New Everton Stadium Discussion

[The binman chronicles]

Anyone who thinks that retractable seating is a solution, doesn't really grasp how far the stands are behind a goal with an athletic track.

There's probably a gap of 40+ meters from the front seat (and no view) to the goal. Retractable seating might bring seats closer by 10 - 15 meters.

The only satisfactory solution that would be prohibitively expensive. Probably a temporary build, then a re-build, or else one of those mad solutions that even Qatar couldn't afford. The council would be better off building a cheap basic athletics bowl at Stonebridge cross - unless we foot the bill.

The council would be paying for either the temporary stand at one end (if it is a one off conversion) or a moveable stand (not retractable seating - the whole lot moves, whether that be 10/20/40m etc.) if it is to be a multi purpose stadium going forward after the event.

You would presume a council built stadium would cost 80-120 million. So putting that money into our gaff will easily cover the first option (bad for us though as it would mean we would have a 3 sided stadium until after the games) and i'd imagine a fair chunk of the 2nd option if we have the land to be able to do that.

It's whether that 2nd option appeals to Moshiri to be able to hold larger gigs, monster trucks, speedway, cricket etc. to put in the extra money to do this. It wouldn't really bother me either way as long for the football the stands are tight to the pitch. I'm just making the connection that 1) he looks as though he is willing to speculate to accumulate and 2) Dan Meis was talking up reconfigurable stadiums before he got involved with Everton, so maybe he was picked for this reason?

 

[davek]

3.17 Final modelling, using the SG Input-Output framework, shows the £530 million investment of the Games related capital programme over the six years to 2014 is estimated to have supported, in gross terms, on average 1,100 jobs and contributed £50 million to Scotland’s GVA in each year. Of this, the capital programme is estimated to have supported on average 600 jobs in Glasgow and contributed £30 million to Glasgow’s GVA in each year.

3.18 The SG Input-Output Framework was also used to estimate the employment and GVA impacts of activities of the Glasgow 2014 Organising Committee to deliver the Games event. Audit Scotland report the cost of delivering the Games event was £543 million. This includes £70 million contribution to the Games capital programme. To avoid double counting, this £70 million has been netted from the cost of delivering the Games, therefore, the sum modelled was £473 million.

3.19 The final modelling finds the £473 million spend by the Organising Committee over the eight years to 2014 to deliver the Games event is estimated to have supported, in gross terms, on average 900 jobs and contributed £40 million to Scotland’s GVA in each year. Of this, the spend is estimated to have supported on average 500 jobs in Glasgow and contributed £20 million to Glasgow’s GVA in each year.

3.20 Finally, primary data from the Games Time Visitor Survey has been used to estimate the economic impact of visitors to the Games. The economic impact of spending by visitors, volunteers and media is estimated to have supported, in gross terms, 3,575 jobs and contributed £124 million to Scotland’s GVA in 2014. Of this, at the Glasgow level, the spending by visitors, volunteers and media supported, in gross terms, the equivalent of 2,075 jobs and contributed £63 million to Glasgow’s GVA in 2014.

3.21 A net impact of the economic impact of Games visitors, accounting for displacement and deadweight, has also been estimated. At the Scotland level, the spending by visitors, volunteers and media associated with Glasgow 2014 and Festival 2014 supported, in net terms, the equivalent of 2,138 jobs and contributed £73 million to Scotland’s GVA in 2014. Of this, at the Glasgow level, the spending by visitors, volunteers and media associated with Glasgow 2014 and Festival 2014 supported, in net terms, the equivalent of 1,227 jobs and contributed £37 million to Glasgow’s GVA in 2014.

3.22 In total, therefore, the preparation for and delivery of the XX Commonwealth Games is estimated to have contributed, in gross terms, £740 million to Scotland’s GVA over the eight year period from winning the bid in 2007 to hosting the Games in 2014. On average, at the Scotland level, 2,100 jobs are estimated to have been supported in each year, with a clear peak in 2014.

3.23 Of this, at the Glasgow level, the preparation for and delivery of the XX Commonwealth Games is estimated to have contributed, in gross terms, £390 million to Glasgow’s GVA over the eight year period from the winning of the bid in 2007 to the hosting of the Games in 2014, and to have supported on average 1,200 jobs in each year.

For "estimates" read "guesstimates".

They make me laugh those claimed for economic multiplier effects for those type of events. It's all BS figures to make it look like public money thrown at something that will make the private sector profits has been invested wisely.

 

[Jacko93]

For "estimates" read "guesstimates".

They make me laugh those claimed for economic multiplier effects for those type of events. It's all BS figures to make it look like public money thrown at something that will make the private sector profits has been invested wisely.

Even if it was a 'guesstimate' and they were out by a huge percentage, then it still would have been a positive for Glasgow.

How can you use the figure of £80m paid by Glasgow and paint it as such a solid argument, yet refute other figures as "Guestimates" when they dont suit your twisted view? If they are do far out by those figures above, then is it beyond the realms of possibility that they are out by the same amount on the figures you have quoted?

 

[davek]

Even if it was a 'guesstimate' and they were out by a huge percentage, then it still would have been a positive for Glasgow.

How can you use the figure of £80m paid by Glasgow and paint it as such a solid argument, yet refute other figures as "Guestimates" when they dont suit your twisted view? If they are do far out by those figures above, then is it beyond the realms of possibility that they are out by the same amount on the figures you have quoted?

Maybe so, but the whole thing comes into disrepute by allowing for all of those possibilities.

 

[toffee-boy]

Just been down to Bramley moore dock for the first time, i was expecting some sort of smell but there was nothing at all. If you go about 300m past the dock then you can smell a little but where the ground will be it's absolutely fine.

 

[Nobby Nobbs]

Arr, Sunday walks down by the docks beats a walk in the park any day

 

[DerbyshireAndHarper]

The final decision on which English city will be chosen to bid for the CWG 2026 will not be taken until September 2018.
Elstone has suggested a timescale of submitting a planning application at the end of 2017.
Conclusion; the Mayor will exert substantial pressure on EFC to include a running track as part of the stadium design.
There may already be an 'understanding' there that it was contingent on getting LCC to provide the SPV financial arrangement. Who knows?
So even if Liverpool fail to be chosen we could still end up in a 'bowl' for the next 100 years.
I hope the powers that be at EFC have the foresight not to compromise the future of the club like that.

Except pretty much none of that is true or likely.
Mayor won't 'exert pressure' for there to be a running track.
Already been repeatedly established by Meis that it won't be a bowl.
There won't be a running track.
And the chances are we won't get the Commonwealth Games. They've already started publicly floating the idea of sharing with Manchester. 'Manchester could host some events...' (e.g. Athletics). It's dead in the water.

 

[Jacko93]

Maybe so, but the whole thing comes into disrepute by allowing for all of those possibilities.

So what you mean is, that by trying to disregard the information I provided to you, you have negated the basis of your argument. Well played.

Once again, you've delivered a wet argument in a paper bag.

 

[davek]

So what you mean is, that by trying to disregard the information I provided to you, you have negated the basis of your argument. Well played.

Once again, you've delivered a wet argument in a paper bag.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I've given you my honest opinion.

 

[Bullet]

Except pretty much none of that is true or likely.
Mayor won't 'exert pressure' for there to be a running track.
Already been repeatedly established by Meis that it won't be a bowl.
There won't be a running track.
And the chances are we won't get the Commonwealth Games. They've already started publicly floating the idea of sharing with Manchester. 'Manchester could host some events...' (e.g. Athletics). It's dead in the water.

The Mayor, who's clearly driven by a CWG bid, is already trying to influence things in that direction "Anderson has asked Everton to consider including a running track in the stadium blueprint.'
Meis implied approval of a bowl by tweeting 'no columns in a bowl' which received a backlash so he went on to say it's not a bowl, 'bowl is a generic term for seating/stands.'
I'm no expert but that seems to allow a lot of wriggle room depending on how you define bowl. Ultimately, it'll be his employers EFC who decide anyway.
The fact that Liverpool is unlikely to get the CWG is not relevant given the stated stadium timeframe. The CWG's decision won't be made until Sept 2018 and we all hope the design will have navigated planning by then.
If Anderson succeeds and gets his running track expect a PR job that'll try to convince Evertonians the design is an exceptional, state of the art multifunctional stadium that is definitely not, in any way, a bowl.

 

[gorgeousgeorgeEFC]

In the space of a few posts, we've gone from the Westfalenstadion to this:

Let's not get carried away. Dan Meis doesn't design crap football stadia.

 

[davek]

In the space of a few posts, we've gone from the Westfalenstadion to this:


View attachment 36149


Let's not get carried away. Dan Meis doesn't design crap football stadia.

Keep Anderson out of the frame or we will.

 

[Stephen Gibson]

In the space of a few posts, we've gone from the Westfalenstadion to this:


View attachment 36149


Let's not get carried away. Dan Meis doesn't design crap football stadia.

Does it come in blue?

 

[4737carlin]

Only time I've been a stadium with a running track was Nuremberg, it was shocking but the occasion made it acceptable.
As we have seen with West Ham it's not acceptable for Premier league football, and I can't see it being financially viable either, no chance of it happening. Anderson might be saying the right things as far as the city goes, and the games but he is clever like that. But there is no way we will be part of it.
That can go to Stonebridge

 

[davek]

Only time I've been a stadium with a running track was Nuremberg, it was shocking but the occasion made it acceptable.
As we have seen with West Ham it's not acceptable for Premier league football, and I can't see it being financially viable either, no chance of it happening. Anderson might be saying the right things as far as the city goes, and the games but he is clever like that. But there is no way we will be part of it.
That can go to Stonebridge

A lot of "clever' people around this project. Makes me nervous.

A lot of competent people would be preferable.