Building for capacity at Bramley-Moore Dock

The time for doing major work, like adding seats, is now. If we only have the option of adding capacity further down the line, it might never happen.

For safe standing to mean anything it has to be behind the goal... our goal, not tacked on up in the gods somewhere.

Anyway, it'll never happen, there might be an initial novelty demand, but I can't see 8,000 people wanting to stand for 2 hours, every game, every season.

I also think 52,000 is too small.

I would imagine those gates to be capable of 65,000 so we are thinking small and losing an opportunity.

I really believe that 60,000 capacity is required from the off.

Plus make sure away fans are up in the gods, preferably behind a Perspex collapsible screen so noise is a minimum. Kopites would loathe that with their smart-arse banners.

Please don't waste another great opportunity.

It's standing, Gordon @7, but not as we know it, not as we knew it in the 60s – the clue's in the name 'safe'.

Historically, the peak games , apart from the odd cup tie, were against Liverpool and the Mancs.

Finance won't be easy and is quite possibly a biggest restrictor on capacity, not lack of demand. It's widely quoted that those last 10k seats are more expensive than the first 10k, especially on a somewhat restricted footprint...

Somebody has done those finance / demand / space / ticket returns sums – 52,000 it is and I don't believe a word of those 'we can increase it later' claims.

Will
Never
Happen.

I'm not saying that 52,000 is the right size only that it's not just a case of 'bigger is better'. Presumably they have done the attendance projections; if they think there will only be demand for 50,000 tickets every week, then there's little point building a 60k stadium.

Having said all that, I'd hope for 55,000.

Given how much those extra seats will cost to build, we will struggle to service the debt, and the knock-on effect will be a complete freeze in player recruitment, like Spurs are seeing due to their over-run.

Your choice: 60k seats and a shit squad for years, or 52k seats and the chance to build and progress?

I think the club could sell 45-50k season tickets for the new iconic venue without breaking a sweat.

How about:

1) 52,000 and less potential revenue for players and less attractive proposition for players, therefore less opportunity to progress.

2) 60,000 and greater potential revenue for players and a better proposition for players and therefore greater opportunity to progress.

61,878

If we all knew the club would definitely have 5,000 or 10,000 tickets on general sale, then more less frequent (under 5 games a season) fans would try to get one. If there is a big game these days, there will be zero chance of a ticket for the occasional attendee.

In the days of paying at the turnstile, the range of fans was probably more varied. There was no commitment to once-a-fortnight for so many of us and, over time, with less opportunity, many of those fans have been lost to the club.

I have been back home many times over the years and thought about going to the match but have seen it sold-out and thought no more of it. I would think we could add 10,000 every week, no problem, and then wouldn't it be great to have a chance of a derby ticket or Man Utd, Man City, etc. No-one expects us to get 50-60,000 for a visit of Watford but not many clubs would.

However, for Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool, Man City and possibly one or two others, the ground would be sold-out. We can always offer the likes of Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool, Spurs and Newcastle more away tickets too if we think it would fill the ground.

The mentality of clubs changed with the all-seater stadium and the keenness of the clubs to get their money in early. This has been to the detriment of those on lower incomes, those who live further away, or those with young families and less time. Perhaps a change of mindset from the club would encourage more fans from the groups I mention.

After all, look around at Goodison Park or many of the Premier League grounds and marvel at the grey hair, and shiny heads. And people wonder why the atmosphere is so quiet. (I am 58 with a shiny head, by the way...)

Jeez, I wonder how Juventus manage then

And you are working on the ASSUMPTION that we will regularly fill 60k in order to get this extra revenue. The fact is for any game against lower opposition, or mid-week games, or useless Carabao Cup games, we will struggle to get near 50k in there. Completely wasting the extra 10-12k seats that we paid near 𧴜m for.

Filling them for 5 or 6 games a season doesn't justify the loss we will make on the other games from servicing the far higher debt. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Do you seriously think the club hasn't crunched all this data in arriving at the number that gives the best combination of revenue for the lowest Debt?

Also, the design apparently is meant to be intimate so the noise generated by the fans is intimidating to the opposition.

52,000 rising another 10,000 if need be is the club being realistic and covering its arse if they got it wrong!

Also, rail seating being passed for the Premier League is also a consideration the club has looked at. I think they're covering all the bases here? Makes sense to me anyway.

𧺬 million for 52,000 seats vs 𧼐 million for 61,878 seats. Sounds like a no-brainier to me.

Read the post above yours regarding demand.

New stadium effect + current waiting list + increased corporate and hospitality + better location + unrestricted views.

We'll easily get , per game and will be selling ourselves short. As for quoting Carabao Cup, does that mean we should decrease Goodison Park's capacity to 30,000 to accommodate these games?

We sell out 95% of the ground with 30% of people's views obstructed by pillars, you think we'll only get 7,000 or 8,000 more with a modern stadium?

Jeez.

I wonder did you read the piece Paul the Esk put out with his brilliant analysis of the real cost of large versus small capacity for Bramley-Moore Dock? I think he says the exact opposite of what you're saying here. He concludes:

"The argument put to me against a 60,000 capacity is either cost, demand or a combination of the two.

"On cost, I acknowledge there's an additional capital cost, but I'd argue that's countered by the benefit of much smaller required increase in ticket prices to fund the debt and provide income for the footballing side of the business, and an increased likelihood of full-capacity attendances, leading to future increased revenues over time.

"I'd argue that this greater initial affordability increases the likely demand for tickets, a demand which on many occasions I have provided reasonable arguments based on evidence to suggest 60,000 is entirely achievable."

Read the full article: Analysis of the proposed 52,000 capacity for Bramley-Moore, including season ticket pricing

I remember similar discussions when Liverpool where going to build on Stanley Park. Planned at 60,000, many wanting 80,000. The build cost would have doubled.

Dan Meis's initial plans are to build only one tier. This could be due to restrictions of the World Heritage Site or just too reduce costs. With the longer Stadium axis across the Dock (215 metres) Arsenal's, multi-tier, 60,000 Emirates would be too big for this footprint. IMO, the site, in this format, will only accommodate the 52,000 planned capacity.

How much capacity will increase if safe standing is introduced is reliant on the results of the government review. Even if passed, it will be gradual increases over a number of years. The rules at the moment allow 47 spectators to stand in a 10-m² area. From the initial Stadium plans, general seating is 460 x 800 mm; this would give a maximum ratio of 1.5 to 1.6 per seat. To increase capacity by 10,000 would require 20,000 seats converting to 30,000 standing places.

Obviously those events would be fantastic to host but they're not our bread and butter.

As for The Esk... what the fuck does he know? He's in the same boat as the rest of us! Guesswork and opinion based on homework.

I've got no doubt we'll fill 52k in the current climate for the vast majority of games. Additionally, the idea of expanding capacity in the future is (for me) a non-starter. It just won't happen.

Given the conservative capacity, I hope the plans are world class. If what is planned looks a bit shit, it'll be a massive anti-climax and we will all start kicking off before a spade is in the ground...

I take your point though. What with Brexit and all the other stuff going on and despite what they have in Scotland or Dortmund, I can't see any Government having the time or inclination, especially in this modern Health & Safety, snowflake environment, to reduce what has been the accepted safety standard for nearly 30 years...

It would, especially for Tories, be an admission that they were wrong in the first place... in fact, they are more likely to fit seatbelts to football seats.

Yes, I read Paul the Esk's post, and laughed my way through the entire thing. There is a reason he doesn't post on Grand Old Team any more, because he's been hounded out by everyone seeing through his utter crap, posted as fact, when in reality he is just guessing like everyone else and using completely flawed assumptions. He dresses it up in nice sentences so that people buy the crap he is selling.

I'm a CIMA qualified accountant, and my day job is financial modelling of large projects, so I have a vague idea what I'm talking about.

The Esk's posts are very basic, and assume a flat ticket price and full stadiums, vs fixed repayments. So yes, 10k extra seats x £X per ticket x Y games per season will get you an additional revenue figure. And this will be higher than the repayment figures, making it look a no brainer. However, the club will have done a proper sensitivity analysis of this, looking at trends in attendance for us and similar clubs, for all fixture types and they will have projected an estimate of the revenue we will get. They will also have factored in other revenue streams from the stadium, sponsorship, merchandise etc. They have access to way more data, and actual data that the Esk doesn't, yet people seem to believe him more – bizarre.

People seem to think that we will suddenly get thousands of walk-up tickets sales from moving, on top of the 10k waiting list. You don't think that the majority of the current walk-up tickets are purchased by people waiting for a season ticket? And the biggest factor that will ultimately affect our attendance is the performance on the pitch. Doesn't matter how big the stadium is, or how nice – if the team are playing crap football ticket sales won't be as high. And if we don't consistently get top 6 and European football, we lose a huge chunk of revenue. You can't factor that money into the equation as it is not guaranteed. If we achieved it, it will boost the transfer kitty, but have no bearing on the stadium.

Plus, we aren't a one-team city, so general premier league ticket growth trends can't be just assumed for us. The simple fact is our neighbours are experiencing vastly more success than us on the pitch and playing far better football, hence my previous comments that they will hoover up the vast majority of the neutral tourist tickets. And the same applies for a large chunk of the corporate hospitality. A trip to a game at Liverpool will just hold more prestige for some companies than a trip to Everton – it's a harsh truth, but it's something that needs to be factored in.

Our fans are blinkered. They think we are the best, we have the biggest fan base and that if we build it, they will come. The reality may be slightly different, and it's the clubs job to see through this and arrive at the correct conclusion.

I live in Ireland and heading to the Wolves game next week. The cost of flights, hotel, match ticket and spending money would cover a season ticket.

The match ticket is 㿗 to sit behind a post with obstructing views. In a new stadium, I and many others would go for more games but at the minute the only tickets available are poor view seats. So why go to such expense for a poor view of the game?

In a new stadium there will be lots of fans who will buy spare-of-the-moment tickets for various games who currently don't due to not wasting money for terrible seats.

You are right on one aspect, that we don't really have the facts driving the decision, and so can tell ourselves whatever we want to terms of what are the controlling criteria. Whether you have faith or not in the Club's sensitivity analysis means very little to me. Personally, I think it's driven by limitations of the site, its footprint, and perhaps Heritage considerations that are making it impossible to go larger than 52k. And I'm highly dubious of ever seeing it rise to 60k. And calling it "The People's Project" has actually put me right off.

But your ad hominem attacks on Paul the Esk do you very little credit in my eyes. I think he does an excellent job on the Everton Business Matters podcast and I'm saddened that Roger Armstrong has just up and left that august body of work — or perhaps he finally saw though the tissue of lies from Paul the Esk, and stormed out... GOT-style???

I know I should be impressed by your expert credentials, but the potential for accountancy bias, spin and ultimately disastrous catastrophe is all too familiar, as in any other industry, so forgive me if I don't buy into your stated position. I think it's called an Argument from Authority.

West Ham and Man City may provide proof of your position, added to the possibility that match attendance patterns could be destined to change dramatically in the near future (online streaming?).

I take it that the stadium is to be the key, but is the infrastructure development going to be in sync with the stadium? Is the club on the hook for all of it? The city? Or a third party? Just curious.

This all may be common knowledge to you locals, but I'm a long ways away and will probably never see a live match, so where they play is not so important to me as how they play.

One other question: What is was that old brick tower-like building at the foot of the dock used for?

If you want to have a look at other proposed development, check out this site http://tenstreetsliverpool.co.uk/. 10 Streets is an initiative led by the city council.

I think we will actually end up at around 54,000. I agree some fans have a over optimistic view of the size of our fan base as a couple of comments have noted.

What is inescapable is that a lower capacity will mean higher prices thereby suppressing demand. I have argued that a higher cost, higher capacity stadium should carry no more debt, the higher cost is to be met by shareholders.

We also must look at the marginal increase in income. A lower capacity stadium will produce a lower marginal income after financing costs under the model I offer, thus reducing the resources available to the club.

I'm not for a moment pretending filling 60,000 seats every week can be achieved without huge thought and effort. However that's exactly what successful businesses do, build capacity and create a market for their goods and services.

I've yet to meet a successful business or owners of a business who said "we should have started smaller". Almost without exception they'll say "we'd be even bigger today had we been bolder initially".

A high cost, lower capacity stadium is a significant risk to Everton as a business, and importantly, our commitment to affordable football.

If we're concerned that one day we might even need greater than 62k, then the dock is surely a complete non-starter.

Paul,
If the club shows that 62k seats will add say 50-75% to the construction cost, or that according to their data we're already near our ceiling in terms of attendances then the your argument begins to fall flat . new stadium effect or not. No doubt they'll claim one or both of these factors.

Meanwhile, as ever, the redevelopment option is completely ignored. The only one that offers the real opportunity to suck it and see, and at a fraction of the cost. No business case apparently . as Dan Meis might say go figure?!

Whenever you mention Liverpool abroad, you will be asked about the Beatles and the RS.