What would you prefer capacity v location

[BDBJ1]

The survey results Everton announced yesterday heavily indicate a stadium far less than the 61,878 capacity many were hoping for; with a stadium now in the region of 50,000 looking more likely.
Building on a waterfront site significantly cuts down the directions people can travel/walk to the ground whereas a site on a field somehere fans can travel from all angles so logistically that may be part of the consideration.
So would you prefer a site at Bramley Moore Dock with 50,000 seats or say a site at Stonebridge Cross with 60,000+?

 

[Papa Shango]

I think 50k is fine for us. Any more and you risk the chance of empty seats all over the place which is rubbish for the atmosphere.

 

[blue61]

Has to be Bramley Moore. If we don't do it, the other lot will at some point. BMD gives us a better chance of raising our profile and claiming the city.

 

[GARY_EVERTONIAN]

this is like comparing emotions to wallet . for Evertonians , Emotions out weigh wallet ( unlike the london match day money machine clubs ) . So lets have a unique beautiful and intimidating 50K Blue arena by the dock . Ahh the blue stadium by the water will look so beautiful at night

 

[The Legend of Southall]

Neither.

I don't understand why we can't have a 60k at BMD?

For me it boils down to ambition; 50k is us saying we're happy to keep finishing between 10th and 7th with the odd European jaunt, perhaps a cup run. 60k says we want to be the best, and break into the top 6, play in the champions league and challenge for titles

 

[Eggs]

Neither.

I don't understand why we can't have a 60k at BMD?

For me it boils down to ambition; 50k is us saying we're happy to keep finishing between 10th and 7th with the odd European jaunt, perhaps a cup run. 60k says we want to be the best, and break into the top 6, play in the champions league and challenge for titles

..agree, these either/or threads seem a little odd when I don’t think it’s a case of one or the other.

 

[Saint Domingo]

Neither.

I don't understand why we can't have a 60k at BMD?

For me it boils down to ambition; 50k is us saying we're happy to keep finishing between 10th and 7th with the odd European jaunt, perhaps a cup run. 60k says we want to be the best, and break into the top 6, play in the champions league and challenge for titles

Elstone doesn’t want the latter though.

 

[GARY_EVERTONIAN]

Neither.

I don't understand why we can't have a 60k at BMD?

For me it boils down to ambition; 50k is us saying we're happy to keep finishing between 10th and 7th with the odd European jaunt, perhaps a cup run. 60k says we want to be the best, and break into the top 6, play in the champions league and challenge for titles

What about if we try to build a 60K + stadium , we end up in taking so much debt that we are not able to invest in team for the next 8 years ..and do an arsenal . With the TV money now dictating revenues , 10K less capacity wont burn a hole in our pocket . but to get an extra 10K capacity , if we end up taking 200 mil more debt and dont invest in the team , we have a problem . Again this all will depend on how are we planning to fund the stadium . Will our new sugar daddy lend us 300 mil + for the stadium ? if yes i am more than happy to build a fantasy 60+ stadium . Else we need to be realistic .

 

[bluestevon]

Neither.

I don't understand why we can't have a 60k at BMD?

For me it boils down to ambition; 50k is us saying we're happy to keep finishing between 10th and 7th with the odd European jaunt, perhaps a cup run. 60k says we want to be the best, and break into the top 6, play in the champions league and challenge for titles

Does it bollocks mate

City have a stadium with 55k capacity, so on your reckoning it shows they lack ambition
Chelsea are what - 42/43k? - never see it stopping their ambitions over the past 15 years.

Meanwhile the 5th and 6th biggest club grounds are Newcastle at 53k and Sunderland at 49k, how has the fact they have much bigger grounds than Chelsea, or any other team shown they are ambitious?

West Ham have the second biggest ground in the country, 66k, 11 more than City, 14 more than the rs, are they ambitious?


Never seen a team win a title because it won the capacity chart, or qualify for the CL due to average attendances

 

[BDBJ1]

..agree, these either/or threads seem a little odd when I don’t think it’s a case of one or the other.

Just saying logistically its much easier and cheaper to build a 60,000 seater stadium on a field somehere than a 60,000 seater on a waterfront site.
It's clear from the survey results the initial build at BMD will not be to 60,000 seats.

So should we be paying £500mil for a 50,000 seater stadium at BMD
or £500mil for a 60,000 elsewhere.

 

[The Legend of Southall]

What about if we try to build a 60K + stadium , we end up in taking so much debt that we are not able to invest in team for the next 8 years ..and do an arsenal . With the TV money now dictating revenues , 10K less capacity wont burn a hole in our pocket . but to get an extra 10K capacity , if we end up taking 200 mil more debt and dont invest in the team , we have a problem . Again this all will depend on how are we planning to fund the stadium . Will our new sugar daddy lend us 300 mil + for the stadium ? if yes i am more than happy to build a fantasy 60+ stadium . Else we need to be realistic .

Problem is we don't know. The club haven't exactly been forthcoming with information. So for me, 50k says we don't have the financial muscle to compete. If that's the case, how can we ever hope to make the champions league?

 

[degsy]

The survey results Everton announced yesterday heavily indicate a stadium far less than the 61,878 capacity many were hoping for; with a stadium now in the region of 50,000 looking more likely.
Building on a waterfront site significantly cuts down the directions people can travel/walk to the ground whereas a site on a field somehere fans can travel from all angles so logistically that may be part of the consideration.
So would you prefer a site at Bramley Moore Dock with 50,000 seats or say a site at Stonebridge Cross with 60,000+?

Touche

 

[joey_macmo]

Just saying logistically its much easier and cheaper to build a 60,000 seater stadium on a field somehere than a 60,000 seater on a waterfront site.
It's clear from the survey results the initial build at BMD will not be to 60,000 seats.

So should we be paying £500mil for a 50,000 seater stadium at BMD
or £500mil for a 60,000 elsewhere.

How is it clear from the survey results?

 

[The Legend of Southall]

Does it bollocks mate

City have a stadium with 55k capacity, so on your reckoning it shows they lack ambition
Chelsea are what - 42/43k? - never see it stopping their ambitions over the past 15 years.

Meanwhile the 5th and 6th biggest club grounds are Newcastle at 53k and Sunderland at 49k, how has the fact they have much bigger grounds than Chelsea, or any other team shown they are ambitious?

West Ham have the second biggest ground in the country, 66k, 11 more than City, 14 more than the rs, are they ambitious?


Never seen a team win a title because it won the capacity chart, or qualify for the CL due to average attendances

City got a free stadium they are now looking to expand, Chelsea have a similar problem to us. I'm not saying 60k equals league titles, what I'm saying is it shows where the board see us being, and how much we should be looking to compete. 50k would be very underwhelming for a club our size

 

[degsy]

Neither.

I don't understand why we can't have a 60k at BMD?

For me it boils down to ambition; 50k is us saying we're happy to keep finishing between 10th and 7th with the odd European jaunt, perhaps a cup run. 60k says we want to be the best, and break into the top 6, play in the champions league and challenge for titles

Cost?
Cost of finance?
Cost of over extending on the finance?