40-year lease and 50,000 capacityEverton CEO Robert Elstone has reaffirmed that the club will pay for their proposed new stadium on Liverpool's waterfront, one he promises will 'as atmospheric and intense as Goodison Park'.
Planning for the new ground at Bramley-Moore Dock is continuing following the announcement in March that an agreement was in place with landowner Peel Group to purchase the dock site and Elstone says that work on the design and capacity of the stadium will be.
The outline funding proposal called for a 50,000-seat venue but there has been speculation among supporters and the local press that the final capacity could be larger. Elstone suggests that the Everton hierarchy are confident that they could fill a significantly larger ground than Goodison Park with it's 40,000-plus seats.
“Whilst the Council is lending valuable support, it is important to stress that the club is paying for the stadium in full," the Chief Executive confirmed. "We will pay for our new home with a long-term lease, likely to be 40 years.
“At the end of this time, the club will take sole ownership of the stadium. These two big steps forward were critical for the project to progress.
“They give us the confidence to proceed with the next phase of our work - the work required to define, in much greater detail, what the stadium will look like and the exciting role it will play in the future aspirations of the club.
“This phase of work will require substantial investment from the club, highlighting just how committed we all are to the success of the project.
“We have reason to be confident on capacity. As evidenced this season, Everton remains as ambitious as ever and will continue to challenge for a place in the Champions League.
“And, also, right now we have 10,000 prospective Season Ticket holders waiting for the release of around 3,000 seats, so we're confident that we can fill a considerably bigger stadium.
“There is a lot of work still to be done, but this aspiration sits alongside our commitments to building a stadium as atmospheric and intense as Goodison Park, and to retaining our commitment to affordable pricing.”
Reader Comments (93)
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 13/05/2017 at 07:04:45
What we want to see is the architect's drawings, the proposed capacity, and an army of workmen and contractors on Bramley-Moore Dock, getting on with it.
And then we can all sit outside the Bramley-Moore pub over the road with a few cold beers, cheering them on, as they build our new world-class stadium.
Oh, and an estimated opening date would be great too, thanks.
2 Posted 13/05/2017 at 07:18:30
3 Posted 13/05/2017 at 07:41:01
Personally, I would hope for a 60,000 all-seater stadium; if we are to be as successful as we all hope, I don't think there would be any problem filling it. But I am just happy to see progress being made.
Everton rejoining the big boys has been a long time coming. I just hope I live long enough to see us take our place amongst the elite once again.
4 Posted 13/05/2017 at 07:54:21
5 Posted 13/05/2017 at 08:24:55
And I'm with Keith can't wait to see plans and spades in the ground!
6 Posted 13/05/2017 at 09:21:47
Architect drawings are not due until early 2018, if I recall correctly.
7 Posted 13/05/2017 at 09:36:20
8 Posted 13/05/2017 at 09:44:59
9 Posted 13/05/2017 at 09:52:45
Where did you hear that about the architect drawings? Seems a long way off.
10 Posted 13/05/2017 at 10:38:35
When the lease runs out and the landlord doubles the rent, will the RedShite repeat history and move in?
11 Posted 13/05/2017 at 10:48:36
I'm not one for getting too worked up about the other lot but looking at the aerial pictures of their ground its just an ugly Old Trafford Mk 2, they're just expanding anywhere and everywhere to pack 'em in and sell 'em shirts and badges.
12 Posted 13/05/2017 at 10:55:34
Go for 60,000 with a section of the stadium that could be closed off if the demand is not always there for every game. Hopefully the concept of safe standing will also be explored?
13 Posted 13/05/2017 at 10:59:41
Sounds like some very important elements are yet to be resolved. In fact, the most important....
14 Posted 13/05/2017 at 11:04:04
The previous regime would have made the same mistakes as always, and made a laughing stock of themselves as their white elephant scheme collapsed into a thousand pieces.
Fortunately, Moshiri and his team are more than capable of delivering and will follow the correct protocols.
15 Posted 13/05/2017 at 11:17:43
16 Posted 13/05/2017 at 11:25:26
Moshiri comes in and transforms things in a year, especially regarding the ground. He has done more in 12 months than the 2 clowns have done in years.
If only Moshiri had been around during the Kings Dock days, I have no doubt not only would we have a state of the art ground but the titles and cups to adorn it.
He buys the Liver Building, gets new sponsors and, lo and behold ,they are moving their European operation to said Liver Building!
The sooner he works Bill and Bob out, the better.
18 Posted 13/05/2017 at 11:31:24
For any games that might not sell out, the club could have a policy where the last tickets they sell are for the seats either side of the away supporters. If they don't sell, cover them up with blue sheeting; that wouldn't look as bad as empty seats in various locations.
60,000 with room for expansion is what I would like to see.
19 Posted 13/05/2017 at 11:40:59
20 Posted 13/05/2017 at 11:48:42
Another way to maximise capacity and increase atmosphere would be to have one end standing.
21 Posted 13/05/2017 at 11:56:34
Or is this just a malicious rumour being spread by our ever increasingly envious neighbours?
22 Posted 13/05/2017 at 12:20:04
23 Posted 13/05/2017 at 13:48:27
Whilst I doubt I shall live long enough to set foot in the place, I suspect it will be well finished by the next time we win ought, so 55,000 seems more than big enough to me!
24 Posted 13/05/2017 at 14:12:05
All current or projected capacities when work is finished.
Everton 50,000? Somewhere between Sunderland and Newcastle??? 8,000 less than Anfield????
NO, NO, NO!!!
Average already 39,000. Interest for another 10,000 already. Plans for progressive seat pricing. We will NEED 60,000 minimum! And if you doubt it just look at how crowds jumped at West Ham - jumped 22,000 this season and they have been crap. Ok that's a short term example. For a longer term one, how about Sunderland? 20 years of 40,000 crowds after years of 20,000 crowds and they have been nothing to shout home about in most of those 20 years.
If Moshiri is the real deal then 50,000 doesn't cut it. We made this mistake with the Park End 25 years ago. Don't go letting a lack of foresight mess things up again!
Good point earlier about needing 60,000 to stage a European final as well.
60,000 with ability to expand to 70,000 is what we should be aiming for MINIMUM!!!
25 Posted 13/05/2017 at 14:12:17
26 Posted 13/05/2017 at 14:20:36
27 Posted 13/05/2017 at 14:25:35
I wonder how many of those 10,000 on the season ticket waiting list are already buying regular tickets? If all of them are, that puts a huge dent in expected crowds, just saying like.
28 Posted 13/05/2017 at 14:33:08
Apparently people who wanted to join one of the relatively few (at the time) golf clubs put their name on the waiting lists of several clubs. Somebody aggregated those waiting lists and came up with the wrong estimate of latent demand for the game. The result was that too many golf courses were built in some places.
29 Posted 13/05/2017 at 14:34:22
That's why I think 55,000 (with the ability to increase capacity) is more than enough for now.
Sunderland and Newcastle are one-club cities, miles from civilisation. West Ham Utd are in London so they can attract the football tourists. We are not, yet, in the same boat as them.
30 Posted 13/05/2017 at 14:38:35
31 Posted 13/05/2017 at 14:40:44
West Ham and Tottenham were getting crowds of circa 34,000 and they both have/will have 60,000 capacity stadiums. Historically we have always attracted bigger crowds than Newcastle or Man City who have 50,000+ capacities so why are we going lower???
Our neighbours will have more and they are in an old revamped stadium. Arsenal had 38,000 capacity at Highbury and now they have a 60,000 capacity. If we want to get back to where we were, then we have got think big.
I'm disappointed with only a 50,000 capacity.
32 Posted 13/05/2017 at 15:09:29
33 Posted 13/05/2017 at 16:05:29
Take a few risks eh?
5,000 empty seats at the back of stands out of 60,000 every now and then: who cares?
10,000 not getting in at 80% of home games: that's costly and upsetting to fans. And it's entirely avoidable at this stage.
Jeez! Will this Club ever wake up and smell the coffee???
34 Posted 13/05/2017 at 16:13:38
I agree, Colin, and as for the 10,000, I'm quite concerned about it.
35 Posted 13/05/2017 at 16:15:22
36 Posted 13/05/2017 at 16:30:07
37 Posted 13/05/2017 at 16:35:21
With 30,000 season ticket holders and 3,000 away fans, there's only 6,000 seats up for grabs at any game now, apart from StubHub tickets.
I'm telling you there is serious latent demand amongst Evertonians. If we are successful, it will skyrocket.
Now I know it's the past and a different era, but when I was growing up in the 1970s, Man Utd started attracting much higher crowds than everybody else and in 1976 became only the third club since World War 2 to average over 50,000. The other two were Newcastle in 1948 and Everton in 1963.
An old fella I knew, now sadly deceased, who was a Man Utd fan, said that as a kid, to him Everton were the biggest club and Goodison was the stadium.
I want a return to that; even when I was a kid in the late '70s you could always recall the capacities of the grounds and Everton was right up there. Highbury 60,000 (but never got more than 57,000 strangely) Old Trafford 58,500, Goodison 58,000, Anfield 56,000, Maine Rd 52,500, White Hart Lane 52,000, Villa Park and Roker Park 48,000.
Not only was Goodison big it had more seats (25,700) than all the others (eg, Highbury only had 15,000 seats and open terraces) and double/triple decker stands on all 4 sides. England played there in 1972 and it got used for FA Cup semi-finals.
So, I'm sorry, but 60,000 minimum or else we are still not catching up and the stupid thing is we have the fan base to fill 60,000 and will attract more fans if the stadium is good enough.
Don't sell us short, Farhad!
38 Posted 13/05/2017 at 16:43:15
39 Posted 13/05/2017 at 16:46:04
You don't want to go down the Loft Conversion route, like the RS.
40 Posted 13/05/2017 at 16:52:04
41 Posted 13/05/2017 at 17:02:23
Everton, pioneers of the game in every sense, have been in the doldrums for way too long, and if history tells us anything, it's that if our club is successful, then we can fill a big ground.
Goodison is a ground I'm going to miss with all of my heart and soul but it astounds me it's sold out every week, simply because of how many obstructed views it contains.
42 Posted 13/05/2017 at 17:13:24
Like others, I would prefer a 60,000 capacity but 55,000 would be a big step forward if there is the option of extending it should the need arise.
Such is the demand for Premier League football, there is no reason to think we would not fill it providing the supporting infrastructure is in place, the pricing is right, and of course, we stay in the top flight.
43 Posted 13/05/2017 at 17:21:22
44 Posted 13/05/2017 at 17:30:47
45 Posted 13/05/2017 at 18:04:58
I am amazed it's taken so long for someone to come up with such an obvious answer to getting supporters more involved.
You should try and think about something possibly more radical. Well done!
46 Posted 13/05/2017 at 19:04:00
I have no doubt it will be near capacity when everything has settled.
What some posters forget is tourism! There will be a lot of passing traffic when the area is redeveloped, and I am sure that it will attract many others on match days, not just the dyed-in-the-wool.
47 Posted 13/05/2017 at 19:05:21
48 Posted 13/05/2017 at 19:24:57
Like Carl (37) said, Minimum 60,000 to become a "Big Club" again.
I can't wait!!!
49 Posted 13/05/2017 at 19:31:18
Well (looks coy) it's for others to decide that, I couldn't possibly comment (it is gratifying though to know you appear to be keeping some sort of 'Eugene's top posts' list)
And one thing I will say about my post #30, it provides more insight than anything posted by Karl Link Masters.
50 Posted 13/05/2017 at 19:57:57
On a serious not though.
60k for me. Plan for a successful. The stadium.could be designed in such a way that so many rows of seats at the back are "left out" to restrict the capacity without maming it look partly empty.
Having said that there ARE still significant problems to overcome in order for our dream to come true.
I just don't want to get too carried away just yet for fear of being gutted should things not go according to plan.
51 Posted 13/05/2017 at 20:17:10
I would also like to see a substantial amount of seats available for people like myself, who live 150 miles away and can't get up often enough to get a season ticket or can't afford one.
There must be loads of folk who don't bother trying to get a ticket due to the heavy demand. Germany is a good example of pricing, and safe standing is also worth considering in the early design stages.
I would go for 70,000 now, because we will only have to do it in 10 years time, as football is getting more popular, not less. If the top sections all around the ground were able to be switched from seats to advertising, then it wouldn't look empty.
52 Posted 13/05/2017 at 21:12:08
'History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.'
53 Posted 13/05/2017 at 21:21:03
54 Posted 13/05/2017 at 23:29:46
For me, an equally important issue is the design. I am hoping for a rectangular stadium as opposed to one of those doughnut thingies.
Dan Meis appears to be the architect engaged to design our new ground. I hope he and our backers get it right. If they do, we will be the envy of the Premier League.
55 Posted 14/05/2017 at 01:04:29
Not sure how I'd take your comment otherwise except I thought we read this site to read others' opinions and views. Insight a nice bonus, but not necessarily essential.
57 Posted 14/05/2017 at 07:28:38
58 Posted 14/05/2017 at 08:04:03
59 Posted 14/05/2017 at 08:41:08
Do you really think there were only 63,000 there. I don't go as far back as you but in the late seventies I could look around and know roughly what the attendance was, and the official gate was always surprisingly low (tax dodging). I was in an attendance of 54,000 for either Liverpool or the Mancs and it was packed out but the turnstiles weren't computerised and there could have easily been 64,000 in there.
Premier League games are now attracting bigger gates across the land. I agree with Karl if you contact the club for even an ordinary game with unfashionable opposition, the only tickets offered are obstructed view.
If you have a round trip of hundreds of miles, you don't want to sit behind a pillar for a couple of hours. There must be loads of people who would like to come to say 5 games a season.
60 Posted 14/05/2017 at 09:36:50
Our seats go for around £25 all told so even that increase will only bring in less than £10 million a season. Comparing that with over £3 million a match brought in by Arsenal and we can see total capacity is not the main source of income. The new stadium has to offer a lot more than Goodison Park too; overcrowding could reduce that.
Also, bear in mind, a dock site will be far more easily expandable compared with Goodison Park. Build it, then keep building.
61 Posted 14/05/2017 at 11:24:41
What I do know for sure is that we were most definitely packed in and I can't remember feeling that squashed in any other game throughout the sixties when we regularly got 55,000-plus attendances.
I hope we can fill a 60,000 stadium every home game because that would mean we were back in the big time which is my dream for the club. In the sixties, we were big and everyone dreaded visiting Goodison.
The other relevant point (I think) is that the ground capacity has a direct bearing on three other issues:-
The size of the seats; or
The size of the stadium footprint; or
The number of tiers of seating.
Or all three.
All issues which the architect will address, no doubt, given the size of his budget and the size and nature of the site.
The architect has quite a challenge on his hands but, given his comments on Twitter, it seems it is one he is up for.
The Unesco issue that Colin raised is an interesting one. Some weeks ago, after watching Peel's Liverpool Waters video, I found myself thinking about what a marvellous feat of engineering and manpower the construction of the Merseyside Docks was. Suffice it to say that the Birkenhead docks were my playground when I was a boy so they hold a place in my heart 55 years and 12,000 miles later.
I hope Dan Meis comes up with a design that honours the men who designed and constructed a dock system that harnessed and subdued the power of The River, the seafarers who sailed in and out of it, and last but not least, the dockers who spent their lives earning a living for their families from it.
I wonder when we will see some preliminary plans?
62 Posted 14/05/2017 at 11:45:58
It's about the vision always being bigger and more attractive to the next generation of scousers, or any aspiring football fans for that matter, choosing Blue not Red.
Nil satis nisi optimum is back.
63 Posted 14/05/2017 at 12:45:44
So what's the problem?
I read your opinion and you read my opinion...on your opinion.
As for 'Insight a nice bonus, but not necessarily essential.' - well, maybe not mandatory, but I believe pointless without.
My opinion (see 'others opinions and views' # 55) is that shouty wishful thinking is beyond daft.
You say - '60,000 with ability to expand to 70,000 is what we should be aiming for MINIMUM!!!'
Well ok, but why not expand on that and provide a (calm) explanation as to where you think 31,000 new Evertonians are going to come from.
In this TW thread of 329 posts Link I asked where 20,000 new supporters would come from and nobody posted anything that sounded realistic or believable.
You mentioned West Ham?
Again, wishful thinking - 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.
We're in a city with a population of less than 500,000 and we share that with 'them.'
Not asking anyone to change their opinions, just back them up with something more than exclamation marks and/or screaming 'NO NO NO NO!!!!!'
64 Posted 14/05/2017 at 21:26:23
Are you seriously suggesting Everton only have a potential match-going fanbase of people who live within the city boundaries?
Incidentally, the City of Manchester has a population of under half-a-million yet Man City have an average gate of 54,000 while they have to compete with Man Utd. Maybe it's due to Man City attracting support across the whole of Greater Manchester???
Hope these facts are helpful.
65 Posted 14/05/2017 at 23:33:18
I've set my sites a bit lower than Karl's 70,000 – for me 60,000 is the maximum stadium capacity I would set.
I wouldn't expect to fill the stadium every week so an average gate of 55,000 would be my target number (not sure that Mr Usmanov's bean counter Mr Ryazantsev would be happy with that though).
So where would I get another 16,000 fans from?
Well the first thing that came to my mind was if we could get 55,000 regularly in the 60's why can't we do it now? Perhaps part of the answer to that would be that my entrance fee to the Goodison Road Terraces in the early 60's was 3/-. Honest!
Having said that, my pocket money was 5/- so assuming people haven't changed that much perhaps if they love Everton enough the "missing 16,000" will find the money.
As John (#64) has pointed out there is the population of the outlying areas of Liverpool plus the Wirral (which alone has a population of approximately 350,000) to take into consideration.
In addition, I don't know if is the same now, but when I was a boy we had a huge following in North Wales which has a population of 690,000.
So another 16,000 looks achievable to me.
Then you have the Liverpool and Wirral Waters developments which presumably will increase the population of Merseyside.
Mr Moshiri has also bought the Liver Building and looks like he may attract a few big businesses as tenants bringing a potential source of corporate (dislike that expression) types into the mix.
At the end of it all, though, the numbers will depend on the success of the team. That is my only area of concern at the moment.
But I am sure Mr Moshiri and Mr Usmanov will sort that out – there is much more than a new football ground at stake here – it's about two new waterfronts.
67 Posted 14/05/2017 at 23:57:42
I know our club are one of the most reasonably priced but compared to Germany , where I hear(correct me if anyone knows better) you can watch a game for around £15, we are still too expensive for some people to afford it, especially on a regular basis.
When I was a teen, in the late '70's, it only cost about £1.30 to get in to the park End or Gwladys St, and I managed to have a bag of chips and get a bus to and from Eastham, all out of my pocket money. Happy days.
Imagine a 16-year-old now going to the match! it is important to have a range of ticket prices for all echelons of society.
Even the Romans had some cheaper seats in the Colosseum .
68 Posted 15/05/2017 at 00:12:17
Some of our ticket pricing really is commendable. I know kids prices are affordable at Goodison, and the dad and lad season tickets at £600 are excellent value. The disadvantage Goodison has currently is that we don't make enough money on a match day. All of the pubs and chippies outside the ground are getting most of the money.
If we can maintain similar prices in the new stadium, plus make it much easier to get food and drink inside, it would be a winner for everyone. I'm sure we would get an upswing in fans based on the match day experience alone. No obstructed views, better parking etc. We should be aiming for 60,000, or at least potential to go over 55,000. We don't want to undersell this now, and be left behind again...
69 Posted 15/05/2017 at 08:35:27
Surely that makes no difference to the atmosphere compared to not having that space in the first place. In other words the difference between a 50,000 and 70,000 stadium.
I would think actually having an echoey chamber at the back of each stand would enhance the atmosphere, amplifying the roar in the same way as if you put your iPhone in a pint pot.
While having empty space in front of you at the game could be a bit of a downer, I can't see having extra room behind would bother anyone or detract from the TV spectacle if partitioned correctly.
As for where these spectators are going to come from, I live in London and regularly travel to the game. Everton have thousands of fans in their peak earning years all around the country (inspired by the glorious '80s) who would gladly travel to support an ambitious Everton, so I think the case made about the populations of the City of Liverpool or even the outlying towns and boroughs, is a somewhat unambitious and small thinking type viewpoint one which I notice when I come to matches too incidentally when compared to the experience at other Premier League grounds where they seem to presume in their presentation of the 'event' that the fanbase be national or even international.
70 Posted 15/05/2017 at 08:54:44
We sell out every week now. I think 50k quite easily achievable more than that I think personally will be tough.
71 Posted 15/05/2017 at 09:05:50
John (#64) "However, one of the facts you fail to consider is the City of Liverpool population does not include the populations of the surrounding boroughs of Sefton, Knowsley, Wirral, St Helens and Halton that makes up Liverpool City Region, with a total population of 1.5 million. Are you seriously suggesting Everton only have a potential match-going fanbase of people who live within the city boundaries?"
Yes, I know there are Evertonians who travel to Goodison from far and wide and that all future blues won't be born in Liverpool, but what people are suggesting (ie, wishing) could happen, is not backed up by the available actual data.
And that data is the history of Everton's crowds Link
This isn't guesswork, this is what has actually happened.
So what does it tell us?
Well first of all, this is data gathered over 100 years, a period that has seen highs and lows for Everton FC and the City of Liverpool.
Our geographical location hasn't changed in that time, or our proximity to to the towns, cities and teams around us (nb: so they've always been and will always be competition).
Although there's no 100% guarantee of anything, constants and available data certainly help give us an idea/clue as to what might happen (and anything else IS just pure guesswork based on 'I really hope...').
These averages tell me 50 - 55,000 would be fine (more than enough and imo we'd still have to bring prices down, give tickets away etc).
Our highest ever average is 51,000.
This was 1963 we were Champions, it was a cheap to attend and there wasn't much else available by way of entertainment (Laurie, 55,000 'regularly'? Not regularly enough to ever give us a 55,000 average).
And in 1970, we had an average of 49,000.
Again we were champions, it was still cheap and although On The Buses was on, there still wasn't much to entertain the football classes.
I repeat, no one has (and I believe no one can) give a sensible, convincing explanation as to where/how 20,000 - 30,000 (new?) Evertonians can be found to regularly fill a 60/70k-seater stadium.
And to any answer that begins "Well okay it wouldn't always be full but.." I say then what's the point?
One more thing, re West Ham. a mate of mine is a season-ticket holder there and told me 'it's never full' (and said going there is 'fuckin' awful').
Yesterday against Liverpool (a big game) I noticed a few empty seats. Not many but they were close to the pitch and I wondered what it was like at the back.
A little research and I found out their announced attendances are bollocks.
West Ham v Bournemouth Official published attendance: 56,977 real attendance: 52,192 (4,785 did not turn up)
West Ham v Southampton Official published attendance:56,864 Real attendance reported as: 47,000 (9,864 did not turn up)
West Ham v Middlesbrough Official published attendance: 56,945 Real attendance reported as: 47,000 (9,945 did not turn up)
We should (as much as can can) build for what we know we can fill, rather than what we wish we could fill.
72 Posted 15/05/2017 at 09:26:29
Spoken to them all have you? (in their 'peak earning years' too - tremendous!)
Sorry but 100% guesswork and wishful thinking (but if I'm wrong, let's see some proof/figures).
By the way, in the 'glorious 80s' (the most successful period in our entire history) I was a season-ticket holder who travelled from London to every home game (and rarely missed an away game) and if you look at our home attendances in 84-85, 85-86 and 86-87, it may prove sobering reading.
Two titles and a runners up spot in three seasons averages 32k, 32k, 33k (rounded up/down).
The support we have is incredibly loyal and passionate, but there is (to my knowledge) simply no evidence to suggest that 60,000+ will (or can) attend Everton games regularly.
73 Posted 15/05/2017 at 09:35:21
If you use Eugene's link to track the attendances of Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal you will see that periods of sustained success bring simultaneous huge increases in attendance. Call it "the glory hunter factor" if you will.
Based on this, if our "project" proves to be the success we think and hope that Moshiri is aiming for, then regular attendances of 60,000 do not seem at all fanciful.
74 Posted 15/05/2017 at 10:40:37
Well... yeah that's true I suppose, however I still question how many Evertonians can/will regularly go to watch games live.
We once found 11,000 'new' supporters in one season, between 1984 and 1985, which can be explained by 14 years of (mainly) shite to suddenly becoming very very good.
But that leap just meant going from 20,000 to 31,000, so there's (still) nothing to suggest, for Everton, 60k+ makes sense.
Anyway, I'll make that my last comment on this thread (you can lead a horse to water etc).
I appreciate what people would like, just haven't seen/heard any evidence that convinces me they're right.
75 Posted 15/05/2017 at 11:02:24
Where would we be without the Marxist perspective on history?
76 Posted 15/05/2017 at 11:16:04
If one requirement is for 4,000 corporate seats then, unless the intention is to deny the extra demand deriving from a new, quality stadium, that means a requirement approaching 55,000. Add to this calculation the results of success on the field then 60,000 is far from pie in the sky thinking.
Of course forecasting demand for football is always difficult if looking beyond the immediate term. For instance, who would have believed 25 years ago that attendances would be massively higher if prices were going to have risen to £40 and beyond!
My only concern about our own attendances looking forward are actually a concern about the future of football itself. In particular ,what if a European Super League is eventually established and we miss the cut and so were left behind in a diminished, less prestigious, less rich, English Premier League in which the European League clubs are still allowed to participate but effectively use it for their second string teams?
77 Posted 15/05/2017 at 11:18:53
That aside, and just like player recruitment this summer, the intentions of Mr Moshiri are key. As a businessman/accountant, he'll know 60,000 would be the minimum necessary to stage major finals and the like and, with such an iconic site on the riverbank ,might he believe there's a case for providing an alternative Wembley-esque venue for the North?
Concerts? NFL? Rugby internationals? Spit-roasting Kelvin McKenzie? Sell-outs every time!
78 Posted 15/05/2017 at 11:35:30
"Drew (#69) ' Everton have thousands of fans in their peak earning years all around the country (inspired by the glorious 80's) who would gladly travel to support an ambitious Everton.'"
I'm not sure if I'm in my peak earning years, I hope I still have a bit to climb to the peak, and yes I started to love Everton in 1986. So I should more or less qualify as the group that Drew was referring to.
I was working in London during the season 2005-06, I went to Goodison Park 4 times. Probably would have gone for 10 if not for the obstructed view seat which according to the club not classified as obstructed view, and the miserable performance (finished 17th?)
Now 10 years older and earning a bit more than then, I would probably be applying for a season ticket (but probably only go for 13-14 matches), if I'm still in London, and when the stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock is completed.
79 Posted 15/05/2017 at 11:53:44
I think we can get 50,000 Evertonians into most home games and give the rest to the away fans to improve the atmosphere. If they want less give the difference to local schoolchildren or charities.
If we start winning trophies, we will have to increase capacity to satisfy demand from the 'football tourists' who will follow whoever is flavour of the month.
Liverpool has an ever increasing tourist industry and many of those people from the Americas, the Far East, Asia etc... will want to go to watch a football match. It's about time we start tapping into those rich markets. I don't see why we won't be able to fill a 60,000-seater stadium to the rafters – in a few years.
80 Posted 15/05/2017 at 12:22:05
81 Posted 15/05/2017 at 12:26:00
Everton have been a mid table mediocre team for many years now and yet every game is sold out and thousands more people want to attend. Even with the slightest bit of success, we would easily fill a large capacity stadium. Remember Everton have one of the largest fan bases in the country despite (I hate to say it) decades of mediocrity.
82 Posted 15/05/2017 at 12:27:56
1991 total attendance 8.6 million (football was dying)
2017 total attendance close to 14 million.
The figures for attendances (50,000) in 1970 are virtually for a different world, entertainment aimed at a different audience.
At the end of our finest most recent era in 1987 we averaged 33,000. Arguably we could do 60% better than that now especially if we started winning which gets us to an average of around 51,000. 55-60,000 sounds right to allow for bigger crowds for top 6 games. which would optimise cash inflow.
Building for winners is what we must do; anything else builds in mediocrity.
83 Posted 15/05/2017 at 13:09:55
I think the lease thing is like my bike-to-work agreement. I get the bike and then pay for it in installments. At the end of the agreement I can then 'buy' the bike for pittance. I assume this lease agreement will be something similar meaning we do not own the ground until we have paid for it (40 years) after which we pay £1 or something to transfer ownership.
As for stadium size, Karl (24) lists "Man Utd 76,000, Spurs: 61,000, Arsenal 60,000, West Ham 60,000, Chelsea 60,000, Liverpool 58,000, Man City 60,000, Newcastle 52,000, Sunderland 48,000" and rightly points out how far down that list we'd be.
But remember people whinge about the atmosphere at Arsenal and West Ham, Sunderland have had an average of 8,000 empty seats every season, Man City's is actually 55,000.
I'd do a Juve and go for a tight atmospheric stadium somewhere between 50 and 55,000 but remember we don't have to have the biggest stadium to be the best. Newcastle's stadium is amazing and created a great buzz.
84 Posted 15/05/2017 at 13:15:53
Anyway, size doesn't matter according to the missus.
85 Posted 15/05/2017 at 13:48:07
Building a stadium of 60k-70k in the hopes of getting a Europa final or FA Cup semi-final every 10 years makes no financial sense. It's not just the cost of the seats being installed you also have to maintain and insure them even when empty. Also a safe standing area is a must.
Giving tickets away a few days before each game just means that supporters that might have paid will now wait to see if there are free tickets.
A 55k stadium with no obstructed views and a bear-pit of an atmosphere with a standing area would be a dream.
86 Posted 15/05/2017 at 14:09:05
A consultation may go along the lines of “What do you want, a big but cheap soulless bowl or more money spent per seat to ensure a not quite so big but better quality stadium?” And everyone will tick the box for quality.
87 Posted 15/05/2017 at 14:59:20
Sort of like a reverse mortgage??
88 Posted 15/05/2017 at 15:03:37
When we have our Champions League games, we can either have a potential crowd of 110,000 or just 55,000 very comfy people....
89 Posted 15/05/2017 at 17:31:42
90 Posted 15/05/2017 at 22:56:16
91 Posted 15/05/2017 at 23:14:16
What I did do was have a look at our beloved neighbours' statistics, which surprised me, and United's and Arsenal's.
What struck me most was that, in the season Arsenal left Highbury for the Emirates their attendances rose from 38,000 to 60,000 in one fell swoop. Amazing.
But then again, they had one of the greatest football teams In the history of the English game at that time.
92 Posted 15/05/2017 at 23:29:19
We have not got to fill a stadium every week but it would be nice to be able to get 58,000 plus for derbies, or if we are title contenders again.
Think big or stay small.
93 Posted 16/05/2017 at 09:46:48
As usual when this topic starts being discussed it becomes a dick-measuring competition and we get the usual financial illiteracy.
The potential attendance that the club can attract is based on a number of factors but inevitably price is a large determinant of demand.
If you price at £x per ticket you might expect one figure.
If you price at £y per ticket you might expect another figure.
This gives you a demand curve at which point there is an optimum margin. This means for instance you might make more margin per seat at 50,000 than 60,000. This is important because the capital cost and operating costs increase with size.
The club will have some idea of how demand flexs, how pricing affects demand and the relative costs. They will run the different scenarios along with the sensitivity of their assumptions and select the option that hits their investment criteria.
It appears that 50k is the choice (although I would hope they have given themselves the flexibility to expand at a later date).
Unless someone can show me some real data rather than guesswork, I'm happy with that.
94 Posted 16/05/2017 at 10:18:32
A couple of points: do we want to send out a signal that we accept that we are a smaller club, in terms of fan base, than Spurs, West Ham, Newcastle etc?
The other thing bothering me is that many people seem to think that any attendance below capacity is a calamity. Why?
95 Posted 16/05/2017 at 10:36:53
Well true, there's no law says we have to fill it, but I'm guessing playing in front of 35,000 supporters, jam-packed into a 35,000 capacity stadium, would be psychologically better than playing in front of 45,000 in a stadium designed to hold 60,000.
Having stood regularly (in the Street End) in crowds of 22/23/24,000 (etc) in a stadium that could take 50,000, I know first-hand how uninspiring (and depressing) huge sections of empty seating and terracing are.
96 Posted 16/05/2017 at 12:49:20
"A 55,000 capacity stadium is not going to cost significantly more to build than a 50,000"
It depends what you call significant, but then by that logic 60 doesn't cost more than 55, 65 doesn't cost more than 60. You run the numbers and you either go with the most you can afford or the option that gives the best financial returns.
"Do we want to send out a signal that we accept that we are a smaller club, in terms of fan base, than Spurs, West Ham, Newcastle etc?"
Why does it mean we are a smaller club? Are West Ham a bigger club than Juve? Are Hertha Berlin a bigger club than Inter?
"Many people seem to think that any attendance below capacity is a calamity. Why?"
Well, it's not a calamity but it means either the atmosphere is diminished or, more important, your financial returns are worsened.
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.