The Bramley-Moore capacity debate

If that observer was correct in his argument that 50k was pushing the site to its limits, then surely the designated site is the wrong one for Everton Football Club?

That should be the measuring stick by which our ambition is judged."

I am no expert on this subject, but looking at the most critical financial aspect, ie, revenue generation, stadium capacity is only one factor. The others are:

1. Ticket Prices. If there is all this pent-up demand, the club can reduce the building costs by building a smaller stadium and charging higher ticket prices. This can still achieve the same revenues.

2. Use of the stadium on non-matchdays. A well designed structure with good access and parking could be used for concerts and events.

3. Use of space. The design of Wembley was inspired – not the horrendous arch, but the shape which created space for offices and shops. The walk way is populated by small retail complexes and a hotel. Great way of paying off the land costs.

From a footballing point of view, the design drives atmosphere as much as the number of seats. London Stadium, Etihad and Emirates are inferior atmosphere-wise to the Stadium of Light, despite having bigger capacity.

Lastly, stadium size does not correlate to "big club"; revenue does. A big chunk of revenues come from broadcasting, sponsorship and merchandising. These will not necessarily be greater in a 60,000 vs 50,000 stadium. They will be greater if the team delivers on the pitch.

Liverpool, Chelsea, Atletico Madrid and Juventus are still power houses despite having lower capacities than AC Milan, Inter Milan and Dortmund and have given the titans occupying big stadiums in Barca, Bayern, Real Madrid, Man City and Man Utd a run for their money in the trophy winning stakes.

Liverpool and Chelsea have announced expansion plans but I don't understand why their stadium capacity is relevant to ours.

Size does not matter, it's what you do with it.

I understand fully why the capacity of Anfield, Stamford Bridge etc are relevant to Everton FC. Revenue! If we invest half a billion pounds in the project, albeit spread over a long period of time, and still find ourselves financially falling behind those clubs we are competing against, then couldn't it be argued that we have shot ourselves in the foot? Again!

Capacity isn't the be-all and end-all but it is relevant because a conservative approach to any part of the business is what's got us into the situation we find ourselves in today, and a conservative approach – no matter how much the club invests – will keep us on the same direction of travel for the foreseeable future.

It's as if those who run the club feel that we will never be able to fully compete with our peers – no matter what we do – and, to be honest, they may be right, because of the 25-year head start we gave to those other clubs.

Think about it, this is such an important thing that we will all have a view. Fair enough. Mine, 60,000 seats – that may increase when standing comes back. Can it be done? Absolutely no idea.

I just hope the opinions don't descend into a pointless vitriolic keyboard fight just because there is no game this weekend.

Players want executive boxes for their families on a match day thrown in for nothing, they want the kudos of playing for a modern club with incredible facilities. Bill's stories of Uncle Cyril and his handlebars no longer cut it, I'm afraid.

We need to move; if it's to a 50,000 capacity stadium with an iconic design and feel to it, then I don't think many would complain after looking at riveted steel columns for so many years. I realise we should ideally be aiming for 60,000, but with this club and all the failed schemes they have presided over, I'll take a new 50,000 beautiful new stadium any day, thank you.

The 'fans consultation process' is just a smokescreen to try and keep some traction under the project whilst finance is being raised. Be happy with a few Leitch type crosses around the ground on a bit of plastic cladding, because that's all they will take from Goodison.

Harder to work out than Davies being a great prospect or Championship standard.

Still, keeps TW threads going when there is no game.

I think, One: This ground move is a tremendous opportunity to reestablish ourselves with the "elite" clubs and make a statement of our intent, of our ambition.

Two: you suggest the fear of not filling the seats is the driving factor; this is also backed up by Meis's recent tweets on not wanting an empty stadium and defining 'intimate' as a smaller capacity. Why should we be the only 'big' club not able to fill a big stadium?

Three: fans know the fanbase best; someone at the club is driving this low unambitious capping on the capacity... I can hazard a guess at who. I don't believe that person knows our fanbase at all and has a small-time mentality.

But, if we get a new stadium which is state-of-the-art, the attitude now is who cares if it's 50k? Posts either side appear to accept this 50k suggestion. I guess we have to settle for a less ambitious stadium then, aye?! NSNO.

Man City are champions in waiting and can't get 50k. We're better than that lot but I wouldn't want a 60k stadium when serving up the current dross.

Having said that, I'll be amazed if it comes off at all.

With the reported waiting lists, and a move away from the obstructed views of Goodison etc., I think an aim for 60k is not so far-fetched! It would require our team to actually start doing better than they are today, though!

We also have to make sure we at least match the likes of Spurs and West Ham.

I agree that being conservative is what has held this Club back for a very long time indeed. Back in the 80s, I wrote to Jim Greenwood, Club Secretary, imploring them to develop the Park End. I got a very sniffy reply, but in 1991 the club revealed plans for a 10,000 seat double-decker stand. Brilliant, except that, two years later, they changed their minds and decided on the structure that's there now – single tier, 6,000 seats and 80% funded by a grant!

I wrote to Mr Greenwood again. He informed me the Board were confident that 40,000 was ‘more than enough for now and the next generation'. Well, 25 years later, and I think we can safely say you got that one wrong, Jim! As soon as the new stand was built the average leapt 9,000 a game (over 40%) in one season and by another 5,000 in the following season and has stayed at a similar level for 20+ years despite some terrible football at times and no trophies.

Based on that alone it's obvious to me that the crowds will jump massively. For the love of God, don't make the same mistakes again please!

61,878?

There is no doubt that the club will have engaged consultants to offer evidenced-based advice on what would be the optimum. That wraps into site, finances, engineering limitations, etc.

Numbers over time tell us little. There was a post-war boom in attendances that wasn't sustained. When we won the league in 1970, our average gate was around 47,000. Capacity was 63,000. There were games when the ground was barely half-full and this was the team of Ball, Kendall and Harvey, et al.

Commentators predicted that attendances would decline with an increase in live football; it hasn't happened. But it might. It might not. Nobody can predict.

As for the fans knowing about such things, I can guess as well as anyone but as for knowing why people don't go I haven't a clue. Even if I did, extrapolating that would be foolish.

I know for example, that me and eight mates enjoy a pint of cask ale in comfortable surroundings before and after games. A tenth drinks Guinness. I can't say that 100% of men of a certain age would turn up at Bramely-Moore at 12:30 if there were warm, comfortable seats and a choice of cask beers and draught Guinness for Tommy. Us ten would. How about it Dan?

I would bet you that a highly skilled and experienced team of experts could be drawn from the ToffeeWeb membership more than capable of delivering a new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.

There may be more but, off the top of my head, these key areas of expertise would be required:

1. Architecture
2. Finance & Estimating
3. Earthworks
4. Formwork and Scaffolding
5. Structural Steel
6. Concrete
7. Craneage & Rigging
8. Electrical & Lighting
9. Plumbing & Drainage
10. Finishing Trades
11. Project Management.

After 37 years in the construction game here in Melbourne, I reckon I could put my hand up for number 4 on the list and I would be able to make a worthwhile contribution on numbers 6 & 7.

I think Paul the Esk may have number 2 covered but, from what I have seen, he would be ably assisted by Amit who seems to me to be a "numbers man" of some note.

It would be interesting to hear from other TW'rs on their areas of expertise. It might also be a bit of fun for us to have a ToffeeWeb Stadium design competition where we could submit our own individual designs to Michael and Lyndon.

I have got mine drawn up in my head already.

ps: Got to be 60,000. I have been in Goodison in the sixties with gates of just over 50,000 and the joint was heaving despite a then capacity of well over 60,000.

I don't say this to disrespect what you say but throughout the late 60s and entire 70s, at least, the whole country was financially bolloxed by the devaluation of the pound in '67, rampant inflation, strikes (some more than justified, some outrageously trumped up) and in the case of the City of Liverpool we'd unknowingly been effectively put on the "managed decline" road later turned into government policy by Thatcher.

In short, in the late 60s/70s times were hard in terms of affording football match admission costs. Your comments about Goodison's crowds are, I'm confident, statistically valid but I just think that every other club "suffered" to a similar degree or worse.

The 3 bottom lines are: (i) we're not made of money; (ii) the site is a fixed size; and (iii) there are only so many supporters... however much the "build it and they will come" mob wish.

This next bit is the big worry: we don't pay the bills and have no real power... like with the manager choice, in the end, we have to trust them to get it right.

Always more questions than answers – Everton that.

I was getting ٟ a week from my Saturday job.

Your political points are well made but football was cheap then, about the price of a pint. For me, your reasoning is wrong.

By contrast, an adult ticket now is ten times the price if a pint, twenty or more times in some clubs.

We've just gone through 10 years of largely unnecessary economic torture. If there was ever a time when attendances should have been falling, it is in that period. They haven't.

Could a superfluity of seating not be perceived as a negative if it has the potential to shackle the number of all important annual sales that supporters feel it necessary to stump up for in advance? If an excess supply of seats was such that fairly priced match day tickets were to be readily available for absolutely any fixture at all, even at the gate to any who decide on the day to turn up last minute on a whim, then the need to lock yourself into a 19-game package would be effectively negated for some. It seems common sense for clubs to look to drive the demand for their most regular, reliable form of income, so as to raise attendances and revenue across all fixtures, not just those 'premium' clashes easily predictable as the most popular to punters.

Then again, it just seems nonsensical (to me) to reduce a club being 'forward thinking' to something as simplistic as 'cramming more seats in'. Juventus had a stately 67,000 seat stadium yet went all John Spartan on it to build a brand new, modern, ground with a much reduced capacity of 41,000. How any self-respecting fan with love for la Vecchia Signora vibrating in their scrote can stroll into a packed state of the art stadium, offering a vibrant atmosphere and premium match day experience, alongside numerous commercial and entertainment areas, without shaking their head and muttering "small time, short sighted, knackerless, Nick Nack from 'The Man With The Golden Gun' sized ambition signalling pricks", before plonking their sweaty arse down into a plush seat with a perfect view to watch a side picking up trophies, year after year, ever since the piss-ant place first opened it's doors, is beyond me.

Of course, I'm being overly flippant as Serie A is a different animal to the Premier League, stadium ownership by clubs isn't the norm, and stereotypes about hooliganism may have led some decision makers to believe actively pricing out a certain class of punter couldn't possibly harm, but the fact remains that 'the biggest capacity possible' is not always the best option, or sole primer for success, no matter how boisterous or persistent the clarion call.

That's a very compelling argument and I can see the reasoning behind it, therefore, no need to do any grand designs or fancy stuff, just replicate Goodison Park at Bramley-Moore, but without the pesky pillars and the Church to get in the way and a capacity of circa 45k should suffice – if it's good enough for Juventus then it should be more than enough for Everton FC, so long as we pick up as many trophies as they have in recent years - jobs a good 'un.

I'm sure you remember sometime in the mid 70s – I think it was – when the shock horror headline in the local rag was Goodison capacity cut to 35k at a time when the ground could hold 53k, I can't remember why this scare story appeared – possibly due to safety concerns – I would be most grateful if anybody who knows when and why this story appeared at the time could relay it to us.

On a matter related to maximising income generation I share this story from the first away game, Old Trafford, of the 1995-96 season. Two of us, my friend wary of trouble, parked up in Altrincham and went to the game on the tram. After the game, 2-2 despite what seemed like half-an-hour of Fergie time, we made our way out expecting to run the usual gauntlet of orcs behind the scoreboard end. They were noticeable for their absence.

At the tram stop, I asked a reasonable-looking bloke where all the "hooligans" had gone. He showed me his season ticket. It was the cheapest available, more expensive than mine for our main stand. He said that the price hike was bad enough but it had to be paid in full before the end of the previous May. He said that the club had priced the idiots out. ("Perhaps most of them," I thought.)

This was followed by the regular increase in capacity at OT whilst the cost of attending stayed at a high level.

Lesson? Everton need to charge more in a new stadium. Every survey I have completed for the club, apart from that about the stadium, asked me how much I would be prepared to pay. The answer I gave was always less than I would really pay. Make no mistake, it is part of the thinking, as it should be, it's a business at the end of the day.

If the number of season tickets was kept, say, 20% below capacity, whatever that might be, tickets could be sold months ahead using the same algorithms used by budget airlines. Leave it late and you pay through the nose if demand is high or get it cheap if it isn't. Season by season, this data would feed into what the club would charge for a season ticket, going up or down in relation to demand. The airline model is built on an anticipation that demand will continue to grow. If it doesn't, they scrap the route.

This bit can't apply to football except the club could reduce costs marginally if it were to close off sections of the stadium where tickets went unsold. They do now for away fans if uptake is poor.

I suspect that the drive from fans for a bigger stadium is partly about expecting that a big stadium will help to ensure lower prices.

The club know, or should know, how price-sensitive demand for tickets at various levels is. Currently, the "keep it at 㿊" approach is significant but how long will that last?

At one point in the 60s I remember a 50% price increase, from 10p to 15p. More recently, about 20 years ago, there was a significant increase which I felt particularly hard because I was buying three season tickets at the time. I paid up though.

FA Cup Wembley tickets are in the news again. Why is anyone surprised that prices are up again? This us what businesses will do. If people will pay 𧺬 to a tout (or a vastly inflated price to a seller on StubHub) surely it's better that that money goes to the club?

"They don't care about the fans!!!" Of course they don't. They care about getting them in the ground and making as much out of the customers as they can otherwise. We can't bang on about the poor management of the club in the past and complain if they adopt effective pricing policies in the future.

Can we??

Building a bigger stadium gives us something to aspire to also – we would aspire to fill it. Building a smaller stadium that we already fill leaves us nowhere to go.

Phil @ 8 – your apparent disregard (bordering on disrespect) for your fellow Blues' views –and insight on potentially the most important twist in our history since the split with the rent grabbers – is disappointing. Why don't you stay off this thread – you are not needed.

Might it not be possible to build a 50,000-seater with the potential to "add on" if and when required?

I don't know what happened to those gatemen – I think they went on to operate the Mersey Tunnel booths.

The "new stadium" effect is a well documented phenomenon but it is by no means universal.

Man City weren't struggling to fill Maine road they had to build a temporary corner section because they couldn't cope with demand and regularly filled it even in the 3rd tier. So there was a lot of latent support there. When The Etihad first opened average attendances did increase significantly but it wasn't full every week, and in fact it dropped off again to below 40k within just a few years, until they found their winning ways on the pitch. The place is still now notorious for its empty seats (nicknamed The Empty-ad) and inflated attendances, despite their greatest team ever. Suffice to say they are growing their support with every success on the pitch, and those glaring light blue seats will be filled in the coming years with new supporters.

Stoke took several years to fill their new stadium. A small initial increase soon tailed off, and some quite significant infrastructure changes had to be made to help them eventually attract full or near full houses. It's taken 20 years and a sustained period in the Premier league for them to finally justify a small expansion at one corner. Their stadium cost just 㾺m to build.

On the other hand, several clubs have enjoyed dramatic and sustained increases in average attendance. Before the Premier League, West Ham had only ever averaged over 30k just 3 times in their whole history. Their record attendance was just 42k yet here they are now averaging over 50k. (I'm not sure that will last though). It has to be said though that this, as at Man City and Sunderland has been helped with cheaper ticket pricing strategies in turn afforded by a freeby or relatively cheap stadium move. That will not be the case for us, as we need to cover our costs. As a rule of thumb construction cost can rise almost exponentially with capacity, and if a fully-occupied seat will take 10 to 15 years to pay for itself, how much longer will only occasionally filled seats?

The Emirates has had full houses since it opened, and importantly a corporate section that yields more than the whole of Highbury could, yet it seemingly has affected their spending during its payback period, turning "The Invincibles" into the relative "also-rans". We're nowhere near the standard of the 2006 Arsenal side so how would a 75-90% full Bradley-Moore Dock, with higher build cost, and much lower ticket prices/total revenue affect our future spends? Let's not forget they had a massive waiting list before their move.

Just how big is our latent support? Thinking beyond the initial novelty period, how many would renew season tickets if they knew that the large extra capacity would guarantee them a good seat every week regardless? Many renew now because they have to to guarantee a good seat. How many would do it after our current season if there was no urgency about securing a good seat? Basic supply/demand says that the more you have the less you have to charge to sell them, and conversely the more you build the greater that cost per seat. The sweet spot is roughly where those two conflicting correlations meet, with the added dependence on team-performance on the pitch shifting the demand Circe one way or another. Lots of variables and imponderables to juggle. Design can avert some of that, but there are limits and outside forces affecting that too.

The site is a sensitive and tricky one in many ways, with extra expense written all over it. The infrastructure and logistic issues are also a long way from being resolved, and the funding strategy turning into an epic. The Common Wealth would have come with substantial extra funding, and surrounding enabling developments too. This is no longer the case (at present), and instead we're sitting on a site at the poor end of redevelopment scheme that has been hyped for over a decade, but for the most part has yet to get beyond the drawing board.

Meanwhile, as an aside we could perhaps just expand our current footprint... expand/replace the Upper Bullens and/or the Upper Gwladys Street and/or extend the Park End to create the same capacity at a fraction of the cost, and all with far less unknowns, incrementally to allow us to test that demand, and not build unnecessary expensive capacity that we do not need? Is it time for that reality-check and to finally take off the Royal Blue Mersey blinkers? Or can football's continually economics-busting growth pull this all off, and not leave us skint?

For example, I've paid 㿃 and 㿁 respectively for Man City and Newcastle tickets for my 9-year-old grandson whereas, had I been able to get him a season ticket, he'd pay the equivalent of ٣ per game.

On that basis, buying and retaining a season ticket would be a no-brainer for me – it would only make me pause for thought if the per-game cost of a season ticket were much closer than buying match by match.

I remember Schalke used to play at the old Parkstadion (which I attended once, a 2-0 win against Karlsruhe in late 1997), but they seldom came close to filling its near 70,000 capacity; it was one of those old 1970s style bowl stadiums with a running track and only one covered side. Attendances back then would float around 40,000.

Then they built the Veltins Arena, with a roof that covers the pitch as well as all sides of the ground, and a capacity just north of 60,000. Right away, they started to sell out every home game, a trend that has continued ever since, and have become established as one of the "big two" in Germany that sit behind Bayern (the other being Schalke's bitter rivals, Dortmund).

I'm not saying we would automatically emulate that interest; after all, Schalke's fanbase is larger than ours, but I do say that if we have investment in the team, then we really should be expecting to fill a 60,000-seater on a recurring basis.

Not one ‘top' club would contemplate building a new stadium with an approx 50k capacity. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity here to catapult ourselves back to where we once belonged. Unfortunately, due to a lack of ambition by owners, we as fans have largely accepted our place in the pecking order and are now mentioned without challenge in the same breath as the likes of West Ham and Newcastle.

Not for me. We are a much bigger outfit and this is a golden opportunity to send out that message. Spurs are showing the sort of ambition we should be mindful of.

At the same time, let's just remind ourselves how many titles Spurs have won, how many Newcastle have won and West Ham? Yet, as a club, we are almost apologetic for our place in and around that company.

I'm a realistic type, I'm not a dreamer or deluded, I just want Everton to see itself as the genuine big club they truly are.

Celtic had to close whole sections for some games when demand plummeted after their main rivals were relegated, again posting ridiculously inflated attendances when the stadium was almost empty for those unimportant games when the fans stayed away.

In the era of terracing, the gaps were less obvious than rows and whole sections of empty seats we see at some grounds nowadays, so perhaps the inclusion of safe-standing (rail-seats) will provide that design and capacity flexibility to give us a more ambitious maximum capacity, with less expense and less obvious glaring gaps that, and of course the much needed boost in atmosphere.

A free-standing roof system on 2, 3 or 4 sides allowing space at the rear of each stand and the relative cheap addition of new rows at the rear of the stands if demand increased – thus future proofing the stadium. So why not say 52k (@ ٢-6k average cost per seat) initially, with room to add 8-12 rows in the future to get above 60k? Thus avoiding unnecessary initial costs, and allowing demand to be tested without jeopardising ticket-pricing strategies below our payback break-even? Or we could go for a relatively cheap modular construction, and throw a "Stadium of Light" clone or basic bowl into the dock with the pitch below river level?

If the club has a genuine 10k+ waiting list then of course let's go for it and aim high. However, I'm not sure that Elstone's continued reticence on the subject points to that being the case. I know I keep beating the drum for redevelopment, but if the margins and business case are tight, then without the massive incentives of additional funding from whatever source, we probably should not really be considering moving ahead of the far cheaper and less problematic option of adding quality capacity where we are. Which is the model adopted by so many big clubs elsewhere (executed better by some more than others).

Goodison Park lends itself better to this than many other stadiums. Lower tiers are relatively shallow and easily expanded or built above. There is plenty of space at the Park end, and property prices on remaining sides are the lowest alongside any stadium in the UK. Yet 𧺬m (where did that figure come from?), with endless planning, infrastructure, logistics and funding unknowns is the only obvious solution?

The ticket prices in Germany play a big part in the high attendance. Dortmund tickets start at less than 㾻. The ticket includes the return train journey from the City centre.

Now we have the financial muscle, and the Prudential mortgage has been settled, it would make total sense to look at redevelopment, but there will be zero appetite in the boardroom for that particular option.

There are so many obstacles when building on the Bramley-Moore Dock site, that capacity would be fairly low on the list of priorities to be honest. If we are to proceed, then getting this new stadium erected with a capacity of 50-55,000 would have to be viewed as a massive success. I'm sure any design would take into consideration future expansion plans.

However, I think your idea of a fun stadium design competition is brilliant. I know sod-all myself but would love to see the ideas of those that do and, to be honest, the ideas of some of the smart arses who know as little as me.

It is certainly true that the junior tickets are great value and will sell themselves regardless. However, some individuals (adults) may be less inclined to invest in a whole season's worth of tickets and pick and choose their games if there is an abundance.

The clubs want to avoid this at all costs as they want the cash up front. They know that attendances can fluctuate massively if there is a low season-ticket take-up, so they build accordingly. If that surplus capacity is cheap to build, then fair enough.

"I understand fully why the capacity of Anfield, Stamford Bridge etc are relevant to Everton FC. Revenue! If we invest half a billion pounds in the project, albeit spread over a long period of time, and still find ourselves, financially falling behind those clubs we are competing against, then couldn't it be argued that we have shot ourselves in the foot? Again!"

The gist of this particular comment appears to be: we build a stadium with a smaller capacity than Liverpool and Chelsea and we fall behind them financially and shoot ourselves in the foot ("Again!" no less).

Which you then follow up with in post 29:

"...just replicate Goodison Park at Bramley-Moore, but without the pesky pillars and the Church to get in the way and a capacity of circa 45k should suffice, if it's good enough for Juventus then it should be more than enough for Everton FC, so long as we pick up as many trophies as they have in recent years – jobs a good 'un."

So, unless this comment was made in sarcasm, you do concede that our stadium capacity does not need to be equal to Liverpool or Chelsea?

If so, I agree with your follow up post wholeheartedly. Stadium capacity is only one factor in determining revenues, which underpins the ability of a club to be ambitious or "big". Revenues are a function of ticket prices as well as stadium capacity, but these revenues are dwarfed by broadcasting revenues, sponsorship and merchandise. The latter 3 also contribute more to the bottom line as the costs of attaining those revenues are lower than building a stadium.

Fairly obvious stuff.

Furthermore, if I recall correctly, Everton are ranked in the top 20 clubs in the world by revenue, and yet our stadium capacity is most certainly not in the top 20 globally. Our wage bill must also be close to being top 20. It appears when the Sky gravy train ends, a new gravy train funded by Facebook, Amazon, Google, Netflix, HBO or even BT will step in judging by the moves these corporations are making in the content sphere. Whether we like it or not, broadcasting will rule the roost as far as club revenues are concerned.

So there is a much bigger picture to consider when questioning the club's ambition than just the number of seats it intends to install at Bramley-Moore Dock.

The stadium debate has to focus on maximising revenues. I hope the club do not miss an opportunity to develop the new stadium to extract as much revenue from non-football activities as possible. If that means a 50,000 capacity stadium, that is okay by me.

Earning revenues from shops, offices, conferences, cinemas as well as high priced corporate boxes with a premium match day experience to rival any other could well turn out to be far more beneficial than an extra 10,000 seats.

I would like to see 61,878 from the off, and I think it would be filled. Failing that, maybe because of infrastructure concerns from the council, 55,000 has to be the absolute minimum.

Anything less would see us as a small club compared to most of those above us at the moment (and some below).

Surely the main reason for building is so we can compete on “a level playing field” with the top 4. No player in future should want to leave Everton to play in front of bigger crowds.

50,000 would be disappointing, an own goal and the biggest missed opportunity in the club's history. It would confine us to mid-table mediocrity in perpetuity.

There's a lot of disquiet in Germany over a vote in the past few days to keep their "50 + 1" rule, with one commentator on Kicker saying, "Well done, idiots, you can now look forward to more decades-long periods of Bayern's domination and a failure to attract interest in the Bundesliga from beyond Germany." (Or words to that effect.)

The word 'feasible' doesn't necessarily mean cost. It could be a matter of construction, safety, access, comfort.

Amit's point about match day revenue is a good one. Arsenal sell out their stadium, but have raised concerns about the empty seats leading to loss of income. As anyone who's bought anything to eat/drink at the Emirates will know!

A lot of the London clubs sell out their games but have empty seats. The tickets are bought en bloc to be used to entertain business clients but are not always used.

٧ for a pie and a pint adds up when you consider two or three pints intake.

Perhaps they have suffered a drop in income on matchdays due to stay away fans or fans refusing to purchase kits etc, however, the club was doing pretty well a couple of years ago. The revenue received on match days may not be the most important part of a club's income but we can see how the usual clubs are raking in the cash compared to those who aren't quite as popular, including Everton.

Match day income for 2014-15

Arsenal 𧴜m
Man Utd 䀇m
Chelsea 㿳m
Liverpool 㿧m
Man City 㿗m
Tottenham 㿕m

Newcastle 㿇m
West Ham 㿀m
Everton 㾾m
Southampton 㾾m

Aston Villa 㾺m
Leicester City 㾷m
Sunderland 㾷m
Palace 㾶m

QPR ٦m
Stoke City ٦m
Swansea City 8m
West Brom ٦m
Burnley ٤m

Premier League Income 2015

Tom, maybe you can shed some light on what the best approach would be?

In my opinion, it would be folly for the club to build a low capacity to create a demand and certain sell out as opposed to building it big to anticipate having the available seats when it demands. And I don't see the club doing a Man City, adding to or expanding the stadium later on – surely that would also be daft cost-wise compared to building the finished article right off.

The Esk and the other guys on Everton Business Matters have gone into this.

This squad will take a bit of work to trim down ready for replacements looking at how long some of them have left on their contracts.

How long every Everton player has got left on their current contracts with the club revealed

I'm confident that we'd fill a big ground every week, or at least come close to doing so. A new stadium always dramatically increases the average attendance of a club.

Man City rarely filled Maine Road (which was smaller than Goodison), yet their average attendance suddenly jumped to 47,000 as soon as they moved to their new ground. And at that time they had a worse team than we have now. People are more likely to pay for an expensive football ticket if the stadium has great facilities and no obstructed views. It's as simple as that.

And I'd rather we had a couple of thousand empty seats than be missing out on income because people can't get a ticket.

If we went for a capacity of 52,000 and then found that that wasn't enough, it would be too expensive to remedy it. The RS have just spent 𧴪 million on redeveloping one bloody stand. We'd be stuck with a pig in a poke.

The fact that we are having this debate and that it is all over different forums makes me think that we are in for bad news.

God, I wish we had someone with a vision for our great club, someone with ambition. They are the people that make things happen.

60,000 could prove problematic; I imagine it would sell out easy for most top tier fixtures. But would we fill it for when the likes of Huddersfield come to town? Sunderland have recently closed half of the stadium of light to improve the atmosphere. Could cheaper tickets and season tickets be the answer for a 60k stadium? Keep in mind Man City and Man Utd both have plans in to go even bigger.

However, one thing is guaranteed: we wont be anywhere near the state of the art facility that Tottenham have produced. Daniel levy is forward thinking and has also hooked onto the billion-dollar NFL gravy train. Certain design aspects have been included to accommodate the NFL specifically. When you look at the amazing new NFL stadiums this is no bad thing. It's costing 𨀊M to build and will have rotatable NFL and football pitches and glass view walls for paying corporate fans to see the players in the changing room and tunnel etc.

I just hope at some point we get some designs as it's hard to visualise anything at the moment. The fact the capacity hasn't been finalised yet indicates we are still a million miles away from a finished design.

The following season they moved into their new stadium and regularly filled it (capacity just over 47,000). This was despite playing poor football and finishing 16th.

After the takeover (and the expenditure of hundreds of millions on top talent) City were able to increase their attendance to 55,000, and they regularly fill it. Now they are playing fantastic football and one of the best teams in the world and are planning on increasing their capacity to over 60,000.

Are we in a position to fill a similar size stadium, playing far less attractive football and finishing 7th-8th? City have moved up their capacity in line with their success.

We certainly won't fill a 60,000 stadium playing the brand of football we have been. If we expect more than the hardcore fans to commit to the club regularly, then we need to play entertaining and winning football. If we can't get the footballing side right then we have to be realistic.

Building a stadium that is designed to allow for further development if we ever become a top side may be the sensible choice. It would be a mistake to have a 60,000 seat stadium with 10,000 empty seats.

It's a difficult decision as we all want to think big and have a larger capacity than our neighbours, and one which is in line with the rest of the top 6. But, we are a million miles from playing the kind of football that regularly attracts 60,000 plus fans.

On the poll, I voted for 60,000, but maybe 52-55,000 with the option to expand (if our results and performances improve) would be more sensible.

I would much prefer 4 individual stands as, over the lifetime of the stadium, adaption could be made without affecting the other 3 sides. 55k though is ideal for now in my opinion and spending £500M to get it is certainly not lacking any ambition.

However, it is very important to remember that this was essentially a freeby. They were getting a 𧵓m stadium for 㿀m + rent. So as I say, we have to be wary of that comparison in terms of cost, and consider the effects that a similar (bigger) project might have on our future finances. They were also relocating to a more central site with potentially better transport connections than Maine Rd.

Initially their average attendances shot up to meet the new capacity, helped by that surplus latent support, and some competitive pricing of tickets. This dropped back off to less than 40k within a few years, increasing only with the new owners and success on the pitch.

It could be speculated that they have attracted their new owners partly as a result of their new facilities and location although in the case of their owners, any stadium option represented merely raiding the petty cash tin.

I think we have to take a step backwards and ask a few fundamental questions before we speculate fancifully about capacity. The club opted for the dock for several reasons. The main ones being additional funding due to the Commonwealth Games, and lucrative enabling packages connected to both that and the future Liverpool Waters development. Together these, and a funding SPV with LCC were intended to drag our initial and long-term outlay down to a manageable bare minimum.

Mysteriously, as soon as the Commonwealth Games bid failed, the club started spouting the 𧺬m cost figure out of nowhere, and the body language and wording was toned down a few notches. Meis similarly. The games and its cash injection is now not there, and the catalytic effect to kickstart the Liverpool Waters scheme at the "poor end" of the site has potentially gone, perhaps also lessening the yield-value of any enabling scheme there too.

The process seems to have hit something of a hiatus, with the current "arse about face" fan-engagement process about 18 months late, and more of a pause for breath than a step in the process imo.

Meis is currently also working on Roma's new stadium. Coincidentally also on a sensitive riverside location, and with a proposed capacity of 52k – this is also considered a state-of-the-art arena. Multi-tier on all sides with substantial corporate/executive capacity and facilities. This is priced at just 𧶨m in a country with similar construction costs to the UK. So where is the cost hike come from?

As ever, stadium costs can easily be confusing, and comparisons misplaced, as can basic cost per seat figures. Increased Structural and site specific complexity issues can affect costs dramatically, and rise almost exponentially with capacity, whereby a 60k stadium can cost several times that of a 40k one. If large ancillaries/enablers are built into those costs, a substantial proportion of the construction is self-funding, although the headline cost will appear disproportionate. The more commercially lucrative the site, the more influence this can have on those design ambitions and capacity aspirations.

We see this at even the smallest stadiums, were their location is specifically chosen to allow the building of large commercial floor space developments into or adjacent to the stadium, often offsetting construction costs dramatically. We need to know if this enabling opportunity still exists at this site, because a stand-alone football-only stadium represents a huge leap of faith compared to Man City's relocation.

We would all love to see 60,000 Evertonians in a state-of-the-art stadium. Realistically, I can't see that happening.

Of course I'll want to be there the day it opens, and will definitely still go to the odd home game, but my match days are away days because of the travelling. Plus away games are usually more fun, even if we are shit away from home!

The other thing with The Etihad was that it was linked with regeneration of an area. Lots of new housing and a stop on the then-new train line.

We've got 32k season ticket holders. That means we currently have about 3k walk-ups (assuming 3k away fans and 2k hospitality). Apparently we have about 7k on the waiting list but presumably that includes a good chunk of the 3k walk-ups.

So it's not unreasonable that we get 40k season ticket holders in a new stadium. Plus an increased hospitality of, say, 4k – that's where we make the big money isn't it? Add in 3k away fans and leave a 3k-5k allowance for walk ups and you're getting into the 50k-55k range – with sold out signs.

I've got to admit, I've been in stadia that are 75%-85% full and it feels half empty. That small drop makes such a big difference.

55k seems to make sense. Who would the other 5k to 15k seats be for if we went for 60k-70k? If we had 70k capacity would you bother getting a season ticket knowing you could walk up most weeks and not get stung when you can't make a game?

For me 60,000 strikes the balance between cost (I realise mine is a simple model, it was never intended to be anymore than that) likelihood of being sold out, and affordability given we need to do something about our dire revenue performance relative to the clubs we need to compete against to get anywhere near the top of the game once more.

All the clubs above us massively outstrip us on matchday revenues and each are planning further increases in capacity overall or in the case of Arsenal converting ordinary seating into premium club seating to increase revenues.

As a reminder here's 2016-17 matchday revenues in £m:

Manchester United 112
Arsenal 100
Liverpool 74
Chelsea 66
Manchester City 52
Tottenham Hotspur 45
West Ham United 29
Southampton 22
Leicester City 16
Hull City 16
Everton 14

Spurs conservatively will go to 䀍 million in their first season in the new WHL.

As a club we're committed to affordable prices, therefore we have to balance that with being aggressive on capacity and employing people capable of filling the ground every week.

A 60k ground full to capacity with 5,600 premium seats would with a 25% increase in average seat yields (excluding premium seats) generate around 㿔 million a year. Still far off our competitors but much healthier than present. Of course, the cost of servicing the loan (likely to be around 㿀 million a year) has to be taken into consideration also. As Robert said the business case is tight. In my view it is tighter when the capacity is lower.

Is Elstone going of his own accord?

I try and not get drawn into becoming a supporter of Best Financial Model rather than best football team. Not for any high brow reason but just because getting fed up with the Premier League riches that are bringing sod all additional joy to most fans of clubs who are now in Premier League.

But sometimes research and info from the likes Paul The Esk makes me think and realise the grim reality is that, unless we up our financial game and leave those other smaller clubs behind, we will not hover where we are for much longer.

The end result for enjoyment of each of us, well I guess it's down to each individual's hopes.

There is such a long way to go if it ever happens st all. Just take a drive down the proposed site and around the surrounding areas. It looks like Dresden after WW2. Who is going to pay for the infrastructure upgrades never mind a stadium.

Why not do a poll on ToffeeWeb asking how many of us think this nonesense at Bramley-Moore will actually happen? Now that would be interesting.

Could the club reduce ticket prices to bring back supporters like myself who would like to attend matches with their children but who have been priced out of going to games? Surely charging 㿀 a ticket would have fans flocking to a new stadium – and there must be thousands like myself.

We could probably fill 65,000 if the tickets were cheap enough.

Where we have been with the old Goodison really has been poor income wise.

So this why it appears the ground is so important and probably what Moshiri is 90% focused on. Perhaps he sees how we do in the meantime (as long as we are still in the Premier League... hence Sam) as pretty irrelevant and sees this as the only chance for the club to be big again or even survive.

When we rightly or understandably rant about that last match's tactics or how we won't make 7th, maybe Moshiri understands this, okays some silly buys but is looking towards the river most of the time. And not with a happy-clappy folk song about the Boy's Pen in background as I fear Kenwright did with Kings Dock).

I have posted a few times that I think Moshiri has a strategy and these figures tend to convince me he would be playing a huge risk game with a lot of his money if his plans for the new ground were as uncertain as some suggest. I think such figures and another failed ground project would reduce our value so much. Just find it hard to believe a careful accountant like him would take such risks.

And that is what makes this time different.

As I have posted before, for the club it has to be about net income, not attendance numbers. A bigger ground at this stage will just increase capital and interest payments and reduce net income

John, I seem to recall from previous posts that you are a gentlemen above a certain age? Pensioner STs are 𧷤 so 㾼 a game, paid for interest-free on an EFC credit card over nine months – around 㿏, a month might be doable.

After an quick half-hour last night I had a whole medium and long term strategy written and was about to send it to Mr Moshiri c/o Monaco.

Now I will have to put at least another quarter of an hour aside and rethink it.

May build in a subsidy for fans who are Librans and born in 1960.

You are absolutely right that we are already very reasonably priced compared to most of our peers. The deals for juniors and concessions are excellent, but mean that our average return per seat per match is only just over 㿀, so how much wiggle room is there left?

Of course, everything is relative, and we could argue that given our TV income, we are still expensive compared to say German clubs, who enjoy some excellent well-connected facilities too.

That pricing strategy, and the early season optimism created a waiting list for the first time in our history. I believe we also had approx 100k individual customers last season. Is that exceptional, or just the norm for a club averaging just under 40k at our prices? Does that really correlate to a new 50k or 60k capacity?

Of course if that waiting list was 10k+ and we were getting a freeby like Man City or West Ham, or the cost per seat for construction was the same for both capacity options, then we could more readily speculate over a surplus capacity, and build a monster stadium, and do the "stack them high, and sell them cheap" trick with all the benefits of massive crowds for income, atmosphere and indeed kudos.

However, we are not getting the freeby, and the cash injection from the Commonwealth Games has evaporated. The potential enabling-developments were probably also tied into the games, as this end of Liverpool Waters hasn't yet attracted the developers (with the obvious exception of the Stanley Dock developments).

That's not to say that the stadium wouldn't be the catalyst for that, as at other waterfront stadiums around the world, but at over 1 mile from the pier head, with no real infrastructure already in place, and in the current climate, are we at the wrong end of the site and is that leverage there? Only the club and LCC will have an idea if that's the case, and perhaps the recent business presentation was a charm-offensive to potential investors to stir up support. There has hardly been a clamour of developers looking to engage with us.

The cost per seat for a basic single-tier structure can still be as low as � but this rises up to ٦k+ per seat for a large multi-tiered stand. Therefore, when you go above the 40k basic bowl arrangements, that price can soar as the volume of construction multiplies to reach those expensive upper tiers, and footprint/roof-area expands together with supporting ancillaries.

There are ways to minimise those costs such as: larger lower tiers where capacity is cheaper; structural continuity for economies of scale; and/or straight stands with open corners to reduce structural complexity; reducing quality of finish and size of internal floor-spaces/facilities and other design details etc but these can all affect the quality of the end product, on a World Heritage Site site that will undoubtedly attract architectural scrutiny. So there is only so far that we can go to cost cut, and that is why the capacity appears to be becoming the easy target.

The other obvious deficiency with Goodison Park that adversely affects our matchday income is the pitiful corporate offer. There are clubs in the conference league with more executive boxes than us. Whilst we don't have London's business sector, there is massive potential to expand our offer substantially. LFC attract over 7k corporates, many with little or no team affiliation. We are in the same city and play in the same league and should command a far bigger slice of that very lucrative cake than at present. This alone could go a long way to bridging the construction cost and resultant income gap.

The dock site may also merit boxes convertible to hotel rooms, and lounges with views of river/Liverpool waters and pitch to attract conferences/business-meetings ahead of anything comparable at Anfield.

Or, we could simply add 10-15k net (mainly high quality) capacity to Goodison Park at a fraction of the cost. Anyone for history/tradition and pragmatism?

We are Evertonians, we have to be pragmatic.

Good piece again.

As with all business men, especially billionaires, one criterion is crucial: Top line... bottom line.

I would like to ask you a question in relation to the higher cost of the second-tier stands – £8k per seat versus £5k per seat.e

I have been of the opinion from day one that the dock shouldn't be filled in but reinforced and lined to provide the supporting base for the pitch.

From looking at the geometry of the site and the Uefa rules regarding seating sizes, foot room, and the "C" (line of site) regulations, it appears to me that the pitch could be sunk 6 metres below the existing quay level on a suspended concrete slab.

This would provide sufficient width and height for the first tier of seating. The second tier of seating would be supported by the existing quay.

As I see it, there appear to be a number of advantages to this approach:

1. Lower cost of concrete slabs, columns and retaining walls compared with filling the dock in and laying a ground slab.

2. Lower cost of second tier seating: £5k per seat as opposed to £8k per seat for second-tier seating.

3. Potential for an underground car park if the dock is deep enough – 9 m?

Perhaps this is what Dan Meis has already alluded to with his "Rising from the docks" strap line.

From what I can see, the other restricting factor is the actual width of the site. This has a direct impact on the number of rows of seating that can be built on each side of the pitch. In Germany the specification for the width of terracing is 800 mm – in the UK it is 750 mm. It doesn't sound much but for 40 rows of seating that equates to 30 metres, and potentially another two or three rows of seating on each side of the stadium.

I would be interested in hearing your view regarding the viability and cost-effectiveness of this approach.

I would be interested to hear yours and others views on this.

The difference in a terrace width between 800mm and 750mm is 50mm per terrace. Therefore the difference between an 800mm and 750mm terrace width over 40 rows of seating (one side of the pitch) is 40 X 50mm or two metres - just under 3 rows of seating.

I have assumed the pitch would be 5 metres from the front of the first row of seats so I am sure the designers would be able to squeeze the short fall of 150mm from somewhere. If so that would result in an extra 3 rows of seating around the full perimeter of the stadium.

Following on from that, if the outside dimensions of the row of seats furthest from the pitch but one was something like 200m X 165m X 2 = 660 metres and the seat widths were 600mm that equates to an extra 3300 seats (660 divided by 0.6 X 3).

Can you now come up with a design that allows the architect to land smack bang on whatever thousand 1878 seats please.

It's fairly common knowledge that the whole area sits on a big sheet of sandstone, some of it not too far below the surface...as a train trip into Lime St will illustrate.

I can't see those big dock walls, which are essentially dams holding back the river, just sitting on the sand and mud of the reclaimed river floor. Surely the original plans still exist in the Council Archives, these will give a preliminary idea of the geology which will of course be confirmed by drilling and such.

As you say, with suitable bracing, why fill in free space... didn't Barca do much the same, remove the running track, dig down and sink the pitch to gain seats / save money?

The reason I say that is because I think the higher option requires a third tier for the additional 10,000 seats and, according to Tom's figure of ٦,000 per higher tier seat, that works out at an extra 㿼 million!

Based on that, his suggestion for the design to include an option to increase the capacity at a later stage makes a lot of sense.

Derek (#89) – the reinforced concrete supporting slab would be a very effective plan brace, and the first row of reinforced concrete terracing could be configured to be a diagonal brace from the pitch to quay level.

I've got too much time on my hands.

My first thoughts for the site were similar to yours to take full advantage of the site: a classic example of the lower tier and pitch being below ground level to get say 20-30k lower tier seats on the cheap as we see at several large stadiums. At the same time, reducing the cost of the upper tier(s) as you say. To be honest, I haven't checked the size of the site to see how it fits.

The other major thing with this approach is of course that the pitch will then be at or below sea level. I am not sure of the construction/maintenance cost ramifications for this, not to mention the risks associated with rising sea level which will affect the whole waterfront. I've seen the Pier Head flooded at high tide a few times in my lifetime so who knows?

As regards tread depths I've often thought that the tighter rows for lower tiers better replicate the density of the old terraces. Thus at the same time, also increasing the sale value of roomier rows in upper tiers... in essence replicating what we used to have at Goodison, with cheap lower-quality views downstairs (standing), and better more expensive views upstairs – it was always a simple choice. The other consideration is safe-standing.

When LFC were designing the new Kop, they went for the shortest tread-depths that they could, to maximise density and capacity. In fact most of their older seats are in very tight rows. Importantly though, I'm not sure if that depth now allows for retro-fitting rail-seating, as there is a minimum depth and rake with the current systems. So, we might have similar constraints to consider on that score if we want rail-seated sections too.

I think there are a few urban myths surrounding this. The park episode was much later, and wasn't a formal application in any case. We have to remember that it would've involved re-routing of major carriageways and infringement of the historic and listed parts of the park, all just to expand our already substantial footprint at the Park End...

As opposed to LFC's request to build on an already built-on, and relatively featureless section where the Vernon Sangster was, to create a state-of-the-art stadium, and in fact add extension of the park on their existing site. So there isn't much of a comparison really.

On top of that, of course, we have to remember that the council did offer the real deal of the century at the best location in town, and we fluffed it despite a board member offering the cash. I'm surprised the council ever went near the club again after that debacle.

Then they offered Walton Hall Park, with some enabling developments... and that collapsed too – the council also stated at the time of Destination Kirkby that they would be very receptive to ideas for expansion at Goodison Park, and helped facilitate discussions with Bestway for the loop site. Now they're arranging the SPV, so I don't think we can really claim we've been hard done by.

A few years ago, when we were running a bookshop in Lark Lane, we got hold of a historical copy of the original dock plans. The level of detail was astonishing and included everything from cross sections of the geology of the area, every drainage system and the calculations regarding water ingress into all of the materials used in the dock structure.

As I remember, we sold it to the BBC for their research department who were engaged in making some program. The originals are almost certainly in existence somewhere. Might save a lot of money if somebody could track it down.

Roma are building a 52k stadium for slightly less and Meis has designed that too.

The other potential upside to the second option is that the area not covered by the ground footprint is could be converted to an underground car park. Have the club approached people like National Car Parks to enter into a Joint Venture for the development of that part of the site?

We have secured our Premier League status for next season - the club needs to release its plans for the ground in the near future otherwise the fan base will sense another Kings Dock like debacle.

In the time that Dan Meis has been engaged by the club, he could've outline-costed any number of variations on the theme. In the same time, his company has been involved with other stadium projects worldwide. He even submitted a whole new scheme for redevelopment of Selhurst Park, but it wasn't the winning bid.

So yes, I'm sure he has done general comparisons of at least those two options. While having the pitch below the ground level is the obvious choice to minimise stadium construction costs, and also create efficient internal access, egress and circulation I have to admit I struggle a bit to get my head around having the pitch at or below sea level, especially when the sea is only yards away. Not insurmountable, I'm sure... but I suppose it's because I spend half my life below sea level, and am only too familiar with the potential consequences.

Think about it – when they dug the dock out originally, it was completely empty and they didn't have the shoring systems that are available today or 10 metre precast panels.

It will be alright – a full footprint slab and terracing will provide all the support needed for the dock walls.

Being below sea level will be great – it will be like the coliseum. Our visitors won't like it much.

I see Dan Meis is having some sessions with the fans shortly. I would have loved to be able to go to those meetings – but I'm a bit to far away here in Oz.

Yesterday got three letters from EFC (one for each ticket) in the post telling me I hadn't yet renewed and if I didn't renew before the 6 April, my seats could go.

I rang EFC today and was told that the letters had gone out in error to all season ticket holders – including those who had renewed, and to settle my mind they would e-mail me confirmation immediately.

5 hours later – no e-mail and another phone call, plus quite a few minutes checking by them while I hung on. This time I insisted on waiting for the e-mail confirmation that my tickets had in fact been renewed back in January. E-mail duly arrived. At no time was an apology offered for the time and stress, and when I politely suggested the club could easily e-mail confirmation of renewals with a thank you – at the time they were in fact renewed – I was met with a shrug. (I could tell it was a shrug even over the phone.)

Here's my point: on the assumption every season ticket holder received this letter (approx 㾻k spent?) – what confidence should we have in anything to do with the running of this side of things and the manner in which we are sometimes treated as 'customers'. Even more worryingly, how can we trust them to accurately assess the seating capacity of a one-man outside loo – never mind a new stadium?

I don't blame the staff at the Box Office at all – but Amazon it ain't.

City are currently texting their season ticket holders offering them two additional seats for the Champions League quarter final. The best side the Premier League has seen can't sell out.

But we should also remember that their record average attendance pre-move was just 42k. Even when they won the league in the 60s, their average was less than that despite having a capacity of about 68k at the time. So, their new stadium and its recent and planned expansions was/is a leap of faith, and ambitious; however, they did get it for peanuts in the first place and their owners have unlimited wealth to absorb those costs and still spend on the team.

Success will bring them new fans, and every year they are breaking their records for getting fans through the gates, but your post illustrates that they're not there yet.

Unfortunately, we don't have a geographical distinction to claim against our red neighbours, and we are also fighting against their years of success, and our failures when trying to claim new hearts and souls and we don't have endless funds or the best team in the country. I would like to think that we are bigger in terms of fanbase – but that wont be for long if current trends continue.

I've read your comments re the stadium. I don't think it's been mentioned in many places as to how we are going to disperse 50,000+ fans from an area that's hemmed in on 3 sides and a listed building (small stone gate and wall) which can't be demolished.

Anderson's podcast did not mention any of this or any plans for transport to/from the location (at the moment, it's a decent hike in the pissing rain and wind from any good transport link).

I would have thought from EFC's point of view, and perhaps Peel's too, i it would be in the best interests of both to have a good quick transport service to the Central Docks area. Ideally a light transit system.

I would go for 50,000 with room for expansion. That would still give us the thin end of 12,000 more than we currently have with the option for more should we need to expand further.

Take the example of Spurs, from an average of just over 30k at White Heart Lane to, on a few occasions, topping 80,000 (average about 60k) at Wembley. They've "hit it on the button" with the new stadium designed for about 60,000.

So with our current average of just under 40k I think it very feasible we could mimic Spurs – so to hell with 40k or 50k go for 55k or even 60k.

As previously mentioned, underground car parking in the old dock basin should be considered as this would provide a huge area and hence club income. If the site is so small that the pitch length is similar to Goodison – why was it chosen, as if the pitch can't be made longer then one might assume that car parking too will be restricted, therefore under the pitch seems a logical step and would save a tremendous amount of infill.

The 'safe-standing area' is a non-goer as the law stands at present. Therefore the 12,000 to 15,000 is now reduced to, say, 5,000 seats. So the 50k is now reduced to some 40-43k – could have this been a ruse to make us think the stadium will hold more than it can in reality? Mmmm.

Is the stadium going to have a sliding roof to make it an all-weather pitch and also keep the crowd dry?

Surely movable seating could be designed so that a track area could be provided for athletics etc – consider the Commonwealth and Olympic Games etc, in addition to boxing matches, concerts and international football (even rugby).

I contend that here is an opportunity to build a Wembley of the North and put the city truly on a par with the Capital, having a beautifully designed and versatile stadium to cater for a wider audience than just football in order to sustain income throughout the year, and for years to come.

I do hope that the directors who will make the final decision will demonstrate their true ambitions and aspirations by having a stadium fit to call 'Goodison 2' (well we've got Liverpool 1!!!), the new home of Everton, and it not be a chicken hutch holding a handful of supporters. Come on, Mr Moshiri and directors, make it happen; we're all waiting – don't forget 60k!!! – except at my age, I may not see the idea come to fruition.

Bye y'all

What are smoking, old fella? In our entire history, for one season, and one season only, it has topped 50k. Can you remember which season that was?

The average attendance for the next decade was over 40k, not over 60k as I stated. Thanks for pointing out this error – nothing to recommend getting old!

Liverpool retains World Heritage Status – what now for Peel and Everton stadium?

Wonder if this may mean the outside of the stadium looks classy. If Peel can get the okay, then surely we can if we are clever. Lucas Oil Stadium type?