Everton announce date of planning application submission

52,000 - How uncharacteristic of the Everton Board to be so unambitious!

It's taken a while but hopefully we're getting there. I remember the euphoria of the King's Dock – without doubt, the ultimate ever proposal. Then the absolute nightmare of Kirkby – on that alone, Kenwright should never be forgotten or forgiven.

Hopefully an end is now in sight and my thoughts are given to all the lads unfortunately no longer with us that fought so hard to stop Kirkby and who will never see our new home.

Good to hear, this project, unlike the Kings Dock and Kirkby, it has been thought out methodically, from the start to when it will be finished. There has been no rush as per the previous stadium attempts, and as they say Everton have got all their ducks in order.

Hope I am still around to see Everton play at this venue.

I thought they may have kept this announcement until Monday.

I swear if this stadium gets blocked, it will tip a lot of us Blues to the very brink.

Please give us some good news in the New Year that the application has been accepted.

The Winter Solstice. What sorcery is this?

Ah well, at least Christmas is around the corner.

I'm pleased that the December timescale for submission of the planning application will be met.

Also, that only relatively minor amendments to the proposals previously presented are being made, and those amendments seem to have taken on board some suggestions made in the consultation process.

Apart from disquiet about the cost of the new stadium, and the debt it may load on the club, I'm going to remain positive about these plans because the alternative is stagnation and decline.

I'm quite sure everyone is thrilled with the stadium announcement, especially the hardcore, local Blues. Everyone should be very, very happy and hopeful.

You'd hope this announcement about Bramley-Moore Dock is genuine and not a smokescreen...

"You'd hope this announcement about Bramley-Moore Dock is genuine and not a smoke screen..."

I give up! I'm stabbing myself to death with a blunt spoon as we speak!

Tony, get yerself in to The Saddle (the one near the ground not the one in town) on the 18th before the Leicester game and I'll buy you a birthday pint or two, and yer aul fella — and you, Derek!

I hope they do a bit more with the inside of the ground. The exterior is spot on, really beautiful, but I found the inside a little bit more bland - though I still generally like it. I know a few ideas were floated on these pages.

Was anyone else a bit confused when the initial designs were released... depending on which pic you look at the main stand looks either three-tiered or two-tiered.

(And in the first pic, some terrific pressing by the Blues/shocking defensive shape by the away team... I think the artist might need some schooling here from Steve F, and yes I spend too long staring at EFC-related material.)

A bit of moaning about the election result seems reasonable today, but agreed; best heading to other thead for the politics stuff.

Good news on the stadium!

I could look at that three-tiered link for hours, Jim, because it makes the stadium look vast, steep and compact, but the two-tiered link just makes it look like just another football ground.

Good news on the stadium.

I really do think the capacity is too small. If we fit 39k into a dated stadium with many restricted views, then I'm sure we would easily manage well over 50 thousand every game.

Liverpool are going for over 60k, I know a lot fly in and travel from London, Devon and everywhere but I still feel it's an opportunity missed.

52k capacity not enough?

We're going to increase our matchgoing clientele by 33% to fill that.

Does anyone really think we can increase our attendance by 54% to fill a 60k stadium?

I don't!

Brian, when you think we used to get over 60,000 at Goodison it would appear that, so long as we're good on the pitch, we'll get the gates.

Build it and they will come.

Stan, we used to get over 70k "in the old days."

That was then, this is now.

Just my opinion mate.

Stan, in our entire history we have only averaged over 50k ONCE! In 62-63.
Okay, I've been at Goodison with 70k packed in on several occasions but they weren't all Blues!

Let's be realistic and have a full stadium every week with the room to expand if necessary.

It won't be 52,000.

Why are people surprised when some poster is all to keen to piss on anyone's chips on TW? Everton could post they're building a stadium better than the Bernabou or the Birds Nest in China, and some fool would take umbrage.

I love being part of ToffeeWeb and posting, but honestly, it sucks the life out of you sometimes. Social media gives you the capacity to voice your concerns or plaudits, but on the flip side.

Brian @38 & Ray @41:

All I'm saying @37 is that if we improve on the pitch there's every reason to think we'll easily fill the new stadium of 52,000. Then, given that, (I believe) there's an option designed-in to expand to over 60,000, that option could be exercised if it turns out we're easily filling the 52,000-seater stadium.

Of course, if we don't improve on the pitch, then none of this filling of the stadium may happen. But surely we have to be positive and work on the basis of becoming a top side, which is partly what the stadium is for. It's all a question of risk, but risks can be directed in various ways with good management.

I'm with Joe @39 and Stan @37 on the capacity issue. While 60,000 may be a bit ambitious, I do think 52,000 may prove to be short-sighted, especially if as we all hope things get better on the pitch.

West Ham are getting steady gates of just under 60,000 this season; I'm guessing that, before they moved, some of their fans wouldn't have thought they'd get that number. Where did they come from? The old Upton Park had far less capacity.

I'd hate us to underestimate our numbers and then have to start building again not long after the ground opens. I suppose it's a crapshoot either way, but I just have this feeling that 52,000 is the wrong figure. With that logic, it's a good job I'm not an accountant, I suppose.

Stan, and what I'd say is that Man City, who are an absolute joy to watch at times, and have won trophy after trophy, don't always fill the Etihad with a capacity of 55k.

I, personally, don't think we'll get a 33% increase, week-in & week-out, and as for a 54% increase...

Not sure of the percentage we are obliged to give to our opponents but I'm certain other clubs would sell their allocation, given the opportunity to go to a decent ground close to "party central", weekend Liverpool.

I have spoken to fans of other clubs who, whilst admiring Goodison as a traditional ground, are put off paying for and travelling to a decrepit bit of seating. So, if we had 60,000 and gave, say 5,000 to the opposition, then these seats would be taken up (I think).

We all want a bigger stadium, but that is very true about Man City, Brian, and when you spell it out like you have just done, you certainly make a lot of sense.

I personally think standing rails might be in vogue within the next 3 years, and maybe this is what will lead to an increase in capacity without having to extend on the original plans?

I agree, Tony. I think that's what the club is sort of banking on for the increase, should it be necessary. I did some cursory calcs when all the figures were released and the introduction of the rails could easily take us from 52k to 60k and possibly even beyond that.

Let's hope and pray we need it!

23 December! It´s like the government slipping in an unpopular bill whilst no-one is watching.

My opinion is that 52,000 in a state-of-the-art stadium with unrestricted views, even with the underperforming team we currently have, is far too low. My fear is that, because demand will, almost certainly, exceed supply, it will give the club the excuse to hike admission prices rather than expand.

It's a different world today in that we are constantly brainwashed with football which creates the demand. Most Premier League clubs sell out on a regular basis so their average is usually pretty close to capacity.

Back in the 1960s, crowds fluctuated, depending on the opposition and the weather, because most didn't have season tickets, travelled to the game by public transport, on foot or, like me, by bike. Most of the terracing was open to the weather so, if it was pouring down, you got really soaked. Heavy rain before a game could knock 1000s off the anticipated attendance.

In the 1962-63 season, as in most seasons of that era, crowds ranged from 70,000+ for the big games to under 40,000 for the likes of Blackpool etc. Goodison held well over 70,000 but no-one ever suggested reducing the size of the ground to 50,000 on the reasoning that the season average was usually below that.

Even with admission prices being a shrinking percentage of club revenue, I feel starting at 52,000 is a huge missed opportunity and puts us firmly in with the middle-ranking clubs such as Newcastle.

Practically and financially, a stadium of 60, 000 capacity is needed. I am sure the capacity will eventually be 60, 000 when it is actually built.

I agree that 52,000 is not enough. 60,000 about right. Minimum 57,000.

We made this mistake once before building a small Park End (6,000 seats) 25 years ago. The Board, including Kenwright, had no vision for the future.

Everything points towards people attending more ‘events' in the future. Meanwhile, people play football less. It's evolution and time the Board opened their eyes. Imho, of course.

Bill,

You have to bear in mind too that, in the '50s and '60s, nobody knew what the attendance was because half the crowd never “officially” paid at the gate. It was just a couple of bob to the turnstile operator. All the kids just bunked over the turnstile too.

Those bastards must have been millionaires... Wembley was the same. We went down on a full coach and only me and my brother had tickets — The whole coach got in!

I was recently in Istanbul and privileged to be taken by a Galatasaray fan to the Turk Telecom stadium to watch their Champions League match vs Club Brugge.

The stadium was built about ten years ago, with a 52,000 capacity, has four stands close to the pitch and enclosed corners. Externally and internally there are similarities to the designs we have seen from Bramley-Moore Dock. I was therefore more than a little interested to see what the atmosphere was like.

I've been watching live football since 1969, mainly at Goodison but also some of the other grounds in the UK, Germany and Spain. My experience at the Turk Telecom stadium was on a different level and like nothing I have ever experienced before. It was helped by the pre-match build-up in our approach to the stadium and in the fan zones.

Once inside and an hour before kick-off, the ultra fans in the home end were already massed, jumping up and down and raucous. From then on, on all four sides of the ground, the fans created the most incredible atmosphere throughout.

Not only were the home fans passionately supportive of their own team, but they created an incredibly intimidating environment for the away team for the entire 95 minutes. At the end of the match, I asked my pal whether the atmosphere was always like this. He said, "Yes, for every game, but you ought to see it for the big matches!"

A well-designed stadium of 52,000 filled with passionate Evertonians can create a bear pit of a kind we all want our place to be. I hope future visitors to the Bramley-Moore Dock stadium will come away as impressed as I was after my experience at the home of Galatasaray.

John; it was only a couple of bob to get in, anyway!

Those bench seats at Wembley were seriously over crowded, though!

60,000 minimum in my opinion. As per comments above, just look at West Ham averaging close to 60,000 from an Upton Park average of around 35,000 in 2015. That's West Ham for goodness sake – the proverbial ping pong club with nothing like our pedigree of big club support and top-flight consistency.

Spurs have gone from a similar figure at White Hart Lane to 62,000. Newcastle another case in point. Neither of these are bigger or better supported than us.

What are we afraid of? And even if it does end up being difficult to fill, an imaginative pricing structure can always be looked at – especially to attract the youngsters.

I think 60,000 it should be, the shite are going for the same, we should also it will be filled every week.

I think our new stadium will have 60.000 capasity.
Its 52,000 seats with 8000 rail seats built into the design.
These are locked for 52,000 games,8000 unlocked to give the extra 8000 spectators when its decided to increase capasity.
The new legislation required should be approved by 2023.
They are spread around different parts of the ground.
So we have 44,000 permanent seats,8000 safe standing rail seats as I understand it.
The extra services are in different sections.
8 000 extra seats would be the most expensive according to Meis.Mayne £60 million.This way we get 60,000,in for the price quoted.£500million still a shit load if we don't get ourselves sorted on the pitch.We gotta have some champions league seasons.

No sure if there is capasity to increase to another 5000 rail seats taking it to to 13,000 standing,65000 toatal.

So 60,000.

Let's not get carried away, lads, as soon as it's submitted it will be Christmas then the weekend followed by New Year. After a few minor problems are fed back for clarification and any changes before submitted to a Council Meeting it will be near the end of February and we might have an idea how close we could be to the relegation zone. After that then necessity is the mother of invention.

It should be 60,000 before rail seating and the rail seating should only be the entire blue wall section.

Why not build the stadium so that it doesn't change for decades? The future add ons are for the old stadiums,the club should be incorporating maximum attendance increase in the designs to keep the overall look of the outside the same.