Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

New Everton Stadium

edwardcrompton said:
Goodison Park hosted WC Semis,,,in fact the only club ground in the UK to still boast this...now we are downsizing to a groumd that will barely get group games...plus the BMD pitch isnt big enough to host 5 a side never mind top tournement football.
Click to expand...

And they tell me Kopites aren’t fussed about BMD

Obsessed
 
Tom Hughes said:
Which bit is nonsense: Higher capacity? More boxes/corporate? Higher income? Fraction of the cost? Where did I say it was a modern stadium?
Click to expand...
Tom, IMO, whether consciously or not, you tend to very happily promote LFC's approach to Anfield compared to our approach to BMD. That's fair enough, but do you apply the same critical analysis to that as you do to BMD? Both options taken have positives and negatives, but you seem to like highlighting their positives and our negatives. It's good for discussion purposes on this thread, but not sure it's a completely subjective analysis.

There are major issues with expanding Anfield. For the SKD stand it will be extremely difficult and a very prolonged process to acquire about 3 rows of houses they need, as a CPO is unlikely. Its not what CPOs are for.

There are also no signs that the WBR will be moved. The Kop already squeezes a high number of seats into its existing footprint. A new single tiered Kop even of the same capacity would require a lot more land based on modern building codes and standards.

Then there's the transport issue.

Your analysis of Anfield is 'if they sort the transport issue' as if it's a simple exercise. We are talking public sector transport policy here. You happily agree with a comment that Liverpool are investigating building over WBR. I've read from various sources who seem to be clued in that there is absolutely no plan for the club to do this, and the possibility of it being allowed to happen is also a non starter.

When we spoke on this thread about the possibility of expanding BMD, you ruled it out as it would destroy the aesthetics of the barrel roof. There's no reason the west and east stand cant be expanded from a construction perspective. I'd happily deal with Everton's challenges in expanding over Liverpool's.

Not that I think we'd need to expand for a long time. (runs for cover)
 
Gardocki said:
Tom, IMO, whether consciously or not, you tend to very happily promote LFC's approach to Anfield compared to our approach to BMD. That's fair enough, but do you apply the same critical analysis to that as you do to BMD? Both options taken have positives and negatives, but you seem to like highlighting their positives and our negatives. It's good for discussion purposes on this thread, but not sure it's a completely subjective analysis.

There are major issues with expanding Anfield. For the SKD stand it will be extremely difficult and a very prolonged process to acquire about 3 rows of houses they need, as a CPO is unlikely. Its not what CPOs are for.

There are also no signs that the WBR will be moved. The Kop already squeezes a high number of seats into its existing footprint. A new single tiered Kop even of the same capacity would require a lot more land based on modern building codes and standards.

Then there's the transport issue.

Your analysis of Anfield is 'if they sort the transport issue' as if it's a simple exercise. We are talking public sector transport policy here. You happily agree with a comment that Liverpool are investigating building over WBR. I've read from various sources who seem to be clued in that there is absolutely no plan for the club to do this, and the possibility of it being allowed to happen is also a non starter.

When we spoke on this thread about the possibility of expanding BMD, you ruled it out as it would destroy the aesthetics of the barrel roof. There's no reason the west and east stand cant be expanded from a construction perspective. I'd happily deal with Everton's challenges in expanding over Liverpool's.

Not that I think we'd need to expand for a long time. (runs for cover)
Click to expand...
Tom is clearly knowledgeable about stadia in general but it is bizarre how much he mentions Anfield in this thread.

I doubt a red could do a better job of promoting that botch job whilst putting BMD down.
 

fitzyefc said:
Think ive mentioned it before but its even more obvious now, the 2 disabled sections at the front of the South Stand will take alot away from how intimidating the stand is. A little section behind the goal is now all there is left going down to pitch level.
Its gone from being the biggest single stand in the country to medium side double decker stand (yes i know its a wall but its still 2 stands)
Click to expand...
you may be right but there are lots of disabled fans who want to come and support the toffees, and they dont want to be treated as second or third class citizens due to their condition and be tucked away at the top and back of a stand or such like. That means the new stadium has disabled sections in good viewing parts of the ground.
 
Gardocki said:
Tom, IMO, whether consciously or not, you tend to very happily promote LFC's approach to Anfield compared to our approach to BMD. That's fair enough, but do you apply the same critical analysis to that as you do to BMD? Both options taken have positives and negatives, but you seem to like highlighting their positives and our negatives. It's good for discussion purposes on this thread, but not sure it's a completely subjective analysis.

There are major issues with expanding Anfield. For the SKD stand it will be extremely difficult and a very prolonged process to acquire about 3 rows of houses they need, as a CPO is unlikely. Its not what CPOs are for.

There are also no signs that the WBR will be moved. The Kop already squeezes a high number of seats into its existing footprint. A new single tiered Kop even of the same capacity would require a lot more land based on modern building codes and standards.

Then there's the transport issue.

Your analysis of Anfield is 'if they sort the transport issue' as if it's a simple exercise. We are talking public sector transport policy here. You happily agree with a comment that Liverpool are investigating building over WBR. I've read from various sources who seem to be clued in that there is absolutely no plan for the club to do this, and the possibility of it being allowed to happen is also a non starter.

When we spoke on this thread about the possibility of expanding BMD, you ruled it out as it would destroy the aesthetics of the barrel roof. There's no reason the west and east stand cant be expanded from a construction perspective. I'd happily deal with Everton's challenges in expanding over Liverpool's.

Not that I think we'd need to expand for a long time. (runs for cover)
Click to expand...

I was only responding to some people's points regarding Anfield. I have been critical of various aspects of their approach and certainly the end results on various forums. I have said several times that it has been the pragmatic approach and not particularly noteworthy. The only "promotion" (if that's what you want to call it), is based simply on the capacity increase achieved (both GA and corporate) and the relative cost. These aspects are irrefutable, and also apply to multiple other redeveloped stadia worldwide, many of which having been far more noteworthy, with superior end results.

I didn't rule out expansion of BMD at all. I simply suggested that it would compromise the signature design feature that is the barrel roof, which may affect aesthetics and planning. In planning terms it would also violate the maximum height stipulated during the planning process, which related directly to heights of historic buildings nearby. Of course, future planning-permission based on an established stadium might be more flexible, but there are certainly no guarantees. Then of course there are site specific restrictions regards circulation. The club stated that they struggled to model people-movements for the proposed capacity, so presumably expansion could be limited on that score too. The transport is still to be tested, but hopefully the proximity to the city centre will help resolve that.

I also mentioned the transport issues regards Anfield, and don't disagree with you. However, this is a bit of a moving target (pardon the pun). Now that they have gone from 45k to 54k and onwards to over 61k, new assessments have been taking place based on real-life performance data for the local infrastructure, and not just modelled projections for planning purposes. There has been some suggestion that the forecasted congestion-increases for the mainstand never happened, with dispersal times hardly changed. I've no idea what the Anfield Rd stand addition did to that data. If that's correct and the oft-mentioned new infrasture is put in place, then that issue may well be less onerous, thus allowing further capacity.

How much landtake they need for further expansion will depend on the format chosen and legislation regards safe-standing. Certainly, the SKD is less straight forward than their mainstand and Anfield Rd end. It may even require full demolition, as may be the case with the Kop too. They (and the council) didn't seem to have many problems demolishing several streets around the stadium (including several listed buildings, some of which had been fully refurbished), redirecting a road and building onto a listed Victorian Park. Yes, it may take a few years, but negotiation and CPOs have cleared far larger sites around the city. By that time, their new stands will have fully paid for themselves and they will also be able to better measure price/demand data for further capacity. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think they'll be stopping at 61k in the medium to long term. Who knows, if they attract an oil state they might build an 80k dome next to a motorway junction near Warrington.
 
muckers said:
Tom is clearly knowledgeable about stadia in general but it is bizarre how much he mentions Anfield in this thread.

I doubt a red could do a better job of promoting that botch job whilst putting BMD down.
Click to expand...

Feel free to count the multiple referenced posts about Anfield before mine. I never started that discussion thread, I only responded to those that did.

Not promotion, nor any real praise whatsoever.... just simple facts and figures.
 


Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top