New Everton Stadium Discussion

Lad you really have not got a clue
You are wrong and refuse to change your opinion.
Maybe try the fit birds thread ,it might change your life
I'm only wrong if you can see into the future which I just bet you think you can ...

Don't take the "Fit Birds" name in vain or I'll ream your skull with a forstner it is unquestionably the most creative thread on here
 

You don't think Usmanov will put 40 m a year into naming rights

LuV9yLi.png


The world's biggest naming rights deal was signed last year for the monster 70k SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles. It'll be home to two NFL teams, cost $2bn as part of a wider $5bn development, will host the Superbowl in a couple of years as well as the Olympic opening and closing ceremonies in 2028, and of course it's in America, the biggest naming rights market in the world.

They got $20m p/a over 20 years.

No, I don't reckon you'll be getting £40m a year unless it's a helluva FFP fiddle. lol

TBH, I don't get why Usmanov doesn't just become part owner and be done with it. Stadium construction costs are outside of FFP. Naming rights aren't; they're subject to FFP tests around market value etc. If he really wanted to show Arse*** up he could plough a load of money into the build itself rather than all these convoluted, 'risky' sponsorships. It just seems a weird setup looking in from the outside, unless I'm missing something.
 
LuV9yLi.png


The world's biggest naming rights deal was signed last year for the monster 70k SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles. It'll be home to two NFL teams, cost $2bn as part of a wider $5bn development, will host the Superbowl in a couple of years as well as the Olympic opening and closing ceremonies in 2028, and of course it's in America, the biggest naming rights market in the world.

They got $20m p/a over 20 years.

No, I don't reckon you'll be getting £40m a year unless it's a helluva FFP fiddle. lol

TBH, I don't get why Usmanov doesn't just become part owner and be done with it. Stadium construction costs are outside of FFP. Naming rights aren't; they're subject to FFP tests around market value etc. If he really wanted to show Arse*** up he could plough a load of money into the build itself rather than all these convoluted, 'risky' sponsorships. It just seems weird looking in from the outside, unless I'm missing something.
Someone posted that City are getting 40 m a year for their stadium so the bar has been set
12 m For training ground sponsorship.
Do not forget this is not legit outside business sponsoring BMD
This is Usmanov and it is as dodgy as hell
For reference see the 30 m paid to be allowed jump to the top of a non existent queue for the privilege of bidding for the naming rights lol
As to why he wont just buy in ,who knows but Billionaires have reasons for everything they do.
Why does spurs uncle joe stay in the background
 
When all is said and done there's very little detail in the plans (released) about BMD, I'm hoping a lot of the concerns around transport, stadium use and seating variances are answered with the detailed planning apps.

I also feel it's right to critique the financing and the owners because as an EFC supporter the money side just doesn't add up. There's a willingness to think that Moshiri/Usmanov will find a way to finance anything and everything LW related, and while the future may prove that to be true I'd rather wait for the evidence.

BMD may well be a catalyst to start other development at the northern end of LW but this city needs to attract jobs first and foremost. The place is full of empty or half finished residential schemes and without a large upturn in quality jobs being created I see little point in more of the same.
 
Admittedly, it's from a low base, but the jobs situation is improving mate


Yeah, it's quality as well as quantitiy. We should have been in prime position for Salford's Media City but we never seem to think big or have a long term joined up strategy.

There's a few things happening, Paddington looks like a decent step forward and I know Pall Mall is earmarked but we need much more.
 

We should have been in prime position for Salford's Media City

Yea, totally agree, we were down the Quays by Media City last weekend, and it's amazing to think how it was just thirty years ago.
Mind you, there's a commonality in ownership between the waterfront leading up to BMD and Media City ...
 

Oh yea, absolutely mate. In the grand scheme of things, the money we make from hosting concerts, especially in the early years before the rest of the infrastructure is implemented, will be small scale, but, much longer term, it'll be a nice earner.

It's all about sweating your assets. Most of the overheads in running the stadium will be fixed, so anything else you can do with it which turns a profit is a nice bonus.

If you don't think it's worthwhile doing at all, then why are so many other clubs doing it ? If you're right, and it's not worth doing, then there's a lot of clubs being run by knobheads who know nothing about running businesses.

Look at the Etihad, admittedly owned by the council ( I think ? ), but rather than leave the place empty most of last summer, they decided to make a few extra quid by using the stadium to host gigs for Metallica, Muse, The Spice Girls, Foo Fighters, Jay-Z, Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran.

And does that include repayment of the original build cost?

Well, it includes interest payments, off-hand, without delving into the accounts, I don't know how much of their debt ( if they have any ) they're chipping away at. On the off chance that you're actually interested, you ( and Bozo Barry ) can have a look at the accounts, they're publicly available at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05204033

Most of these sorts of companies have an operating margin of 10 to 20% ( Academy Group who own the various Apollos and Academies are another example ). Given our business model will effectively be using spare capacity, I'd expect our operating margin for large events to be at the top of that range, so if we grow that fairly quickly to 5 to 10 million then it does two things :-

  • Gives us a profit of 1 to 2 million a year, that we wouldn't otherwise have, to go towards paying the interest on the stadium and
  • Increases our revenue, so gives us a bit more wriggle room on sponsorship from related parties ( ie USM ) under UEFA FFP rules.
But the financial wizards Charlie and Bozo on grandoldteam know better, so we might as well not bother.
 
Oh yea, absolutely mate. In the grand scheme of things, the money we make from hosting concerts, especially in the early years before the rest of the infrastructure is implemented, will be small scale, but, much longer term, it'll be a nice earner.

It's all about sweating your assets. Most of the overheads in running the stadium will be fixed, so anything else you can do with it which turns a profit is a nice bonus.

If you don't think it's worthwhile doing at all, then why are so many other clubs doing it ? If you're right, and it's not worth doing, then there's a lot of clubs being run by knobheads who know nothing about running businesses.

Look at the Etihad, admittedly owned by the council ( I think ? ), but rather than leave the place empty most of last summer, they decided to make a few extra quid by using the stadium to host gigs for Metallica, Muse, The Spice Girls, Foo Fighters, Jay-Z, Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran.



Well, it includes interest payments, off-hand, without delving into the accounts, I don't know how much of their debt ( if they have any ) they're chipping away at. On the off chance that you're actually interested, you ( and Bozo Barry ) can have a look at the accounts, they're publicly available at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05204033

Most of these sorts of companies have an operating margin of 10 to 20% ( Academy Group who own the various Apollos and Academies are another example ). Given our business model will effectively be using spare capacity, I'd expect our operating margin for large events to be at the top of that range, so if we grow that fairly quickly to 5 to 10 million then it does two things :-

  • Gives us a profit of 1 to 2 million a year, that we wouldn't otherwise have, to go towards paying the interest on the stadium and
  • Increases our revenue, so gives us a bit more wriggle room on sponsorship from related parties ( ie USM ) under UEFA FFP rules.
But the financial wizards Charlie and Bozo on grandoldteam know better, so we might as well not bother.

I didn't say not bother mate but £3m gets you Bernard's left leg!
 
I have seen the drawings of what you did regarding the main stand and like I said previously I was a fan - 10 years ago when we didn't have a pot to pee in. Then a cheaper and long term redevelopment was about as much as we could hope for.

But even with those just how the main stand is built you would have to get rid of 15 or so rows at the back of the middle deck to remove obstructions to be able to hold the balcony up.

All these stadiums you mention have fairly large footprints that has allowed the extensions room and if you are talking about Anfield what remains from that old stand is a bit like trigger's broom, as it was gutted completely and reprofiled.

I have cad models of the stadium with modifications, as I like you had a big interest in stadium design, but our stands are not like say the Leitch stand at Ibrox that had the standing area reprofiled for seating in a much better way than ours did.

To keep Goodison with some charm, instead of building on top of it the restricted views should be taken out by having cantilevered roofs on the GS and BR and installing boxes underneath to hold the upper tiers up and maybe look to buy up land around to eventually extend the internals enabling a more modern interior and a larger open area around the structure. Goodison road needs to be straightened where it cuts in at an angle, meaning places like the Winslow would be lost but that would give room for a new main stand and another tier on the PE with the corner filled in that would create two 'L's. The lower BR and GS and the larger PE and MS.

But all this talk is pointless as we have a very good location for a great looking new stadium. Time to let it go unless something happens to cancel those plans.

The option you describe for the Bullens is covered in the pdf. The result could be every bit as impressive aesthetically and functionally as that proposed at BMD at a tracton of the cost. The lower Bullens is easily reprofiled and this was costed by the club over 20yrs ago and was due to be done prior to the Kings Dock proposals. It could also be extended in a new configurationif the upper tier was replaced as shown. As regards the Mainstand all obstructions in the Too balcony and front of the middle tier would be erradicated.... and again this was costed by the club over 20yrs ago, and again was going to happen prior to move proposals. A further reduction in obstructed views behind the second row of columns could be achieved by filling the gap with boxes or indeed a whole new corporate tier.... all achievable within the existing structure.

You're right that much of the ideas covered in the pdf are well over 10-15yrs old, and were put forward with one eye firmly on keeping costs in tens of millons as opposed to hundreds of millions. However, the bottom line remains the same.... a bigger capacity and more corporate can be achieved at GP for a fraction of the cost, because it will always be cheaper to build a net increase of say 12-20k (gross 22-30k) than to build 52k afresh elsewhere. Especially if site acquisition and preps takes £125m before you even start. Because there have been those savings, a far greater spend per seat is achievable for any new capacity.... meaning the new upper tiers can then be higher spec and higher value than if whole stands were being paid for. Which is what LFC found.

Ofcourse, that's not factoring in any enabling funding and naming rights.... which we are yet to see.

Yes, Anfield's old mainstand was reprofiled and gutted, but the original structure remains. The Paddock and lower Bullens and lower Gwladys could be similarly as lower terrace stands. (The cheap seats, which every ground needs too).... because of their lower profile it would also be much cheaper to build behind and above.... with say 4-5 storeys back of house yielding enough floor space...
 

Top