EVENING TOFFEE
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.
- Status
EVENING TOFFEE
orly
Please check with me for Blammo criteria
Let's be really, really, very candid here.
so you've got Everton, owned by a mega wealthy accountant and backed by an unimaginably, almost infinitely wealthy shady colleague, his board (one of whom has actually been involved in building a stadium) with all its expertise, a world-famous architect, fantastically well paid consultants etc etc are saying 'no we can't fill 60,000 or afford it so we won't do it'.
But a fella who has, generously, a tremendously ropey track-record on all things Everton is saying we can.
Does he not see the massive gaping logical hole here?
I think this is what always strikes me as the false premise with Esk's articles. This is not 'opinion on the match' fare that can of course be subjective. These are whole institutions who have access to detail in minutiae to come to their conclusions and yet he still goes over and over on the idea that he has figured it all out.
so you've got Everton, owned by a mega wealthy accountant and backed by an unimaginably, almost infinitely wealthy shady colleague, his board (one of whom has actually been involved in building a stadium) with all its expertise, a world-famous architect, fantastically well paid consultants etc etc are saying 'no we can't fill 60,000 or afford it so we won't do it'.
But a fella who has, generously, a tremendously ropey track-record on all things Everton is saying we can.
Does he not see the massive gaping logical hole here?
I think this is what always strikes me as the false premise with Esk's articles. This is not 'opinion on the match' fare that can of course be subjective. These are whole institutions who have access to detail in minutiae to come to their conclusions and yet he still goes over and over on the idea that he has figured it all out.
orly
Please check with me for Blammo criteria
I genuinely don't understand the thought process mein frandel. The club aren't going to say 'that more profitable, future-proof 60,000 solution that a podcast master has discovered, nah we aren't interested as our 50,000 model costs less but will make less money and be more controversial with the fans'. They'll have looked at it exhaustively. Why would they deliberately turn down the chance for more money?!?
It will be 60k+ frandel, Mosh wont let us down.
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
I question how can the costs for a 60k and 52k stadiums both equate to 6k per seat. Unless the fit and finish is different between them of course. The more seats the cheaper per seat the stadium becomes, a few extra risers and some plastic for seats and maybe a couple more meters of bog trough per toilet does not cost as much as the seats that have shared a cost for the roof/the pitch/changing rooms/plumbing/electrics/resturants etc. etc. Which is exactly the case when you start with a 52k and then say you will add 8k to it. The difference between them would be like 8 more rows around the top of all the stands.
The problem as I see it is the article only looks at income and repayment costs based on 280m borrowed.
Assuming that catering is brought back in house, the average of 200 incl VAT will presuably be hit to a certain extent - would have thought at least 20% for staffing, food etc.
The 220m over and above the 280m borrowing can only come by equity (rights issue) if FM was blatantly lying in his anti-dilution statement unless a seperate and non-group company owns the stadium. It is my understanding that FM is currently owed 150m, shown in reserves as a loan, which if EFC were valued at 5k per share woul equate to about 85.6% of the value of a 1:1 rights issue.
Don't even start on other increased costs associated with a larger ground - stewards, policing. Oh and the facility fee for the council 7m per year.
I can see that assuming the seat pricing is correct, the stadium is only really viable with naming rights, use as a venue for events and corporate usage of the facilities.
Just a few befuddled and thrown together thoughts of an old and confused man.
Assuming that catering is brought back in house, the average of 200 incl VAT will presuably be hit to a certain extent - would have thought at least 20% for staffing, food etc.
The 220m over and above the 280m borrowing can only come by equity (rights issue) if FM was blatantly lying in his anti-dilution statement unless a seperate and non-group company owns the stadium. It is my understanding that FM is currently owed 150m, shown in reserves as a loan, which if EFC were valued at 5k per share woul equate to about 85.6% of the value of a 1:1 rights issue.
Don't even start on other increased costs associated with a larger ground - stewards, policing. Oh and the facility fee for the council 7m per year.
I can see that assuming the seat pricing is correct, the stadium is only really viable with naming rights, use as a venue for events and corporate usage of the facilities.
Just a few befuddled and thrown together thoughts of an old and confused man.
Blackwell Livermore
Player Valuation: £8m
Because of the riff-raff.
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
Without challenging any of the core assumptions, there are two answers:
1) The board believes that there will be sufficient unused capacity in the 60k stadium to render the smaller size optimal.
2) The board cannot secure sufficient financing for the larger stadium.
If the core assumptions are on the table, then a far greater set of explanations becomes feasible.
1) The board believes that there will be sufficient unused capacity in the 60k stadium to render the smaller size optimal.
2) The board cannot secure sufficient financing for the larger stadium.
If the core assumptions are on the table, then a far greater set of explanations becomes feasible.
..I have to admit to not being overly bothered by the capacity, but I have written plenty of Business Cases and understand the theory of benefits realisation. I thought the new ground was going to be part of a community area, perhaps there is an element of potential income missing in what can be brought in from non-football income.
Kenshin
Player Valuation: £40m
I suppose one thing that should be considered is that if moshiri takes us top 4, champions league and beyond that, how many plastic fans will suddenly start going the match ala Chelsea and city, how many foreign fans will start buying tickets and flying over like them lot?
It's easy to say 45k plus from Liverpool won't attend every week but the perspective from so many new fans if we became successful would need to be considered.
Also I guarantee the stadium would sell out when we moved, and if the football is worth paying for then probably most would keep their seats the following year .
It's easy to say 45k plus from Liverpool won't attend every week but the perspective from so many new fans if we became successful would need to be considered.
Also I guarantee the stadium would sell out when we moved, and if the football is worth paying for then probably most would keep their seats the following year .
orly
Please check with me for Blammo criteria
Absolutely - anyone above HEO level in Government will have written a Business Case, for a small product worth several thousand pounds right up to £millions as they go up the ladder. I'm sure yours were for several millions at the highest point, backed by that crucial safety net of taxpayer money and government imperative.
But will they have written a £half-billion+ Business Case where the overheads on the project alone could be anything from £50m - £100m? Where if the overspend goes wrong, it's potentially the end of a century-and-more aged Club and all the associated local job losses? Probably not. Which is why if the Club, with all its resources and expertise, are saying 60,000 isn't viable, they are just in a far better position to judge it than someone who is looking in throwing wild ideas from a podcast.
Last edited:
- Status