I cant see the point of having this debate now regardless of whether the esk is right or wrong. I think he has a point, but we're a few months off opening and it isn't helpful to have this debate anymore.
That said, the esk didn't resurrect this - TFG did.
I don't think it's either helpful nor harmful tbh, because as you say it has been resurrected by the prospective new owners themselves. It appears to be a potential issue on their radar, unless I've misread. Change of owner often produces a change of perspective.... sometimes even a diametrically opposed one. The fact that they appear to be getting the stadium for nowt (and/or the club for a song), might have shifted that financial envelope.
Capacity of any new stadium is often a contentious issue. I've read of similar arguments regards several new stadium proposals in Italy/USA/elsewhere. The perspective of the decision can also be framed in multiple ways to seemingly justify any chosen figure. I can remember Wyness happily declaring that the Loop site was inappropriate because...... the club needed a site that could be "future-proofed" for expansion to 70k+. That ambition appears to have gone out of the window. Conversely, Moshiri could've tried to do a Juventus. Chose a capacity of 40-44k. More than halved the construction costs, put 50% on the GA season ticket prices, trimming the season tkt numbers accordingly and still achieving 4-5k corporate, including 40-60 boxes. It would've been quite easy to make that "business case" for going small.... and just hyped up the quality of view/comfort/facilities etc.
I think that initially BMD was largely driven by the promise of the 2027 CWGs. There would've been several hundred Millions of pounds worth of funds allocated to that. Including several new high-value-adding infrastructure and neighbouring ancillary developments too. Durban's decision to withdraw from the last games, shifted that window of opportunity. BMD was then seen as too risky in terms of timelines etc and Brum got it. There was quite a long period of silence following that decision, then almost out of nowhere, 61,878 was no-more and the revised figure of 52,888 appeared, with all the usual ensuing arguments that after consideration, this was best "sweetspot" fit for our requirements etc. Tbh, I don't think Meis would've had any imput in that process other than to provide estimates for both sized options.... and even much of that process would've been largely supplied by local expertise.
62k was always highly aspirational, and imo was only ever a possibility with the additional CWG funding. The cost for almost 53k nearly saw us off. Killed off 777 in the process and has probably seen Moshiri taking the most expensive haircut in football club owning history. Maybe the resultant debt restructuring and the relative infrastructure-asset-rich position of our new owners will now make remodelling to 60k viable. Maybe they'll wait to see how well the demand holds up following the opening with the new price structuring.
