The Business Case for a Smaller Capacity ??

[kenada_blue]

Both Chelsea and the RS will have 60,000 seater stadia. You do realise that nothing ever stays the same in football and you either aim to be the best or you just exist. We have won more titles than 3 of the teams you mention, in fact more than Chelsea/Spurs or City/Spurs combined.....only by combining City/Chelsea are we one title behind.....I don’t believe we will build a 60,000 seater, but don’t ever suggest we are not up to it.......

Which is contradictory. On the one hand you say we need to be up with the best, but then mention the past. Weve not won a thing is 20+ years and not part of the elite.

Chelsea are bigger brand and based in the capital. They have also taken a very long time to increase capacity since Abramovich took over. Also the RS could've easily gone 60k straight away but didn't.

Those clubs mentioned have a bigger global fanbase but make do with less than 60k. The London based clubs have far more potential to fill 60k due to tourism and other factors.

If there's room to expand (which there should be as all modern stadia do have) 50k is suitable IMO because jumping straight to 60k when the established elite are just about getting round to doing the same, will make any investor think twice.

 

[peteblue]

Which is contradictory. On the one hand you say we need to be up with the best, but then mention the past. Weve not won a thing is 20+ years and not part of the elite.

Chelsea are bigger brand and based in the capital. They have also taken a very long time to increase capacity since Abramovich took over. Also the RS could've easily gone 60k straight away but didn't.

Those clubs mentioned have a bigger global fanbase but make do with less than 60k. The London based clubs have far more potential to fill 60k due to tourism and other factors.

If there's room to expand (which there should be as all modern stadia do have) 50k is suitable IMO because jumping straight to 60k when the established elite are just about getting round to doing the same, will make any investor think twice.

What does a ‘global’ fan base have to do with the numbers turning up at the ground. These gazillions of Chinese and Malaysians within their global fan bases don’t actually go to the match. Everton are consistently selling out at 40K even when the only available tickets for non STH’s are pretty crap. A nice shiny new stadium, with proper facilities, and not the crap that exists in the likes of lower Bullens, will transform our club and bring back people who would want to go but are unable to get anything like a decent view. It will also bring in thousands of kids from around Merseyside and get the support base regenerated. Like I said I don’t think 60K will happen, but those of us who have seen the blues pick up a fair few titles and cups will never accept that this ‘elite’ won’t change again......

 

[roydo]

but those of us who have seen the blues pick up a fair few titles and cups will never accept that this ‘elite’ won’t change again......

And anyone who has only known football since the PL invented it should heed those words.

The only thing permanent is change itself.

 

[kenada_blue]

What does a ‘global’ fan base have to do with the numbers turning up at the ground. These gazillions of Chinese and Malaysians within their global fan bases don’t actually go to the match. Everton are consistently selling out at 40K even when the only available tickets for non STH’s are pretty crap. A nice shiny new stadium, with proper facilities, and not the crap that exists in the likes of lower Bullens, will transform our club and bring back people who would want to go but are unable to get anything like a decent view. It will also bring in thousands of kids from around Merseyside and get the support base regenerated. Like I said I don’t think 60K will happen, but those of us who have seen the blues pick up a fair few titles and cups will never accept that this ‘elite’ won’t change again......

I understand what you're saying, but to me that's massively blue tinted rather than realistic imo.

Ask why didn't the RS go straight to a 60k stadia? Or why City don't expand there's? It's a different game nowadays. I find hard to think that we'd sell out 60k a week yet.

Im all for us building a new San Siro or Camp Nou that's 90k or whatever. But I understand if it's 50k and superbly well built. Throwing the dummy out because of 10k extra seats when clubs with a bigger global brand will either have the same size or 10% bigger, isn't something I'm personally upset about.

 

[roydo]

I find it hard to get my knickers in a twist about the actual number of seats, within reason obvs.

If its 60000 plus, sound, if its mid to low 50000's, not that arsed really. If you scroll back many many months, when the dock site was first unveiled, the talk was of an iconic stadium on the bank of the Mersey. Globally recognisable, iirc, Sydney Opera House levels of recognition was tagged.

I havnt a clue about the capacity of the SOH, but I will hazard a guess its well below the NEC in Birmingham, or whatever its called these days. They kinda do the same thing. Sort of.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Having had a long sit down, lots of coffee and cigarettes, I have had a Damoscene moment.
It is not possible to put a business case together with any degree of accuracy as we don't know the spec or pricing strategy.

*Puts the spreadsheets down and steps away from the computer.

 

[radiostar]

It's an interesting debate this. I think a tight, steep, intimidating ground would be better for Everton. This talk of 60k plus purely to make it bigger than another ground in the city is ridiculous. Look again what Juventus have done. Go similar - but give an option for expansion.

To be honest with the location, I'm not sure if there would be all that much room for over 5o-55k anyway.

 

[Woolly Blue]

I’ll list the assumptions first and then get into the meat of it:

Option 1 Option 2
Capacity 60,000 52,000
Season tickets 42,000 35,000
Average revenue per game £20.00 £20.00
Executive/premium seats 5,600 4,000
Average revenue per game £166.66 £166.66
Away supporters 3,000 3,000
Average revenue per game £25.00 £25.00
General admission tickets 9,400 10,000
Average revenue per game £33.33 £33.33
Construction cost per seat £6,000 £6,000
Overall Cost of stadium £500,000,000 £452,000,000
Amount of LCC borrowing £280,000,000 £248,000,000
Other financing (assume equity) £220,000,000 £204,000,000
Cost of borrowing % 5.50 5.50

I've got a report from KPMG on stadium builds on another PC. Off-hand, I'm not sure if it's Commercial In Confidence or not, but if it's OK to stick it up online ( and it's not already so ), then I'll publish it somewhere and folk can take a look at the reality of the situation rather then just a grossly oversimplified model.

Had a look at the reports I've got, and at least one of them is defo in the public domain, which you can find at:-

https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2013/11/blueprint-successful-stadium-development.pdf

I'm not sure about the other one, so the above will have to do
A few screen grabs from it are :-

^^^
BM's big enough for a ~ 60K stadium, but, if you get too much beyond that, you might start to struggle getting the infrastructure in place in the immediate environs.

^^^^
To be fair, utilisation rates are generally very good in the Premier League though

^^^^
The above highlights my main issues with Esk's flawed model

Now plainly, FlashAndy56, who often posts in support of Esk's words on theesk.org, doesn't think it's worthwhile challenging Paul's assumptions and figures

, but I'm happy to listen to professionals, as well as, a couple of passionate, but ultimately ill-informed Blues.

If I'm bored over the w/e, I'll tweak Esk's numbers to reflect a higher cost per seat as capacity increases and revenue per seat decrease to show how very easy it is to build a bigger stadium without getting much in the way of return on your investment.

Having said all that, as a fan, I want a 60k stadium so I understand the passion behind the argument.
I'd be happy with a 55k stadium, and badly disappointed with a 52k stadium.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Had a look at the reports I've got, and at least one of them is defo in the public domain, which you can find at:-

https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2013/11/blueprint-successful-stadium-development.pdf

I'm not sure about the other one, so the above will have to do
A few screen grabs from it are :-

View attachment 45027

^^^
BM's big enough for a ~ 60K stadium, but, if you get too much beyond that, you might start to struggle getting the infrastructure in place in the immediate environs.

View attachment 45028

^^^^
To be fair, utilisation rates are generally very good in the Premier League though


View attachment 45029

^^^^
The above highlights my main issues with Esk's flawed model

Now plainly, FlashAndy56, who often posts in support of Esk's words on theesk.org, doesn't think it's worthwhile challenging Paul's assumptions and figures

View attachment 45030

, but I'm happy to listen to professionals, as well as, a couple of passionate, but ultimately ill-informed Blues.

If I'm bored over the w/e, I'll tweak Esk's numbers to reflect a higher cost per seat as capacity increases and revenue per seat decrease to show how very easy it is to build a bigger stadium without getting much in the way of return on your investment.

Having said all that, as a fan, I want a 60k stadium so I understand the passion behind the argument.
I'd be happy with a 55k stadium, and badly disappointed with a 52k stadium.

TL;DR spreadsheets rule.
Also, stadium costs need to include the 7m(?) pa to LCC for the lending fee.
Think the Public works borrowing interest starts at 100 basis points above base rate, but may have misread it.
Enjoy your weekend mate.

 

[artetas_biggest_fan]

I don’t get why we don’t just redevelop Goodison no brainier IMHO just look at West Ham it’s are home and we will lose that.

Understand your sentiments entirely.

West Ham are tenants in an athletics stadium, a soulless bowl that is simply not fit for football. Even Arsenal are worse off. Another soulless bowl as a club they have lost much of their identity. Highbury was a proper football stadium, clock end, marble halls, tight pitch that was like a carpet, it was their home. The Emirates could belong to anybody.

Not opposed to new stadiums entirely, but the generic bowls most certainly.

 

[Gareth Gibson]

Top 6 clubs.
Etihad and Klanfield are under 55k.
Emirates 60k.
Chelsea 42k
United 70k
Spurs are at Wembley.

West Ham average 56k and it's one of the worst grounds in the country.

The capacity of Anfield is about to be increased to above 60k, as is the capacity of the Etihad.

http://www.football365.com/news/liverpool-to-extend-anfield-beyond-60000-seats

https://www.thenational.ae/sport/fo...had-stadium-s-capacity-beyond-60-000-1.687260


And construction is about to begin on Chelsea's new 60,000 stadium.

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...velopment-plans-boosted-council-a3740821.html


Meanwhile, Tottenham are about to move into a stadium with a capacity of 62,000.

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...62000-approved-haringey-council-a3782061.html


Man Utd's stadium currently holds 75,000, but it will soon hold 88,000.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/03/manch...rease-old-trafford-to-88000-capacity-6972945/


60,000 is the bare minimum for a big club.

 

[ToffeeDan]

We get one chance and we muck it up. Everton That.

No doubt our magnificent board have looked over the Park and decided they didn't need 55,000 so that must be our template. Everton That.

 

[Jeff Jones]

I am not saying your wrong as it's your opinion and neither of us know, but i've seen that suggested a few times. Are you suggesting that those who only make a few games a season would prefer to not actually attend as technology gets better? Or the regular matchgoers?

I can't see it having any sort of impact whatsoever on the regular matchgoing support. How advanced the televising technology gets has no impact on me whatsoever as I want to be there watching my team live.

I'm just saying that there is likely to be less demand for tickets in the future. Younger fans will embrace technology which, I imagine will
allow us to surround ourselves in an 'at the ground sensation' in front of a big screen.

This, in whatever form it takes, without the hassle of travelling and dealing with crowded transport and clogged traffic. For example.

 

[kenada_blue]

The capacity of Anfield is about to be increased to above 60k, as is the capacity of the Etihad.

http://www.football365.com/news/liverpool-to-extend-anfield-beyond-60000-seats

https://www.thenational.ae/sport/fo...had-stadium-s-capacity-beyond-60-000-1.687260


And construction is about to begin on Chelsea's new 60,000 stadium.

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...velopment-plans-boosted-council-a3740821.html


Meanwhile, Tottenham are about to move into a stadium with a capacity of 62,000.

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...62000-approved-haringey-council-a3782061.html


Man Utd's stadium currently holds 75,000, but it will soon hold 88,000.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/03/manch...rease-old-trafford-to-88000-capacity-6972945/


60,000 is the bare minimum for a big club.

Been noted.

Were not at their level though. It's also taken them years, decades, to get to building.

 

[Jokerdan]

What does a ‘global’ fan base have to do with the numbers turning up at the ground. These gazillions of Chinese and Malaysians within their global fan bases don’t actually go to the match. Everton are consistently selling out at 40K even when the only available tickets for non STH’s are pretty crap. A nice shiny new stadium, with proper facilities, and not the crap that exists in the likes of lower Bullens, will transform our club and bring back people who would want to go but are unable to get anything like a decent view. It will also bring in thousands of kids from around Merseyside and get the support base regenerated. Like I said I don’t think 60K will happen, but those of us who have seen the blues pick up a fair few titles and cups will never accept that this ‘elite’ won’t change again......

What goes around comes around. It's like fashion. The only difficulty we currently have is the financial viability and wherewithal to break into the existing 'elite' but BMD and more focused leadership from the top down could very well see this come to fruition. I just hope that Moshiri can get his act together, restructure the board by replacing the existing crop of amateurs with people of greater business acumen and vision to drive this great club forward. But on current evidence I won't hold my breath.