More fan engagement required above and beyond stage 2 of the public consultation

I wonder if Mr Mosh wants to utilise the hard won influence he's achieved with Britain's worst sports journalist, the screechingly vain Jim White of Talkshite, to personally tell us and the world what the actual timetable is for his/our ambition to regularly achieve top four through the benefits of his/our new BMD stadium?

And yes, I know "The People's Project" site seemingly has such plans, but who wrote them, and when?

Please!

We've won as many league titles as Spurs & Man C combined so I'd like to see that dominance continue.

Make it happen Powers That Be or step aside. We tried the small minded routine 1987 - 2019 it didn't work.

Not only are there extra direct costs involved in increasing the capacity further but also other considerations such as parking, public transport and policing.

We have maintained crowds close to our current capacity this season, at around 39,500. An increase to 52,000 represents an additional third of capacity. Personally I'd take a steep-sided, 52,000 capacity, sold-out stadium over a 60,000 seater which we're only likely to occasionally sell out for some time yet.

We allocate 3,000 tickets to away supporters for Premier League games, so to fill a 52,000 seater we would have to either increase that number or find 16,000 extra Evertonians every week. That would be no small feat. To fill a 60,000 seater would require 24,000 extra Evertonians attending! This is, of course, assuming that the objective is to fill the ground on a regular basis.

As much as I would like us to get the same level of home support as Arsenal, United and Tottenham I don't feel that we should use the “my dad's bigger than your dad” argument by insisting on a larger capacity just because they have one.

For 2017/18, Man City's average attendance was reported by them as being around 53,000 yet Greater Manchester Police put the figure closer to 45,000. The same is true of West Ham, with an average official attendance of 55,000 but only 43,000 according to police figures. Bear in mind that both of these clubs moved into oversized, ready-made stadia and give away an awful lot of tickets just to fill the places up. These are not small clubs and given City's recent successes, they should expect to be maximising their potential attendances. Despite these figures, many Evertonians believe 52,000 is too small and want to hit the “magic” 60,000 number. For me, that just doesn't add up.

Well written article. The usual digs about kenwright but I think he is the reason the fanbase are being asked to be so involved. We are ooking at about 20% increased attendance? I think my main issue would be to ensure that while this new home is being built we still have funding for players so that its hosting European nights. This could and should put us right back up there as one of the premier clubs. This has been a long time coming l know. Eitc continues to show who we are. Watch this space... finally.

Set the bar high and go for 60,000. If we don't do it now, we never will.

I imagine that the ideal capacity is one where you receive the greatest income for the least outgoings. The brutal truth is that on Merseyside the amount of disposable income is much lower than elsewhere - maybe Brexit will change that over time if the port prospers but that is unknown as yet. There is a reason why Liverpool supporters who regularly go to the match tend to live elsewhere.

The club must make a decision based on knowns so best current guess is 60 000 will impact on the first team and cost more than it makes, 52 000 will not. I would argue the opposite to Paul - paradoxically 52 000 keeps seat prices down. Pauls economic advisers seem to think that higher seat prices are achievable, the club has a stated intent to keep them as low as possible.

Instead try swallowing this:
- we've won sod all for coming on 25 years, yet..
- we've sold out GP for 3 seasons
- a stadium with almost a quarter of seats offering only restricted views
- we've averaged virtually 40,000 in PL games over this period and obviously with a bigger capacity would have averaged something a few thousand higher
- BMD as currently planned, would be adding only 12000 more seats. Of these perhaps 1,500-2000 would be in additional 'corporate' areas. So the increase in available tickets for the majority of fans would be only 10,000
- new PL, and indeed EFL, stadia have never failed to create higher attendances, in many instances by factors of around 25%, and irrespective of whether previous grounds were being filled eg Leicester City...
- applying this percentage to Everton woud suggest a 'new stadium bounce' taking attendances up to the planned BMD capacity . in other words, with no further potential to accommodate further demand should (heaven forbid) we actually get some overdue success on the pitch.

The only thing that would point to 52,000 as a maximum would be the physical feasibility of getting even that many onto and out of a small site, and with only one road for vehicular traffic dispersal. How that whole matter is going to be managed has yet to be seriously discussed in public.

If we really wish to be back at the top, having one of the best stadia undoubtedly helps with our image, in this day and age the 'brand'.

It's possible that a maximum capacity of 52,000 won't have much of an effect on our image compared with having a bigger capacity, and that the location, style and atmosphere will have the biggest impact, subject of course to our being an impressive team on the pitch. Without the latter, a new stadium is almost irrelevant. But it's difficult not to imagine that we actually need the biggest stadium possible (subject to site constraints) if we're truly to be a top club.

You would expect the regime at Everton to have thought about all of this, and to be serious in addressing such points. I suppose the consultation process is, apart from being necessary formally, an opportunity to make sure all such points are addressed.

I agree with Paul that limiting the capacity to an alnost certainly sold out 52,000 gives the club great scope for hiking prices. Thomas's logic that a sell out crowd of 52,000 would keep prices down flies in the face of one of the main principles of capitalism which is that if demand exceeds supply you control it by increasing the price.

Who are these 'expert professional consultants' whose advice led to the figure of 52,000? I think the club should tell us. Even a lay person can see that this is a very conservative figure. (Joe # 4. Have another look at your maths!!)

Apart from the 'profesional consultants', whoever they were, the club have also stated that this figure was arrived at after extensive consultation with fans, Really? I've had a season ticket for decades and I wasn't consulted and I don't know anyone who was, including many match going shareholders.

If the initial build is for 52,000 I very much doubt it will ever be increased, other than the installation of safe standing provision.

At 52k it probably has the best chance of getting through the first stages of planning. That figure could be being used to oil the wheels.

Once that initial planning permission is sealed, evidence could be submitted that shows 4 or 5 thousand more seats are easily achievable with minimal impact on infrastructure concerns.

£500m stadium debt is one hell of millstone for 12.500 extra seats.

For me regarding capacity, I find it difficult to accept that you can judge demand unless you go out and test the market. Although the club tell me this has been done I'm yet to come across an Evertonian who has been asked about the likelihood of them buying tickets at BM, what type of tickets and at what price point?

The club used a company based in London IPW to help determine capacity. The figure they came up with was less than 52k. I have tried to establish their methodology but to no avail.

The reason capacity is important is fairly obvious. It will directly affect ticket prices & I have no doubt at 52k will fall far short of actual demand once the stadium is built.

The other reason of course is financing. Even using the most positive assumptions re cost of debt and revenues generated at the stadium it's difficult to see a significant increase in net revenue whilst retaining any semblance of "affordability"

To those that say we are not entitled to such information, with respect I think we are. The club is both a community and for many familial asset which whilst ownership may change from time to time remains ours - emotionally if not in the legal sense. Thus we have a duty of care to ensure that our children & grandchildren enjoy the club at it's best in the future.

As ever thanks for reading my stuff.

It's incredible really how Everton have managed to mess things up time and again off the pitch for most of the last 50

Can I toss in my recent experiences into the debate ? Over the past 25 years I have travelled over once or twice a year from Dublin, with my now adult son and daughter. In recent years, we can't get the Park End anymore, so have to make do with restricted view.

Last Friday, we were at the Burnley game in the Upper Gwladys. This was the most restrictive view I have ever experienced at any game anywhere, even at Goodison. We were 3 rows from the back and as everyone in front of us were standing throughout, we also had to stand. Any kick outs by goalkeepers or high clearances weren't visible due to the roof. The tall chap in front of me meant I had to duck and dive to get any view. To my left there was a man with two boys aged around 9 to 11 and they were worse off. The fans in the Upper Gwladys certainly don't have any consideration for the elderly or young fans who are vertically challenged. No stewards visible for a moan either.

The atmosphere was great and the Seamus Coleman goal was a great experience, greeted as it was by plenty of loud singing of the 60 grand song, although my immediate instinct was to check for a linesman's flag, which I couldn't see. I didn't see much of the first goal. I certainly would be more encouraged to go to more games if I could see the match. When you add in the cost of the Everton Membership, to allow me access to purchase the restrictive view tickets, plus Flights and Hotel for the 3 of us, we spend as much as the cost of a season ticket each in two trips over.

If we can fill the ground at present, when this is the offering, an extra 12,000 seats will be easily filled.

Don #1, If only Everton were as consistent as yourself.

I appreciate coming from Dublin you would have to get tickets, for the game, before coming to guarantee seeing the match, but in games like this, when it was on TV, I could almost guarantee there would be tickets available outside the ground, there were seats empty by me in The Upper Bullens and you could see seats empty
here and there in different stands.

If it is true, as I think it is, that fans only get a very small reduction for these restricted seats then it should be looked at by the club as they are definitely not value for money, far from it.

Next time you are coming, if I were you I'd write to Kenwright tell him when you are intending to come, explain the problems you have had in the past, there's a good chance he would try and assist you, he gets a bad name on here, rightly so in my opinion, but you would have a decent chance of getting much better seats off him, and it would only cost you the price of a postage stamp to find out. Once again good fans like yourself from afar should be well looked after and I'm sorry you
had to watch the game the way you and your family did.

The noteable is that Levy also sanctioned for the beers to be cheaper than the surrounding pubs at White Hart Lane.

So he's taking out the traditional long standing match day fixtures for some supporters, but people will want to save their money in the increasingly hard fiscal times for the average people in the UK.

It will be interesting to see the final figures on the BMD capacity, but I don't see any means how the stadium capacity could be boosted once the footprint is built.

It is vital the club gets this right, but as in life as Evertonians, we know there's always trouble looming ahead.

It will be interesting to see the outputs from the next public consultation, and what the final design is.

But GP as much as we love the place, needs to be remembered and it will be, but perhaps, there's a twist in the story that will unfold later this year.

Tottenham are believed to be making £800,000 from hospitality, food and drink at their new stadium — and that's just before kick-off. By way of comparison, on a good day, takings at Manchester City are in the region of £150,000. In time, this will tell.

Hopefully, it gives our board food for thought. Excuse the pun.

My seat in The Upper Bullens is very good now, I moved from the next to back row three years ago, had no problem, moved to my present seat because it was right by an entrance, making it easier for me.

No doubt there are poor seats in the Upper Bullens, I've sat all over in there but never found ones like Frank Wade and myself had to put up within The Upper Gwladys St, there are some in the Lower Bullens that I wouldn't give to my worst enemy.

We can either limit capacity and prices or go for a price increase now and 60k capacity. We can't have it both ways.

Dave, I am quite sure Bill Kenwright would oblige as you say and we share a mutual friend, but it's not something I would want to do on a regular basis. I have to move quickly, buy the tickets as soon as the seats are released to the members, buy the plane tickets and book the hotel. Flight from Dublin to Liverpool was €230 on Friday afternoon, so had to go to Manchester for €71. I wouldn't leave it to chance with Bill or getting a ticket outside. It's different when you haven't invested so much in getting there, including half days from work - not for me anymore of course. We need certainty.

I'll go for the Upper Bullens in future, we were last there at the Watford home game in April 17 - Barkley 1-0. Struck up a great conversation with a lovely woman and her daughter, locals from Kirkdale. She had been married in St Lukes church back in the day. I love meeting and chatting to staunch Evertonians who support the team so well. Part of the Fantastic Goodison experience. Might even get to meet the famous Abrahams family - real ToffeeWeb Royalty.

In the old Lansdowne Road there were similar pillars in the stands. At one match I heard a fan shout 'get out from behind the pole' - the matchday experience eh ?

I don't quite understand your last paragraph. Raise prices and go for 60,000?

One of the laws of supply and demand is that you limit demand by raising the price. The fact we sell out every PL game and have a growing season ticket waiting list would suggest the price is set too low.

The club appear to be going for 52,000 in the knowledge that will sell out with some to spare. To control demand and waiting lists and to repay the construction debt the admission price will have to go up. Easier to do with a lower capacity!

I'd agree with Paul the Esk when he says 52,000 would result in price increases; it must do.

Meanwhile the RS go marching on and future scousers will be more inclined to support a winning team no matter how wonderful a new stadium looks on the banks of the Mersey..

Moshiri is right to keep the finances unknown, because the Everton's Senior Management have not got the expertise to implement a Stadium project and will eat up any money available and a overcost will be inevitable and a cock up. We have all been involved in this dance before and ended up on the floor with no money available. The clarity that Paul wants is not going to be available any time soon. There will be meetings upon meetings , headlines upon headlines , consultations upon consultations and hard hat upon hard hat. Yellow ones like Jim White's tie. Correction; Denise the marketing genius will think of blue ones.

A good analogy is a High Court case regarding property between two parties. There will be negotiation, talk, anxiety, bastards, and a lot of sitting about on cold benches. At the end of the day the result will be :

Settlement plus Legal cost equals money available.

In other words a dance to find the money available. So what you do is to reduce the money available and hopefully you are still standing at the end of it, with a clean suit.

Capacity, Ticket Prices and Fans will be a secondary consideration.

I think it is great that fans like yourself make the effort to see The Blues from distant places, I would love to have a drink or two with you next time you come to Liverpool, couldn't make for the Saturday after the Burnley game.

Good luck and good health for the future to you and your family.

I was merely asking the question that if the site has such limiting factors, be it planning, heritage, spacial or cost or any combination thereoff, how did it ever pass that first test of suitability?

At first glance, reading between the lines, it would appear to have potentially all of these issues, and therefore I'm not sure how it ever got past "go" in the first place. I mean, how many problems do you want to overcome, at what expense, and why?The initial attraction may have been the prestigious waterfront location, Liverpool Waters developers, LCC prompts, commonwealth games funding, Other property/commercial enablers? Who knows? However, as with Kirkby or WHP it does seem a little bit like a spark of an idea, with a modicum of backing from a third party, and we instantly throw all our eggs into that basket, and proceed to make the problem fit the new chosen solution.

Perhaps the first consultation should've posed the question: would you prefer a 52k seater stadium "on the banks of the royal blue mersey" for £500m plus legacy development at GP, or to turn GP into 52-60k stadium for less than 1/2 of that (probably much less than that), with built in legacy, on the site of the world's first purpose-built football stadium?

There are many reasons why most of the bigger clubs chose to redevelop over relocation, and why the likes of Juventus opted for such a low capacity in their new-build. Of course, if there is a Mr Moneybags backer lurking, and we are no longer subject to those economic constraints, then perhaps we needn't worry too much about debt, or be overly concerned about our lost heritage. Not sure that 52k (with few apparent frills), and consultations on accessibility/transport (3 yrs in) represents a convincing argument for sound process and high ambition thus far.

It's similar thinking to the Football League who, at one time, were anti TV because they thought it would stop fans actually going to games.

Of course, what's actually happened is the exact opposite and there appears to be an insatiable appetite for football. Juventus has had to extend its ground and at a much greater cost than it would have been, originally.

Another reason Everton is selling itself short by aiming for a comparitively low capacity at B-M

Because there was no warm up track for athletics, the stadium never actually held an athletics meet.

The new stadium is 41.5k, with a retractable roof (the old stadium was open to the elements and the location fans were regularly soaked). It has a museum, shopping mall with restaurants and bars. When it was completed it meant Juve were the only Serie A team at that time who owned their own stadium, with most being municipally-owned.

Construction-cost per seat can rise dramatically while return/value per seat can diminish with capacity. Any excess capacity is a potential real drain, sending return on investment estimates right out of the window. So a lot will depend on the ownership, their aspirations and ambitions for the club, and where they see themselves in terms of their investment and timescales.

Juventus merely aired on the side of caution with their estimates, while creating something they didn't have already, a proper football stadium. Remember, they could've easily spared all the expense, stayed at the relatively modern, but large Stadio Delle Alpi, and simply stacked them high and sold them cheap like West Ham/ City do now (and still don't fill their seats). However, their gates fluctuated massively at the cavernous athletics stadium, and the atmosphere was poor, especially at lower profile games. By the early 2,000's their attendances and season ticket sales had plummeted. So, despite the fact that historically they had averaged well over 40k many times in the fairly recent past, they weighed up the cost of 40k+ versus 50k+ capacity, and plumped for the lower option. Saving a disproportionate amount on construction cost, increasing value
per seat by controlling supply, virtually guaranteeing full occupancy via new stadium effect, improved facilities, and knowing that the fanbase was comfortably big enough.

LFC have also adopted this approach in some ways, but with the added security of being able to add incrementally to existing structures. They have a far bigger fanbase and waiting list than us, yet look at the caution with which they've pondered any increases. Look how tight their ROI criteria is. No expansion is given the go ahead until the demand is tested and that return is guaranteed.

Conversely, we have only really achieved sustained full houses relatively recently (at rock bottom prices), and even if you add our apparent waiting list to current season ticket sales plus away allocation and new corporate capacity, we are only a few thousand above our current capacity.

So a lot will depend on the real size and spending power of our fanbase, the size and wealth of the corporate demand in this city and at this location, and if/when the investors/owners want to see a return.

Unlike redevelopment, for a new build every seat has to pay its way, which is largely why I still harp on about the redevelopment option and its conspicuous absence, despite the obvious potential for it to shift those cost curves to give a better short, medium and long term alignment in terms of cost/capacity. Again, it will depend on where our owner's approach lies on that spectrum: highly speculative like City to ultra conservative like LFC. The owners ambitions need not necessarily be the same as ours, as we are here for life. They might not be.

It's said that the extra cream on the top, those last 10% seats cost a lot more proportionally. To have them potentially empty for half a season, means no income from the seats you paid a premium to install in the first place...especially if you can't charge the all the fans that £77 to cover it.

Everything about this stadium is excellent and they, reportedly, have a turnover of 𧿘k (excluding ticket prices) on matchdays.

I'm even more convinced Everton is missing a huge opportunity if they go for an initial 52,000 capacity.