spend hundreds of millions to just to prep the site and half a billion plus more building a whole new stadium, you can then afford to spend even more on those high-end expensive-to-build seats and facilities. Hence the reason we have just 22 boxes at BMD (and Villa Park for instance has over 100 at one point, even the old White hart Lane had 120), with predominantly corporate lite packages, that will only yield approx an extra £15-20m in total according to the club's earlier own projections. That won't even cover our interest payments to date, with more yet to come before completion. Hence the reason why no banks came near us.

As regards space required, it's totally dependent on the format used. BMD takes up a lot of space as there are no overlapping tiers.... I think it takes up more space than the Emirates that holds 8k more. Redeveloping the Bullens and Park End alone could easily match or surpass the capacity and corporate offer at BMD....more so if the Gwladys St was expanded too and as EVERY redevelopment as shown, this would be a tiny fraction of the cost of BMD, because all lower tiers are recyclable freebies.... over 30k seats.

I'm not trying to flog anything, but the facts remain. The cost disparity is indisputable and was proved repeatedly before and since Destination Kirkby...... and is only reinforced by our current parlous predicament.

I also really don't think administration is in any way desirable as a business strategy.....!! Quite the opposite.

 

[Tim UpperBullen]

The best way to add 10,000 plus seats would be another tier on the east and west stands. Colin Chong himself said it would be the east and west stands.

The trouble is you can now see how intricate how much detail has gone in to the layers of the stands, especially the roof, it's not something they would do on a whim. Liverpool and City have been in 50,000 plus and mid-50's for a few years and are only just coming up to 60k plus. This is after several successful seasons.

It's going to something like that sadly for us to

I don't profess to be a great business man at all, but my maths is solid and my business doesn't do too badly thanks.

Why would we as a fanbase rebel against someone giving us free money to help pay for new infrastructure? Did we complain about USM plastering their name all over Goodison, sponsoring the training ground or putting up £30m to have first dibs at BMD? How is it business sense to suggest otherwise? Even LFC and Man Utd are considering naming rights.... so it's not as sacrilegious as you think. Some UK stadia have had multiple sponsors. It certainly wouldn't have been an issue for USM.

Again, with regards to corporate capacity, as I said before.... all of the larger redeveloped stadia (even some smaller ones) have managed to build at least the equivalent or significantly more of it into their new stands. Again, the business case being that if you're not having to spend hundreds of millions to just to prep the site and half a billion plus more building a whole new stadium, you can then afford to spend even more on those high-end expensive-to-build seats and facilities. Hence the reason we have just 22 boxes at BMD (and Villa Park for instance has over 100 at one point, even the old White hart Lane had 120), with predominantly corporate lite packages, that will only yield approx an extra £15-20m in total according to the club's earlier own projections. That won't even cover our interest payments to date, with more yet to come before completion. Hence the reason why no banks came near us.

As regards space required, it's totally dependent on the format used. BMD takes up a lot of space as there are no overlapping tiers.... I think it takes up more space than the Emirates that holds 8k more. Redeveloping the Bullens and Park End alone could easily match or surpass the capacity and corporate offer at BMD....more so if the Gwladys St was expanded too and as EVERY redevelopment as shown, this would be a tiny fraction of the cost of BMD, because all lower tiers are recyclable freebies.... over 30k seats.

I'm not trying to flog anything, but the facts remain. The cost disparity is indisputable and was proved repeatedly before and since Destination Kirkby...... and is only reinforced by our current parlous predicament.

I also really don't think administration is in any way desirable as a business strategy.....!! Quite the opposite.

Surely even at this stage it makes sense to increase the amount of premium seats even if they are premium lite

 

[Toffefc]

Has anyone picked up on the panels and why they are all different shades and a lot of them are damaged and got scrape marks all over then?

 

[maccavennie]

Has anyone picked up on the panels and why they are all different shades and a lot of them are damaged and got scrape marks all over then?

Pigeon poo that mate.

 

[Toffefc]

Pigeon poo that mate.

Lol