Everton have taken a huge step towards leaving Goodison Park after 125 years with the news that the club have a land-purchase agreement with Peel Group for Bramley-Moore Dock.
Additionally, a funding mechanism has been worked out with Liverpool Council whereby Everton will fully fund the stadium but with LCC as guarantors of the required loans for the estimated £300m project which would potentially see the Blues kicking off in their new ground in 2021.
The news comes following days of mounting speculation that today would be the day that confirmation of a successful agreement for the potentially iconic waterfront site for a new stadium being struck. Everton's stadium at Bramley-Moore would form part of Peels' £5bn Liverpool Waters regeneration scheme which promises to transform the waterfront along Regent Road north of Prince's Dock while the LCC-backed Ten Streets initiative hopes to regenerate the derelict section along Great Howard immediately to the east.
Everton are believed to have negotiated a price of around £22.5m for the site on Liverpool's north docks with commencement of construction dependent on planning permission, the application for which will be submitted either later this year or early in 2018, and the funding being in place. The club's business plan provides for them staying at Goodison until the end of the 2020-21 season.
A full announcement from the Council via the LiverpoolExpress website outlined the creation of a "special purpose vehicle" whereby LCC would guarantee the loans, receive a security fee (reported to be around £4m a year) for its trouble and take out a 40-year lease on the site from the funder that they would then sub-lease to Everton. The club could then have the option of acquiring a leasehold interest in the stadium.
The arrangement does not involve any capital from the council but it allows Everton to secure funding for the project from a wider spectrum of lenders and most likely at significantly lower interest rates than if they were to go it alone as a higher-risk entity. The initial cost analysis is based on a 50,000-capacity stadium but Blues CEO Robert Elstone insists the final details have yet to be decided and that supporters will be included in a full consultation.
The Liverpool Express website said:
A report will be presented to the council's cabinet next Friday recommending that the City Council progress Heads of Terms to create a new Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) company which will take a lease of the stadium from a funder and, in turn, sub-lease it to the club.
The council will benefit from an annual security fee payable by the club in return for the council's participation. Critically, the support provided to the club will not impact the future borrowing needs and involves no financial outlay for the council.
“Over the past year, the Club has worked with the support of the Council and we are grateful for the ‘can-do' approach that has got us to this important milestone," said Robert Elstone. "We are particularly grateful for the role the Mayor has played to date in our talks with Peel and for his support in this important step in the journey towards reaching a funding solution for the stadium.
“We are delighted that we have been able to agree Heads of Terms with Peel, giving us control of the Bramley Moore Dock site and allowing us the time we need to complete the substantial further work required to be able to confirm the project's viability.
“We can now move forward into the next phase of work with much greater confidence. Clearly, it is vital we have clarity on cost and we have to recognise that the stadium will be significantly more expensive at Bramley Moore Dock. To get that certainty, and ensure the stadium is affordable, we need to confirm stadium design, capacity and configuration.
"And to do that, we need to talk to fans, partners and all stakeholders in the project. We're committing to that consultation. We're also committed to keep fans fully informed as the project develops and as other milestones are reached."
Lindsey Ashworth, Director of Development at Liverpool Waters, said: “We are delighted to have agreed Heads of Terms with Everton Football Club regarding the development of a state-of-the-art football stadium at Bramley Moore Dock.
“It's been an exciting and progressive couple of weeks for Peel, first unveiling our vision for the new Central Docks neighbourhood at Liverpool Waters and now reaching an initial agreement with Everton for a new waterfront stadium.
“It's important to remember that this is the start of a long process and we will be working very closely with Everton, Liverpool City Council and Historic England to better understand the site and develop the proposals. As the current owners, we have a level of knowledge and experience of the site which we believe will help Everton deliver not just a new stadium but a stunning addition to Liverpool's northern waterfront.”
The confirmation of what the club and supporters alike hope will be the end of a two decade-long search for a solution to Goodison's out-dated construction and the limits on both capacity and expansion posed by the existing site in Walton.
Former Chairman Peter Johnson first mooted the idea of relocating the club to a new stadium but while his proposals for a construction in Aintree and then Cronton Colliery received the backing of a majority of fans, they never got past initial sketches.
A proposal five years later for a potentially world-class ground at the King's Dock eventually collapsed over the club's inability to come up with their share of the funding, while the Destination Kirkby project that would have moved Everton beyond the city boundaries to neighbouring Knowsley Borough also died when the wider retail scheme put forward by Tesco was called in by the Government in 2009.
Alternative options at the Tunnel Loop off Scotland Road and Walton Hall Park were briefly considered but, again, the club's lack of financial muscle and reliance on an enabling partner to help fund the project meant that they were non-starters.
The arrival of Farhad Moshiri as the club's major shareholder when he purchased a 49.9% stake in Everton just 13 months ago appears to have dramatically enhanced the club's financial standing and allowed the Toffees to attempt something as grandiose as the plans unveiled today.
Reader Comments (329)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 23/03/2017 at 12:45:36
It's entirely normal to be given time to arrange the financing having agreed the price for the land from the Seller. Yes, it's only the first step... but, if true, this is a massive step forward and means we are going for the higher class option in terms of location happy days!
2 Posted 23/03/2017 at 12:48:10
3 Posted 23/03/2017 at 13:14:36
4 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:04:11
5 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:06:10
6 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:09:34
The artist's impression could be a flight of fancy.
The site is nearer to town and further away from the sewage works. A plus IMHO.
If EFC were allowed to buy the land to the railway line by compulsory purchase (this was the only thing the city council did for LFC when they built their stand) then the development could provide the additional funding to support a ground build.
The last point is the only reason I can see Joe Anderson involved at all. The city doesn't own the docklands and they would let a planning request go through on the nod. They could be a partner in that enabling development of course, finding it cheaper to raise finance over a longer period than the club could.
7 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:19:11
8 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:19:18
9 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:21:32
I have personal experience of Peel. They are unpredictable, slippery, scheming and conniving vipers, and if they can be taken out of the picture, then believe me, the prospects of this happening have been massively improved.
10 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:23:15
11 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:25:38
12 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:27:51
13 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:28:29
On the OS, if you click on 'today's news' you get the usual..er..'news.'
'Under 14s will eventually be under 15s'
'Finch Farm canteen manager Sal Adzenstuf retires'
'Under 18s to tour Jibrovia and Hildanstan'
But no mention of new grounds or docks or... anything.
You don't think it might be alt-facts do you?
14 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:32:34
15 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:34:22
Welcome back to the big leagues, Everton.
16 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:41:41
17 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:42:39
I guess that the club, LCC, and Peel, will have agreed a precisely timed and carefully coordinated communications announcement, drafted by a prestige team of international public relations consultants to achieve maximum PR impact. Either that, or Buffalo Bill forgot to set his alarm!
It looks like the conduit for the release is the City Council, and the club will keep quiet until then. Be patient. 5pm The chippy opens.
Cue, thousands of Kopite heads bouncing down Walton Breck Road! ... boing! boing!! boing!!!
18 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:49:47
Gutted that my Dad didn't live to see Moshiri (he missed out by just a few months), but delighted that my nephew and the generations he goes on to inspire will see a prouder, more prospectful version of what remains the 4th most successful team in English football history (despite 1 trophy in 30 years).
19 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:51:09
20 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:56:49
THEY know what the big story is today and they will be pig-sick.
21 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:57:26
22 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:01:13
This will make the turmoil of the last couple of proposals worth it.
23 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:05:35
Moshiri is too shrewd to let this out without having a proven path forwards.
24 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:07:41
25 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:10:13
26 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:11:30
27 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:13:20
28 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:14:40
Fri 24th March Roger Philips, Radio Merseyside, cue fuming poltroon in gravy-stained Liverpool shirt - the incredibly meffy, povvo Candy one (Link)
"... no but.. look okay am not sayin' they'll wipe out the pandas am I... what I mean though is it's a heritage site thing for... er.. the wildlife that is native to the region or whatever... and the... um... coz... it's gonna block the light, isn't it, and light provides... oxygen for... children and... puppies so... how can Anderson live with that on his conscience? Know what I mean though, Roger?'
Etc etc etc etc etc etc...
29 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:21:22
I assume the offer will be subject to the qualifiers not interfering with what will be by then Everton's extensive Champions League commitments.
30 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:25:24
Fans need to be smart and express support to Council and Joe for the whole regeneration of a deprived area. Because aside from our own footy mania, this is a really important scheme for the city.
You can bet Reds will try and challenge any Council involvement without any regard for fellow scousers.
31 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:34:47
32 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:41:08
33 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:42:31
Publicly Everton have in the main been reserved but clever in the use of the media this year. Again part of an MO consistent with a well run business. In effect, using the connection with Jim White and Sky, and Joe Anderson to make all the noise, smart in my view.
All the rumours floating around clearly have had some elements of truth and Everton now look like they're prepared to get the best venue. The connection of being the City's club is strengthened and it feels like it fits.
What's left is the funding, can this be done without crippling the club. If this can be found then, good times abound.
So one last thing a little bit of chat perhaps is suggesting the pitch might be sunken? Given its dock situation, that would seem to make sense. Instead of filling the damn thing in, we dig it out?
I've no idea if this is feasible architecturally but deffo an interesting idea?
34 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:54:00
I went down that way on my last visit home and the area defo needs an uplift, no better example of Everton in the Community than regenerating a run-down district. Although I hope the Bramley-Moore pub stays.
35 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:56:50
A professional boardroom.
A great manager.
A good squad, soon to be enhanced with big money spent.
And a state-of-the-art stadium on an iconic waterfront.
36 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:59:12
Agreements mean nothing, it still needs planning permission and no doubt some corrupt fucker with RedShite links in Government will find a reason for it not to be given.
37 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:12:14
40 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:20:05
I can't wait to hear those whinging Kopites start moaning. We can offer an olive branch though, we could provide them with mooring rights for Kirk Douglas and the rest of the Viking hordes when they make their vigils to our old ground. You know the one where we won in the league, first in 1891 and wearing Red too!
I actually think Joe Anderson has played a bit of a blinder on this.
41 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:20:13
42 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:27:25
43 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:30:00
44 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:33:50
For your amusement, see below. Genuine comment on RS Forum. Makes #30 above relevant?
"I suppose overall costs will determine the rent, which as I said will have to be of a sufficient amount to palpable to City of Liverpool tax payers - like myself.
Otherwise Fat Joe will be booted out - We had a Lib Dem council not too long ago."
45 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:36:48
46 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:43:43
Nothing is guaranteed yet. It's still in the embryo stage.
Let's not forget: this is Everton, and all sorts of lies, ducking, diving, ring-fencing of monies, lost cheques in the post and rare newt populations could scupper this.
47 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:45:23
48 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:46:33
49 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:46:38
50 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:48:41
51 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:49:28
52 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:51:19
Pacman Johnson, are you watching???
53 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:52:20
54 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:53:22
I expect he has some business partners interested and Mr Usmanov supplying the steel. Relax and let it unfold, there is no way that planning will be knocked back as this is an ideal opportunity for Everton, the City as the area cannot remain a wasteland and must be regenerated (think Commonwealth Games?) and Peel to miss.
55 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:56:37
56 Posted 23/03/2017 at 16:57:56
58 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:00:31
59 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:02:20
61 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:04:19
62 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:05:20
63 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:07:50
64 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:08:49
65 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:10:20
66 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:11:00
Clearly a lot of work and negotiation over many months between all the parties concerned was necessary to piece this together.
Greatly encouraged by this particular line:
"Under the proposed finance structure of the SPV the council will not provide any finance for the new stadium, which is anticipated to cost in excess of £300m and will be fully funded by the Club."
Pulse racing here! We're joining the Big Time again!
67 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:13:11
Sky saying nothing has been agreed and come back in 3 months and we see where we are. Jim White doing his best for his mate Moshiri.
No funds, no nothing, really encouraged.
68 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:15:13
I don't want us to become known as the dog-toffees...
69 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:20:13
70 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:27:22
I duuno, maybe Moshiri has some friends in Russia that might be interested.
71 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:28:23
72 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:30:36
73 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:33:44
I bookmarked and saved it and was able to watch many a game again at leisure. However, a glitch on my computer has lost my links and I'm trying to restore them.
If possible, could you re-post the site link again?
74 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:34:47
75 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:37:21
Let's not get too carried away and forget the team. Hopefully before we know it there will be drawings, brochures and then season tickets for our new home.
76 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:39:43
To all the doubters, this isn't like all the false dawns we've had in the past. You don't spend £30m on a pipedream, not if you're like Moshiri.
I'm a very happy guy today. I just hope the stadium lives up to our dreams.
77 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:41:29
78 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:46:43
It strikes me that not only does the club benefit, but also the City Council, local taxpayers, the city at large, and any investors. (Although I am sure there will be plenty in dark hue pink shirts who will disagree!)
Given Moshiri only came on board barely 12 months ago (and I'm among those with lingering doubts about how much of HIS hard cash has been invested in the club) presenting this solution today is further evidence he is sincere in moving the club forward.
He is clearly a man of action, not merely sentimental words. Let's hope he accelerates us to the next phase of actual funding and construction.
79 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:49:03
80 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:51:17
Elstone, Elstone, Elstone... why would an investor take over a business but retain the one person NOBODY trusts or believes?
81 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:52:36
Stand by, Goodison exercise! Don't fail us now!!!
82 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:54:18
83 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:55:50
84 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:55:57
I had started to believe the sleeping giant would not awaken again in my lifetime, but the toes are definitely twitching.
Think I'll have to open that bottle of Red Breast which has miraculously survived since Chrimbo.
85 Posted 23/03/2017 at 17:59:10
You think Elstone is driving this?! Haven't you heard of Moshiri?! Tut.
86 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:00:56
Now wouldn't that be great and what a pisser for some others!
Have a read:Saving Goodison Park 'It has historical purpose for football and for the city'
87 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:03:40
Great news today, bring it on!!! We're going places, back on the Liverpool City map woth a bang!
Watch the video:
88 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:07:30
This is nothing like the 'bullshit 3 times' of previous proposed stadium moves. Different Head Boy in charge, different MO, different financial nous in play.
As for your lament "Elstone, Elstone, Elstone." He is a mere office boy in all this! The deal will not be made or broken simply because he continues to occupy the seat he did under Bill Kenwright.
Evidently, for the time being at least, Moshiri must trust and believe in him or he would have been swept away by now.
Jeez! Some people are determined to see ill in all things that cross their path!!!
89 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:11:25
I am sorry I am so negative, but it is Everton.
90 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:14:35
91 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:15:24
So no funding is clarified yet nor indeed the true cost. Elstone is worried by planning but I would have thought that is the lesser obstacle.
This only makes sense if Moshiri's mates are awaiting their moment and I'm sure they are. If they're not then this is so much smoke and mirrors.
92 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:16:02
93 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:17:30
94 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:19:34
In the Echo now, quoting Elstone.
95 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:28:04
96 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:31:36
97 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:40:55
98 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:44:33
99 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:45:07
100 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:46:25
I expected the "naysayers in red" would just interpret this, in a typically bone headed fashion, as "de council are payin' for dis and it's arr of order." They haven't let me down.
The council have a vested interest in sponsoring growth in the economy and population in the city. They receive council tax and business rates from what in this case is currently derelict land delivering zero, if flats, and enterprises such as a sports stadium are built. Increased revenue to the council goes in part, to support the increasing demands for social care in an aging population.
They have a STATUTORY DUTY to do the right thing by the citizens of the city –
hence, Project Jennifer on Great Homer Street, and yes, the Anfield Village redevelopment, and the Echo Arena and Conference and Exhibition Centre. ALL of these are excellent examples of the Council 'sponsoring' economic regeneration.
The press release makes it clear that the Council is putting NO MONEY into the STADIUM. What it will ,and should do, is to support the project in kind, through the planning process, and by improving access through road and rail, for example. My message to all naysayers, red, blue or of no colour, is to wish this project all the very best.
Liverpool as a city deserves it.
Ironic isn't it that the £30m the club is investing in buying this plot, could have got us the whole King's Dock Stadium just over 15 years ago. How times have changed.
101 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:50:25
The key difference for the stadium and challenge is not creating a traditional close to the pitch, imposing, atmospheric etc but is how we integrate it into the daily life of the city and this north Liverpool area.
I have been in contact with Dan and his lead architect and have given some of the aspects of heritage, community, cultural links that could be themes for this challenge. He has reacted well and no doubt better ideas than mine will come forth in the consultation and we can create something that makes EFC the centre of the city in all aspects.
Dan Meis is a big fan of fan involvement in the design process and with the now social media we will the opportunity of playing our part like no other stadium project in the history of stadiums over the millennia.
At the right time and given the right platform, I will share my two page input to Dan and the design team and then the talent that is here on TW can come up with all sorts of better ideas and extensions of the themes I gave Dan and his team.
I actually feel the involvement of Dan has given the stakeholders great confidence on creating something special in Liverpool and bring to life the Royal Blue Mersey waterfront.
102 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:50:42
Once the funding paid back, LCC will no longer have an interest and will presumably relinquish its shares in the SPV.
Fantastic news and the fact that LCC bending over backwards to help us out is brilliant as Evertonians and great for the City as the potential economic ramifications for regeneration and jobs are huge.
Wow, made up. Still... I can't help thinking a part of me is also made up as the RS will be fuming small-minded, I know.
103 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:51:03
104 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:51:12
Let them knock Anfield down and build it there.
105 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:53:39
No public money is involved and Everton have to find the investors, facilitated by the Council. It could be Insurance Companies, Pension Funds, Venture Capital Companies or individuals.
If it is offshore, the investors could be confidential, but may need to be acceptable to the football authorities, a bit like Everton's current offshore financial arrangement.
Or it may be incorporated in England, but possibly unlikely.
Let's see... Early days and plenty hurdles.
106 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:54:23
Everton have to find organisations or people who will lend them the money to build the stadium; however, it is the council acting as Guarantors that enables the club to borrow that sort of money from those potential lenders.
The lenders in effect will own the land and the stadium until 40 years less one day has elapsed. The council are liable for the loans should, god forbid, Everton not be in a position to repay the loans.
107 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:55:33
On the face of it, the news is exciting, but until the bulldozers move in I for one won't be raising a glass (of Lucozade) to a new era and the rejuvenation of a new and improved Goodison replacement complete with a team of winners.
For instance, is there a completion date mentioned? Will the finances be there? And, as with most construction projects these days, will the proposed funding will massively over run to the tune of millions, especially if the diggers come across some of the many thousands of unexploded ordnance devices commonly found in areas visited by the Luftwaffe during the Blitzkrieg, Liverpool docks being one of their prime targets.
Only time will tell of course. until then we can only hope it will all happen as expected. COYB.
108 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:56:16
I reckon Pfizer would totally agree with your comment. :-)
109 Posted 23/03/2017 at 18:59:46
110 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:01:38
As well as LCC as guarantor – giving financial rating and lower interest rate – the Heads of Terms state that there is also a need for EFC to put certain revenue streams into designated accounts that – should the yearly/monthly fees not be paid – act as a safety net even before default and LCC act as guarantor.
Once North Liverpool is regenerated, then there are lots of upside for all stakeholders – hence lenders would see this as being very very attractive.
Imagine the Premier League and football general gravy train in 20 years time... backed by land and a waterfront leisure site.
All makes a lot of sense.
111 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:02:08
There is plenty of money slushing around in the world. Plenty. £300m is absolutely small beer. Everton have never been able to raise money in the past because the 'money people' haven't been confident of a business case, or that their money would be secure.
A number of factors have come together now to make this project viable:
● The land is available, at a known price.
● The draft business case prepared by the club 'stacks', not least because of the potential for massive stadium naming rights income, TV money and the rest.
● Farhad Moshiri will no doubt 'bridge' the funding requirement from his personal wealth with guarantees. This is how Abramovic, and the Abu Dhabis, fund Chelsea and Man City respectively. They provide guarantees which bridge funding gaps.
My hunch is that the biggest risk to the project now that Peel are 'out of the way' is that the complexity of delivering the building in such a difficult location, may escalate to such a degree that they threaten the model assumptions. This is not a simple design and build. There are complex ground works etc which are largely unknown. The costs could escalate way above model estimates.
By way of example, do you remember how the cost on the Millenium Dome escalated out of control? That was a disused gas works, and the contamination of the land was massively more expensive to clear that was originally assumed. That and other issues meant if it wasn't backed by the government, it would have gone bust.
Elstone is right to urge caution, but one step at a time.
112 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:05:28
Elstone appears to be doing a solid job at the moment. Quite a turnaround...
[Tin hat on, etc.]
113 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:17:49
114 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:18:37
I would've thought he'd be well up for it.
I don't know what some were expecting to materialise today (apart from a fully formed, state-of-the-art stadium to suddenly spring forth from thin air like the Fortress of Solitude). This is the confirmation that was rumoured to be coming and, given the scale of the undertaking, is about as far as the club could feasibly be expected to have got at this stage.
From the limited information available, I don't see anything to set alarm bells ringing and, if anything, on face value, the club (and other parties involved) seem to have come up with an inventive solution to what could have been a sizeable first hurdle.
115 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:18:50
Talk about making money on the way you laugh.
But, (or, for posh people, 'however',)
"You can't fool all of the people all of the time."
For those who doubt, if this is a planned fuck-up, then you can bet your life the we'll vote with our feet and, in 10 years time, we'll be competing in the Northern Premier League.
I think this is the real deal and for once, especially after the Kings Dock fiasco. Everton Football Club have listened (or taken account of) the real fans' views.
Media take note: The sleeping giant has batted an eyelid ...
116 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:19:43
Exactly. Nothing is written in stone. That's the whole point of a Heads of Terms agreement!
Everton are keeping us up to speed. As so many on here scream at them to do so. Typical Everton if they don't! Par for the course.
117 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:21:16
118 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:21:26
But, just like the great days of NHS and Everton, the bottom line is the best long-term deal for patients or fans. Or you can watch patients and fans treated badly as we reminisce about days long gone and, if you take the pulse (sorry), of present politics/economics, never likely to return.
We owe our kids this and should pass some emotional ownership to them. Otherwise, we will have an empty new ground. On that note, is there a Young Blues Group?
Support Joe and the regeneration through the LCC website and the Echo. Time for us to act.
119 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:31:17
Let's support it.
121 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:37:24
Plainly there is much still to be done and much that could go wrong, not least the final costs associated with preparing the site. But today's announcement signals encouraging early progress so there is much to be positive about at this stage.
122 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:37:30
123 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:39:18
124 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:45:35
'Under a proposal to be put before the council's cabinet next Friday, the local authority intends to create an SPV with Everton. If agreed, the SPV would secure the funds for the stadium. The lenders would acquire a 200-year head-lease of the land from Peel and lease the stadium to the SPV, which would in turn sub-lease it to Everton for 40 years. All the repayments would be made by Everton who, once the loans were paid off, would have the option to acquire the head-lease for the remaining 160 years from the funder.'
125 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:47:21
126 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:48:35
A massive day for the club. I, like everyone else, would have liked a design to drool over but building a £300m stadium takes a bit of planning I would think... but it will be built on the banks of the Mersey. I'm made up!
127 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:50:13
Seamus would like that.
So would William Ralph.
128 Posted 23/03/2017 at 19:57:49
129 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:02:05
I just hope that doesn't mean The Commonwealth Games and a running track... we've seen the pitfalls with that.
Anybody born in the '40s or even '30s might be thinking this is great, don't fanny around too much, just do it once, but do it right.
130 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:02:43
There are 940 PAGES of comments!
What are they worried about?
131 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:03:22
132 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:08:30
I know politics and the media well. Hit the airwaves in any way that suits you but, above all, support the council. See #119.
Post back here when you have supported and tell us how. We can create a snowball effect. Wonder if Michael and Lyndon could help if we do get motivated?
It is not new to rely on council support and vision as Man City will tell you, and remember their relationship with Man Utd years ago.
God, this has me motivated... And now knackered.
133 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:10:25
Me (and us) too!
134 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:13:36
135 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:13:43
136 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:14:14
137 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:18:40
138 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:23:55
Given that Moshiri is a billionaire, why isn't he funding it?
The statement was meaningless but maybe a lot of you are easily pleased.
139 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:26:46
Piece of piss!
Lukaku and Barkley £100m+
Then (according to the Echo) - SportPesa are expected to be named as the Blues' new shirt sponsor, replacing long-term partners Chang, in a deal that forms part of a £75m windfall for the club.
So that's £175m.
Plus this season we'll cop for around £130m from the Premier League Link
£305m sorted, innit blood.
Then there's naming rights, Arsenal got £100m in 2004 (deal finishes 20-21). Man City got £400m and Spurs are looking for the same Link
There's only 20 Premier League teams, we're one of them, it's a 'brand' known worldwide, we should exploit that.
If Cunard or...w hoever want 'The Cunard Stadium' we should (like a big proper Premier League side) charge them like a wounded Rhino start the bidding at £250m.
Sure, in the meantime, we'd have to flog a few shirts on top of that to pay the players and Mr Moshiri might have to dip into his bin from time to time, but if we keep Elstone and Kenwright away from business with the grown-ups, you never know.
Anyway there's the ground paid for and £250m over the odds let's buy Lukaku and Ross back.
Up the Toffees!
(nb: 99.9999999% of the above is not meant to be taken too seriously.)
141 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:27:44
I stress again, dark forces will do their best to ruin this once-in-a-lifetime hope with the horrid techniques of social media manipulation. Let's just be honestly supportive and if we can send a link back to TW where massive support for the club and city is expressed, that would help.
Of course, a sensible person will keep saying "early days", let's consider it more... and then more... and once again we will miss the boat again. But hey at least when we play Portsmouth we can tell our kids or grandkids that we didn't get carried away!
142 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:33:29
143 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:39:41
144 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:43:37
Been too quiet far too long around "The Grand Old Lady", may be quiet for a while yet. But the silent era is ending.
We don't need a manager dancing up and down the touchline like some X-Factor contestant. Just one that Ross, Tom, Idrissa and Morgan oh and Rom ('cos I do love the big lad) have faith in.
145 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:43:59
146 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:46:07
A project like this has to go through various phases. It's not sensible to pay an architect to design the stadium until we have secured the land.
Moshiri is an accountant and has been playing with the big boys for years now advising Usmanov on huge deals and making plenty for himself. I think we can trust him to have done his homework and have investors already lined up. This is a very clever guy and he is unlikely to risk his reputation by going off half-cocked.
This will take time it is a £300m plus deal after all but it looks to me like it will happen so all credit to all those involved.
Now for the RS...
147 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:46:28
Today is a good day lets enjoy it and smile about our future. Plaudits to Joe Anderson. What a legacy.
148 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:47:19
149 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:49:39
150 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:54:20
151 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:54:48
There will be pension funds and private investors falling over themselves for guaranteed returns at decent interest on a scheme like this. Don't forget, the interest rates currently on offer are awful if you wanted a rock-solid investment backed by a large City Council.
The reported £14m a year repayment will look like the bargain of the century in 10 years. Think naming rights alone plus the £5m we are saving in interest payments we were shelling out every year to keep Sir Greedy in Dommy P.
I think we can rest safe in the knowledge we have a billionaire accountant putting this deal together. There will be no issues with planning permission as long as we can satisfy transport requirements. I don't think any Council will vote down a scheme which will bring millions into their coffers each year.
I'm fucking buzzing over this. It's happening.
152 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:56:16
Rewind 12 months and have a little think where we are now compared.
Seems to be a win win situation for all involved unless of course you have a wardrobe full of red shirts.
Anyways, don't be surprised if the funding for this to happen is traced back to roubles. All we need now is some designs to lick our lips over!
153 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:57:08
154 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:58:21
155 Posted 23/03/2017 at 20:59:06
156 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:03:34
157 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:06:47
158 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:09:59
159 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:14:26
Just rebuild "The Grand Old Lady" without the timber and the stanchions. Up the capacity to 60k
(In recognition of William Ralph and Seamus).
Doesn't seem bloody difficult to me.
Oh, and a geostationary satellite shining an impenetrable shaft of pure blue light .
Oh, and a dungeon for away fans (this could be optionally flooded when those with whale hunting tendencies are present).
160 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:21:53
Let's hope Mayor Anderson was right when he said some months back he thought we would be in a new stadium inside 3 years. Although I think that might be a little ambitious. But if it takes a little longer, so be it.
161 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:29:22
162 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:30:50
163 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:31:49
I like the Lucas Oil Stadium design. It could be made slightly tighter to the pitch, has all the industrial fittings to suit a dockland, and looks like a proper football home.
I can envision the brickwork now in blue columns. I think it would look fantastic and I am sure plenty of fellow blues will have their idea of a state-of-the-art design.
164 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:32:18
165 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:34:14
166 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:38:07
I think it will be an ultra-modern arena/bowl as the wind factor will have to be taken into consideration. I'm not worried about a track as modern technology has solved that.
167 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:41:38
168 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:43:16
Fast forward 10 years and it's strange how fate can tee things up, what with our next game being the derby at Anfield...
169 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:45:24
1. Despite peoples views of Bill Kenwright, there are 'football people' making decisions here and not just designers and engineers.
2. To be on the waterfront, it will need to have architectural merit.
A stadium with football and supporters in mind inside and, architecture and aesthetics in mind outside, sounds very impressive.
170 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:51:31
171 Posted 23/03/2017 at 21:52:30
Support Joe and north Liverpool!
Night all. Good day today.
172 Posted 23/03/2017 at 22:12:46
Everything is in flux at the club, apparently, and I find it difficult to discern the truth about us especially where our money is going to come from. I admire the optimism on here and the vision of investors queuing up and hope those bright ideas come good.
But I wish things were less intricate and speculative. Complex financial structures always make me nervous because I tend to think that something is being hidden and sometimes what's being hidden is the absence of serious content.
173 Posted 23/03/2017 at 22:14:35
However, it sounds more promising as the basics are being done first. No flashy brochure handed out of the stadium proposal before land and finance sorted.
I feel the new owner wants to get on with it and with his contacts to sponsor the stadium, and invest in the club. That might mean £150 million sorted already. Sell Lukaku and Barkley for £115, there's £265 million. Three sides of the stadium sorted. Have a raffle at the Red Lion should sort the rest out! Don't know why everyone is worrying? Simple really!
Start packing and don't forget Dixie!!!!
174 Posted 23/03/2017 at 22:18:17
175 Posted 23/03/2017 at 22:25:21
I would imagine that the season ticket takings each year would cover the repayments or near enough, eg, 30k tickets at £500 equates to £15m per season; circa £4m per season to the Council and the rest to the lenders, so it shouldn't impinge on team building too much.
Without this sort of deal, we'd be spending the rest of our natural at Goodison and that just isn't feasible. I also think that, if this deal does go through and we build the stadium, the terms of the deal may prevent any sort of hostile takeovers by carpet baggers in the future.
Everton FC has spent lots of money on interest payments in the last decade or so which didn't benefit the club one iota, save to keep us afloat.
Obviously finding the lenders/investors is easier said than done but surely the location will draw many monied people and institutions into the scheme?
176 Posted 23/03/2017 at 22:27:04
177 Posted 23/03/2017 at 22:27:55
178 Posted 23/03/2017 at 22:54:13
Darren, if you open that bottle, mate, then don't forget to toast the main men/women at KEIOC who fought so hard to stop us going to a cowshed in Kirkby!
Early days, but we now need a 50-foot Royal Blue flag to be taken into Anfield next Saturday. Written in white, with the immortal words, "ON THE BANKS OF THE ROYAL BLUE MERSEY!"
179 Posted 23/03/2017 at 22:54:58
I'm crap at penning lyrics (my skills lie elsewhere 😃), anyone else...
180 Posted 23/03/2017 at 22:57:34
"Sitting on the dock of the bay... watching the shite heading back to Norway."
181 Posted 23/03/2017 at 23:01:01
182 Posted 23/03/2017 at 23:01:51
183 Posted 23/03/2017 at 23:23:46
nb: What happens after 40-year lease is up and would the club be in effect tied in tenants? West Ham's is 100 years so is it linked to the cost repayment period?
Thanks to those who understand and can explain this for me. Famous day in our lives and hopefully a new dawn begins for EFC.
184 Posted 23/03/2017 at 23:29:01
Capacity 50,000 is too small.
After paying £576 million over 40 years for a £300 million stadium, we still don't own it. 40 years later, we can then buy the remaining 160-year lease. How much will that cost us then?
Seems we are paying a hell of a lot for something we won't even own. This is not like a mortgage it's only a lease.
185 Posted 23/03/2017 at 23:32:20
So is it defo just 50,000? I hope there's no running track either, need us lot near the pitch.
So what's happening with ownership, etc. Who will own it? Why wouldn't we?
186 Posted 23/03/2017 at 23:49:28
We'll be sitting in their face on the 2nd most iconic waterfront in the world, they'll have a great view from the top of their loft conversion...
Bitter? How long have you got?
187 Posted 23/03/2017 at 23:52:10
"The lenders would acquire a 200-year head-lease of the land from Peel and lease the stadium to the SPV, which would in turn sub-lease it to Everton for 40 years. All the repayments would be made by Everton who, once the loans were paid off, would have the option to acquire the head-lease for the remaining 160 years from the funder."
188 Posted 23/03/2017 at 23:52:24
189 Posted 23/03/2017 at 23:54:49
Okay, we have to persuade the money lenders to fund a larger stadium, but at least give it a try.
190 Posted 24/03/2017 at 00:08:02
191 Posted 24/03/2017 at 00:12:53
Generally prices rise to cover the cost of a new stadium. If we can't always fill 40,000 cheap seats, where would we find 60,000 people willing or able to fill more expensive ones?
Juventus down sized in part to get a better atmosphere in a full stadium after years playing in a half empty one. Chelsea players were quoted as saying it was easier playing West Ham in the white elephant than the smaller but packed and vocal Upton Park.
192 Posted 24/03/2017 at 00:27:45
Okay, let's not go there..
Eugene at 28 - '..cue fuming poltroon in gravy-stained Liverpool shirt.'
'Fuming poltroon' excellent indeed. Sir, you are a poet.
195 Posted 24/03/2017 at 01:36:53
The arrangement is different but looks sustainable without being too burdensome, so unlikely to hinder the transfer policy nor should it.
I'm still wondering if given the dockland situation whether it will be sunken, to give it a nice low profile, out of he wind with room for expansion.
Dan Meis, architect has already changed his Twitter background to Bradley-Moore Dock!
Can't wait for the yacht berths on matchday. 😆
196 Posted 24/03/2017 at 01:39:03
197 Posted 24/03/2017 at 02:55:28
Today's news is so exciting. Even the Riverside looks amazing on fly-by panning shots on MOTD etc what about our new stadium, at night, blue fireworks going off (reflected in the waters of the Mersey), Z-Cars playing, 50k fans packed into a proper new football stadium, for another evening of Champions League football!
198 Posted 24/03/2017 at 03:35:14
Here is a clue:
199 Posted 24/03/2017 at 05:38:31
200 Posted 24/03/2017 at 06:52:18
201 Posted 24/03/2017 at 07:02:57
The Echo showing their enthusiasm over the new ground.
Note the articles about Everton are below articles about rats nesting in a car in Huyton amongst other articles of more importance.
202 Posted 24/03/2017 at 07:05:00
203 Posted 24/03/2017 at 07:23:43
Presumably we know we can access funds due to the Council's guarantee so that side of things shouldn't be a problem.
Still something in the back of my mind that says this still has a way to go... We've had a 'deal agreed' before.
204 Posted 24/03/2017 at 07:25:54
Wasn't a flat pack stadium in Kirkby going to cost £300 million? With all the new complexity I don't think we should be surprised at twice that before we take our seats.
205 Posted 24/03/2017 at 07:26:30
206 Posted 24/03/2017 at 07:51:16
I also think it's important that we follow the lead of our American cousins and turn matchdays into a whole-day experience, ie, people don't just turn up, have a pre-match pint then go home. We should have cafes, restaurants, pubs, arcades etc so families can spend the day, in comfort, in and around the stadium. The stadium should also be able to hold concerts and other sporting events so it's not an empty shell every other weekend.
I imagine Moshiri and Co have thought of this as it's a way of getting their money back quicker.
207 Posted 24/03/2017 at 08:00:22
"If you're a local, this could be the most important part of this plan. Potential loss of World Heritage Site status.
World Heritage Site:
Bramley-Moore Dock is within the UNESCO designated Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site (“WHS”)."
Back the plan and the investment in North Liverpool:
208 Posted 24/03/2017 at 08:14:16
209 Posted 24/03/2017 at 08:28:52
Dermot, it was always going to happen, any kopites I know go on about that they are not bothered but you can see that they are fuming inside.
210 Posted 24/03/2017 at 08:32:11
Gives a good sense of what £300m might get you. Looks like we are in the Ethiad, Tottenham ball park and spending way in excess of the costs of the standard bowl stadiums like Leicester, Cardiff, Southampton. Looking forward to seeing the designs!!
211 Posted 24/03/2017 at 08:33:28
This is not a mortgage; it specifically states a lease for 200 years. So the question on what we own and how much extra we have to pay is entirely a valid one.
212 Posted 24/03/2017 at 08:53:20
It's all, tentatively, looking like a great iconic presence and claiming the city centre...ish and basically the River Mersey; well, that's just gorgeous, isn't it, and so, well, People's Club.
However, I'm nervous. The framework / enabling deal for the land, the SPV, even the repayment options, I get. But Mr Moshiri not contributing, at all? That I don't get. Haven't we criticised others at the club for not actually using their own money to progress us?
Our proud new owner has been pretty effective so far in different ways. I personally think he's presided over two hugely disappointing transfer windows that have likely cost us a Champions League place this season. I don't think we've taken managed risks in the market and are two players short right now of that coveted Champions League spot.
So be it, the guy's going to be a real asset for the club over time but basically it's looking like he's invested heavily to buy us and hasn't really added large transfer (yet) and now isn't going to add to the stadium project which, to be fair, is sort of what we were sold on when he arrived? Or was it?
It all feels a bit Everton but I'm honestly not having a real go at Mr Moshiri it's just this nagging busy bee sound in my head that's constantly saying "We finally find a very rich person to buy us but end up with massive stadium debt and perhaps not quite the capacity or iconic design we want because £300m is actually not a lot for a riverside stadium where infrastructure work will probably eat up a third of that cost, leaving us with a £200m iconic stadium?
Still, read that Guardian piece and the above fades away and the pulse races and I think, ffs, I will be long gone by the time we default on the mortgage and it all goes to shit but, in the meantime, I may just get to see us assume our rightful pride of Merseyside place whilst Big Stand lot end up in a new housing estate on the way out of the city.
213 Posted 24/03/2017 at 08:59:34
214 Posted 24/03/2017 at 09:00:26
215 Posted 24/03/2017 at 09:13:39
We have to be careful though that it remains affordable for the average punter – otherwise no point upping the capacity by 20k and having 15k empty seats and no atmosphere.
But I'd rather have a booming full house of 50 thousand real fans than 60 thousand capacity and loads of empty seats as they're too expensive or some corporate VIPs are too busy with prawn sandwiches.
Ideally to have the option of increasing at a later stage too, once we start winning the Champions League on a regular basis… :)
216 Posted 24/03/2017 at 09:20:07
218 Posted 24/03/2017 at 09:30:24
219 Posted 24/03/2017 at 09:31:15
221 Posted 24/03/2017 at 09:37:59
222 Posted 24/03/2017 at 09:38:21
"But Id rather have a booming full house of 50 thousand real fans than 60 thousand capacity and loads of empty seats as theyre too expensive or some corporate VIPs or too busy with prawn sandwiches."
My thoughts exactly. I've mentioned on here a couple of times that, if we DO need more than 50k on a regular basis, that the seats could be concealed rows at the back of the stands which could be revealed as and when deemed necessary, thus eliminating the prospect of loads of empty seats around the pitch. The Etihad looks terrible with all those empty, pale blue seats on show, despite the club claiming 50K attendance.
We're fans. Not tourists.
223 Posted 24/03/2017 at 09:45:58
I don't think it's any surprise that any new stadium has to stand up as a financial investment on its own terms. The club has been pretty clear. I'm pretty sure Moshiri is an investor as opposed to a benefactor/vanity owner as seen at Chelsea and Man City.
That's why getting the capacity right is an important part of the investment proposal. You need to be able to fill the stadium at a 'normal' pricing position. It may well be possible to fill a 60k stadium but there's no real financial return if you have to discount prices to do so. And the bigger you build the more it costs and also to run.
You also have to discount any existing match income from the equation. It's only the incremental income we get pays the investment. And we currently get about £20m gross matchday income each year.
I don't know what the numbers say but my gut feeling is 60k is unrealistic.
224 Posted 24/03/2017 at 09:56:16
Far better to have sold out games with a fantastic atmosphere in a 50,000 stadium and create something special than risk empty seats in a bigger one.
225 Posted 24/03/2017 at 09:57:09
226 Posted 24/03/2017 at 10:07:15
227 Posted 24/03/2017 at 10:08:01
228 Posted 24/03/2017 at 10:16:04
You never know what will be found in the dock when it's drained and piled for the foundations, could be some bounty to pay, towards the costs.👍
Gonna be some work plan... Let's hope there's some momentum now and this plan progresses.
229 Posted 24/03/2017 at 10:18:17
If large payments were made into the club for the purpose of building a stadium, things probably get complicated accountancy-wise as we also spend money on players as this money flowed in (even though FFP rules are supposed to exclude infrastucture). Much simpler and clearer to create a standalone company to build the stadium which will presumably also run the stadium once built (a little like the council owned Etihad was run). The only money going through Everton's books is the interest payments to the third party until of course it is in use.
This also creates a big secure bucket for investors to use freely to fund the stadium. Any contributions by a group such as USM would look like investments rather than sponsorship.
A quick glance at how the Emirates was funded suggests the complexity required to build these structures:
230 Posted 24/03/2017 at 10:27:46
Commonwealth Games 2022
Press reports recently confirmed that Durban is stripped of host status for the
Commonwealth Games 2022 and organisers are exploring options for a
replacement host. The Council has formally written to the organisers and put
itself forward as the 2022 Games Host. Liverpool will continue to prepare its
bid for the 2026 Games, with an accelerated timetable for 2022 Games
provision. The proposed new Stadium could play a key part in the
Commonwealth Games bid and discussions will take place with EFC about
this opportunity in due course.
231 Posted 24/03/2017 at 10:30:25
Re capacity, with any ground move discussions I've seen in recent years, I've always thought any figure over 50,000 to be wishful thinking.
For all the posts I've seen suggesting over 50,000, I don't think I've ever seen a (sensible/believable) accompanying plan saying where another 15-25,000 Evertonians are supposed to come from.
At 50,000, I believe we could probably just fill it, but imo that would involve tickets being available (and promoted) through city hotels, weekend deals and giving them to local schools.
My mates (the blues) come in two categories - those who regularly go to the match and those who (more or less) never go.
I can say with absolute certainty that those who don't go now aren't suddenly going to go coz the ground is new.
As for increased gate revenue, I personally don't believe it will significantly increase and believe the club would be insane to expect it
For the Sky/PL brand, empty grounds look bad (on telly) so prices (specially outside London) need to be kept down and affordable.
Amongst our current 39,000 regulars, there are a lot of kid's season tickets (£100?) sold and my mate who has just retired gets his next year for £300. I'm happy(ish) to pay the £500+ that I pay right now, but if there were any significant jump in price, it would probably be game set and match for me.
I remember last year a spokesman for the Football Supporters Federation (involved in getting a fairer deal for supporters etc) saying that with the new deal clubs were getting from Sky/BT, they could afford to let supporters in free and they's still be making more money than before.
Most revenue for teams (in austerity Britain) comes from TV, corporate and sponsorship so if prices are kept low, finding 10,000 new match-going 'Evertonians' might just be possible, but more than that, imo, no chance.
Personally I would hate to sit in a huge spanking 70,000 seater stadium looking at 15,000 empty seats.
If that was the case, people wouldn't say "Everton have 16,000 more supporters going than when they were at Goodison" they'd say "Yuz caaaaaan even fill yer ground lad, it's fuckin' empty lad, swear down lad" etc etc.
(from a business perspective, I would make sure there were loads of boxes though, EVERY night in the Echo there's a new cannabis farm discovered and cash needs 'rinsing' and our many local bone-headed gangsters need somewhere to show off their bling, tats and dead-eyed, satsuma-coloured, screechy tarts)
232 Posted 24/03/2017 at 10:32:03
Oh, what time is the Roger Philips phone in on Radio Merseyside today?
233 Posted 24/03/2017 at 10:37:27
55,000 is the minimum we need.
234 Posted 24/03/2017 at 10:37:38
235 Posted 24/03/2017 at 10:50:02
I am lucky enough to qualify for my season ticket at £340 and my Grandson who is 7 is enjoying his second year as a season ticket holder at £92 per season. I agree that sitting in a half-full stadium wouldn't be a great experience or look good for televised games.
But the great thing about the construction of many modern stadiums is the ability to add to the capacity as and when demand is there. The beauty of it being on the docks we will have the room to increase the capacity.
Old Trafford and St James Park have been increased over the years, so it is nothing new to increase capacity.
As for where the extra fans will come from, well success on the pitch will increase the number of people wanting to watch the team. Also Everton have shown themselves to be forward thinking in the reduced tickets for OAPs and young children. Well maybe they could fill any empty seats by offering greatly reduced prices to fans who may be unemployed or to the low paid.
Also, why not introduce a standing area, and maybe a specific Boys Pen as a nod to our Chairman.
236 Posted 24/03/2017 at 10:57:54
The cost looks high from this end but well before 2057 (minus 1 day) it is likely to be peanuts and the value of the stadium and the club many times more.
Also remember that we are setting up this third party company with LCC. This is not a current funder with shareholders to please it is likely to be under our control. Who will profit? – LCC are getting their share up front (and fair enough) the company will pay interest using money from Everton. We are its only customer. Do you think the terms after 40 years will be onerous? This is not at all like Finch Farm.
Open questions – who owns the stadium on completion? I assume the third party company. Who will run this third party company?
NOTE: This is all just guesses and deductions by myself based on what little we know. I could be miles off!
237 Posted 24/03/2017 at 11:00:47
I am a scouser and a former season ticket holder in the 80's but I now live in Perth. I try and get back to the uk every couple of years, in my heart, I am not a tourist, but to all intents and purposes, I am, along with my three sons (all avid Evertonians).
So a few "tourists" seats would be nice, so we can watch our team in our new stadium, rather than watching it on TV in a pub around the corner, or only being able to attend away games.
If they can squeeze an extra four in, that would be great!!
238 Posted 24/03/2017 at 11:05:50
I think another benefit of having control of the whole area is we can invest and will profit from the whole area again Moshiri & friends were brought up on the Emirates model and will have learned many of the important lessons.
239 Posted 24/03/2017 at 11:28:02
241 Posted 24/03/2017 at 11:31:55
Result: @ 45, 49, 52, 57, 60k attendance, the ground always looks full.
242 Posted 24/03/2017 at 11:33:07
243 Posted 24/03/2017 at 11:40:35
If the stadium is costing £300 million and the repayments over 40 years work out to £560 million then that suggests an interest rate of around 2%. Not exactly taking the mickey, the issue is whether the club will be in a position to buy the stadium in 40 years or be held to ransom.
244 Posted 24/03/2017 at 11:41:16
245 Posted 24/03/2017 at 11:49:34
It would also be just a tiny big bigger than Mordor.
246 Posted 24/03/2017 at 11:54:05
247 Posted 24/03/2017 at 11:54:07
248 Posted 24/03/2017 at 11:57:17
your numbers look perfectly rationale, but the bigger figure, £560M, factors in the interest cost of servicing the debt over 40 years, and the interest is paid annually out of income, of course, so is far less intimidating when looked at like that.
In terms of the outstanding capital balance, that will be left after 40 years (let's assume that it is kept at £300M for argument's sake), it would be massively eroded by even the most conservative estimate of inflation. It's caused by the impact of compounding. It makes a HUGE difference. A bean counter out there could model the numbers.
In any case, in 40 years, £300M will probably amount to the cost of a meal out for 4 in Wetherspoons, if you get my drift?
249 Posted 24/03/2017 at 12:05:50
Surely when you building something new, it's easier and a lot cheaper to build it all at the one time rather than coming back 10-20 years later and building on an extension.
250 Posted 24/03/2017 at 12:06:38
As for where the extra fans will come from, well success on the pitch will increase the number of people wanting to watch the team.
You would certainly think so and success would of course have some effect, but maybe not as much as you might think.
Looking at our past (average) attendances (Link) the 'pattern' seems to show that while those who actively support Everton are incredibly loyal, there is (kind of) a limit on what we can expect and a limit on the amount who are... um... 'chosen.'
Maybe because our team represents a district rather than a city (eg: Newcastle) or maybe because the city's population has shrunk over the years (nb: yes I'm guessing) or maybe because we've never done the sky performing monkeys football tourism thing (Chelsea and Man City have both won a lot recently but have nowhere near the profile of Man Utd or 'them' and won't anytime soon).
From what I can see, in 1963 when we won the title (an era when, for working class people, there was fuck all else to do in Britain) we had our best average ever of 51,000.
However, in the most successful period we've ever had 84/85/86/87, our average attendances were (rounding figures up) 20,000, 32,000, 33,000 and 33,000.
I understand that the Premier League has changed everything, but my guess is that around 35,000 is the amount of Evertonians who can be relied on to turn up no matter what and 50,000 probably the max, even if we were doing really well.
I repeat, all guesswork on my part.
251 Posted 24/03/2017 at 12:14:52
James, funniest thing I've read for ages is amongst the Twitter comments on your link... The Scallianz Arena... brilliant!
252 Posted 24/03/2017 at 12:17:39
253 Posted 24/03/2017 at 12:20:06
Brian, I know nothing about stadium design either but I've banged that concealed seating drum several times since Bramley-Moore was mentioned, the last time on post 222 today. I hope someone at the club thinks it's a good idea too.
254 Posted 24/03/2017 at 12:25:44
The only exceptions seem to be in Germany but they still allow standing over there. Maybe Everton will also reintroduce standing, who knows?
255 Posted 24/03/2017 at 12:28:02
So, in the first 12 years since they left their old ground they added between 10-13 thousand more match-going fans before leaping to now what is 20,000 more.
256 Posted 24/03/2017 at 12:38:04
Are you forgetting about the £180m or more he's had to plough into the club just to bring us to this stage?
He's had to pay around £90m to Bill & Co for his 49%. He has cleared our debts of more than £80m and paid off the mortgage that meant we could NEVER leave Goodison Park.
Add in funds for players, tarting up Goodison & the sacking of Martinez then I'll think you will find this guy has actually spent a fucking fortune rescuing us from the mess Bill and chums had got us into. People think businessmen such as Moshiri actually have billions in cash lying in a bank vault!
The man walks on water as far as I'm concerned.
257 Posted 24/03/2017 at 12:38:37
If possible, I would love it if standing was re-introduced at one stand in our new stadium. Or even just the lower tier of one stand. It will help greatly in having a great atmosphere.
258 Posted 24/03/2017 at 12:39:55
Your last sentence is very true, it is just guesswork or at best educated speculation. In reality there is a relationship between potential attendance and pricing structure.
West Ham are getting 55k+ attendances based on very aggressive prices. The cheapest in the Premier League.
There is a point on this demand curve that is the most profitable and it isn't necessarily at the highest possible attendance end of the curve. The club will have a fair amount of data as to what happens when they play with pricing. They know for instance how many potential missed sales they have when they sell out. However ,they will still have to make assumptions about increased demand due to a new location etc.
They also have to balance the risk of the various options. All that being said, I would go for 51,385
259 Posted 24/03/2017 at 12:44:35
I played as a schoolboy in a cup final at Goodison in 1952. I hope to see a game at the new stadium when it is built.
260 Posted 24/03/2017 at 12:59:47
Makes me much more optimistic this will come off. One thing seems clear: Moshiri didn't set up the Heads of Terms agreement without having a good idea who 'the funder' is...
261 Posted 24/03/2017 at 13:06:15
Glides on water, mate. The best thing to happen to Everton Football Club in decades.
Thank you, Mr Moshiri.
262 Posted 24/03/2017 at 13:13:53
I think anything over 50k is fanciful. I would expect the extra investment to get there just wouldn't have a quick enough payback to justify it.
I'm not as conservative as Eugene, though. I think we'll find that a new stadium will change our attendances. The hardcore support won't change, but better transport links, better facilities, easier movement around the ground etc will attract people. Families will appreciate it. Others just might be swayed by the fact that they can get a pint and a snack.
Modern stadiums make the match available as a social pastime. You have to really love Everton to enjoy the current matchday experience. Park a mile away, dodgy bogs, massive queues for food and drink.
For the above, I'll be both happy and sad. Another little erosion of traditional matchdays.
263 Posted 24/03/2017 at 13:17:16
It is however a massive project and I am sure there are many hurdles to overcome with regards to planning permission, infrastructure and financing, also may I add although I am not in the profession of construction, building along side the river has its own set of problems as cranes automatically cut out when the wind speed reaches a certain point. Couple this with the uncertainty of Brexit and the possibility of rising costs of materials, it really is quite some undertaking.
All that being said I think we can all be satisfied that the club has taken a big step forward in the right direction and we can let our minds wonder to seasons to come in our spanking new stadium.
In fact, yesterday when the news filtered through, I was on the tube in central London and, as exiting on the escalator, I glanced at a billboard of the Arsenal stadium tour... That set me thinking wouldn't it be nice to have a similar billboard at Lime Street Station: "Take the Everton USM Stadium Tour on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey!" now that would really piss the Reds off!!!
264 Posted 24/03/2017 at 13:21:10
There is no reason why any big city club should not be aiming for a 60,000 capacity but everything needs to be in place to support that figure. That includes making sure the supporting infrastructure including efficient transport access is provided; the design of the stadium must provide comfortable facilities and must be conducive to a great atmosphere, and of course the club must get the pricing structure right. A truly state-of-the-art, iconic stadium will have all of those characteristics.
The commercial opportunities will be expanded if we are seen to be attracting attendances on a par with our competitors. If we really want to compete with Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal, West Ham and the two Manchester clubs all of whom will have 60,000 plus capacities we must aim to match their attendances.
In all of this of course, I am assuming the money will be available. If it isn't we can do what we have done for the past forty odd years. Make do and mend.
265 Posted 24/03/2017 at 13:32:04
Your attendance figures that you state are a little misleading. The 20,000 average you listed was actually for 83-84 when we were going into the season without silverware for 13 years and didn't win the Cup until all home games had been played.
Also Merseyside was struggling big time with unemployment so attendances at both clubs were largely poor, even Liverpool had a crowd of 20,000 that season (versus Watford) and a few other home games fell below 25k despite them winning 3 trophies.
The following three seasons 84-85 to 86-87 all three of averages were over 32,000, which doesn't sound big by current crowd figures in the Premier League but it was the third highest in the country at the time, just a couple of thousand below Liverpool's but well behind Man Utd (around 45,000 averages).
266 Posted 24/03/2017 at 13:37:51
267 Posted 24/03/2017 at 13:53:43
268 Posted 24/03/2017 at 14:12:41
269 Posted 24/03/2017 at 14:30:20
270 Posted 24/03/2017 at 14:31:34
What has being a structural engineer got to do with what size ground we should build?
You say 60,000; the club have indicated 50,000. Who do you think has the most information to decide?
271 Posted 24/03/2017 at 14:36:05
Anyone who has been to a major league sports stadium in the United States will know what could and should be done.
272 Posted 24/03/2017 at 14:42:14
Well I think you're half right, yes 83 was horrible and crowds were understandably way down, but we'd started to turn things around in 84 after crimbo/January.
True we didn't win the cup until all our home games had been played, but in the February, we had a nice home draw against Shrewsbury in the 5th round to get us all thinking of Wembley.
Plus (also in February) we a had a League (Milk) Cup 2-leg semi against Villa. It was a Lazarus-like recovery and suddenly we looked almost impossible to beat and were heading to two finals. No matter how we started that season, given how we finished, a final average of 20,000 (and our title winning crowds in 85 and 87) suggests (to me) that Everton are never going to suddenly find themselves with 20 or 30,000 new 'Evertonians.'
You're right to point out that the city/region was struggling at the time with unemployment (I remember reading, about a third of the male workforce was working away) although I suppose it must have affected Manchester too.
273 Posted 24/03/2017 at 14:45:10
I would be applying a similar logic to ourselves in opting for a 60,000 capacity. The popularity of the Premier League is increasing that rapidly that we need to allow for a sizeable increase in the match attending fanbase in the short to medium term, particularly in a swanky new ground.
274 Posted 24/03/2017 at 15:09:52
The important question should be how many fans are we capable of getting 10 years after we move in? What should we be thinking of being able to expand to?
275 Posted 24/03/2017 at 15:16:03
West Ham have achieved their attendances through the cheapest ticket prices in the Premier League. Their hand is forced because the stadium was already built. Having got such a ridiculous deal it would have been a PR disaster to have a half empty stadium.
Of course we could adopt a similar approach although our pricing is very competitive in Premier League terms. That means you discount the existing 40,000 tickets you already sell before you have even started. This might not be the most commercially sensible approach.
As an engineer, you will understand the bigger you build the more it costs and also the more it costs to operate. You build something too big you potentially saddle yourself with more cost for good.
Ideally we build something that we can fill whilst keeping prices competitive but without having to discount to fill. And as you say the flexibility in design to expand if required.
The best example I would suggest is Man City. A northern club with a predominantly working class fan base, operating in a city with another major club. If anything, Man City has a bigger catchment area I would suggest.
Even with an expensively assembled team, two Premier League titles and regular Champions League football they average about 55k and you can always get a match day ticket.
It's easy to get carried away with this new ground thing like kids in the proverbial sweet shop. The club are best placed to determine the demand. They have indicated 50,000 which feels about right to me.
276 Posted 24/03/2017 at 15:18:47
It may take a few years but success on the field and a sensible pricing policy will see the crowds grow so a 60k stadium is essential.
If designed properly it could also be the venue for stadium gigs, big fights etc which the Echo Arena would struggle to accommodate.
277 Posted 24/03/2017 at 15:30:57
278 Posted 24/03/2017 at 15:38:59
This is a great listen – this guy knows his stuff:
279 Posted 24/03/2017 at 15:41:22
Only problem is, if we follow their model, a pie will cost a tenner...
280 Posted 24/03/2017 at 15:43:26
281 Posted 24/03/2017 at 15:45:02
282 Posted 24/03/2017 at 16:00:28
I will give you my reasons why we should go for 60k capacity. We currently have 40k roughly, who have 19-game season tickets. add 5k for away fans = 45k. How do we fill up the other 15k seats?
Do what we have done here in Adelaide, South Australia, where my football team offers 3 game memberships of which I have bought for the last 2 years. You see, I love my footy club but, like many people, can't afford a season ticket or my lifestyle doesn't allow me to go to all 11 home games.
How many Everton supporters do you know that don't go for those reasons alone? Our club moved to a new inner city stadium just like Everton are planning to. 54k capacity seated with standing area also. Our membership reached 60k for the first time in its history.
Prior to moving, it was 31k... that was only 3 years ago. By the way, our fellow opponents use the same ground and their membership is 68k.
So I would rather hear 55k shouting supporters with 5k empty seats than a packed 50k any day... So please, Everton Football Club think big, just like my local football club (Port Adelaide FC) did, and you might just get a surprise...
The model should be to grow your base, year-in and year-out; it won't happen overnight. By the way, Adelaide Oval is the stadium and Adelle had her concert there last week and 70k people came from all over the countryto see her perform.
So Everton supporters, start thinking big time because that's what we should be in that city. Number 1... Top Dog! Anyway, I wish Everton FC all the best and one day hope to walk up to the new stadium and by a ticket...
283 Posted 24/03/2017 at 16:11:03
Regarding the capacity I think TWers need to take into account that not only will there be an extra 10,000+ seats to fill on a 50,000 capacity stadium but there is also going to be a hell of a lot more hospitality boxes too.
Structured at the right prices, these boxes might become attractive to certain Evertonians who like a bit more comfort and style but at the same time take away from the 'head count' of the actual stadium attendance.
I think circa 50,000+ capacity with an option of expansion in the future would be sensible in the short term and then if things sky rocket for us on the pitch happy days.
284 Posted 24/03/2017 at 16:15:35
Time we got ourselves a real billionaire, don't ya think?
286 Posted 24/03/2017 at 16:31:19
Finally, Peel Holdings need EFC as much as we need Bramley-Moore Dock. We will be the catalyst for their whole project to get off the ground. So I would say a pretty smashing stadium.
287 Posted 24/03/2017 at 16:36:47
289 Posted 24/03/2017 at 16:47:14
I think your spot on about the other clubs. 50,000 at this point would make us about 10th best capacity in the Premier League. That's not great for Everton's future income when teams in London smash our revenue anyway.
60k should be the starting point how big was Goodison last time we won the league? They said over 200 thousand people lined the streets when we last won the FA Cup.
Don't get me wrong, this is a long time ago but there is a future of kids that will never be taken to Anfield and home ties in the Carling Cup are a great chance to exploit this. £2 for under 10s; £5 10-18; then adults £15. Release the prices before the season even starts so people are planning at least one good night at Everton.
This is not to mention the stacks of tourists that want to see the new stadium and want a day out based around the football match.
I came home at night a few years back on the Isle of Man ferry and realised how special the city is when it's lit up and the Liver Building, Casinos etc look absolutely fantastic. A stadium will double the thrill and god knows how many people will want to sample the atmosphere in and around it.
290 Posted 24/03/2017 at 16:50:17
Great to see yet another positive post from yourself but, seeing you are thousands of miles away, I don't know why you are so bothered.
291 Posted 24/03/2017 at 16:54:57
Could we have done in the eighties? Possibly for the last game of a championship winning season.
Football in the eighties was a very different beast than it is today, attendances across the board were dropping, TV was disinterested because of the perceived violence at almost every game, not true, but Mrs Thatcher said it was and that's what counts isn't it?
Most supporters were male, a lot of them didn't bother to use a toilet and just pissed on the terraces, supporters were treated worse than animals, it was okay for a copper to give you a dig because you're at a footy match, which means you must be a hooligan, perfectly fine to put people behind 30-ft high fences because that's all they deserved.
There is evidence to suggest that even usually none violent people who are treated like supporters were in the eighties will engage with the rest of the mob in acting violently when treated like this.
Stadiums in the eighties? Would you seriously take your wife and kids?
The revolution, brought about tragically by Hillsborough resulting in all-seater stadiums, the removal of fencing, treating supporters like humans, providing bright modern facilities, policing with intelligence, and yes wall to wall coverage by Sky etc. promoting the "brand".
Today, I wouldn't even think about whether it's safe to take my six year old Grandson to a game; not so in the eighties.
I think Everton have been hamstrung by our ground ever since, even in the bad times. Every home league game has been sold out this season so far (including corporate), this for a team that is out of both domestic cups, and the slimmest of chances of finishing any higher than 7th in the league.
I believe a waiting list is being compiled for season tickets (according to Everton TV's Darren Griffiths). I think the support is there; build it and they will come... I hope.
292 Posted 24/03/2017 at 17:01:27
West Hams big stadium was a) virtually free and b) they're practically giving away tickets since they can afford to with the low cost.
As for Man City they'd risen from third tier to first when Etihad came along so a bump in attendance was unsurprising. Also, they used to have strict policies for members only at the old ground. I lived nearby and couldn't get tickets when seats were free unless registering as a "member." That was never going to happen but was reflective of the crowd trouble they'd had and the dangerous neighborhood where the ground was located.
Lastly, it's misleading to read ToffeeWeb to gauge probable attendance as many in here live overseas. Ken Buckley apart, most of the locals don't appear to go to games often as they're usually scrambling for live feeds for the games on the matchday forum. So my point is, 50,000 seems plenty big enough.
293 Posted 24/03/2017 at 17:11:04
Surely the point of moving grounds is to, in part, attract new fans? This can be achieved by a combination of factors including:
● pricing strategies,
● better facilities and 'experIence', transport links; and crucially,
● on-field success.
Upping capacity to just 10,000 more than we already have appears a little short-sighted and not worth the £300m plus it is going to cost. Otherwise, we could just build a new Park End and add 5 or 6 thousand more seats to Goodison Park and save at least £275m in the process couldn't we?
294 Posted 24/03/2017 at 17:21:16
Sunderland are a benchmark in the sense of being a "big club" based on attendance. Yes we may gain fans but we may also lose fans as people are priced out when ticket prices, which have been cheapest in the Premier League for a long time, inevitably rise to cover the stadium costs.
Also, I'm not convinced by the "new stadium attracts new fans" argument. Blackburn got a new stadium and won the league and it didn't do much for their fan base. Yes, Blackburn's smaller than Merseyside but we also have competition for fans from Liverpool and Tranmere.
295 Posted 24/03/2017 at 17:29:20
296 Posted 24/03/2017 at 17:30:14
The thought was that Reid with a new stadium and more signings could turn them from almost UEFA qualifiers into title material.
Obviously that didn't pan out. Granted, we are bigger and better than they were, but I'd caution against building a stadium based on a best case scenario of long-term success.
297 Posted 24/03/2017 at 17:49:33
You don't seem to have cottoned on to the fact you don't get to choose what capacity stadium for £300m
Size determines cost. I can only assume given they are the figures in the public domain, that £300m gets you 50k capacity.
If you want 60k capacity you are going to have to pay more for your stadium. I'm not construction expert but it won't be insignificant.
The incremental point you make is the absolute nub of the economics of this scheme. If there was unlimited demand for seats, economies of scale mean that a 60k stadium would be more profitable than a 50k one. However if demand at current pricing tails off between 50 and 60k then you could be worse off due to empty seats or discounting to stimulate demand.
It's not about we need it to be bigger than x or we need to think big. We need to think smart and make this new ground a profit generator.
298 Posted 24/03/2017 at 17:55:12
Agree that everyone should give a listen.
Not even boring!
299 Posted 24/03/2017 at 18:28:09
If we have a loyal and regular hard-core fan base anyway (and we seem to as we call sell out at just short of 40,000 now) then is doing the new stadium worth it for 10,000 more potential match-goers?
No sesson ticket holders will pay more than £30 on average next season. So, 19 games x £30 x 10,000 is £5.7m a year more revenue on this basis. Simplistic maths I know but, given how progressive the club are around ticket pricing with the kids season tickets at £99, leading on the away fans pricing cap, and the above £30 average example, I can't envisage a massive price hike on tickets in a new ground can you? There might well be more discretionary spend from match-going fans in a new stadium but surely not on a massive scale.
I guess I'm asking what actually are the tangible upsides of a 50,000 seater stadium?
300 Posted 24/03/2017 at 18:51:57
I was a season ticket holder for 9 years and gave up my seat when Rooney was sold; yes, I saw my arse! Missed the place like crazy but got over the habit and carried on with life.
I have only been back once in the intervening years for the Stoke game, immediately after Gary Speed's passing, as I wanted to pay my respects, a god awful game but I realised I had missed the place.
Since then, the fancy has taken me to return but I refuse to pay good money for a restricted view seat and, with our current high attendances, that's all I can hope for. I have applied for a season ticket for next season if any come available after the renewal dates pass but, with the team on an upwards trajectory, I don't hold out much hope of bagging a decent seat.
I obviously won't be the only fella who has fell away from regular match attendance and won't do a restricted-view seat. I would say we would easily do 50k regularly and, with success, above that. I'm sure EFC must have a list of lapsed season ticket holders who they think would flood back... who knows?
Anyway, I'm not getting carried away with a new ground just yet – I'm still gutted the Kings Dock never happened!
301 Posted 24/03/2017 at 19:46:57
Phil #284 - are you drunk or just plain bored?
302 Posted 24/03/2017 at 20:07:04
50,000 is not enough for a kick off. The club are starting to backslide on previously made promises and it stinks of Kenwright's past disasters. The only thing the council should be involved in is situations regarding transport and access and these shouldn't be exaggerated due to the proximity of a train track and the city centre. It's easy to get to.
The RedShite are trying to kibosh it already, whinging on radio Merseyside about everything to do with it. Why people on here try to appease them by voting to ban The Sun from Goodison is beyond me. We should be banning Liverpool from our ground instead, horrible lying hypocrits.
303 Posted 24/03/2017 at 20:41:00
Excuse me for my ignorance but in what way is it starting to fall to pieces already? Without the council there would be no hope of a stadium, unless we settled for a small one out of town. Moshiri isn't quite as rich as Abramovich in fact, if he paid for the stadium from his own pocket it would wipe a whacking big hole in his acquired wealth.
Everton FC as a business cannot afford to build a stadium without borrowing money and therefore the deal with the council is a good idea as it allows team building to continue without major cash-flow problems and Everton will have a new stadium if everything goes to plan.
The stadium on the dock might not happen but it's got more chance than the failed moves we've witnessed in the past and that is down to the seriousness of Moshiri, without whom we would still be scrambling around looking for a suitable site.
Having a Billionaire owner doesn't mean we have a sugar daddy who will throw money at the club without good reason and he told everybody who would listen he wants the club to be sustainable in the long-term, he's already done more in just 12 months than the previous major shareholders achieved in the last 12 years.
If somebody gave me a new car for Christmas I wouldn't spend the rest of the year moaning and groaning because it wasn't a Ferrari I'd be made up that I had a car that was better suited to my needs than my previous one.
Everton FC can't stay at Goodison Park for much longer, so if the move to the docks fails, we could be in for a very bad time. The move to Bramley-Moore may not be perfect, it may have elements that don't sit well with us, but beggars can't be choosers. Despite the appearance of Moshiri, we lag a long way behind Chelsea and Man City in the financial stakes and to think otherwise is delusional.
304 Posted 24/03/2017 at 20:43:51
For a start you could never increase the capacity of the ground by 10,000 just by extending the Park End stand.
But it's a good question, there have been plenty arguments on this site saying that developing Goodson could be the best option. Have a look at some of Tom Hughes's posts for some really informed views.
However it appears that is not the direction either the previous or the new owners wish to progress.
I can't tell you what the benefits of a 50k stadium are because I am not privy to the business case. However I'm sure that someone has done the business case and looked at the various options. If they haven't they are amateurs and I suspect Moshiri hasn't made his millions being a mug.
I'd be amazed if any new stadium saw a significant increase in ticket prices because I don't think our fan base would stand it, yes there will be more corporate/hospitality facilities and you could probably squeeze more out of that audience, but the core fanbase is the working man.
The bottom line on capacity is not about some dick measuring 'let's be bigger than them' approach but let's pitch it at the most commercially viable number and give ourselves some flexibility for future growth.
So to answer your question the benefits of a 50k stadium are
Increased matchday revenue from an extra 10k per game
Increased revenue per seat because of an increased higher end hospitality participation
Increased incidental expenditure on food, beverages and club shop.
Other stadium usage e.g. Concerts, conference etc
Reduced maintenance costs due to a new stadium vs one that is 100+ years old
In the end unless the above pays back the £300m it would be a non starter.
The club will run the same numbers at other capacities and based on judgement of risk go for the best option.
My working assumption is they have mapped out all the scenarios and taken a view, which comes out at 50k.
305 Posted 24/03/2017 at 20:47:19
306 Posted 24/03/2017 at 21:13:47
50,000 won't be enough.
For God's sake we have waited long enough for this, don't make the same mistake Kenwright & Co made when they built the Park End and think small time!
307 Posted 24/03/2017 at 21:47:01
We will have to move or extensively redevelop at some point. Might as well be now.
It just has to be an iconic stadium. Something that the locals and visitors to the city would want to go and see. It also needs to be forward thinking providing opportunity for easy expansion.
Most importantly, it needs to be a proper football stadium, capable of generating a great atmosphere. That's why it will be there.
308 Posted 24/03/2017 at 23:45:17
Go for a quiet walk somewhere and have a little think to yourself, mate. This is a lot more than just an extra few seats, this is about the next few generations of Blues we need this to happen.
As for anyone else questioning capacity, design, cost and so on, even a running track what's the alternative?
309 Posted 24/03/2017 at 00:02:46
I first went to Goodison Park aged 5 with my dad in 1975. Owned a season ticket from 1984 until 2001. Marriage and kids came along and Saturday was spent in B&Q rather than on County Road and in the Paddock or Upper Bullens (when I started earning more).
I've just registered for a season ticket for me and my 17-year-old for next season... fingers crossed. We will be 2 new attendees at any new stadium. 50k is too small.
311 Posted 25/03/2017 at 19:35:10
312 Posted 26/03/2017 at 14:08:29
313 Posted 26/03/2017 at 14:13:29
It's about getting rid of the thousands of obstructed / letterbox views. Cramped wooden seating. Limited hospitality...
314 Posted 26/03/2017 at 14:33:58
Just a Tump-style vent.
As for - 'Why people on here try to appease them by voting to ban The Sun from Goodison is beyond me. We should be banning Liverpool from our ground instead, horrible lying hypocrits.'
Have a feeling the list of stuff that's beyond you would make a Doomsday book-sized volume (first on list of things beyond you, correct spelling of hypocrites).
Karl # 306 - 'We'd easily fill 60,000 with the current prices. 50,000 won't be enough.' he completely guessed... with nothing offered at all to back his claim.
316 Posted 26/03/2017 at 19:08:17
Then hopefully the new legions all 10,000 of them can cheer “Little Everton Punching Above their Weight” on to 4th place sometime in the unspecified future, and no doubt some cup by 2050. This is not my vision. For Everton: Nil Satis Nil Optimum... NOT Secundi satis est optimum.
317 Posted 26/03/2017 at 22:08:42
318 Posted 26/03/2017 at 22:39:17
As they say, if you know your history...
319 Posted 27/03/2017 at 09:25:20
320 Posted 27/03/2017 at 10:11:39
Of course, that's our normal role but it's hardly one that the likes of Lukaku will sign up to !
321 Posted 27/03/2017 at 10:34:57
Premier League clubs rightly face criticism that they have little interest in their local communities these days and are just play things for the rich. Well perhaps we are bucking that trend through EitC and this model for ground development and local regeneration. Hope the detail works out.
322 Posted 27/03/2017 at 11:18:49
The idea of going to games in a beautiful new stadium on the river that regularly attracts 60,000 per game is a truly wonderful one, but I genuinely believe we'd have trouble filling it, even if we gave 10,000 tickets away.
Ffs, we are talking 21,000 more people per game than we're getting now.
Sorry but suggesting we'll get them because you really want us to is (imo) dreaming (no matter how many question marks you bang out)
Someone earlier (by comparison) mentioned West Ham filling their gaff (albeit with the cheapest tickets in the PL).
For the record, the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, City of London, Havering, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest (alone!) have a combined population of 1.4m and predictions are that the population of 'East London' is set to increase by 600,000 over the next 15 years Link
We're in a city with a population of less than 500,000 and share that with (spit!) 'them'
As I say, I'd love to see it but..can't.
323 Posted 27/03/2017 at 12:06:12
In the early '80s, I seem to recall that the attendance dropped to around 19,000 for one game.
Does anyone have any data regarding how attendances have increased following a move to a new, swish ground, and investment in a club – in Man City, for instance?
325 Posted 27/03/2017 at 12:25:53
I think it would make sense to keep the capacity around 50,000+ intimate and atmospheric and imposing to the opposition.
I would also love for Mr Meis to take into account acoustics when designing the stadium so as much noise is kept in as possible.
Hopefully success on the pitch comes sooner rather than later and then we could easily expand the stadium to whatever the demand is five or 10 years down the line.
But that's just me. Let's see what Mr Moshiri and Mr Meis think!
326 Posted 27/03/2017 at 12:26:28
327 Posted 27/03/2017 at 12:30:29
Get real. Stop quoting London clubs ffs. They have a gigantic catchment area and more tourists than even the RS. 50,000 is plenty for now with room for expansion. Let's hope we need it.
328 Posted 27/03/2017 at 12:34:53
Man City are a good benchmark given the similarity in fan bases, local rivalry, location. However they have a bigger potential catchment given the relative size of Greater Manchester.
When they first took on the Ethiad in 2004 ( it was City of Manchester stadium back then) it was a 46k capacity stadium. This was pre-Sheik days and they filled it out in the first season which was about a 12k increase on Maine Road attendances.
Attendances declined year on year to as low as 39k until the takeover in 2008. It still took 2 years however before the regularly filled it on the back of two Premier League titles. It's worth noting that a 46k stadium was no hindrance to winning a Premier League title.
Last year they opened the third tier of their stand moving the capacity to 54/55k. Again they more or less fill it but it is not impossible to pick up a match day ticket.
They have an option to build a similar extension and are reported to be planning to start building this summer bringing the capacity to 61,000.
My view is Everton should be taking the same approach. Build with the flexibility to be able to increase if so required.
329 Posted 27/03/2017 at 12:41:59
So 20,000 more looks like a stretch then.
I don't know if anyone has ever factored in the families issue as well. I wonder if their numbers increase further once parts of the ground look less like a railway station last frequented in the 1960s following Dr Beeching's closure programme (with catering to match).
330 Posted 27/03/2017 at 14:17:57
Key to getting the extra numbers will be in making the whole match-day experience more inclusive for families, e.g., having nice public spaces, bars, restaurants, fan zones inside and outside the stadium. This will mean Peel developing the area to the south of the ground... A bit like Salford Keys has grown close to Old Trafford.
I've not got any stats to back up a number but would like to think the club do and can also predict the expected uplift..
However, 55k feels good to me...
332 Posted 27/03/2017 at 14:40:40
Your “build with flexibility” approach which controls some of the risk has a lot of merit.
Let's assume that we keep the current “hard core” of around 40,000 match-goers (including opposition fans). It might be worth considering this from the point of view of three separate categories of people:
1. Those within easy reach of the ground who do not go regularly now, but would perhaps do so at a more modern, more comfortable stadium. Some of this group might not currently be able to get tickets for the bigger games. They might also be prepared to bring along family members.
2. People like me, who live a distance away, who no longer have close living relatives in the area, but who would make more of an effort to travel from time to time, if they were assured of a decent, non-obscured vision seat, suitable parking etc.
3. New fans who might want to follow a better, more successful team, in 21st Century conditions.
I am interested in the size of the first category. How many of you living in the area actually know people who don't currently go to the match, but who say they would go if we had a better ground?
Of course, what people say, and what they otherwise do are not the same. If I could give a personal example (whilst shamelessly promoting my recent book “Management by Permission” – nineteen “five star” reviews across three Amazon sites to date), quite a few people have told me they would buy the book. Yet when I meet some of them, I discover that they haven't yet got around to it (and I am left wondering if they ever will).
333 Posted 27/03/2017 at 16:46:28
Can't we turn it into a floater?
334 Posted 27/03/2017 at 16:58:53
335 Posted 27/03/2017 at 17:43:25
336 Posted 28/03/2017 at 16:26:45
Either that or sail around the country in the stadium, Monty Python style, while the fans get there in their flying cars, or jetpacks.
337 Posted 28/03/2017 at 16:49:48
When LFC Big Stand were laying out their vision, I wonder if there was so much doom-mongery and down-playing of expectations. It's like some one somewhere is pissing on our chips already.
338 Posted 28/03/2017 at 17:30:41
I think the article in the Liverpool Echo was quoting somebody who works in the field of naming rights for stadiums. He just said that the design of the new stadium is key to getting investment, he pointed out that Spurs new stadium has a lot of modern high tech features which he believes will attract investors. He also pointed out that the London stadium which West Ham play at doesn't have investors interested.
He went on to say that competition for investors to get involved with naming rights has never been more competitive. He said that the RFU were looking for investors in the naming rights of Twickenham.
339 Posted 28/03/2017 at 17:44:23
It could be possible that the club is aware of how many different people buy tickets and could potentially extrapolate some data that would give them a good idea of the current support.
It would be prudent to build in a level of expansion into those figures to facilitate the new stadium effect and for the potential improvement in our fortunes, so the capacity would be something that you could estimate quiet easily with the data being utilised. I would guess that 50k would be easily attainable, but 60k might just be a little optimistic, at the moment anyway.
340 Posted 28/03/2017 at 17:48:27
341 Posted 28/03/2017 at 17:51:49
342 Posted 28/03/2017 at 18:31:18
343 Posted 28/03/2017 at 18:35:24
344 Posted 28/03/2017 at 22:09:05
None of us will be around to see what an issue that most certainly won't be be in 80 years. By then anyway, people will be contending with "Audacity to exist" tax. The stadium will be fine.
345 Posted 28/03/2017 at 22:20:57
346 Posted 29/03/2017 at 01:32:06
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.