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

The binman chronicles said:
At some point we have to park what it hasn't got and just take pride in what we have.

Surely what matters is the income meets what the club wanted from it? They'll have a good idea from the uptake and enquiries if they could have sold more boxes and from that they can be retro fitted if it makes economic sense to do so. If we has plucked a number of say 75 and only 40 are used regularly without slashing prices, it's just a waste of where we could have three or four rows of seats instead.

Comparisons against London or some of the biggest clubs in the world aren't applicable of where we currently are.
Click to expand...

Tbh, I'm never interested in "parking" the facts ...... and certainly not just to generate a notion of "pride" or (or any other emotional response for that matter) and definitely not to stifle discussion. All facets of the stadium should stand on their own merits, individually and collectively.

I was responding directly to a few poster's comparisons with Spurs new stadium and also the one about the number of boxes and current trends etc. The basic fact being that Spurs have far more boxes AND more of the other types of corporate too, all in their own dedicated tiers. It is quite literally on a whole different level.

I also wasn't intentionally concentrating on London or the Mega clubs (I'm not sure Spurs are a Mega club, in anycase). I could've just as easily mentioned Villa, who I think had over 100 boxes last time I checked (admittedly several years ago), or practically every other premier club and most EFL clubs with a capacity of over 30k, who also have significantly more boxes.

Yes, I agree, it is conceivable that more could be retrofitted in the future, but as far as I know, that has never been the club line, and again that kind of disproves the assertion that boxes are no longer needed in big numbers, and also generates the further question about the spacial and (according to that video) financial cost of the resultant removal of lounge space to accommodate them, if it's possible in the first place.
 
Tom Hughes said:
Tbh, I'm never interested in "parking" the facts ...... and certainly not just to generate a notion of "pride" or (or any other emotional response for that matter) and definitely not to stifle discussion. All facets of the stadium should stand on their own merits, individually and collectively.

I was responding directly to a few poster's comparisons with Spurs new stadium and also the one about the number of boxes and current trends etc. The basic fact being that Spurs have far more boxes AND more of the other types of corporate too, all in their own dedicated tiers. It is quite literally on a whole different level.

I also wasn't intentionally concentrating on London or the Mega clubs (I'm not sure Spurs are a Mega club, in anycase). I could've just as easily mentioned Villa, who I think had over 100 boxes last time I checked (admittedly several years ago), or practically every other premier club and most EFL clubs with a capacity of over 30k, who also have significantly more boxes.

Yes, I agree, it is conceivable that more could be retrofitted in the future, but as far as I know, that has never been the club line, and again that kind of disproves the assertion that boxes are no longer needed in big numbers, and also generates the further question about the spacial and (according to that video) financial cost of the resultant removal of lounge space to accommodate them, if it's possible in the first place.
Click to expand...

All valid points Tom. I know I shouldn't, but I do always look back and think to myself "what if we had built it at 60k+".

I'm astounded we've got this far tbh with all the financial issues we had and I do wonder if we had proceeded with the larger capacity and incurred even far greater costs, if the project would have been canned or just completely finished us off as a club.

One thing I'm looking forward to seeing, is seeing if there is a demand for more. Demand for more season tickets, demand for more corporate boxes, demand for more hospitality or if they hit the sweet spot with the 53k, the boxes, the loge seating etc. That's what will really spike my interest and seeing if the projections they obviously decided to work within, if they were correct. If they weren't, how far off are they and how much is TFG willing to plough into the stadium in the future to make it even better.
 
allen said:
I think it’s the persistence of the message rather than the content that some find irritating, Tom.

We know what you think by now. You’ve told us quite a lot.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but by their very nature, the facts do have a tendency to be quite persistent.

Practically ALL of my posts are direct responses to other people's points, so maybe some of that irritation is misplaced or needs to be redirected.
 
At the end of the day Everton's new stadium could have been against the backdrop of St Chad's church with the local vole population milling round the Alt as company rather than being backgrounded by the world famous Liverpool waterfront and within walking distance of one of the most vibrant city centres in Europe.

I think we all recognise what we've been saved from, but it's going to be an ongoing debate over this stadium. That's a legitimate discussion.
 

arch stanton said:
I went to BMD then Goodison for the Forest game, BMD is fantastic and for the first time, I sat in Goodison and it wasnt doing as much for me anymore, tired, crap facilities, cramped and the shabbite on the pitch didnt help but its time to go. Its when your long beloved dog is in pain and giving up, its time for goodison to go to the stadium vet for a dose of the 'blue liquid' of sleep
Click to expand...
Was pretty much the same experience for me. Went on a stadium tour on friday and although the place oozes history, it also is nowhere near up to the demands of this time. To be totally honest, it was an eye opener.

On to the next day. Took that walk down from the city to BMD and you can definitely see the potential for that area. Lots of historic buildings along the way, that will now most certainly be renovated and make it an amazing walk from the city centre. That area will be a major asset to the city of Liverpool in the years to come.

Matchday. Got tickets for the front row in the family enclosure. As for leg space, probably the best seats I ever had at Goodison. As for pitch view. Not quite so good. At 1.89m I'm not the shortest guy, but still couldn't see the other side of the pitch when sitting down. And that's the family enclosure, surrounded by kids who most certainly had that obstructed view. Even if they stood up. And at a price of £54 for a ticket you probably are allowed to expect more.

My last trip to Goodison certainly has been an eye opener to me. Will always love Goodison Park for its history and memories, but we simply have to move on. It's not up to the demands of this time anymore. And as we're desperate for the club to finally start living up to the 'Nil Satis Nisi Optimum' motto again, it includes the stadium. It's time to move on!
 
AndyRJ said:
I think a lot of people fail to appreciate/ understand just how much building on the dock would have impacted the cost. I've not got exact figures but it will have been a substantial amount. It's not just the actual infilling to consider, it's all the associated costs that go along with it and the marine environment.

I've seen people in here try to compare the stadium costs with others built in different parts of the world, suggesting we've somehow been ripped off but they are failing to appreciate the sheer amount of money we will have spent below ground that no-one gets to see.
Click to expand...
The correct comparison of costs with Spurs would be how much the Spurs site costs to purchase plus the cost to make it suitable to build with the equivalent for BMD. I'm assuming the Spurs site cost much more to purchase but much less to make suitable to build on.
 
Tom Hughes said:
Perhaps, but by their very nature, the facts do have a tendency to be quite persistent.

Practically ALL of my posts are direct responses to other people's points, so maybe some of that irritation is misplaced or needs to be redirected.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone else posts with such consistent, repetitive and long winded criticism of the stadium. It's all a bit weird to be honest.
 
Kevsleftpeg said:
The correct comparison of costs with Spurs would be how much the Spurs site costs to purchase plus the cost to make it suitable to build with the equivalent for BMD. I'm assuming the Spurs site cost much more to purchase but much less to make suitable to build on.
Click to expand...
Spurs spent a decade or more buying up land around the stadium, the remaining bit they needed was CPO'd by Haringey Council and then leased to them for 999 years. No idea what the cost of everything would have been but the 200 year lease with Peel cost us £20m.

Obviously building in an existing urban setting wouldn't be without it's constraints, but I wouldn't say Spurs stadium had anything like the challenges associated with building on a working dock, surrounded on three sides by water in a harsh marine environment.

It was reported that we spent £206m by the time the stadium superstructure started, so that would have included the demolition, removal and retention of heritage assets, infilling the dock, piling works and sub-structure. On top of that we would have the additional cost and complexity of suspending all drainage and utilities, the Grade 2 Listed Engine House restoration, uplift in specification due to the marine environment, bridge construction, water channel etc. Then there's the increase in costs as a result of COVID and the war in Ukraine.

I don't believe anyone can really compare the cost of BM with A.N.Other site without having access to the detailed figures. The site is incredibly complex and had significant constraints and challenges.
 

Tom Hughes said:
Perhaps, but by their very nature, the facts do have a tendency to be quite persistent.

Practically ALL of my posts are direct responses to other people's points, so maybe some of that irritation is misplaced or needs to be redirected.
Click to expand...
As a matter of interest Tom. You do seeM to have knowledge that could answer a question...
Should things go well enough for us, do you think an extended BMD is possible / affordable? And how do you think it could be achieved by TFG ?
 
AndyRJ said:
Spurs spent a decade or more buying up land around the stadium, the remaining bit they needed was CPO'd by Haringey Council and then leased to them for 999 years. No idea what the cost of everything would have been but the 200 year lease with Peel cost us £20m.

Obviously building in an existing urban setting wouldn't be without it's constraints, but I wouldn't say Spurs stadium had anything like the challenges associated with building on a working dock, surrounded on three sides by water in a harsh marine environment.

It was reported that we spent £206m by the time the stadium superstructure started, so that would have included the demolition, removal and retention of heritage assets, infilling the dock, piling works and sub-structure. On top of that we would have the additional cost and complexity of suspending all drainage and utilities, the Grade 2 Listed Engine House restoration, uplift in specification due to the marine environment, bridge construction, water channel etc. Then there's the increase in costs as a result of COVID and the war in Ukraine.

I don't believe anyone can really compare the cost of BM with A.N.Other site without having access to the detailed figures. The site is incredibly complex and had significant constraints and challenges.
Click to expand...

Even if you lowballed it and said 150-175m, that should be able to buy you a patch of land even in expensive areas. I wonder if we did ever put a cheeky bid for the central docks with a similar amount it would cost to break ground at BMD.

That could have sped up the planning stages, perhaps we could have got approval before covid and then finished the build before Ukraine happened. You'd imagine that would have cut the costs by at least 30%, we would have been able to finance it using Usmanov's backing and in the process missed out on the points deductions.
 
Tom Hughes said:
The Spurs stadium is on a whole different level to be honest. It is a bigger and far more complex stadium. Approx 10k more seats, 4 times the number of boxes and larger corporate/hospitality capacity, in their own higher-value dedicated tiers. Apart from the single tier south stand, it has between 3 and 4/5 tiers on the other sides. There are between 5 and 9 floors of concourses on the North, East and West Stands compared to just 2 and 4 floors at BMD. Of course the curved corner sections and moving pitch are other very expensive design features, with the latter adding far great flexibility for the venue to host other events all year round. So overall there is no real comparison.

As stated many times by others, BMD required a massive outlay just to get the structure above ground. The site prep costs and additional Marine environment issues, dug very deep into that total construction budget. The concerns over the heritage aspects during the whole planning process, meant that there was also a far greater onus placed on quality of exterior design and historic site conservation. Which all incurred major additional construction and material costs. The overall result being that the internal format is generally much more generic or basic compared to the Spurs stadium. Tbh, those massive site-specific costs also meant that it is more basic than even the Walton Hall Park proposals. Furthermore, if you overlaid BMD's side stand cross sections with the cross sections for the destination Kirkby proposals, you will find that they are very similar internal design formats. Of course, the Kirkby proposals didn't have a large single tier end stand, and the corners were left emply for future expansion. The exterior was also functional only, with no barrel roof or indeed any real design flair of any note. That said, sometimes "less is more" in design respects, and BMD may have greater acoustic unity than Spurs due to that simpler format, with no real overlapping of tiers etc. Of course, many will also argue that all of BMDs relative simplicity is offset by the quality of it's location.
Click to expand...
Also I have spoken to many spurs fans who hate the new stadium. I've been a few times and feel like I'm in the USA in a NFL stadium. I guess if that's what you want then fair does. I think BMD is miles better and the historical nature of the location smashes the location of spurs stadium.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register
Back
Top