It is important not to downplay the effect a new stadium has on the desire for supporters to start attending. We have been selling out 39K for well over a year now with all the negatives Goodison has with views and lack of facilities etc.
All the other clubs that have moved have had significant increases that neutral supporters would probably mock them for had they claimed they would achieve those attendances when they were still at the old ground.
I noticed that Brighton are averaging 30K this season. That is more than Wolves are getting who are walking the Championship (and have a far bigger fanbase), and is only slightly below 2 clubs with sizeable fanbases in Leeds and Villa who are getting 32/31K. Would anyone have believed that possible of Brighton looking at their previous attendances? In 2011, they were averaging 7K which is less than the likes of Lincoln and Luton in the current 4th tier. They moved ground and are now among the top 15 average attendances in English Football. West Ham's previous record attendance was 42K and they had never averaged over 35K in their entire history. They're now in the top 4 for attendances in English Football because they have the capacity to get those crowds with the right prices and season ticket deals.
We aren't a West Ham though, and we're certainly not a Brighton. We are a club who has been capable of getting 78,000 when interest was highest, and our ground allowed it, and one of only 8 clubs in the Country to average over 50K in a single season. The other 7 clubs have all had the benefit of a ground move or expansion that we haven't had as well.
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.
