New Everton Stadium Discussion

[Tom Hughes]

With the greatest of respect city ‘centres’ move all the time. I’m an ex-pat and know more about Newcastle than Liverpool but I can point you in the direction of at least 3 historic centres in Newcastle. Bridge building, road building and I daresay cruise terminal building change the flow of people and business all the time. In. Most city centres the footfall goes to the newest development.

Yes, it is possible to shift focus but
the south docks have already been redeveloped, there was no major shift in centre of gravity when it was completed new infrastructurewas confined to Brunswick station which was happening regardless. Most of the developments in the north docks are just CGI soundbites. For 10 streets development in the North end there is the larger Baltic triangle in the south end that is already well underway. The focus will always revolve around the traditional centre: Liverpool One, the main transport hubs and the existing business centre, largest collection of civic architecture and Universities which will always employ the greatest numbers. At no point will BMD be at the centre of that. It will always be at the end of the waterfront development with by far the richest commercial development taking place on the more central docks. Where the high rises are going.... not BMD were relatively low level residential/commercial/leisure was planned. It would be just as easy to conclude that we've been given the cheap end site to bookend their whole development. Peel certainly weren't interested over 10yrs ago when they were approached by KEIOC...

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Your info is out of date pal.

Their last accounts ( for year ending March 2019 ) show a profit of either 2.8, 3.8 or 4.8 million on a turnover of 29.8 million

The 4.8 million is operating profit
The 3.8 million is profit after tax
The 2.8 million includes an accounting ( non-cash ) adjustment for a change in the value of their pension scheme

Consider yourself, possibly for the first time in your life, enlightened.

Do concentrate 29.8m IS less than 30m.

And the 3.8m after tax profit would do diddly to the gargantuan debt BMD imposes assuming of course we did somehow snaffle all the Echo Arena biz which is the overarching point of the question

Consider yourself enlightened by perspective - possibly for the first time in your life.

 

[Brisan123]

Maths?!

A stadium costing £500 m is going to cost us £25m pa to payback?

The interest alone on a £500 m construction loan is going to be 7%. And what about the capital?

SPURS got their loan at less that 3%
Say we pay 3.5 % , achievable on European and American markets with guarantees from our owners and guarantees on naming rights money etc
Our repayment would be as follows over 20 years
35 M a year
I have put an arbitrary loan figure of 500 M with Moshiri picking up the rest as he said he would
Naming rights should easily cover this

Loan Amortization Calculator

Easily generate monthly and yearly amortiztion schedules for a proposed loan with our loan amortization calculator.

www.calculatestuff.com

 

[Barry Rathbone]

Even without sky it is still a no brainer. ...

Sign that naming rights deal for 10 years and at the end of that period with the money Mosh has said he will front up we will probably owe around 250-300 million, if the going is good and we can sign an equal naming partner then everything is rosy.

Therein lies the humongous against the odds gamble.

Not because of "Everton that" but the unescapable fact that virtually every new build has caused clubs problems from downturns in form to descent into the lower divisions and for some the ignominy of liquidation.

 

[The binman chronicles]

I've repeatedly stated that I'm not advocating anything or touting for work. I merely wanted to refute the myth that redevelopment wasn't viable, and in the process have had to make some obvious comparisons, whilst also stating some reservations about the process to date and what we have seen so far.

It appears that you haven't read the pdf, or previous ones covering other approaches that featured at the time of Destination Kirkby...... because this is all covered. I have shown how redevelopment would readily get rid of most or even all obstructed views using a mixture of scale CAD drawings and sketches of schemes that were fully sightline modelled years ago. All for a small landtake. Trevor Skempton, Ward McHugh and others have done similar.

As regards old stands, the bottom 2/3 of the lower tier of LFC's current mainstand was built in 1906 and is far older than anything at GP, but you wouldn't know it looking at it now..... it also houses significantly more corporate than our entire proposed new stadium on its own. Man Utds mainstand was built in 1910.... there are are many equally old lower tiers at some of the world's greatest stadia as I've already mentioned. No one would call the Bernabeu a shithole because its lower bowl was built over 70yrs ago in the 1940s. The lower tier of Anfield's centenary stand is almost 60yrs old. 10 of Germany's 14 biggest stadia are redeveloped stadia and some date from pre-war.... so I'm sorry quoting the age of a few stands is meaningless. It's not about what they are now, it's about what they could be with some imagination and a fraction of the investment required at BMD.

I have seen the drawings of what you did regarding the main stand and like I said previously I was a fan - 10 years ago when we didn't have a pot to pee in. Then a cheaper and long term redevelopment was about as much as we could hope for.

But even with those just how the main stand is built you would have to get rid of 15 or so rows at the back of the middle deck to remove obstructions to be able to hold the balcony up.

All these stadiums you mention have fairly large footprints that has allowed the extensions room and if you are talking about Anfield what remains from that old stand is a bit like trigger's broom, as it was gutted completely and reprofiled.

I have cad models of the stadium with modifications, as I like you had a big interest in stadium design, but our stands are not like say the Leitch stand at Ibrox that had the standing area reprofiled for seating in a much better way than ours did.

To keep Goodison with some charm, instead of building on top of it the restricted views should be taken out by having cantilevered roofs on the GS and BR and installing boxes underneath to hold the upper tiers up and maybe look to buy up land around to eventually extend the internals enabling a more modern interior and a larger open area around the structure. Goodison road needs to be straightened where it cuts in at an angle, meaning places like the Winslow would be lost but that would give room for a new main stand and another tier on the PE with the corner filled in that would create two 'L's. The lower BR and GS and the larger PE and MS.

But all this talk is pointless as we have a very good location for a great looking new stadium. Time to let it go unless something happens to cancel those plans.

 

[Brisan123]

Therein lies the humongous against the odds gamble.

Not because of "Everton that" but the unescapable fact that virtually every new build has caused clubs problems from downturns in form to descent into the lower divisions and for some the ignominy of liquidation.

If the stadium is paid for by naming rights, that we presently do not get, and we get to keep any extra income , how will that negatively affect us ??
You don't think Usmanov will put 40 m a year into naming rights
Even if he cuts back on the Training ground naming rights that's still 28 m of a projected 34 m a year payback on 500 m loan

 

[The binman chronicles]

Maths?!

A stadium costing £500m is going to cost us £25m pa to payback?

The interest alone on a £500m construction loan is going to be 7%. And what about the capital?

Mosh said he was going to be laying down some investment. I would guess this would be in the region of 150 million. So I'm thinking 350 million loan if it comes in on budget and the biggy - I didn't say how long it would be paid back over. Could be a short time frame like 20-25 years. Could be 30-40.

 

[Pudsey]

BMD would not be competing with the Echo Arena for gigs, it would operate in a different sphere just like the Echo attracts different bands to the Academy. Any comparisons are worthless.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Tom I'm not going to discuss further the differences in developing a world class stadium from scratch on a water front that will be seen over the world over a century old stadia that will crumble or cost more than anything we will build there.

I'm not asking you to.... but it would be useful for you to at least give examples to back your sweeping statements.

State of the art? In what way? No closing or full roof? More so than say Spurs? Or Feyenoord's or Milan's proposals or any of the new generation super stadia in the US? With just 20 boxes and only 1-1.5k more corporate seats than at Brentfords 17k stadium? Where is the state of the art transport strategy, because so far it has been pretty much back of a fag packet?

 

[The binman chronicles]

Therein lies the humongous against the odds gamble.

Not because of "Everton that" but the unescapable fact that virtually every new build has caused clubs problems from downturns in form to descent into the lower divisions and for some the ignominy of liquidation.

When the going is good it allows you to keep paying off, if we lose a lot of money through TV rights etc. we can still weather the storm by re-negotiating the debt. We are not going to suddenly become broke by having to pay back 20 to 30 million a year.

We were paying 7 million just in interest in the early 00's when TV rights were far smaller and the return from Goodison was less too. I'd rather pay 7 million on something tangible that makes more money than on diddly squat.

 

[Barry Rathbone]

If the stadium is paid for by naming rights, that we presently do not get, and we get to keep any extra income , how will that negatively affect us ??
You don't think Usmanov will put 40 m a year into naming rights
Even if he cuts back on the Training ground naming rights that's still 28 m of a projected 34 m a year payback on 500 m loan

There seems an air of miraculous fantasy about this people are hanging their hat on Usi coughing virtually unprecedented amounts year on year for lord knows how long no matter what happens. If the cack hits the fan owners/investors cut and run and those clubs building new have overwhelmingly experience of this. I just find it difficult to supplant facts with fantasy I'm sure the "credit crunch" started like his.

 

[Brisan123]

There seems an air of miraculous fantasy about this people are hanging their hat on Usi coughing virtually unprecedented amounts year on year for lord knows how long no matter what happens. If the cack hits the fan owners/investors cut and run and those clubs building new have overwhelmingly experience of this. I just find it difficult to supplant facts with fantasy I'm sure the "credit crunch" started like his.

Lad you are from the @davek school of posting
Usmanov said in an interview that he will sponsor the stadium
He paid 30m to join a non existent queue to bid for the naming rights
Of course he’s going to pay for it

 

[Barry Rathbone]

When the going is good it allows you to keep paying off, if we lose a lot of money through TV rights etc. we can still weather the storm by re-negotiating the debt. We are not going to suddenly become broke by having to pay back 20 to 30 million a year.

We were paying 7 million just in interest in the early 00's when TV rights were far smaller and the return from Goodison was less too. I'd rather pay 7 million on something tangible that makes more money than on diddly squat.

We will if we do a Southampton or Cov.

 

[Brisan123]

There seems an air of miraculous fantasy about this people are hanging their hat on Usi coughing virtually unprecedented amounts year on year for lord knows how long no matter what happens. If the cack hits the fan owners/investors cut and run and those clubs building new have overwhelmingly experience of this. I just find it difficult to supplant facts with fantasy I'm sure the "credit crunch" started like his.

If it gets to the stage where USM can’t afford to pay 40m a year for naming rights then the world economy is knackered at that stage

 

[The binman chronicles]

We will if we do a Southampton or Cov.

With the greatest respect we are not Southampton or Coventry. It's no surprising that Southampton struggled seeing the Dell was what 14k capacity?

But even so I'd imagine the stadium is bought and paid for now. Which seeing even for a flat pack stadium like theirs would still cost over 100 million, means they aren't in that bad a place. Had we had the balls to move to King's Dock we would have been laughing. 30 million seemed a lot back then, just as 500 million does today. Who knows what it will seem like in 20 years, but throughout the course of the last 120 years it shows it will be more manageable than it is now.