Mayor's Bramley Moore Dock Open Letter To Evertonians

Mikey_Fitzgerald · June 17, 2017

I can understand folks being cautious like, especially when you take into account all of the clubs past blunders

For me, this stadium is very much a case of "I'll believe it when I see it"

I'm not freaking out or anything, but I don't blame those questioning if the club will bollocks this up, because they've got previous

roydo · June 17, 2017

CrustySack said:
Iirc, the jumping events will be held at another location so it won't be as wide as say Glasgow.
I think you are on the right track (pun) with regard to one end being designed to accommodate a track. Anderson speaks as if by luck and due to the Meis design, that a track can be dropped in. I think the ability for the stadium to have a track was a pre-requisite long before stadium concepts were introduced. That irks me.

The time line certainly backs up some sort of, er, "discussion", taking place.

17th March. Durban dumps their CWG plans.

23rd March. LCC announce the SPV to underwrite stadium finance.

Baldynut · June 17, 2017

roydo said:
The time line certainly backs up some sort of, er, "discussion", taking place.

17th March. Durban dumps their CWG plans.

23rd March. LCC announce the SPV to underwrite stadium finance.

It was probably in the plans from the the start whether it was SC or BM
Dont forget LCC was bidding for the 2026 games

roydo · June 17, 2017

Baldynut said:
It was probably in the plans from the the start whether it was SC or BM
Dont forget LCC was bidding for the 2026 games

Didnt know that.

Magus · June 17, 2017

roydo said:
The time line certainly backs up some sort of, er, "discussion", taking place.

17th March. Durban dumps their CWG plans.

23rd March. LCC announce the SPV to underwrite stadium finance.

Don't think they move that fast Roydo, I think that they are entirely separate considerations but Big Joe is seizing the opportunity to piggy back on the stadium plans.

Bullet · June 17, 2017

nsno-chris said:
They would have made a profit by going for the cheaper option of dumping us in Stonebridge cross, lot less outlay, lot less hassle with regards to infrastructure.

It's about legacies, the same applies for the architect. He won't want his work criticised by future generations by building a complete balloon of a stadium that the fans hate.

SBC would have been the far easier and cheaper option but not necessarily the more profitable. In theory we could receive a public funding windfall due to the CWG which would drastically reduce debt and therefore increase share value all without costing the shareholders a penny.
As for architectural legacy the Emirates was lauded as a beautiful design by architects but it's a bowl that reduced the atmosphere they had at Highbury. Hence it's known as the library.

Baldynut · June 17, 2017

roydo said:
Didnt know that.

Yep....hence all the back scratching from both sides

bicycleheader · June 17, 2017

jonnyboy316 said:
If you read The dan Meis details out the new Roma stadium he talks about 'intimacy' and 'home field advantage' but the reality is the distances from the pitch are larger than at the new Spurs stadium

This is an interesting point which might have gotten lost in the end of your post.

Are the designs for either Spurs or Romas stadiums something that would be acceptable to fans worried about distance to the pitch ?

jonnyboy316 · June 17, 2017

CrustySack said:
Iirc, the jumping events will be held at another location so it won't be as wide as say Glasgow.
I think you are on the right track (pun) with regard to one end being designed to accommodate a track. Anderson speaks as if by luck and due to the Meis design, that a track can be dropped in. I think the ability for the stadium to have a track was a pre-requisite long before stadium concepts were introduced. That irks me.

Saw a suggestion from another poster on the other thread that we just build the 3 stands leaving 1 open end so move into an incomplete stadium making it easier to drop in and take out the track and the build the final end during the following season. In fairness that might work and leave us with a decent result although slightly disappointing not to move into a fully completed stadium

Eggsyblueskin · June 17, 2017

Bullet said:
SBC would have been the far easier and cheaper option but not necessarily the more profitable. In theory we could receive a public funding windfall due to the CWG which would drastically reduce debt and therefore increase share value all without costing the shareholders a penny.
As for architectural legacy the Emirates was lauded as a beautiful design by architects but it's a bowl that reduced the atmosphere they had at Highbury. Hence it's known as the library.

Problem for SBC would have been its inability to generate any non football revenue, which is the primary objective in any new ground. With TV revenue predicted to collapse significantly, clubs are desperate to create major alternative revenue sources and hopefully become self sufficient. Hence the aim for a multi use stadium constantly able to generate money on non match days. In this context building on SBC would have probably been pointless. There isn't much interest in holding events on a piece of grubby industrial land on the outskirts of a city. We would have probably struggled to raise the investment to get it built in any case.

jonnyboy316 · June 17, 2017

bicycleheader said:
This is an interesting point which might have gotten lost in the end of your post.

Are the designs for either Spurs or Romas stadiums something that would be acceptable to fans worried about distance to the pitch ?

The Roma stands are 8.9 to 11.7m away from the pitch for a 52k stadium. Spurs are 4.9 to 7.9 for 61k. Spurs would be very acceptable whilst Roma disappointing.

orly · June 17, 2017

DerbyshireAndHarper said:
Yeah, and I also said 4 steep stands, 58000 capacity and no running track.

One of these things has already come true. As will the other two.

@tommye

Which one mate, you'll have to be more specific as we sort through your stream of lies and the lack of er, plans for the stadium.

-60000 seater stadium at Bramley Moore Dock.
-4 stands, all enclosed, rectangular shape, brick exterior based on the dock warehouses.
-Stadium design will win awards and cause amazing levels of red jealousy.

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/new-stadium-discussion.66451/page-1762#post-5337229

????????

catcherintherye · June 17, 2017

Trying to be as balanced as possible. On a positive note this involvement will likely raise the profile of the club. It will broadcast the stadium in a wide manner and regeneration around the stadium will be much bigger. If we have a direct presence (such as megastores) then visitors to the area will see our merchandise, and the "athletes village" nearby may be on or around club premises. Any sponsor agreements will likely increase on the back of holding the games.

The negative or potential worry is until someone shows us being able to accommodate 4 individual steep stands which are close to the pitch alongside a running track there will be scepticism. Thats not to say it can't be done, though to my memory it hasn't yet. Asking for confirmation from the club is important in this.

Secondly and I will keep saying this, we do need to ask whats in it for the club. The above is obviously all well and good, but we are renting our home out for 4 weeks. Without the stadium there will be no commonwealth games and the City will stand to make hundreds of millions from this in the longer term. It's not unreasonable for the club to be bold and demand a big fee for this which can they be repaid off the debt of the stadium. I would say we should ask for 100 million perhaps paid over 25 years, or effectively agree to wipe off the 4 million a year fee in exchange for use of the stadium.

I suspect that to get agreement for the stadium go ahead, in a difficult area and all the infastructure that will be built this is the compromise Mayor Anderson has compelled us to agree too. Of course if this is the case it will never be broadcast from either side, but I strongly suspect thats what's been agreed.

It will be fair enough if the stadium is good and what we are looking for. However the further away from a bigger Goodison we move the more questions and frustrations there will be.

catcherintherye · June 17, 2017

jonnyboy316 said:
The sides will be close to the pitch as they are having the jumping events that are normally outside the athletics bowl at another venue although I still have concerns about the impact on the steepness of the side stands. The ends are the big problem though. Perhaps they could have the main home end as close to the pitch as legally allowable and then have the second end miles back. You could have the away fans in this stand. So you will have 3 close to the pitch and one miles away containing the away fans so they can't impact the game.

Would be surprised if they do a temporary stand as that would not tie with the little information that has been shared. The comments make it clear that we will be in the stadium before the games, that the council are not funding and that the design is not being compromised. If there is a temporary stand surely that would have to be funded for the council and if there is a temporary stand it is clear the design has compromised for athletics.

If you read The dan Meis details out the new Roma stadium he talks about 'intimacy' and 'home field advantage' but the reality is the distances from the pitch are larger than at the new Spurs stadium

We do not want a replica of Roma's stadium. The distance to the pitch needs to be closer to that. I'd be very worried if he was working to those parameters to be honest.