New Everton Stadium Discussion

Fair points, but I'd say our situation is a little bit different to those clubs.

Brighton is a reasonably sized city, with a population of around 250,000 and a huge catchment area for fans due to there being no other teams in the local area. They have previously had attendances in the 20,000s in the 70s and 80s but the sort of figures you're talking about came when they were in the 3rd tier, in an out of town stadium with no parking facilities, temporary seats, and a running track around the pitch. A lot more than the capacity of the stadium has changed for them, so the increase in gates isn't necessarily indicative of a long term increase in demand. Wigan is a good example to use to see what I mean by that. While in the 3rd tier they moved from an awful, awful stadium to a brand new one with a larger capacity but their average attendances remained under 12,000 for another 7 years before suddenly rocketing to over 20,000 for their first season in the PL. They remained around 18/20,000 for the duration of their time in the PL, but have been back below 12,000 for the past couple of years now that they're out of it. It wasn't the stadium which had increased their attendances, it was the fact they were playing Everton. Liverpool and United instead of Tranmere, Shrewsbury and Macclesfield. Similar stories can be found at Hull and Bolton, who've both 'lost' 7-10,000 fans since being relegated.

West Ham is also different simply because they're in London. There are 9 million people living in London, and a constant stream of millions upon millions of visitors, many of whom are all too happy to take in a game of premier league football while they're over. Fulham used to benefit greatly from those fans, and West Ham now get a lot of them, particularly as a trip to their stadium can be teamed with a visit to the Olympic Park and the country's biggest shopping complex.. I'm not sure that the population of Liverpool and the visitor numbers we would get could support the same easy growth that West Ham saw.

We need to increase our capacity substantially, there's no doubt about that, but I have to admit i'm slightly sceptical that we could improve our attendances by 50% overnight. Maybe if we were winning every week and had great players to watch, but would 60,000 be turning up to watch a Sam Allardyce team lumping aimless balls for Oumar Niasse to chase into the corner? Personally I would have no problem with a 50-55k capacity.


The Dell and the Goldstone for Southampton and Brighton made good business case for new stadiums (both too small and could not be enlarged) ostensibly, but Southamption went in administration and went down the leagues. Brighton accrued £150 million debt which the fans pay for with season tickets in the £695 to £740 range for most. This was without TV money in the second tier though so it was the new stadiums that put bums on seats. But the old grounds for both were unsuitable in the seventies.

Palace with a much larger population (fickle fan base) are going for an extension because of the cost and difficulties of a new stadium. Brighton built the Amex stadium with initial seating of 20K and then has to wait for 10K more seats on a slow boat from China. Both Southamption and Brighton went for capacities under what the fans might have wanted if they were in the top flight. So now it means large season ticket waiting lists.

With a large (10K plus, Spurs was 23K, Brighton is 8K) waiting list, the current climate is to build extensions (Spurs & Palace) get a stadium on the cheap (West Ham) as the figures do not add up in a business sense.
 
With a large (10K plus, Spurs was 23K, Brighton is 8K) waiting list, the current climate is to build extensions (Spurs & Palace) get a stadium on the cheap (West Ham) as the figures do not add up in a business sense.

Not sure I would call the build or the cost at Spurs new place an "Extension" mate.
 
The actual cost of Spurs new stadium is not that much, the only reason the figure has shot up to nearly £1b is that they have decided to build flats and a hotel and all that stuff on the same site.

And the NFL conversion thing. Either way, its deffo not an extension. They had to buy the land for one. And its certainly not cheap, even before the hotels and stuff. @Yid4life
 

Nobody knows the exact cost but it's hundreds of millions with or without the enabling developments.

And it's not, in any sense, an extension. It's a brand spanking new stadium.

Going to be ace by the look of it too. Will be proper jealous till ours is up and running!
 
Not sure I would call the build or the cost at Spurs new place an "Extension" mate.

OK, agree.

A new stadium with ancillary development maybe the way to go. A long term project out of London. Other clubs thinking along the same lines but this maybe 10 years into the future. Enabling developments as a new stadium extra income makes it difficult to justify the huge cost?

An extra 25k fans in the stadium is worth £25m a season? Maybe much less ? £15 million?

On a smaller scale, it can all go Bolton.
 
Last edited:
OK, agree.

A new stadium with ancillary development maybe the way to go. A long term project out of London. Other clubs thinking along the same lines but this maybe 10 years into the future. On a smaller scale, it can all go Bolton.

You talking about our new ground? Not entirely sure the point you are making. Probably my fault, not yours.
 
You talking about our new ground? Not entirely sure the point you are making. Probably my fault, not yours.

Probably, the point I make that the huge cost of a new stadium cannot be justified by the extra income through the extra fans going to games. In the short term, say 10 years. Plus the years for planning permission and building. Closer to it when the existing grounds like White Hart Lane are miles too small.
 
Last edited:

Probably, the point I make that the huge cost of a new stadium cannot be justified by the extra income through the extra fans going to games. Closer to it when the existing grounds like White Hart Lane are miles too small.

Its a balance, thats for sure. I dont think meeting 100% of the build is that much of an issue, its a long term investment. Its the meeting of the repayment and/or interest payments with a minimal impact on the playing budget thats key. The increased income from matches, and the new place being used for tons of non football stuff will hopefully mean the thing washes its face.
 
The Dell and the Goldstone for Southampton and Brighton made good business case for new stadiums (both too small and could not be enlarged) ostensibly, but Southamption went in administration and went down the leagues. Brighton accrued £150 million debt which the fans pay for with season tickets in the £695 to £740 range for most. This was without TV money in the second tier though so it was the new stadiums that put bums on seats. But the old grounds for both were unsuitable in the seventies.

Palace with a much larger population (fickle fan base) are going for an extension because of the cost and difficulties of a new stadium. Brighton built the Amex stadium with initial seating of 20K and then has to wait for 10K more seats on a slow boat from China. Both Southamption and Brighton went for capacities under what the fans might have wanted if they were in the top flight. So now it means large season ticket waiting lists.

With a large (10K plus, Spurs was 23K, Brighton is 8K) waiting list, the current climate is to build extensions (Spurs & Palace) get a stadium on the cheap (West Ham) as the figures do not add up in a business sense.

I think it's very easy to fall into the trap of every move/redevelopment results in the same outcomes. As you say there are differing cases for moving and I firmly believe every situation is unique and should be taken with their own merits in mind.

That said I still think we have a very strong case to build to 60k, not because of what has happened to West Ham etc but because Iknow this city and this club. I hope those making the decisions do also!
 
Its a balance, thats for sure. I dont think meeting 100% of the build is that much of an issue, its a long term investment. Its the meeting of the repayment and/or interest payments with a minimal impact on the playing budget thats key. The increased income from matches, and the new place being used for tons of non football stuff will hopefully mean the thing washes its face.

When the mortgage is paid of, everything is rosy. Unless, the management have used the equity to buy dud players. Arguably like Sunderland. TV money in the PL have skewed the budgets in desperation to stay in the top flight.
 
And the NFL conversion thing. Either way, its deffo not an extension. They had to buy the land for one. And its certainly not cheap, even before the hotels and stuff. @Yid4life

Levy is making it state of the art which doesn't come cheap. Because of the time scale we are paying premium rates for workers (sometimes 1400 on site at once), heard for example we were paying some £26 an hour and more. Those sorts of numbers soon add up.
 
Levy is making it state of the art which doesn't come cheap. Because of the time scale we are paying premium rates for workers (sometimes 1400 on site at once), heard for example we were paying some £26 an hour and more. Those sorts of numbers soon add up.

Nightmare scenario, and it isnt finished in time, where will you play next season? Wembley, or are Chelsea there next year?
 

Top