New Everton Stadium - Hill Dickinson Stadium


The_La said:
Basic summary I think:

Option 1: Stonebridge - cheaper, easier, quicker to deliver, lots of Council support, potentially less profitable in the long run, good transport links in a location no-one wants to have the stadium

Option 2: Waterfront - more expensive, slower to deliver, iconic, long term more profitable due to wealth of possibilities, more difficult transport links in a location every blue wants a stadium

Bottom line is how much is Moshiri willing to put up. If it's an amount which means we're flying by the seat of our pants and needing favours, then we'll be relying on the council and likely to be steered towards Stonebridge as a result. Plus side is we'd be out of Goodison sooner.

If money is basically no object then we should be pulling out all the stops and making the waterfront happen. All problems - transports etc - are surmountable IF the money is there to overcome. Downside is it may take longer to deliver.

Mr Moshiri - over to you.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that, it has fairly decent accessibility for cars. Not sure that the public transport links are as strong as the city center. City Centre is strong in public transport, SC is stronger on Car access.
 
Sure someone will have a more accurate measurement/guestimate than me, but if a running track is to be incorporated, then the field area would have to be somewhere around 170x100m to include bends.
Don't know what the footprint of the stands would be, but lets say 40 metres, so maximum length about 250m, width of 180m for the stadium itself.
No idea what depth the surrounding concourse would be.
Would this fit on Trafalgar Dock site.
 

KUEFC09U2 said:
Also if the council want to use it for the commonwealth games etc then surely they would part fund the stadium?, which lets be honest would be massively attractive to the club
Click to expand...

Firstly we have to bid for the Commonwealth Games, then there's a decision to be made whether we're actually awarded it, which is out of our hands, and we'd have to find money for a bid with a cash strapped council, forget the Commonwealth Games, they won't be coming here. The council want rid of a problem site and they'll tell us anything in order to achieve that.
 
Does anyone actually know these are the 2 sites they are looking at or is everyone putting 2 and 2 together and we are speculating on something that isn't being considered.

Things seem promising right now but how disappointed are we going to be when we don't get Mourinho OR the Waterfront
 
jaycee said:
So your saying that suddenly the river is a problem? How have we ever coped at land locked Goodison all these years
Click to expand...
What do you mean, 'suddenly'? Goodison can be accessed from all sides, and does not require entering the city centre first. A waterfront location can only be accessed from along the docks, or through the city centre. It'd be hell.
 
4737carlin said:
While people are talking about traffic congestion in the city if we go the docks, they are forgetting if we move to Stonebridge Cross, all those fans that come from Wales in coaches, through the tunnel from the Wirral, and from the south of the city such a Speke will have to go through the city center without stopping if we go out there. The docks gives extra options.
Least the docks can be walked to easily enough from the stations in town, but all that traffic will have to go right through the middle of town on the roads causing extra mayhem.
Click to expand...

If it were to be SC, surely the North Wales and south Liverpool traffic would use the M56/Runcorn/M57 and/or Queens Drive to get there?
Only the tunnel users would have something of the city centre to deal with?
For anyone north, south and east of Merseyside, SC would be far more accessible by road than the waterfront.

But the waterfront would be much more preferable as an attraction than SC.

It'll all come down to finance and timescales - SC quicker and cheaper initially I would imagine... the waterfront, slower and more expensive, but potentially enormously more beneficial in the longer term... and especially if trophy-winning re-appears on the Everton agenda !!
 
hibbo'sclass said:
Sure someone will have a more accurate measurement/guestimate than me, but if a running track is to be incorporated, then the field area would have to be somewhere around 170x100m to include bends.
Don't know what the footprint of the stands would be, but lets say 40 metres, so maximum length about 250m, width of 180m for the stadium itself.
No idea what depth the surrounding concourse would be.
Would this fit on Trafalgar Dock site.
Click to expand...

The Etihad Stadium once held a running track at a reduced capacity, the footprint for that would be similar, but with a further extended North stand, as that was all Scaffolding during teh games to allow for the overall length of the stadium to be reduced after the games. that was I think, circa 30k as a running track.
 

ForeverEverton said:
Does anyone actually know these are the 2 sites they are looking at or is everyone putting 2 and 2 together and we are speculating on something that isn't being considered.

Things seem promising right now but how disappointed are we going to be when we don't get Mourinho OR the Waterfront
Click to expand...

I reckon there's only one site and it's Stonebridge Cross to be honest, in the coming days the Echo and/or Peel will tell us why the Waterfront site isn't possible, you watch.
 
The Cowboy said:
What do you mean, 'suddenly'? Goodison can be accessed from all sides, and does not require entering the city centre first. A waterfront location can only be accessed from along the docks, or through the city centre. It'd be hell.
Click to expand...
Be a hell of a lot easier than a edge of city site served by 2 bus routes and no station close by
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top