Goodison park or New Stadium.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The situation surrounding goodison is farcical. Here we are, an institution of the city, and we're hampered by a church, a primary school, and a poxy garage.
 

nigelcoyb said:
Not sure if he wrote the Goodison Redevelopment thesis on KEIOC but if he did he puts these figures on the Park End development.

"This basic extension could probably be achieved at a cost per seat of approx £1,500 per seat. The resultant capacity could be as high as 48,500.."
Click to expand...

Hughes has some interesting comments, but it's quotes like this that topple the scales. See also:

"There is no way that these developments would cost as much as an entire new build unless that new build was coming with massive enabling. Only a high-value city-centre or dockland scheme might do this..... a suburban park cannot."

He's making a very poor comparison--the costs of adding a small number seats at Cardiff and Wolves, which already have cantilevered roofs, don't necessarily translate to the the costs of adding seats at Goodison. He uses numbers from Cardiff and Wolves (around £2,500/seat), excludes the costs of adding seats at Anfield (£6,500/seat), which is surely a better comparison than the previous two.

And what about removing the obstructed views? I don't see how you can "add seats" without removing the obstructions, which others have commented here support not just the roof but also the stands*. I don't know whether this is true, but if so, "adding seats" or even replacing the roof becomes a rather complicated matter.

So I like the ideas, but I'm not comfortable with the conclusions. Let alone the fact that Wolves redevelopment took 3 years in the early 90's, prior to their plans to add the new seats now.
 
SerenityNigh said:
Hughes has some interesting comments, but it's quotes like this that topple the scales. See also:

"There is no way that these developments would cost as much as an entire new build unless that new build was coming with massive enabling. Only a high-value city-centre or dockland scheme might do this..... a suburban park cannot."

He's making a very poor comparison--the costs of adding a small number seats at Cardiff and Wolves, which already have cantilevered roofs, don't necessarily translate to the the costs of adding seats at Goodison. He uses numbers from Cardiff and Wolves (around £2,500/seat), excludes the costs of adding seats at Anfield (£6,500/seat), which is surely a better comparison than the previous two.

And what about removing the obstructed views? I don't see how you can "add seats" without removing the obstructions, which others have commented here support not just the roof but also the stands*. I don't know whether this is true, but if so, "adding seats" or even replacing the roof becomes a rather complicated matter.

So I like the ideas, but I'm not comfortable with the conclusions. Let alone the fact that Wolves redevelopment took 3 years in the early 90's, prior to their plans to add the new seats now.
Click to expand...
Points well made mate I know what you mean about the fella's comments I remember reading some of his Moyes cult stuff and thinking "bit short sighted there lad".

I don't profess to know the reality it's just as a layman a potential 48k Goodison for anything under 22m would get my vote. I agree it doesn't address everything but at least it's a start and as an old blue the idea of having a massive goal end for our support is a dream most of us have harbored since the 60s/70s.
 

Technically I have no doubt that Goodison COULD be redeveloped, but at what sort of cost? Take the roof, I see comments every so often saying that we should just take the roof off and replace it with one without poles. This is probably doable, but those poles I'd wager take a sizeable proportion of the roof loading. All that load then has to be sent to the back, which would probably mean strengthening work would need doing to transfer it to the ground, leading to problems with space, foundations etc. It's badly complicated, and it's just one thing. Say you want to extend the stand backwards, there's probably all sorts of underground services to deal with.

tl;dr? New builds are easier (Not better though, I'd love to stay at Goodison)
 
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
Tom Hughes is an enthusiastic amateur.

He's never put a cost to any of his ideas.
Click to expand...

I think he is slightly more than that, which any way doesn't make him wrong buy definition.

The Club are 'supposed' to be run by professionals and more importantly advised by experts.

Some of the 'facts' trotted out by these so called experts, have over the years, had Old Granny degsy's seaweed BS indicator turning a nasty puke colour.

I don't get this from Mr Hughes... hardly scientific I know

But if I had to sail in a ship built by 'professional experts' called.....* picks a random name out of the ether*.....Titanic

Or one built by an enthusiastic amateur...again with the ether... built by Noah

You won't find Old Ma Degsy's son in the White Star Line queue

You, on the other hand can choose to believe what you want and queue in which line you want...you can swim well I take it?
 
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
I've got a brace of season tickets - you?
Click to expand...

You'll be going 1st class on the titanic then...still the same result, just you drown with richer victims...anywho enough with the insults...it is what it is and you're not convinced.

For me it's all moot it CAN be done and (IMO) Should be done

But it WON'T be done as it doesn't suit the endgame plans;

i) hope to be bought out by some other fool with more money than sense

ii) get some other fool etc etc to invest and keep Boys Pen Billy on as President for Life whilst giving him enough to retire on and pay off the Earls & Greens etc who he conned/promised a quick buck with DK.*


* This is called the really really pie in the sky option
 
Last edited:

degsy said:
You'll be going 1st class on the titanic then...still the same result, just you drown with richer victims...anywho enough with the insults...it is what it is and you're not convinced.

For me it's all moot it CAN be done and (IMO) Should be done

But it WON'T be done as it doesn't suit the endgame plans;

i) hope to be bought out by some other fool with more money than sense

ii) get some other fool etc etc to invest and keep Boys Pen Billy on as President for Life whilst giving him enough to retire on and pay off the Earls & Greens etc who he conned/promised a quick buck with DK.*


* This is called the really really pie in the sky option
Click to expand...
Firstly my comment about Hughes was purely factual and not meant as a slight on the man. So most of your first reply is meaningless.

You imply that the owners won't redevelop the old lady as it doesn't suit their agenda. When the reality is that it wouldn't suit any sensible investors agenda down the cost and timescale of sorting the footprint.

This stadium issue debate is about personal preference anyway

Unlike your comment, mine to Cribb wasn't an insult btw it was merely another statement of fact.........
 
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
Firstly my comment about Hughes was purely factual and not meant as a slight on the man. So most of your first reply is meaningless.

You imply that the owners won't redevelop the old lady as it doesn't suit their agenda. When the reality is that it wouldn't suit any sensible investors agenda down the cost and timescale of sorting the footprint.

This stadium issue debate is about personal preference anyway

Unlike your comment, mine to Cribb wasn't an insult btw it was merely another statement of fact.........
Click to expand...

and these facts are... not I hope, ' just because you ( want to ) believe it so '

sources old bean sources...

I do believe previously around the time of the Kirkby fiasco that Tom Hughes stated, in broad strokes without naming names etc, that he has had a bit of experience in large building projects.

anyway some people don't want to hear other than the current version.

And yes, I do believe that the present owners won't do a phased redevelopment as it doesn't suit their agenda, their agenda should be what's best for the Club, not how to best maximise profit in a buy out.

I'm not against a total new build... if it were done properly ( KD ), but not if the result is, in the absence of a sugar daddy, or doing a Leeds, a bog standard flat pack in WHP

I just happen to thing that the best way is phased development and it IS possible without a big song and dance and massive one big lump debt

So for that reason, as of now - I'm out my 304.8 mm friend

Oh and in polite company ( here usually ) the polite form of address would be Tom Hughes or Tom or even Mr Hughes...not 'Hughes'... stinks of de personalising the messenger because you don't like the message
 
Last edited:
I would rather stay at Goodison myself if the opportunity to redevelop was a realistic option.

If we were to build a new stadium the only way I would be happy with this is if it was a traditional stadium with four sides and whee the fans are still close to the pitch. I am not a fan of these circular grounds at all
 
Elstone said at the time of the Kirkby debacle that Goodison could be redeveloped for £130 million.

It's definitely a realistic option for me.Especially with the money from the new TV deal to play with.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

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

Register

Shop

Back
Top