New Everton Stadium Discussion

[wainy]

Some really great views in here re: goodison development. I vaguely remember toms name popping up years ago, maybe around the DK years, about how GP could be done up, however, we never had a pot to piss in and as he’s already alluded, the club had no appetite for it anyway. Regardless, whilst I’ll be gutted to leave the grand old lady, at least we’ll be moving to a great site close to town that has excellent development opportunities. I think once it’s built it’ll be spectacular, especially when the night games come along. The ship for goodison has sailed unfortunately and the owners want a shiny new stadium in the highest profile part of the city.

 

[Terrarian]

I could be wrong here but I think you missed the boat to redevelop Goodison like

 

[Tom Hughes]

Without naming rights it unfortunately doesn't make financial sense as the extreme cost even for an extra 20k seats won't give you sufficient payback. We are not Arsenal or Spurs paying London prices for those seats to cover the loan, therefore we would be taking away from the footballing side or if we have a good season break even. BMD hardly makes financial sense bar from the price of Everton Corp. afterwards, however if the naming rights cover the loan then least what we get from the extra 14k including better hospitality will go back into our pockets to spend on the team.

I remember reading Tom's work when they first entered the public domain and there is a lot to be commended. I was a fan at the time as if we didn't have a pot to pee in it was the ONLY way forward, start by adding a second tier on the park end and see where we go. But the timescales are optimistic (for a club with no money) and simply modern stadiums do not allow you to be sat behind posts which means the backs of the lower GS/BR under the overhangs would have to be closed, as too a massive chunk of the main stand. Or they get rebuilt completely. The phased redevelopment costs look now fanciful in the extreme, so he was talking about 50-70 million to get to a similar amount as BMD, by the time we got ourselves together financially it would have been 2013 ish to even start the PE development, taking capacity to 47k perhaps but then to remove/limit the restricted views we would be back down to 30 something and inflation meant we spent closer to 50m just to do that.

The external design is of one that only a mother would love, we might like it has it keeps some of Goodison but just like them lot love their stadium, we know it is a mishmash. After they complete all four sides in similar vein it might look semi reasonable, but it will have taken 30 odd years and a lot of money to get to that point. Certainly I think we all agree that BMD is a far better looking stadium than Anfield and that's what you get with a blank sheet of paper.

The figures are a bit dated now, but they were for outline design concepts only.... and were verified by 2 stadium design companies and an independent estimators dept, based on costs of similar projects at that time.

As regards the exterior.... they were generally left blank in any of the graphics I produced.... although an architect added a tower to one scheme to show how a substantial commercial enabling development could be built into the site to help fund it. There was no real effort to produce anything regards externals as I've always believed them to be superficial and subservient to internals for stadia. Of all building types only stadia are always best judged by their interior..... the arrangement of tiers and stands etc, as that is what will dictate its performance as a viewing platform, atmosphere enhancer and its general feel for the vast majority of our interaction with it.

As regards construction phasing and any remaining obstructed views etc.... again, these were verified by stadium architects and planners at the time. Obstructed views were very much dependent on the amount of refurbishment chosen.... but the scheme produced for KEIOC had only a very few remaining in a higher capacity (more unobstructed views) than BMD, with no obstructions at all on 3 sides and much reduced on the fourth. At levels of investment of £200m+ there needn't be any, with all new upper-tiers cantilevered or obstructed spaces re-assigned.

Whether or not BMD is better looking than Anfield is subjective and possibly quite irrelevant. They could argue that they prefer 4 traditionally independent stands with separate identities (they do argue this). They could also argue that they will achieve significantly higher capacity with a much larger corporate offer, all at a fraction of the price of BMD, snd they would be right.... all at a world famous site with history preserved. Paying it off far sooner and being able to invest in players too. If they get planning permission to rejig the Kop to safe standing at say 1.5 ratio they could even end up reaching 70k+. So will they really be bothered about BMD's shiny exterior then? Most Kopites I know hope we build it, so I'm not sure how threatened or envious they feel.

 

[Tom Hughes]

I could be wrong here but I think you missed the boat to redevelop Goodison like

The point is/was that boat was never allowed to dock, nevermind sail...... and a bit like how kings dock was brushed under the carpet, those reasons were never explained.

However, regardless that doesn't mean that that comparative benchmark doesn't always.remain.

 

[Crestfallen]

Tom, if say funding isn’t found for BMD, how likely is it they’ll look at Goodison as a fall back option?

 

[Bluerover]

irrelevant now as we are building on the docks

A rebuild of Goodison was never a feasible option with the disruption and possible legal challenges and delays for kicking people out there homes….not to mention the school abd that’s just for starters.

Agreed. The new stadium is going to dominate the Mersey especially for cruise visitors. The Liver Buildings might also be floodlit in Royal Blue.

No sign of the RS anywhere on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey ??

 

[Johnnytotal]

I like to remind people it's our 3rd stadium build ?

 

[MickA]

There are huge plans to develop the dockland area, BMD is just part of that.
The stadium will be a magnet for tourists and in particular those interested in sport.

I think this stadium can open huge possibilities for the club.

It will increase revenues through other means for sure but let's be realistic about it. All of the events mentioned will have competition from all other venues both in Liverpool and Manchester. There's nothing in the plans specifically set aside for making the stadium more 'non football' friendly than anywhere else (closing roof a massive missed opportunity) and nor do I see anything that will attract people to the site. It will no doubt increase if/when other developments happen but the idea that we open the site one weekend and it becomes a tourist/local attraction 24/7 from the next week is bizarre.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Nor is their shed currently as tightly constricted on three of the four sides as Goodison due to roads, multiple houses, businesses and a school.

It's 9.5m from the outer wall of the Bullens to the edge of No 6. on the corner of Bullens Road and Muriel Street. The Street End is a spacious 13-14m.

How Liverpool have got to this position, with their treatment of locals, is reprehensible and something that's been quite often lambasted on here, and rightly so.

That shower have amassed the land behind and to the side making it almost a private road. Where's Lothair Road? Kemlyn Road? Half of Alroy has gone.

This has allowed them to build/rebuild two of their stands and it'll mean the same for the Anfield Road because, to put it simply, they have the space to do so.

While rebuilding Goodison may have been possible, I suspect all the above amongst may other elements would have made it impractical.

We have done similar and before them too...... if you didn't call that reprehensible at the time of the Park end, you really can't do it now. Truth is, no-one batted an eye lid, and everyone accepted that Everton should be allowed to expand GP at their historic home.

I seem to remember that it was over 12m to the end terraces on Muriel/Diana streets..... but it was over 20yrs ago that I surveyed the whole site so I could be mistaken. I still have the clubs oen drawings somewhere, if i find them I'll check. However, the point is these are just a few end terraces and not a whole row of houses.... and sufficient space would be readily released for only a few of them. The school is set further back, is up for a rebuild anyway and doesn't have quite the same right to light issues as residential.
Put it this way, if the club were following that course, this would be a formality and a miniscule loss of houses compared to multiple large scale clearances around the city. When my familyvwere scattered from Everton literally thousands of houses were flattened... I'm not suggesting that is necessarily right, just providing some perspective.

LFC had to clear more space because of the nature of their build and the surrounding road layout. They were building onto the back of an already quite substantial stand to create a stand as big as those at Wembley..... we would be building at the back and above a much smaller and shallower lower tier to a subsequently lower scale.... using a more spacially efficient over-lapping format to save space. They couldn't do that because the existing stands were already quite steep and c-value led sightline geometry wouldn't allow it.

They bought most.of the houses, and used legal CPO processes to acquire the rest. Reprehensible? Perhaps, but they argue that they bring millions into the city and add prestige etc.... and therefore just like any business or infrastructure expansion they say that they merit such consideration for the greater good etc...... just as we did when building and expanding GP throughout its history (to ultimately host a world cup semi-final).... as did Villa, Man Utd, Newcastle and multiple others who have expanded their footprints.

There are always consequences..... the people of Vauxhall and the Eldonians could equally argue that they bought their homes and built their own award winning estate without having a football stadium on their doorstep. Similarly the well-healed residents of Waterloo dock who have also complained..... do you consider this a reprehensible infringement on their rights too?

 

[PhilM]

We have done similar and before them too...... if you didn't call that reprehensible at the time of the Park end, you really can't do it now. Truth is, no-one batted an eye lid, and everyone accepted that Everton should be allowed to expand GP at their historic home.

I seem to remember that it was over 12m to the end terraces on Muriel/Diana streets..... but it was over 20yrs ago that I surveyed the whole site so I could be mistaken. I still have the clubs oen drawings somewhere, if i find them I'll check. However, the point is these are just a few end terraces and not a whole row of houses.... and sufficient space would be readily released for only a few of them. The school is set further back, is up for a rebuild anyway and doesn't have quite the same right to light issues as residential.
Put it this way, if the club were following that course, this would be a formality and a miniscule loss of houses compared to multiple large scale clearances around the city. When my familyvwere scattered from Everton literally thousands of houses were flattened... I'm not suggesting that is necessarily right, just providing some perspective.

LFC had to clear more space because of the nature of their build and the surrounding road layout. They were building onto the back of an already quite substantial stand to create a stand as big as those at Wembley..... we would be building at the back and above a much smaller and shallower lower tier to a subsequently lower scale.... using a more spacially efficient over-lapping format to save space. They couldn't do that because the existing stands were already quite steep and c-value led sightline geometry wouldn't allow it.

They bought most.of the houses, and used legal CPO processes to acquire the rest. Reprehensible? Perhaps, but they argue that they bring millions into the city and add prestige etc.... and therefore just like any business or infrastructure expansion they say that they merit such consideration for the greater good etc...... just as we did when building and expanding GP throughout its history (to ultimately host a world cup semi-final).... as did Villa, Man Utd, Newcastle and multiple others who have expanded their footprints.

There are always consequences..... the people of Vauxhall and the Eldonians could equally argue that they bought their homes and built their own award winning estate without having a football stadium on their doorstep. Similarly the well-healed residents of Waterloo dock who have also complained..... do you consider this a reprehensible infringement on their rights too?

Honestly, I'm not well versed on how we went about owning the properties on Goodison Avenue and those on Walton Lane itself. Any details would be appreciated.

If, like that lot, we did it slowly to diminish the value of owners and ultimately forcing them out at a depreciated value then yes I'd call it reprehensible now.

Again I may be incorrect (I will check), however from recollection from the corner of No 6 to the Bullens it was measured as slightly less than 10m wall to wall.

No 3. of Diana was similar distance as this was part of a job I was involved in years ago. A standard UK road is slightly over 7m and then add the pavements.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was perhaps misconstrued as I was not suggesting I wouldn't want a redevelopemtn or criticising plans or ideals.

Personally, I would have (and still would) support any redevelopment of Goodison as I love the place, yet (a big yet) only if it was practical for the club and the area.

In my humble opinion, it wasn't and still isn't hence why I'm more than content with the move to BMD. As I said, while possible we have to consider practicality.

Look at Gwlayds Street School for example. How would that be impacted by a large scale construction project taking a significant period of time?

Would we be content to slowly buy the properties around the ground at a fair price or, like most large companies, would we manipulate to our own ends?

Again, I would find the latter avenue somewhat disagreeable when you consider our portrayal as a club with better ethics.

 

[Bluestar]

It'd be interesting to see how other clubs building new stadia have fared in terms of matchday versus non-matchday revenue.

If you're a Euro elite club I think you can make that pay.

I dont keep abreast of the stadium plans, but I dont think Everton are even looking to maximize space for corporate boxes to exploit matchdays are they?

That would be interesting to know.

Lhe location of this stadium will make it unique. I ti already drawing other development to the area so in a few years, it will be in a new district of its own.

I think that will be it’s USP for non match day events.

 

[davek]

That would be interesting to know.

Lhe location of this stadium will make it unique. I ti already drawing other development to the area so in a few years, it will be in a new district of its own.

I think that will be it’s USP for non match day events.

It depends what that mix of use is, I suppose.

 

[malcson]

It depends what that mix of use is, I suppose.

Yes, too much residential and it will end up like Man City’s ground and attract rules on noise abatement and not enough drinking and dining options to hold people afterwards that would then reduce the opportunities and attractiveness of non match day events.

 

[Johnnytotal]

Those wishing to discuss redevelopment of Goodison please make another thread.

Your ruining the only positive thread on the site.

Regards.

 

[arch stanton]

FFS, this is the new stadium build thread, if you want to carp on about redeveloping Goodison, start a new thread, its off topic in this one. Face facts, Moshiri is holding the purse strings, he wants a shiny new stadium on the docks and it is happening. He doesn't want to develop Goodison. Bore off onto a thread for futile discussions and leave this one for the new build.