New Everton Stadium

[SLAVEN BILIC]

I can point to any number of examples to show how it could be a fraction of the cost (and have done several times).

We really don't have to look too far for an obvious one (a few hundred metres across the park), which was only approx £200m construction cost to get from 45k to almost 62k capacity (it would've been less if they'd done both at the same time). I stood in the upper tier of another on Tuesday night, that cost far less again to go from 36k to 52k. There ard many more besides. So it's hardly a great mystery.

The simple maths is, it is almost always far cheeper to add say 20k or 30k capacity to an existing stadium, than to build a whole new 50k+ stadium from scratch. Which is why the majority of larger clubs have chosen the former approach. That theory even applies to the mega-rich clubs like Real Madrid and Barcelona who have both chosen redevelopment over new-build..... to prove that they need not be cheap and nasty addlibs. Obviously, for smaller clubs, the sale of their existing site would often cover the bulk or even all the costs of a new build. That rarely applies to those seeking stadia over 35k, since cost per seat rises almost exponentially with capacity.

Depending on the format chosen, 27k (or as high as 35k) of GP is entirely recyclable capacity. If 1, 2 or even 3 of the existing upper tiers were replaced with whole new tiers, and Park end expanded too to reach BMDs capacity... Then, even at Anfield's cost per seat for construction, it would only be £150-270m. The actual cost per seat would be less, because the starting construction height would be considerably lower on both the Gwladys St and Bullens Rd stands, because both lower tiers are much lower than those built over at Anfield. Therefore, there would be significantly less construction volume in total too, which is the greatest cost determining factor. So you could probably trim those figures by 30%+.

You could also extrapolate those numbers further to reach 60k or 65k capacity at GP. So, whichever way you want to cook it, the cost is a fraction of BMD everytime, because building 20-35k new capacity is always cheaper than building 53k... even more so when it costs £150m just to prep the new site, and conserve the surroundings.

And how long would that take? It’s been what, 6 years now for the 2 new stands over at Anfield? It’d be at least 10-12 for us, in which time the costs increase per stand due to inflation. How much income would we lose per match day/year for having lower capacities?

St James Park was done how many years ago and again probably at lower cost than it would be now.

In regards to Madrid and Barcelona, they had to move away from those grounds to play their matches during their upgrades. And let’s face it, they weren’t upgrades, the stadiums were gutted inside and out, they may as well be new builds.

In an earlier post you mentioned us knocking down houses for previous ground improvements. Question; did we offer suitable compensation to the residents or the housing authorities at the time or did we force them out with compulsory purchase orders? Did we start building right away or did we leave the land and properties to rot for nearly 20 years, decimating a community so they could buy up the remaining plots at cheaper rates? Also, was it worth it for the Park End and would it be worth it now for further expansion knowing there is a housing crises throughout the city and country?

We’re building new, in an area of the city that needs regenerating and has done for decades. Yes it’s going to cost more but there are far more greater benefits to the region by doing so. Staying at Goodison is only helping ourselves whilst disrupting a lot of people/families.

 

[Dougie]

We only have 22 boxes at BMD. There are only 4 flours of back of house construction at BMD (on 2 sides). This is more than matched at Anfield, which has almost double the corporate capacity and approx 3 times the number of boxes.

As I said earlier, well over half of GP is completely recyclable. So you do not have to start from nothing on any side. The existing lower tiers can be kept as is, or reprofiled. The bottom third of Anfield's mainstand was built in 1906 and predates anything at GP. As they and multiple others have shown, all the corporate required can be built into the new tiers and extended footprint over several floors.

So what would be your ball park figure to redevelop all of GP including moving an demolishing of houses around GP.

 

[Dr Baxter]

I can point to any number of examples to show how it could be a fraction of the cost (and have done several times).

We really don't have to look too far for an obvious one (a few hundred metres across the park), which was only approx £200m construction cost to get from 45k to almost 62k capacity (it would've been less if they'd done both at the same time). I stood in the upper tier of another on Tuesday night, that cost far less again to go from 36k to 52k. There ard many more besides. So it's hardly a great mystery.

The simple maths is, it is almost always far cheeper to add say 20k or 30k capacity to an existing stadium, than to build a whole new 50k+ stadium from scratch. Which is why the majority of larger clubs have chosen the former approach. That theory even applies to the mega-rich clubs like Real Madrid and Barcelona who have both chosen redevelopment over new-build..... to prove that they need not be cheap and nasty addlibs. Obviously, for smaller clubs, the sale of their existing site would often cover the bulk or even all the costs of a new build. That rarely applies to those seeking stadia over 35k, since cost per seat rises almost exponentially with capacity.

Depending on the format chosen, 27k (or as high as 35k) of GP is entirely recyclable capacity. If 1, 2 or even 3 of the existing upper tiers were replaced with whole new tiers, and Park end expanded too to reach BMDs capacity... Then, even at Anfield's cost per seat for construction, it would only be £150-270m. The actual cost per seat would be less, because the starting construction height would be considerably lower on both the Gwladys St and Bullens Rd stands, because both lower tiers are much lower than those built over at Anfield. Therefore, there would be significantly less construction volume in total too, which is the greatest cost determining factor. So you could probably trim those figures by 30%+.

You could also extrapolate those numbers further to reach 60k or 65k capacity at GP. So, whichever way you want to cook it, the cost is a fraction of BMD everytime, because building 20-35k new capacity is always cheaper than building 53k... even more so when it costs £150m just to prep the new site, and conserve the surroundings.

Tom, in the name of God, just let it go. You articulate your argument very well. Some agree with it, others don't. Others (myself included) might see some economic sense behind it, but are still glad we decided to build from scratch for a whole lot of reasons Regardless, this obsession that we should have stayed at Goodison when we already have a 3/4's completed new stadium on the Mersey, is just unhealthy. I'm sorry, but it adds nothing to this thread. Let's talk about what is happening. Best regards.

 

[The binman chronicles]

LFC's capacity has never fallen below their initial 45k capacity. For what it cost us just to acquire, prep and conserve our site, they built a stand the size of one of Wembley's with more corporate in it than the whole of BMD. Theyve just builg another that has 26 rows more than our blue wall. Their total outlay is less than one third ours, for almost 9k greater capacity. I'm sorry, but which ever we you want to equate the figures, it need never lead to a GP development costing £500m or anything close.

I know what you are saying by measuring against the original capacity, but by indicating it never dipped is misleading Tom. The main stand has been open since 2016. Their capacity was 54k and some games it's gone down to 49k this season. It still loses money at that point out of the budget, they may not miss that so much but we would.

You keep coming up with static ideas of costs while the world moves on at pace. We don't know the final cost of the AR stand but it's likely to be 90+ for a cheap looking stand, when you see how it has been constructed and materials used. Villa are budgeting 100m for their new North End. Budgeting and actual costs as we know are two separate things. Fulham's 120m and rising. Palace 150m. Yet somehow we are going to knock up a whole new ground for half the price on by far a more complex site?

And how long would that take? It’s been what, 6 years now for the 2 new stands over at Anfield? It’d be at least 10-12 for us, in which time the costs increase per stand due to inflation.

10 years.

 

[mahermi1]

I know what you are saying by measuring against the original capacity, but by indicating it never dipped is misleading Tom. The main stand has been open since 2016. Their capacity was 54k and some games it's gone down to 49k this season. It still loses money at that point out of the budget, they may not miss that so much but we would.

You keep coming up with static ideas of costs while the world moves on at pace. We don't know the final cost of the AR stand but it's likely to be 90+ for a cheap looking stand, when you see how it has been constructed and materials used. Villa are budgeting 100m for their new North End. Budgeting and actual costs as we know are two separate things. Fulham's 120m and rising. Palace 150m. Yet somehow we are going to knock up a whole new ground for half the price on by far a more complex site?



10 years.

And it looks like a Fire Station or a Frankenstein monster, take you're pick.

 

[Dr Baxter]

Damage is already done .
The BMD is just lipstick on the pig .
Or glitter on the turd .
Whichever is your preference?

Not sure I understand. If you mean that football wise it is set in stone that we will never be a big club again you might be right or you might be wrong. If you are right, at least we'll have a lovely, big, new stadium with great facilities in which to watch garbage, rather than have to put up with the decripit, dump that is Goodison Park. And I will be able to get a pint at half time.

 

[Tom Hughes]

And how long would that take? It’s been what, 6 years now for the 2 new stands over at Anfield? It’d be at least 10-12 for us, in which time the costs increase per stand due to inflation. How much income would we lose per match day/year for having lower capacities?

St James Park was done how many years ago and again probably at lower cost than it would be now.

In regards to Madrid and Barcelona, they had to move away from those grounds to play their matches during their upgrades. And let’s face it, they weren’t upgrades, the stadiums were gutted inside and out, they may as well be new builds.

In an earlier post you mentioned us knocking down houses for previous ground improvements. Question; did we offer suitable compensation to the residents or the housing authorities at the time or did we force them out with compulsory purchase orders? Did we start building right away or did we leave the land and properties to rot for nearly 20 years, decimating a community so they could buy up the remaining plots at cheaper rates? Also, was it worth it for the Park End and would it be worth it now for further expansion knowing there is a housing crises throughout the city and country?

We’re building new, in an area of the city that needs regenerating and has done for decades. Yes it’s going to cost more but there are far more greater benefits to the region by doing so. Staying at Goodison is only helping ourselves whilst disrupting a lot of people/families.

LFC chose to build in 2 separate phases. That was their choice based on their funding strategy. However, for the cost of just starting BMD, they could've built both together, as Newcastle did when they extended St James's. Of course LFCs financial model is different, the Yanks prefer to fund at a very tight ROI. The mainstand practically paid for itself and then started to help to fund the Anfield Rd end in their ROI time frame.

Both Madrid and Barcelona have retained over 3/4 of their existing grounds in their redevelpments. They moved out briefly because they could and because in Madrid's case they were both rebuilding their whole lower tier plus building a pitch system that buries itself. Without that, they could've stayed in situ. However, the key point was that it would've cost both clubs at least double to build the equivalent size stadium from new.

In the case of the Gwladys St, the club compulsory purchased the houses and knocked down all the houses one by one as the tenants left. One war veteran stood firm for decades, with just his one house standing alone. Of course those houses were almost new when that process started. They're all well over 130 yrs old now, the cheapest housing stock adjacent to any ground in the country and compulsory purchase is generally simpler.... and as I said before, at £750m cost, we could've rehoused everyone in penthouse apartments and still saved hundreds of millions. So it really isn't an issue in those terms.

 

[Dr Baxter]

And it looks like a Fire Station or a Frankenstein monster, take you're pick.

Fire station. Excellent. I'll have that off you. Thanks.

 

[SLAVEN BILIC]

In the case of the Gwladys St, the club compulsory purchased the houses and knocked down all the houses one by one as the tenants left. One war veteran stood firm for decades, with just his one house standing alone. Of course those houses were almost new when that process started. They're all well over 130 yrs old now, the cheapest housing stock adjacent to any ground in the country and compulsory purchase is generally simpler.... and as I said before, at £750m cost, we could've rehoused everyone in penthouse apartments and still saved hundreds of millions. So it really isn't an issue in those terms.

So financially it looks doable, but what about on a logistical or humanitarian level? Who goes where and when? Some people may be rehoused in better places than others even though their current houses are similar and cost roughly the same. Some would be happy, some wouldn’t. Some would stay put as the war veteran did and many did over the park. It all comes back to effecting the community and its people for our own gain.

I know we’ve done it in the past, but I wasn’t alive for the majority of the upgrades and I was only a kid for the Park End so have no memories of injustice/politics of how it was achieved. I understand what it all means now, especially with the Anfield situation and I think we shouldn’t even be entertaining the notion of repeating what either club has done in the name of upgrades.

 

[McKindrick Blue]

I can point to any number of examples to show how it could be a fraction of the cost (and have done several times).

We really don't have to look too far for an obvious one (a few hundred metres across the park), which was only approx £200m construction cost to get from 45k to almost 62k capacity (it would've been less if they'd done both at the same time). I stood in the upper tier of another on Tuesday night, that cost far less again to go from 36k to 52k. There ard many more besides. So it's hardly a great mystery.

The simple maths is, it is almost always far cheeper to add say 20k or 30k capacity to an existing stadium, than to build a whole new 50k+ stadium from scratch. Which is why the majority of larger clubs have chosen the former approach. That theory even applies to the mega-rich clubs like Real Madrid and Barcelona who have both chosen redevelopment over new-build..... to prove that they need not be cheap and nasty addlibs. Obviously, for smaller clubs, the sale of their existing site would often cover the bulk or even all the costs of a new build. That rarely applies to those seeking stadia over 35k, since cost per seat rises almost exponentially with capacity.

Depending on the format chosen, 27k (or as high as 35k) of GP is entirely recyclable capacity. If 1, 2 or even 3 of the existing upper tiers were replaced with whole new tiers, and Park end expanded too to reach BMDs capacity... Then, even at Anfield's cost per seat for construction, it would only be £150-270m. The actual cost per seat would be less, because the starting construction height would be considerably lower on both the Gwladys St and Bullens Rd stands, because both lower tiers are much lower than those built over at Anfield. Therefore, there would be significantly less construction volume in total too, which is the greatest cost determining factor. So you could probably trim those figures by 30%+.

You could also extrapolate those numbers further to reach 60k or 65k capacity at GP. So, whichever way you want to cook it, the cost is a fraction of BMD everytime, because building 20-35k new capacity is always cheaper than building 53k... even more so when it costs £150m just to prep the new site, and conserve the surroundings.

All well and good Tom and it seems on the face of it you know your stuff (more than me at least).

But you still haven't addressed the burning questions...

How many more anti-seagull lasers will Anfield have than BMD, how much less will they have cost LFC than what we're spending, and how many more seagulls will they atomize per season over ours?

Oh, and how many could we install at a redeveloped GP and at what projected cost?

 

[Tom Hughes]

Tom, in the name of God, just let it go. You articulate your argument very well. Some agree with it, others don't. Others (myself included) might see some economic sense behind it, but are still glad we decided to build from scratch for a whole lot of reasons Regardless, this obsession that we should have stayed at Goodison when we already have a 3/4's completed new stadium on the Mersey, is just unhealthy. I'm sorry, but it adds nothing to this thread. Let's talk about what is happening. Best regards.

I never had hold of anything to let go of...... and I've never said it applies now at all, (although that might change dramatically if we go into administration as a result of BMD). I've never been against moving per se and happily voted for Kings Dock, actively looked at both central docks and the loop site with KEIOC, so let's desist in misrepresenting anything I've said, or accusing me of obsession (apart from the one I have for our basket case of a club).

I was simply responding to (and always will) these posts that support the notion that GP wasn't possible or would need to cost anything remotely similar to BMD to achieve the same capacity and corporate offer. It is as much a mathematical nonsense now as it was when KEIOC, GFE and others proved it over 20yrs ago. This myth was perpetuated by Kenwright and his cronies because they hadn't the gumption, nor the cash for redevelopment...... and essentially wanted someone else to build us a stadium for nothing, elsewhere. That didn't apply then (just as the false claims regards the safety certificate), and certainly doesn't now, especially when you can afford to blow £150m just on site preps, and your neighbours get to almost 62k for a similar cost.

I'm also trying to look forward to BMD, I'm there regularly watching progress, and was only there a few days ago and watched our Bournemouth match in the namesake pub, as I was unable to go the match..... but it shouldn't need the old, long-since disproven myths to back it up. Especially given our resultant parlous financial state that has seen off the billionaire and threatens to sink us without trace.

 

[The binman chronicles]

I know we’ve done it in the past, but I wasn’t alive for the majority of the upgrades and I was only a kid for the Park End so have no memories of injustice/politics of how it was achieved.

We bought up most of the houses behind the Park End to use for players, so it wasn't a huge deal come the time to knock them down.

 

[Look to the future]

LFC's capacity has never fallen below their initial 45k capacity. For what it cost us just to acquire, prep and conserve our site, they built a stand the size of one of Wembley's with more corporate in it than the whole of BMD. Theyve just builg another that has 26 rows more than our blue wall. Their total outlay is less than one third ours, for almost 9k greater capacity. I'm sorry, but which ever we you want to equate the figures, it need never lead to a GP development costing £500m or anything close.

Corporate is a dirty word Tom.

Good article:

Latest phase of Everton Stadium scheme rewrites football hospitality | TheBusinessDesk.com

Dock on 1 is third stage of club's sumptuous entertainment strategy

www.thebusinessdesk.com

 

[Tom Hughes]

All well and good Tom and it seems on the face of it you know your stuff (more than me at least).

But you still haven't addressed the burning questions...

How many more anti-seagull lasers will Anfield have than BMD, how much less will they have cost LFC than what we're spending, and how many more seagulls will they atomize per season over ours?

Oh, and how many could we install at a redeveloped GP and at what projected cost?

View attachment 251218

Apologies, I can't find any info on seagull lasers just yet, but tbh can't remember seeing many gulls in Walton.... think the pigeons have got it pretty much boxed off and the urchins have ate all the pigeons at Anfield.

 

[Noggsy blue]

Gonna be gutted when its finished! LOve watching these updates, wont be the same without them lol


Quality as ever mate, at night it is something special now, Match nights are gonna be off the scale!

Thanks

Thanks mate