I'd be amazed if we only earnt £200,000 extra per match to be honest. 10,000 more seats, better corporate facilities, greater retail spread on site etc. should all see that go up considerably.
The club hold the figure of £6m additional revenue per year up as their golden "clincher"
"Look, look, and extra £6m a year. THAT'S how good Kirkby will be for us! David Moyes could spend that on players you know."
That's roughly £200,000 extra per match
That pushes us to a whopping £1m per game
Arsenal take £3m per game
The club's own experts have come up with these figures in order to convince fans that Kirkby is the right idea. if anything, I would guess it's an over-estimate - because it's intended to impress and to sell the scheme.
You *really* think they're putting out conservative estimates?
These are the club's figures. They want them to impress people. If they thought the stadium would make more, they would put out a higher figure.
"Stability" perhaps - but when the fanbase is so violently split over the issue?
Then once they look beyond the "stability" of a wildly split fanbase, and see the figures, are they not just going to turn their backs and - yet again - look to a club with more financial potential?
Kirkby is marginally better than Goodison financially - which might be good short term. But what about the long game? Everton would be trapped at Kirkby for a minimum of 25 years. To expand beyond 60,000 stands need to be demolished and re-built.
If, as you the rest of the yes-men seem to think, we start winning trophies at Kirkby, then what happens?
Man Utd want 80,000 eventually. Liverpool want 70,000.
In a decade, if all of our wildest dreams come true, we could be stuck in a stadium too small for us with ZERO chance of moving for another 15 years.
Why settle for that?
Why condemn ourselves to that?
Look bigger. Look better.
Or as the current board would have us, "look cheaper" ?
