New Everton Stadium Discussion

[maccavennie]

Are there more rows to add to the stands? Looks like there are about 15 to 20 rows missing as we get to pitch side.

Is it for access and they go in last?

Yep

 

[AndyRJ]

I think it’s context.

The Main Stand towers over the houses and the other stands. It looks massive because of what’s around it, and how close you walk to it down Goodison Road.

There’s very little to calibrate the height of the new stadium: there are no houses, and it’s not possible to get as close to it as Goodison at ground level yet.

It is also a fairly universal height, so none of the stands seem to soar above the others.

That and the lower half of all the stands are missing which makes them seem a lot smaller.

 

[maccavennie]

My 2 favourite things to lie about on GOT in 2022 were

1. A pitch won't fit at the new stadium
2. Dele Alli is still on loan to us from Spurs

 

[arch stanton]

Are there more rows to add to the stands? Looks like there are about 15 to 20 rows missing as we get to pitch side.

Is it for access and they go in last?

its to make sure the running track can fit in

 

[Johnnytotal]

My 2 favourite things to lie about on GOT in 2022 were

1. A pitch won't fit at the new stadium
2. Dele Alli is still on loan to us from Spurs

I was serious on pitch size and still have a slight doubt.

Waiting on a overhead drone image to take a proper measurement still.

 

[allen]

I was serious on pitch size and still have a slight doubt.

This is definitely something that no one would think about before building a £700 million stadium.

 

[MikeH72]

My 2 favourite things to lie about on GOT in 2022 were

1. A pitch won't fit at the new stadium
2. Dele Alli is still on loan to us from Spurs

You mean he isn’t?

@Nymzee

 

[Nymzee]

You mean he isn’t?

@Nymzee

Definitely is. 6 year loan, £40m obligation after 1

 

[AndyRJ]

I was serious on pitch size and still have a slight doubt.

Waiting on a overhead drone image to take a proper measurement still.

Don't get me wrong, mistakes are made in all walks of life and particularly in the construction industry but rest assured, there is absolutely no chance that the pitch is the wrong size or the stadium too small to fit it!

 

[The binman chronicles]

I was serious on pitch size and still have a slight doubt.

Waiting on a overhead drone image to take a proper measurement still.

It's why they haven't installed the lower half of the stands yet. Those might be some of the steepest in the world if there are any problems...

 

[Tom Hughes]

Mate there is about 18 months left of the build.

Its pretty much been funded by Mr Moshiri since the first spade was in the ground. By the sounds of it a new investor will be ponying up the remaining %

It's not necessarily about whether or not Moshiri and his pal can complete this. It is how that debt is funded going forward. The financial model from the start was Moshiri (Usmanov) funding the initial phase. With the club securing a loan for the balance.... presumably for reasons of ROI/managable-debt/future sale. This debt was then to be covered by the increased revenue (with little or only very broadbrush projections of this in planning docs) and also by very lucrative naming rights via USM (who paid £30m, just for first dibs and to hide an earlier debt). Leaving a balance for increased team investment.

That Loan has not yet been secured and the owner has had to fund the lot thus far. Why is that? We have no idea how big and where the debt will ultimately land.... the club or potential new owner? Previous debts have already been capitalised and the last few years we have registered substantial losses. As with FFP, at some point the equation has to balance. Unfortunately, the build cost has risen by 50% (according to Moshiri), the sugar daddy has been sanctioned and no-one appears to be prepared to offer favourable loan terms and Moshiri is already touting for investors (or buyers).

That financial disparity conundrum might have to be resolved if the stadium was 18 days from completion, nevermind 18 months.

 

[blulouie]

It's not necessarily about whether or not Moshiri and his pal can complete this. It is how that debt is funded going forward. The financial model from the start was Moshiri (Usmanov) funding the initial phase. With the club securing a loan for the balance.... presumably for reasons of ROI/managable-debt/future sale. This debt was then to be covered by the increased revenue (with little or only very broadbrush projections of this in planning docs) and also by very lucrative naming rights via USM (who paid £30m, just for first dibs and to hide an earlier debt). Leaving a balance for increased team investment.

That Loan has not yet been secured and the owner has had to fund the lot thus far. Why is that? We have no idea how big and where the debt will ultimately land.... the club or potential new owner? Previous debts have already been capitalised and the last few years we have registered substantial losses. As with FFP, at some point the equation has to balance. Unfortunately, the build cost has risen by 50% (according to Moshiri), the sugar daddy has been sanctioned and no-one appears to be prepared to offer favourable loan terms and Moshiri is already touting for investors (or buyers).

That financial disparity conundrum might have to be resolved if the stadium was 18 days from completion, nevermind 18 months.

Where does it actually state the build cost has gone up 50% ?
My take for the 750 mil is 550 mil build costs plus the rest ie dock drainage & infill plus the rest of the remedial work.
I've not seen it anywhere that the construction cost that is ( locked in ) has risen at all.

 

[Paulie]

Has there been talk of increasing the capacity by 6k?

 

[TrailerTrash]

Has there been talk of increasing the capacity by 6k?

Wasn't that if safe standing was introduced?

 

[Tom Hughes]

You still haven't come up with any reasoning how Goodison's redevelopment would be any better from a financial stand point. Take 300 million which is what conservatively it would cost to do any reasonable looking redevelopment from the £750m BM is costing us - in the first 8-10 years BM would have earned the best part or even more than 200 million extra before Goodison actually gets to a point it's capacity has the 12k (or whatever) extra seats to start generating similar but still less money from GA. See how the gap narrows? For large periods of time of any rebuild there will be less seats in the ground than what we have now.

Go to your bank manager and ask for a loan and tell them you have no extra income to pay for it! BM generates more straight from opening day, 13k more bums on seats, more food and drink, more premium tickets like the tunnel club and lodge seating, more commercial opptunities because of where it is, naming rights as the cherry on top and makes the club worth a lot more in general. We can finance it securely as it makes us 40-50 million a year on top of what we have now. That's what pays for the loan.

Say BM wasn't a thing and we had stayed and extended the PE and had 6k extra at all times during the build (which we wouldn't by the way) we would be roughly earning 6-7 million more a season for the first 6 to 8 years. Is that paying for the 200 million you've borrowed so far to start the transformation. Is it worth spending so much if you are getting so very little in return? I'll give you a clue, it isn't. Every financial deal comes at a risk BM is worth that calculated risk.

Several clubs have shown precisely what you're asking. Many have also redeveloped without any loss of capacity throughout the build. I've explained it several times. The Parkend could be extended to add 6-10k with a corner section and the the bulk of a new upper Bullens would be built above and behind the existing stand joining onto the extended Park end. Then the existing upper removed in close season and lower extended/reprofiled to add more new capacity. Much of this could be achieved at less cost per seat than the Anfield stands, as the construction volume is substantially less due to the considerably lower starting height. Therefore, the cost could be substantially lower than £300m, again as shown by these and other extensions elsewhere.

Approx 28-31k+ of the current capacity is reusable. There is no way that adding 21k or even 30k high value capacity to that will need to come close to the cost of half that of BMD..... and even it was that gap could never be narrowed. In fact, £300m would probably take that capacity comfortably over 60k with more corporate and more boxes than BMD.

That's why the majority of larger clubs have opted for redevelopment. Why the Bernabeu and Nou camp are doing similar... neither of those will look like cheap addlibs. Of course that's before you factor in the value of preservation of history or tradition or removing risk of unproven transport plans.