Goodison Park Redevelopment: Ideas

Tom Hughes 14/12/2016 91comments  |  Jump to last
With Farhad Moshiri on board as the club's new major shareholder this year, the issue of Everton's stadium has resurfaced, with the club reportedly looking at two brownfield sites within the city's boundaries.

The location at Bramley-Moore Dock, which would realise the dream promised by the 2002 Kings Dock proposal, is overwhelmingly favoured by supporters but it is being considered alongside Stonebridge Cross on the East Lancs Road in Croxteth.

The latter option would site Everton on the Liverpool side of the M57 in the kind of "out-of-town" environment that was so unattractive about the 2007 Destination Kirkby project.

Here, Tom Hughes, a long-time advocate of redeveloping Goodison Park since the death of the Kings Dock dream, presents what he feels remains a compelling case for rebuilding on the current site in Walton, particularly as a preferable option to Stonebridge Cross.

View the PDF [5.8MB PDF]

Share this article

Reader Comments (91)

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

Jimmy Salt
1 Posted 14/12/2016 at 06:48:08
No thanks; docks please.
Paul Johnson
2 Posted 14/12/2016 at 07:04:15
An excellent piece of work, Tom, and a very timely reminder of what we will sacrifice should we move to the Docks or Croxteth.

If last night showed us anything it's that Goodison has an atmosphere pretty much unrivalled with many players, managers and even referees coming out recently to single our ground out as the most intimidating in the Premier League.

I know you campaigned hard with the old regime to get the redevelopment issue on the table; however, with Moshiri there could well be an opportunity to get it back on the agenda.

I for one would be happy to raise the question at the AGM. Hopefully Moshiri is present and not just Billy Bullshit and sunshine Bob doing the usual Kremlin-style propaganda routine.

Thomas Lennon
3 Posted 14/12/2016 at 08:19:31
Even if it's a flat pack cow shed? Or perhaps dock warehouse? Where is the protest group?
John Barnes
4 Posted 14/12/2016 at 08:37:43
It doesn't matter if the team don't get the crowd up for it. Let's face it we can be quiet till roused! However, and thankfully the Goodison crowd is not a pre-rehearsed side show and the atmosphere generated is real. Would it be any different anywhere else?

But it does seem that the crowd /atmosphere will be an utmost consideration whichever option is taken. Personally, I don't think the Stonebridge one has any appeal.

The images shown here are very attractive, but there would need a lot of housing demolished and roads re-routed and only our neighbours are seemingly allowed to do that!

Tony Pemberton
5 Posted 14/12/2016 at 10:00:00
I'm worried about the quality of the design that we'll get in the Docks.

Already there's talk that the new stadium will NOT be able to expand.

Surely the whole point of moving elsewhere is because the stadium will be able to elevate us to the very top of football yet the stadium will only be able to stay on a par with a whole host of other clubs in the Premier League.

For me this gives more weight to Goodison. Don't be blinded by the flashy lights that the pictures of a Docks stadium will have.

James Flynn
6 Posted 14/12/2016 at 12:16:00
Great read Tom. Thanks.

Have yet to get to Liverpool. But the excitement generated in here at the possibility of a dock site does have part of me thinking "Me too!".

On the other hand, I'm old enough to be a "traditionalist" and love to see the old, historical parks and stadiums given a proper facelift and retained.

If it is to be the docks, then "Me Too". But my preference would a Goodison refurbishment/expansion. Especially since your proposal here seems attractive and doable without any crushing expense.

You've been in here several times talking at length about staying at Goodison. You've made sense every time. And, again, always an enjoyable read.

Colin Malone
7 Posted 14/12/2016 at 12:21:25
If we go, please, please, no bowl-designed stadium. It's been proven that they take away the 12th man. Remember the Roker roar? Look at West Ham and many others.

Please, no bowl-designed stadium. It's an absolute.

Liam Reilly
8 Posted 14/12/2016 at 12:54:48
I love Goodison and it's roar still makes the hair on my neck stand up on my infrequent visits these days due to other commitments, but the Docks proposal is more than just a new site; it's a new opportunity to rebuild the club's image. It's potentially a new Brand straight out of the box.

Done right, 4-sided and as a state-of-the-art venue; it could dwarf Anfield in comparison and would itself become an icon of Liverpool. The potential host of the commonwealth games, it would be visible on all flights and ferries in and out of the city. The younger generation and future of the club are drawn towards new and shiny toys and this could capture their imagination.

Obviously we'd need to rebuild on the field also; but this is an opportunity not to be missed.

John Raftery
9 Posted 14/12/2016 at 14:08:47
This is a great piece of work, even though I retain serious doubts about the viability and transitional costs associated with redevelopment. No doubt it can be done but I do wonder if the final outcome will take us into the 21st century.

Having seen some recent under 23 games from the Upper Bullens it reinforced for me the need for modernised conditions and facilities in the concourses which are truly antiquated. Views are important as is legroom and it is important that fans feel part of the event in order to create an atmosphere.

One of the worst views I have had in a football ground is at the redeveloped St James's Park, Newcastle, where the distance and height of the upper tier from the pitch make the experience akin to watching subbuteo. I have been to 130 football grounds in this country and abroad and the best of the lot is the new stadium in Lyon where all 60,000 seats are close to the pitch and the atmosphere is brilliant. It is far better than the likes of the Emirates, Wembley and Munich.

The club must be ambitious. If we genuinely have the money we must think in terms of building something which will endure for the next 50 years.

Any solution should include a retractable roof, rail seating, decent legroom, decent views from any part of the stadium, wide internal and external concourses offering safety and comfort and last but not least efficient transport options. If a redeveloped Goodison can offer all that and the club can manage the transition without detriment, that will be fine by me.

Paul Hughes
10 Posted 14/12/2016 at 15:42:34
A lot of thought has gone in to this, but to me, it's just not viable. The footprint around Goodison just does not enable a 3 -side outward expansion as described.

I'm no developer, but the costs and delays involved in the purchase of two rows of streets, a school and presumably the Walton Lane car business, would surely be prohibitive, and the cost and timeframe to close and redevelop stand-by-stand would be huge.

The sad fact is that a conference and hotel development in Walton is just in the wrong location. Stadium on the docks for me, within striking distance off the transformed City Centre.

Dave Roberts
11 Posted 14/12/2016 at 17:10:39
Welcome your efforts, Tom, but do give it a rest. Heard it all before.
Graham Mockford
12 Posted 14/12/2016 at 18:08:57

A genuine question. If there is a compelling financial case for re-development, why do you think our new owner, who would appear to be a fairly commercial animal, is still ruling it out in favour of a new site?

It would be a question he would ask pretty early on in the proceedings, I would suspect.

Alex de Gier
13 Posted 14/12/2016 at 18:26:17
I first went to Goodison in 1961 and, having been to a number of stadiums since, I would say that the atmosphere at 'the Old Lady' is special. Its history, of course, is unsurpassed.

My preference would always be to stay and upgrade/develop and Tom's passion together with his excellent and admirable research and investigation will always have my support.

I suspect, however, that those with control of the purse-strings in football will always tend towards new over upgraded traditional. As ever, the only constant at any club, ie, the fans, will have little say in such matters. In these circumstances, I expect that a marque stadium on the riverfront would be the preference.

If it is to be so, then I would suggest something along the lines of the new Athletic Bilbao stadium. It is a four sided arena set in a modern structure which might aesthetically appeal on tbe Mersey waterfront.
James Byrne
14 Posted 14/12/2016 at 19:36:59
My preference will be at the dock site area allowing for a whole day out experience, being so close to the City Centre.

At the same time as moving into the planning for a new Everton stadium we need to be putting our case together for certain sections of the ground to be standing only. Or at least converting a seated area in the future if laws are not yet in place to allow for such an initiative.

I've been in the Park End now for over 10 years and it still amazes me why some people bother going the game. Some people can't sit still for 10 minutes, never mind 45 x 2! All you seem to do is have to stand up every 5 minutes to let people out to buy food / drinks!

Sections of "Standing Only" will reduce the interruption to genuine fans while the Hotdog Brigade can do what they want!

Danny Broderick
15 Posted 14/12/2016 at 19:56:59
Liam (8)

I'm pretty sure it will be a bowl of some description if we build a new stadium. We'd be doing ourselves out of thousands of seats in the overall capacity if we didn't put seats in the corners, surely?

Dermot Byrne
16 Posted 14/12/2016 at 19:59:46
Great work but sadly I don't reach same conclusion. I think we need to leave Goodison because it has been home, since about the 1960s, of a club that a occasionally wins. I want better than that and think the waterfront can be atmospheric as well as iconic... more than Anfield.
Chris Williams
17 Posted 14/12/2016 at 20:10:27

It has always been a club that has won things infrequently. Winning things may come in clusters and outside influences, like World Wars and Heysel, have hurt our success but by and large if you take all the trophies and divide it by the number of years between 1878 and 2016, you will get the picture.

Most at Goodison by the way.


Dermot Byrne
18 Posted 14/12/2016 at 20:30:17
My point exactly, Chris. We need to be better. And to still go back centuries as an argument for Goodison is silly and symptomatic.
Chris Williams
19 Posted 14/12/2016 at 20:44:52

Do you really believe that a move away from Goodison is somehow guaranteed to improve our success rate?

Based on what exactly?

Many clubs have moved from their 'ancestral home'. Do we have anything to back up your assumption?

Football has changed in recent times so it must be difficult to draw such conclusions but certainly Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool have done ok but City and Arsenal show a different pattern but whether that is to do with foreign investment or moving to a new stadium is a moot point.

I'm not clear how Goodison Park has somehow caused us to be relatively successful or unsuccessful, depending on your interpretation of our record against other clubs records over a similar time period. I had thought we were quite high up the list when it comes to honours.

We certainly need to do better but I'd like to see your reasoning not just assertions.

Paul Mackie
20 Posted 14/12/2016 at 20:53:56
I honestly don't care whether we redevelop Goodison or build a new dockside stadium, as long as we can keep the fans close to the pitch and in the players' and referees' faces.
Chris Williams
21 Posted 14/12/2016 at 21:02:13

I'm sure there are a whole variety of reasons for moving and for the type of stadium, configuration and location. These need to be explored and discussed, and no doubt will be in due course.

But hopefully it will go deeper than it will make us more successful, or that you don't care.

Rob Dolby
22 Posted 14/12/2016 at 21:27:55
I am all for redeveloping Goodison. Unfortunately I can't see the council being as obliging to us as they have proven to be for our neighbours.

The ground is now one of the worst in the prem and cant be far off being a safety hazard. Instead of investing the £100s of millions on average players, why not give the fans something back by rebuilding the ground.

Dermot Byrne
23 Posted 14/12/2016 at 22:04:49
My point is that I do not believe our "ancestral home" serves any great purpose anymore. I think a new stadium on the river could improve how we are perceived and I think to be close to part a very big north Liverpool development could provide commercial opportunities.

That is it. No clever stats. No professional background to prove my point. Just an assertion with a small bit of reasoning. Mea culpa.

Chris Williams
24 Posted 14/12/2016 at 22:11:40
That's ok Dermot. I'm sure many people have many views on this. We'll be seeing them all aired hopefully and then maybe a decision to make.

At least a decision may be necessary in the not too distant future.

I would have gone to Kings Dock, but certainly not to Kirkby. Happy to stay at Goodison if it was shown to be viable. I'm just not sure if it has been explored properly, or if Moshiri is even aware of the proposition, if Kenwright has anything to do with it.

Dermot Byrne
25 Posted 14/12/2016 at 22:16:56
You may be right, Chris.
Colin Gee
26 Posted 14/12/2016 at 22:30:05
After last night, I want to stay at Goodison! Nothing better than winning at Goodison under floodlights with both the crowd and the players up for it.
Alex de Gier
27 Posted 14/12/2016 at 23:06:25
I find the variety of opinions interesting if not surprising. At the end of the day one might expect as many opinions as there are supporters.

The unknown or new is always the last bastion and the existing is always the preferred option. A new stadium, provided it offers a familiar environment, ie, a four-sided ground on a square footing will gain the support of the majority, even the old fogies like me.

We will always be nostalgic for the old site but it may be that the progression to a new stadium/site might be seen as just another step in our 'history' that the next generation may see as comparable to moving from Anfield.

Don Alexander
28 Posted 14/12/2016 at 23:12:46
Anyone calling themselves an Evertonian or simply a football fan would surely see the attraction of what's on offer for our future in what's proposed here, and it's very very attractive to me.

Factor in that Blue Bill has consistently, if not wickedly, misrepresented the un-attractiveness of any sort of re-development of Goodison and it starts to look like a no-brainer that we cherish what we already have and love, because it works for us.

By doing so there's far less risk than is inherent to any sort of bowl anywhere else. I mean, as grim as Goodison Road is on the eye, does anyone actually believe that the council or anyone else is gonna transform the attractiveness of Bramley Moore to summat that gives us footy fans a hard-on?

No? Didn't think so!

Chris Williams
29 Posted 15/12/2016 at 06:28:24

Check out to see some of what you refer to about Kenwright.

Steve Carter
30 Posted 15/12/2016 at 06:45:32
Tom, I found your article fascinating. Thank you.

This is an outsiders view, and I apologise to regular match-going Evertonians where, really, my view is essentially not worth much, if anything. I am an Australian. I've attended three Premier League matches at Goodison: in 2004, 2005 and 2011.

However, I see Goodison Park as an 'out-of-town' site (to use your words, Tom), even if it isn't on the edge of town. It is in the 'burbs', as we call them. It's a place where people go to, watch the match, and then go someplace else to kick on.

Walton is uninviting. I'm sorry, but it is. The City area of Liverpool is. A great place. Any redevelopment of Goodison won't change that. It will still be in the burbs, people will still trudge out there, watch the match, and most will leave, no matter how shiny and new Goodison looks.

It brings to my mind, locationally (albeit not in 'looks'), the Olympic Stadium/ANZ Stadium at Homebush in Sydney built for the 2000 Olympics. Nobody likes going out there. They just go. Watch the match. And go somewhere else.

Contrast that (if you've ever been to Australia) with the SCG/Sydney Football Stadium, the MCG precinct, Lang Park, Adelaide Oval. All right on the edge of the CBD. You start in one of the myriad of good pubs (compare the truly awful, I'm sorry, pubs on Goodison Road opposite the ground), you stroll to the match, you return to the pub or a good restaurant. You've got an overseas visitor with you, they love it.

In short, surely a site on the edge of the City is a better idea if at all do-able?

Tony Pemberton
31 Posted 15/12/2016 at 08:46:56
If we do move then how having stands like Borussia Dortmund's Yellow Wall behind each goal?

Please please avoid having corporate boxes behind the goal.

Barry Lightfoot
32 Posted 15/12/2016 at 10:05:19
Personally I don't want any higgledy-piggledy stadium built on a way to small footprint. I want a nice shiny new one built down by the docks on the waterfront near the city centre.

It will certainly help attracting better players and hopefully be a money spinner as well like the Emirates and Etihad.
John Raftery
33 Posted 15/12/2016 at 11:25:13
James (#14) You are spot on about the hot dog brigade in the Park End. For many the game gets in the way of a good munch and you do wonder if they get fed at home.

Steve (#30) That is an interesting perspective. Twenty or thirty years ago there were many decent pubs within 10 minutes walk of Goodison. With changes in lifestyles and drinking habits, many have closed down and those which remain struggle to stay afloat with a heavy dependency on match day business.

Those of us who 'make a day of it' generally head into the City Centre before or after the match. There are still a few half-decent hostelries near Goodison worth seeking out if you can avoid treading on the dog shit in the local streets.

Eric Myles
34 Posted 15/12/2016 at 11:26:59
"Factor in that Blue Bill has consistently, if not wickedly, misrepresented the un-attractiveness of any sort of re-development of Goodison."

Not quite true Don #28. When Johnson wanted to move from Goodison BK was a leading light in Goodison for Ever(ton) opposing the move.

It's only when he, or his friend(s) saw the opportunity to make a quick buck did the spectre of safety certificate failures and the ill-fated Desperation Kirkby proposal appear, along with the infeasibility of redevelopment of Goodison Park or any other alternatives.

Derek Thomas
35 Posted 15/12/2016 at 13:49:54
Steve @30; I used to be all for the '3 Rs' – Redevelop etc. and have championed Tom to the Echo – Mainly because I thought there was zero chance of scoring £300M or whatever to do a new build.

Anyway I've just got back from the Gabba, and the 1st day of the Australia/Pakistan test. (honours pretty much even) I got the train in from the outer 'Burbs – Free. Came out the station, got on a shuttle bus, 10 mins to the ground – Free, all the ticket...even the in the cheap seats.

It was all well run, there was no shortage of beer and hardly any wait to get served, there was a cash option but every outlet was 'tap and go'... by the time I'd tapped and was ready to go my 4 beers (small US pints) were ready in their little carry tray.

The food was typical stadium food, not cheap and cheerful – just cheerful, they have a monopoly ffs. I had a 9-inch Lamb Souvilaki wrap and some sweet potato fries ($AU20) . Being allergic to Tomatoes, I asked specially for none - done while I wait, 1 min.

There was also coffee shops, Peroni bars, wine bars, and the ubiquitous Carlton Breweries outlets, they definitely don't give a fuck about taste.

There is both an upper and lower concourse the width of Goodison Road, which goes all around the ground with food, beer, food, toilets, food, beer, food, toilets, etc.

On the toilet front; after 8 hours they were still usable and generally clean – with toilet paper still at 7.30pm. The food outlets mostly still had stuff as well – and I wasn't ankle deep in litter with all the clean-up people about. Wages aren't cheap in Australia – they can do it, We can.

This doesn't apply to L4 obviously but there were numerous chilled water dispensers to fill up your water bottle and girls going round offering free sunscreen... but it's all part of the package.

Still long story short. While being in full accord with Tom's plans I'm not sure the 'Facilities' will get the same level of improvement due to squeezing the extra seats into the small foot print increase. So reluctantly, with heavy heart etc. etc.

There is of course no guarantee that they will get it right with the new build but the lack of footprint won't – or shouldn't be an excuse.

Moshiri; Do it once, do it right look around the world see what's the norm now...and double it. See what works...we know what doesn't. You'll make a pretty penny out of it, just see that we get value for money please.

Tom Hughes
36 Posted 15/12/2016 at 13:56:28
Thanks for everyone's comments. I should perhaps stress that I am not against moving per se. I did in fact vote for Kings Dock ahead of the GFE option, as I could see the benefits of a real city-centre site, and recognised the quality of those proposals in terms of the stadium design itself.

This article was prompted several months ago when Stonebridge Cross was first mentioned. I knew that I had two or three old articles that looked at the issues of Goodison Park, and made comparisons with the Kirkby proposals, with some other recent developments for context and rough costings.

I tried to cobble them together to form one article so there may be some repetition, and it is slightly long-winded. The point I am trying to make is that GP should always be an option (for multiple reasons), especially in comparison to Stonebridge Cross.

There was a second part outlining some of the other possibilities, at GP snd elsewhere (including the docks) covering work done by Trevor Skempton over the years, but I haven't been able to pull all of that info together.

I'll try to respond to some of the points that have been made.

Thomas Lennon
37 Posted 15/12/2016 at 14:21:44
If you want to keep us down where we are – build on the current footprint.

If you want to improve us – expand our current footprint at the current location.

If you want to transform us & give us a chance to compete at the top once more – build what Derek describes; the docks would be best option offered so far.

Dean Adams
38 Posted 15/12/2016 at 18:05:38
Tom, as ever, your plans are excellent and very interesting. Over the years I have always felt that your plans were our best option; however, with the new money from Mr Moshiri I am now feeling that the potential dockside development can surpass them.

Living on the outskirts of Cardiff, I can categorically assure anyone of our fans that there are huge benefits to a more central location, as the Principality stadium proves. The matchday experience is extended by the mere fact that so many other options are close at hand.

Many times I have known the stadium bars stay open long after the game because people want to savour the experience, not just wander off to drink or eat elsewhere in the many other establishments located so near the stadium. This has a two fold benefit as the food and drink has improved so is not too inferior to that readily available so close at hand and of course means more revenue taken at the stadium, therefore increasing the income streams.

As a club we could really take advantage of the dockside location by thinking outside the box and incorporating the best of the old and new to create a truly amazing experience for both the home and visiting fans. A new hotel could encourage fans to spend more time and money during their visit as well as enjoying the game in first class facilities.

So to recap, for me the right new build with some touches of architectural elegance and class would cement our place as the best club in the city, hopefully followed by the best team in the near future.

Eugene Ruane
39 Posted 15/12/2016 at 22:39:38
Brilliant stuff, Tom.

Dave Roberts # 11 - 'Welcome your efforts, Tom, but do give it a rest. Heard it all before.'

Maybe you could print a list of things you've heard before, so posters like Tom could avoid those things.

See this gif... that's you that is – Link

Neil Madden
40 Posted 16/12/2016 at 00:16:11
Steve Carter (#30) calls it right for me. Regardless of what you build, a lot if it is still about location.

Walton is an inner suburb which has seen better days. Much better to move to the docks whilst we can, and 10 years after we have moved, we'll be on the edge of a far bigger city centre than we have now.

I don't dispute Tom's assertion that you could redevelop Goodison Park, I just wonder why bother. A move to a potentially far better location and the chance to design exactly what we want with far fewer restrictions than we will have in L4 is the obvious choice for me.

Moreover, the land value of Goodison Park is likely to be small beer with regards to the total cost. Maybe we could keep a presence at Goodison for the youth team and reserves. That would be another first for Everton FC and placate those who don't want to move.

Tom Hughes
41 Posted 15/12/2016 at 00:16:57
Graham (#12),

"A genuine question. If there is a compelling financial case for re-development, why do you think our new owner, who would appear to be a fairly commercial animal, is still ruling it out in favour of a new site?"

I'll try to answer you first as you've asked a good direct question. Obviously, I don't know as I'm not privy to the actual process, but I can perhaps cite a couple of examples for comparison's sake.

Firstly, we have to remember that the decision-making process is driven by a few individuals, and their motives and objectives can vary massively, as can the quality of advice provided by experts.

For instance, at least one or possibly 2 separate regimes at Anfield declared categorically that redevelopment was a complete non-starter, financially and even technically unviable. They produced expert reports, with almost endless new designs commissioned for the Stanley Park site over a period of several years. The last efforts indirectly proving to be the downfall of Gillette and Hicks.

Yet the new owners adopted a diametrically opposite approach and perspective. They quickly came to an entirely different conclusion... and it is their approach that has delivered. Something we were told was not possible, is now a reality.

A similar process took place at St James's Park. There was the distinct possibility of relocation on the cards at one point. In the end, the board looked at the options again and chose a second expansion programme over relocation.

I'm not saying that I'm in any way a big admirer of both end results just that on both occasions it became quite apparent that the best financial option was to redevelop (as has been the case for the majority of football clubs), and in many ways both of those clubs had bigger obstacles to overcome than we would, and I believe we could produce a far superior stadium for several reasons very specific to Goodison Park, it's structure and its immediate environs.

Unfortunately, if that vision isn't presented, or if perhaps short term ROI, or other advantageous 3rd-party planning opportunities are prioritised then perhaps Goodison Park is never destined to get a sniff.

However, it's a mathematical nonsense to think that it will ever cost less to build a whole new 50-55,000 seat stadium, than it will to build a complete new upper Bullens with enlarged Park End to add just 10-15,000, as shown.

Of course, if money is no longer an object, and the new site merits far greater enabling funding opportunities, then that equation can change dramatically. We'll see if that's behind the dock proposals, but I certainly don't believe that can ever be the case at the out of town Stonebridge Crosssite. Hence my belief that a redeveloped Goodison Park should be at least the second option, and for me the benchmark for comparison with any new proposal.

Tom Hughes
42 Posted 16/12/2016 at 01:20:03
For those, advocating the dock option I have to say I'm equally excited at this prospect, especially if the stadium design really captures the imagination. As I said previously, I also voted for the Kings Dock on the grounds of location and stadium design.

When looking at sites several years ago, myself and Trevor Skempton also advocated a central dock site, but preferably a little closer to town. Trevor actually did some outline proposals, and others spoke to Peel.

At over 1 mile from the Pier Head, it has to be said that Bramley-Moore Dock is not the Kings Dock. It is also more distant from Sandhills station than Goodison Park is from Kirkdale, and currently has no buses serving it, while County Road, Queens Drive, and Walton Lane already have many.

Hopefully that would all change with a stadium development and delivery of Liverpool Waters... and there is certainly a large enough pool of buses readily available for extended services and shuttles from town on matchdays. I would suggest a new station on the northern line at Vauxhall would also be required to prevent gridlock.

As regards deriding Walton, I don't really agree with that stance. Yes, the area has its issues, but it is a far better prospect than Stonebridge Cross for instance. County Road and Walton Road are amongst the last surviving Victorian High Streets in our city, and for the most part are still intact. There are a multitude of local pubs and food outlets to help house a good proportion of the fanbase during arrival and dispersal, and this can make a big difference.

Yes, not all are the most salubrious, and some far from it, but I'm not sure that's a major problem, especially if we have significant money to invest. Some have even converted local terraced housing into private members clubs, and I believe the offering is excellent, not to mention the potential to add new high to mid-range lounge spaces in all new areas to increase the offer in the stadium too.

There's currently nothing at Bramley-Moore (apart from that fine hostelry that is its namesake), and the rest is over a mile walk away at present... mind you, I have priced a tray of Guinness at Costco.

Simon Jones
43 Posted 16/12/2016 at 13:22:11
Tom, I congratulate you on your well thought out ideas and it would be a shame if the club hierarchy were not made aware of them. However, I was hugely disappointed when we didn't go the the King's Dock.

You only have to look at the Echo Arena to picture what it might have looked like, especially when you view from the river with the city backdrop framing your imaginary stadium.

I understand the love we have for our current home makes any change difficult, but if we had a great opportunity to move the location of the ground then I would welcome it. However, if the option was moving to Kirkby or similar, then I'm a remainer.

John Raftery
44 Posted 16/12/2016 at 16:32:58
Stonecross would be a much worse option than Kirkby, which at least had a train service and a town centre as part of the offer.

An excellent Soccerbus service runs from Sandhills to Goodison so there is no reason why that cannot continue for a new stadium and if demand dictates it could be expanded with other stations such as Kirkdale offering the same. The suggestion of a new station at Vauxhall would certainly enhance the public transport options which will be critical to the success of a new stadium.

If a new stadium is considered to be the best option, the future use of Goodison comes into the equation. As has been said previously, resale would not be especially lucrative as it is not prime estate for development. As the club has invested significantly in the Free School and the Community Hub, it would perhaps make sense, both economically and emotionally, for it to maintain a presence in the area. I like the idea of Under-23s, Under-18s and Everton Ladies using a downsized Goodison to retain a link with our past.

Don Alexander
45 Posted 16/12/2016 at 20:04:46
The mirage of an architecturally renowned stadium forming a bookend for our fine city's waterfront (especially from the river or the air) is attractive, but...

The amount of investment to begin to develop the area around Bramley-Moore Dock into something other than the urban wasteland it's been for decades will be vast and I don't see public money being viable, ever. A bus service, yes, but the area around there makes County and Walton Roads seem like Las Vegas at the moment, what with people and everything.

I worry that Mr Moshiri, who in comparison to several PL chairmen not threatening to become a permanent member of the European elite (WBA, Stoke, Sunderland, Leicester, Southampton and Palace for instance) is not especially wealthy, will cast his cold hard accountants eye on expenditure versus income to be really productive for him before he pops his clogs, and might just now see the benefit of re-development of Goodison.

It would also minimise the wait for more costly players than the likes of Sissoko due to a far smaller building cost and that would help fill a redeveloped 50-55,000-seater ground pdq en route to Champions Leagie qualification.

Of course, if his pal Usmanov was to join us....!

Colin Malone
46 Posted 16/12/2016 at 21:29:28
Besides the design of the new ground, infrastructure around the ground must be first on the list and that is where Liverpool council come in.

If they say it will encroach on business Walton road, it's stay at Goodison, where as Tom says buses, pubs, chippys and shops are available before and after the game, some of the above mentioned only open on match days, so the council won't build something that only gets business on a match day.

Parking around the new ground would be limited to one side of the ground; we have four sides of the ground at present. It was also mentioned by Tom that talk of a football museum/village could be built between the two clubs, maybe on Stanley Park, which creates jobs.

I spend 90 odd minutes at Goodison then 5 minutes later, I'm in the pub discussing the match over a pint, love it. would not have it any other way.

How could a new Stadium, which I spend 100 minutes in, with nothing of the above around for miles, entice any match attending fan?

I'm with Tom.

Jay Griffiths
47 Posted 16/12/2016 at 22:58:24
Goodison or the Docks. I could care less about the site. The finished plan, that's the contentious part for me.

All the new style grounds in Britain we've been to are so generic. Take a black-and-white photo with no advertising and no one would have a clue which of the many soulless grounds it could be.

I like Villa for the experience from your seat but the concourse underneath is still crap. Lille have done a half decent job but still a touch repetitive. Character, give us something unique. Not some dormer bungalow extension like that shower of shite have over there. A home to be proud of.

By the way, I do like to tell the RedShite in work. "You lot love your ground like it's your wife. But never forget, we were their first. That's why the pitch feels a little wider than you expected."

Mike Allen
48 Posted 17/12/2016 at 12:10:41
Redevelopment of Goodison Park with affordable standing area (if the law allows) and regenerate the area as a whole if possible.

The dock site would be the best second option as long as it's a football stadium – not a corporate entertainment centre with a football pitch.

Paul Burns
49 Posted 17/12/2016 at 14:06:20
Why do people keep dragging this up? It's like a fart that won't blow away.

For every night like the other night, there are hundreds of dismal games with an atmosphere like a morgue.

Goodison is a dump in the light of day. Time to go to the docks; it's the fans that create the atmosphere.

Ralph Basnett
50 Posted 17/12/2016 at 14:20:09
Regurgitating the same old shite!!!!!

We are getting a new stadium, be it a bowl or whatever design. Unless you have a financial say in it, just accept it and get on with supporting the Blues.

The reason it will have no atmosphere is because of the supporters, not the design. On the occasions we have got to Wembley, are you telling me we don't create an atmosphere? – coz that is one BIG bowl.

Ray Roche
51 Posted 17/12/2016 at 14:22:59
Colin (#46)

"With nothing of the above around for miles,"

I thought that there was a massive re generation of the north docks area being planned, doesn't Peel's planned £5.5bn transformation of Liverpool's northern waterfront include or adjoin the area where Everton MIGHT get a chance to build a new stadium?

Check out the different articles on Google Colin. The possibilities are plentiful, especially if we have an iconic stadium, lit up in blue and visible to the regular cruise ships that visit Liverpool, and people who stay in the Titanic Hotel etc. I read that Liverpool is one of the fastest growing tourist destinations in the UK. Let's not get left behind, eh?

Colin Malone
52 Posted 17/12/2016 at 15:55:41
Ray @51.

If you look at the model, Liverpool Waters – concept to creation, there are no plans for building anything on the Bramley-Moore Dock.

The Northern Dock, next to Bramley-Moore Dock, is getting 3,000 homes, 3,200 parking spaces for them homes I presume, 8,000 m² for restaurants / cafes, 5,000 m² for retail, one school,and 2,000 m² for offices.

Nothing planned for Bramley-Moore Dock.

Sean Kearns
54 Posted 17/12/2016 at 17:37:22
We need to just rebuild an identical Goodison Park, but a modern version that's truly NSNO. The new ground should be a carbon copy of The Old Lady, but made out of metal Instead of wood, flatscreens in the bogs, the best of the best our current ground is the dogs fuckin bollocks and every set of away fans know it.

Many commentators and ex players regularly say it's their favorite away ground. We need to keep it the exact same. Same size, totally identical all around to the smallest details with Gwladys Street, Main Stand, Bullens Road, Park End, St Luke's in the corner, blue stands with the yellow stair rails that look boss on telly, and maybe just add two giant Rupert's Towers in opposing corners with some other modern touches.

But please, no fucking about and ending up with a shite ground! When Goodison Park was originally built, it was Nil Satis Nisi Optimum, it was the best of the best... but things have moved on and we want the same thing again!!!!!

Build us Goodison Park 2.0, and just call it Goodison Park again. Don't change a single thing at all, just a identical revamped dogs bollocks Goodison Park. No fucking about; if it's not broke – don't fix it. It's not broke, just needs a serious update.

Michael Kenrick
55 Posted 17/12/2016 at 18:08:52
Sean, nice idea... nostalgia on steroids.

And I hate to make any predictions, but I feel quite sure that scenario is the very last thing that will ever happen. Who ever builds anything new that looks exactly like what they're replacing???

[I await to be edumacated...]

Tom Hughes
56 Posted 17/12/2016 at 18:30:57
Have you seen the new Yankee Stadium, Michael?
Colin Glassar
57 Posted 17/12/2016 at 19:47:22
Yes Tom, with it's awful blind spots (I don't know if they've been solved) you can only see a 1/3 of the field. It's a lovely, shiny stadium but give me the old one any day.
Michael Kenrick
58 Posted 17/12/2016 at 21:28:15
Is it supposed to be the same as the old one?

Similar perhaps: "The stadium incorporates replicas of some design elements from the original Yankee Stadium." But baseball is pretty heavy on nostalgia as well, I'll give you that.

Tom Hughes
59 Posted 17/12/2016 at 21:47:17
Yes, Colin, I featured the new one in the article. I've also visited both.
Colin Malone
60 Posted 17/12/2016 at 23:13:11
Are my findings wrong?
Tom Hughes
61 Posted 18/12/2016 at 00:58:40
Colin (Malone),

I was responding to Colin (Glassar #57) regards the new Yankee Stadium.

I think you're probably correct about Bramley-Moore Dock.

Tom Hughes
62 Posted 18/12/2016 at 10:42:02
Michael (#58),

There was an onus to replicate much of the old Yankee Stadium in the new one. Externally and internally, there are more than a few passing similarities. Of course the prime mover for this very expensive rebuild was the creation of much greater corporate capacity, which has led to some changes in proportions of the tiers and their respective viewing performance. More legroom and larger concourses too but essentially the new one is a slightly enlarged version of the old, yet with less capacity.

Yes, there has been a strong retro-movement in baseball stadium design, which helped drive the biggest new stadium building programme in a century. As I've tried to point out in the article, this was in part to counter some of the failings of the previous era, where many of the traditional (often downtown) ball parks were left, for the (often out-of-town) cookie-cutters. The loss of intimacy in these stadiums took much away from the experience for baseball fans and therefore, the new generation of stadiums attempted to address the issues and package them with all the traditional trimmings. Not always successfully it would seem.

Tom Hughes
63 Posted 18/12/2016 at 11:20:26
Ralph (#50),

This "just shut up and accept what your given" attitude is what nearly sent us to Kirkby ... to a low quality stadium, that was even threatened with a 40k-capacity (or less) restriction, because of irresolvable public transport short falls. We all have a vested interest in this decision, financial and emotional so let's not play that card either. I'm a shareholder but I don't consider my say in the matter to be any greater than that of the average season ticket holder.

Yes, fans create the atmosphere, but it is nonsense to suggest that stadium design has no effect. Take your example: the Millenium stadium is far superior to Wembley in terms of atmosphere despite over 15,000 less seats. The famous ring of silence at Wembley (and the Emirates), poor tier proportions and video screen cut-outs in the traditional ends, have rendered Wembley very poor in comparison to its Welsh equivalent.

Similarly many of the well-documented failings of Emirates in this respect have been recognised, and the new white Hart lane will address them with slightly different proportions and viewing distances and a large single-tiered home end. They could've saved themselves a fortune and got the same off-the-shelf design but they haven't.

Configuration and roof design and several other design issues can greatly affect the atmosphere in any stadium .. that is why they all feel so different. Goodison Park can be a bear pit because of its intimacy, because we are all so much closer to the action, where every bad tackle or poor decision is jumped on. It is paradoxically, however, a poor stadium for singing, partly due to fragmentation across multiple tiers and poor proportioning of the tiers, with two few people directly beneath areas of sound-reflecting roofing.

Don Alexander
64 Posted 18/12/2016 at 13:56:48
I've not been to all the new big stadiums in the UK by any means but I did visit the "old" Parkhead before it was more or less rebuilt into Celtic Park in the late 90's, and I've been to Celtic Park since.

It is a magnificent stadium. It looks in photos like a bowl but in fact it's rectangular with steepling, safe, comfortable, unobstructed stands, very well catered for and with good toilets. They have thus preserved a crowd atmosphere to die for. It's like Goodison on steroids on big match days. They did all this for £40ish million reportedly, including the systematic demolition of the old ground, also on a restricted footprint by the way.

I really hope we'll end up with just such a place but I just want it to be complete before I get my pension in 4 years time .. at the moment that is!

Colin Malone
65 Posted 18/12/2016 at 14:06:34
So, as I said, I look forward to the match day, not just the game, meeting up with friend before but mainly after the game, which takes 5-ish minutes walk, to get to the Thomas Frost.

From the Bramley-Moore Dock, where there is only going to be a stadium, no regeneration, it will take me 50 plus minutes to get to County Road, 40 plus minutes to get to town by walking.

I don't fancy that, no way with weather we get, even if a four sided stadium was built. The only one laughing will be Rupert Murdoch.

Patrick Murphy
66 Posted 18/12/2016 at 14:29:14
Colin (#66),

So that is the name of the new stadium – 'Mersey Stadium'? I suppose the funding will come from any grants that the council can get for attempting to host the Commonwealth Games?

On another note, has anybody noticed that Morrison's are using a tag-line not disimilar to Everton's motto?

Only the Best Will do

Colin Glassar
67 Posted 18/12/2016 at 14:36:24
The official name will be 'The Royal Blue Mersey Stadium', Patrick. I've tweeted my suggestion to Farhad, Jim and Ronald – until I'm told the contrary, that name's staying.
Ray Roche
68 Posted 18/12/2016 at 14:55:36
Colin Malone (#52),

Colin, one minute you're saying "With nothing (of the above) around for miles," and the next you're quoting 3000 homes and 8,000 m² for restaurants / cafes, 5,000 m² for retail!

If you read the Independent article about Everton and Goodison Park, the writer is of the opinion that "Everton will announce plans for a new stadium in Liverpool's Bramley Moore dock in the coming months".

If Moshiri is as good a business/finance man as we hope he is, he'll recognise the importance that a riverside ground will have on our global recognition, with our name where tourists will be able to see it.

Tom Hughes
69 Posted 18/12/2016 at 15:17:24

As I said before, LFC's previous regime also insisted that redevelopment was not an option. Lo and behold, what we see today. I have tried to show that the argument for redevelopment need not be sentimental only.

That said, what additional value should we put on the history we supposedly hold so dear? It either means something, or it doesn't.

Just as we haven't heard anything official confirming Bramley-Moore, we also haven't seen the Stonebridge Cross option formally discarded.

Colin Glassar
70 Posted 18/12/2016 at 15:54:06
Tom, if the redevelopment of Goodison was feasible, I'd be all for it... but we are hemmed in on all sides and I think the cost would be exorbitantly high – far higher than a new stadium even.

I've got an open mind as long as it's not in Croxteth.

Dean Adams
71 Posted 18/12/2016 at 17:02:17
Colin, it is not just the cost but the time it will take to empty those properties surrounding the ground.
Tom Hughes
72 Posted 18/12/2016 at 17:14:40

I'm sorry I don't know how you reach that conclusion at all.

That's the whole point of the article, did you read it? There are some scale drawings and there are plenty more out there showing how we can comfortably get to 50k+ with expansion on the Bullens Road side and Park End only.

The Park End can literally accommodate any size end stand. Only two streets abut the Bullens Road side... and clearance of 10-25 houses could facilitate this. At £100k per house (which is well above their current value) that would only be £1-2.5m. Aren't we expected to pay £20-30m just for the Bramley-Moore Dock site? That could go a long way at Goodison Park.

Also, infilling the Dock will not come cheaply, and will almost certainly attract objections and that's all before we come to the cost of new transport infrastructure that will be essential too. A state of the art 50k stadium alone may cost £200-300m minimum. Goodison Park need not cost anything remotely close to that.

Tom Hughes
73 Posted 18/12/2016 at 17:27:39

LFC emptied rows of houses adjacent to their place within a few months. They cleared several whole streets once planning permission was granted, including recently renovated 3 storey Victorian townhouses that were in far better condition than anything on Muriel or Diana Streets.

This council has cleared whole blocks of houses in several areas of the city in recent years. EFC has done similar at GP in the past. This land take would require little more than the current road itself.

I can't see it being anymore problematic than building on docks that are currently full of water with working lock gates in place... either in terms of expense or time.

Jay Harris
74 Posted 18/12/2016 at 18:44:36

Once again, I compliment you on some tremendous work done on behalf of all Evertonians and the club.

I can add nothing to what you've already said and am in total agreement with your opinion.

It has always been a fallacy mainly spread by Black Bill that it was not economical nor feasible to rebuild Goodison Park when in fact it was always the best option after the failed Kings Dock project.

However, the chance to get a waterfront stadium with all the supporting commercial possibilities appears to be a feasible option too now.

There will be a great many of us that will shed a tear or two to move from our spiritual home but, like everything else, we must progress, not standstill.

The future's bright, the future's BLUE.

Colin Malone
75 Posted 18/12/2016 at 20:08:14

Where the regeneration stops, the Northern Dock, it's going to be residential builds, offices, restaurants, no place for football fans to gather.

There are around 8 pubs to choose from when you go to Goodison, who depend on football games to survive, and they get full. It is an important part of going to a football match.

More pubs are getting shut down than getting built as you can see on the regeneration plans. So, in my opinion, Ray, supporters are going to opt for a Sky season ticket or meet up in a pub to watch the game.

Ray Roche
76 Posted 18/12/2016 at 22:37:17
Colin, interesting times whatever happens, but in my opinion it is imperative that we have the docklands site.

Wasn't it the case that the docks would be filled in anyway?

Tom Hughes
77 Posted 19/12/2016 at 00:09:23
Colin (#75),

There are far more than just 8 pubs to choose from within walking distance of Goodison Park. I can easily count more than triple that off the top of my head.

Mick Davies
78 Posted 19/12/2016 at 01:28:34
A mile to the city centre; an area about to be redeveloped with thousands of new residents, possibly most of them looking for entertainment; an L3 postcode denoting the closer we would be to the city than our loudmouth rivals; a showcase modern stadium with access to wheelchair users, no restricted views and visible to the world as part of the iconic Mersey skyline. How can anyone not want this for our future generations?

Do people really believe the council will rush through planning applications to knock down a school and residences just so we can rebuild Goodison Park before it's capacity is further lowered due to safety and access factors? How long did it take the kopites to get one solitary objector to give in to their plans? We are indebted to our Victorian antecedents for taking the bold step of leaving Anfield for a shiny new record breaking ground and leaving the piss stained theatre of greed to Houlding and his Tory cohorts; so let's support the new regime in it's visionary re-location, and hope we get another 124 years of competing at the top level.

We can even wave to the multinational crews and passengers as the cruise ships enter the new terminal: I'm sure they'd rather wander up the riverside to the new Goodison, than try and get to the inner city rundown area surrounding that red monstrosity.

Tom Hughes
79 Posted 19/12/2016 at 01:58:44
Ray (#76),

Some of the docks are actually protected as part of the World Heritage site, although I'm not sure how far that extends, and precisely what it entails. I think it often requires the retention of original Quaysides etc. Think Bramley-Moore may be in the Buffer zone and avoid that, but not sure.

Personally, the priority for me isn't necessarily a dockside location as such. I mean, would people be happy on Garston or Bootle docks? The priority for relocation is to be more central, to tap into the natural and existing transport hubs and networks. It is imperative that our new stadium has substantial public transport (especially mass rapid transit) all within easy walking distance. Otherwise, it will become a car-led venue which would lead to far worse grid lock than we have now.

According to Google Maps Bramley Moore dock is 1.5 miles from the Pier Head... and 2.1 miles from Lime Street Station. That's only 0.3 miles closer than Goodison Park. When viewed in those terms it becomes a lot less attractive.

If dozens of shuttle buses and a closer Northern rail station can be put in place, and Liverpool Waters development extends up to the Stadium then it could improve the infrastructure issue, but to be honest I'd happily forfeit the waterfront site to be ¾ of a mile closer to town and adjacent to the Northern line. Then I think far more people would use public transport, and dispersal rates would be better than ever.

Tom Hughes
80 Posted 19/12/2016 at 02:15:47
Mick Davies,

Once granted planning permission it took Liverpool only a few months to demolish far more houses than we'd require, and the council stated several times that they'd be receptive to such plans at the time.

Contrary to popular myth, the city planners have always been very receptive to EFC's plans. They've even allowed the club to locate the free school on their land in Spellow Lane. The Gwladys Street School has already been earmarked for remodelling in the past.

People seem to forget that we knocked down dozens of houses at the Park End to create the car park. We previously knocked a whole block down in Goodison Road and one whole side of Gwladys Street many years before that.

Ray Roche
81 Posted 19/12/2016 at 16:08:41
Tom (#79),

Thanks for the response and clarification.

Peter Laing
82 Posted 20/12/2016 at 11:20:52
Of interest, the architect Dan Meiss was in attendance against Liverpool and there are serious rumours gathering pace that an announcement regarding Bramley-Moore Dock will be made in early January with construction commencing in the latter half of 2017.
Liam Reilly
83 Posted 20/12/2016 at 13:43:46
And he also intimated that it's going to be a 'Bowl' Peter.

That won't go down well on here.

Lyndon Lloyd
84 Posted 20/12/2016 at 16:56:13
Liam (83), he followed up with a reply to a fan who didn't like the idea of a bowl by saying that "'bowl' is a generic term for seating/stands...not the shape or geometry. Will not be a bowl"

I'm pleased with that, although you can also have a rectangular configuration of steeply-banked stands within an oval structure that doesn't feel like an open bowl.

Tom Hughes
85 Posted 20/12/2016 at 17:35:15
I agree with Lyndon. 'Bowl' is a generic term that probably relates more to not having open corners as opposed to the basic single tier bowls that we have in abundance. .

It could be a two-tiered bowl, or 3 tiered sides blending into two-tiered end stands as appears to be the case with his Roma proposals. It would also favour a roofing solution that he's used before.

Hopefully it consists of 2 "home ends" with away fans tucked in the corner. Hopefully far from any roof.

Liam Reilly
86 Posted 20/12/2016 at 18:30:17
Yep Lyndon, I saw that and didn't really buy it, but perhaps (and hope) it does hold water.

Once it's on the docks with steep stands that keep the spectators close and acoustics that could mimic Goodison at its highest decibel levels, I don't paticularry mind what shape it is.

Gordon Crawford
87 Posted 21/12/2016 at 02:48:24
American's definition of 'bowl' is literally stadium or arena. So don't panic, Mr Mainwaring.
Peter Lee
88 Posted 22/12/2016 at 18:25:41
I love reading stuff like this and Tom has done his usual thorough and persuasive job but I don't get the figures.

Tom has used comparative figures for other clubs but the one that hasn't figured is the £100m cost of the single-tiered, 8,000-seater extension at Anfield.

Why is the cost for similar at Goodison quoted as £40m?

There seems to be a thread running through the article I have not seen before when Tom has written almost suggesting that maybe some of the restricted views are not too bad and we could live with them.

Maybe so, but eliminating those would have costs using the Anfield example, way beyond those suggested and approaching closer the cost of a new stadium. Figures I have heard quoted for new build are still around £10,000 per seat, so £500m for 50,000 seated.

Can anyone explain the status of the council in discussions about the dock?

Tom Hughes
89 Posted 23/12/2016 at 11:32:39
Peter, Thanks, you make some valid points.

The main reasons I didn't include figures for Anfield are simple. I actually first started putting the whole article together just as the Walton Hall Park project was being announced. It consisted mainly of two old articles plus the newer comparisons of recent similar projects that I had accurate figures for. I was given the heads-up very early on that WHP was a complete non-starter, and I put it all on the back-burner. I only returned to it when the Stonebridge Cross rumours started to appear, as I am against that option.

Secondly, there is a significant difference in scale and complexity between the Anfield development and the outline proposals I've illustrated. Also, the actual construction cost for LFC's new mainstand was just £74m (not the oft-qouted £114m or even £150m), and has included major refurbishment of their old 1906 main stand core, and its 1973 extension. The initial headline cost was inflated to appease fans who have questioned the quality of the development, and the inertia in completing the Anfield Road end stand phase.

Cost of stands are generally proportional to the depth and volume of construction, together with other factors such as the relative complexity of the design, and ancillaries such as level of corporate provision and type of roof support, it's depth and it's coverage area. Therefore the cost per seat increases disproportionately with capacity (in other words a 10k stand can cost significantly more than simply twice that of a 5k stand).

If I was to overlay the cross section of their new stand with scale cross sections of my proposals, the contrast would be very obvious. Essentially, their new stand takes place over 7 storeys of back-of-house superstructure construction (as opposed to 3-4 for any of my proposals). Their stand is 2 new tiers being placed behind and above an existing 12k stand, and of considerably greater depth.

Because of the existing stand geometry, there is almost no overlapping of tiers (just 4 rows overlap), meaning the roof depth/area is the greatest it can be for a given capacity, and similar in scale to that of Wembley, and at least 80% greater in area than any of the Bullens proposals. This also means all major and secondary truss members are expensive heavy section fabrications.

The two new tiers also sandwich 3-4 levels of corporate/hospitality sections, with boxes and extensive supporting lounge and concourse spaces. The old stand was also reprofiled to help accommodate some of this, and to comply to current standards. So in essence, LFC got a new 21k stand for just £74m, with the extensive corporate sections helping to give a ROI in just a few seasons. The reason I chose the examples I did, was the availability of accurate cost and similarities in relative scale and complexity.

My point about tolerating obstructed views relates only to the option of fully retaining existing historic structures, and has to be taken in context of that overall picture.

Firstly, those obstructing columns have allowed our upper tiers to be much closer to the action than at many modern contemporary stands. In other words many people in those upper stands actually enjoy measurably better views of the match than those at similar height seats in the modern c-led designed Emirates or Etihad.

Secondly, if we can reach the same total unobstructed capacity of any proposed new stadium, then the relatively few remaining obstructed views at a redeveloped Goodison Park are by definition superfluous and an irrelevance (freebies for kids and pensioners?).

As regards costs of the dock stadium, again by way of comparison. Roma's new 52k stadium (designed by the same architect) is just £217m. Even Spurs' new 61k stadium is £400m (including expensive land acquisition), and if the Etihad were built today it would cost approx £250m. I haven't heard an estimated cost for Bramley-Moore Dock yet plus any figures may include supporting/enabling developments on that site.

I've just realised that I've written all this, and there's probably only the two of us reading this thread now... haha.

Peter Gorman
90 Posted 23/12/2016 at 11:40:23
No Tom, I'm reading away, thanks for your research.
Brian Harrison
91 Posted 23/12/2016 at 11:47:56

There is no doubt that you are passionate about Everton remaining at Goodison Park and have some very compelling arguments to back it up. But I think our owners have already decided that renovating Goodison is a non starter.

I am quite neutral over staying or moving, even though I have been going to Goodison for well over 60 years. I would just hope, if we do move and it looks a done deal, then the fans are consulted so we can have a little input into the new stadium. I only hope that if we move the new stadium it helps produce better results against our neighbours than the old ground has for the last 30 years.

Tom Hughes
92 Posted 24/12/2016 at 12:13:50

As I said previously, despite everything I've written, I am not a bit averse to moving per se provided it's to a much superior stadium than we can have at our historic home, in a better, or more accessible location in terms of infrastructure and amenities etc. I am genuinely as excited as the next blue at this prospect – especially as the architect seems to "get" the whole Everton/Goodison thing.

While the decision to move does appear to have been made, we have seen dramatic reversals on these decisions elsewhere, especially when the sums didn't quite add up. I'm also wary that there are a whole raft of potential heritage objections, and other planning restrictions affecting the process, that could yet scupper things. Leaving Stonebridge Cross as the default fall-back option... and that, I am vehemently against on every level.

I concur whole-heartedly on your final point... However, how much more realistic might that be, if we've spent far less to achieve our stadium ambitions incrementally at Goodison Park, leaving more cash for the manager?

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

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.

About these ads

© ToffeeWeb