What would you prefer capacity v location

[evertonarntwe]

from a selfish point of view, I know i'll get my season ticket on the dockside stadium so I'd 100% rather enjoy the match and pints there before/after

 

[The Legend of Southall]

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

Wouldn't it be great if the board actually came out and said :

'we know everyone would like a 60k, but due to the limitations of the bmd site, we can only really go 55k at the most'

Then we wouldn't be speculating, we wouldn't be getting our hopes up, and there would be no outcry if it wasn't 60k. Instead the board are staying silent on issue, leaving us to fill in the blanks. It's so frustrating

 

[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

 

[degsy]

Wouldn't it be great if the board actually came out and said :

'we know everyone would like a 60k, but due to the limitations of the bmd site, we can only really go 55k at the most'

Then we wouldn't be speculating, we wouldn't be getting our hopes up, and there would be no outcry if it wasn't 60k. Instead the board are staying silent on issue, leaving us to fill in the blanks. It's so frustrating

This is the real issue.

 

[Blues Harp]

Need an actual winning football team first.....no matter what the capacity

 

[Philw]

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

Last time I checked Chelsea just got permission for a £1bn new stadium, and City's was a freebie what, 15 years ago?

How big are Real's and Barcelona's stadiums? Big teams have big stadiums. Just cos less big teams have them too doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[Seathestars]

I prefer BMD but drugs would be easier to get in Crocky.

 

[Alanbileysfeathercut]

It's easy to get into town or used to be
Walked home many a time after yet another unsuccessful night on the pull
And the wools wouldn't have to endure the walk along scottie road anymore

 

[DrEFC]

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.

Better atmosphere when our attendances were mid 30's tbh.
You want the best atmosphere in the country- safe standing.

 

[Papa Shango]

Better atmosphere when our attendances were mid 30's tbh.
You want the best atmosphere in the country- safe standing.

I'm not a fan of safe standing to be honest. Not against it as such I just don't see the point of it.

Yeah we are always better when are backs are against the wall.

 

[Papa Shango]

Last time I checked Chelsea just got permission for a £1bn new stadium, and City's was a freebie what, 15 years ago?

How big are Real's and Barcelona's stadiums? Big teams have big stadiums. Just cos less big teams have them too doesn't mean it's not true.

Barcelona are probably the biggest club in the world. Madrid is the nations capital. I don't think they are that comparable.

 

[cjuk87]

Better atmosphere when our attendances were mid 30's tbh.
You want the best atmosphere in the country- safe standing.

I don't get this line. Away days are apparently the loudest and best atmosphere, we all stand for 90mins on away days too...yet it's embarrassingly quiet.

Standing up won't suddenly make an atmosphere happen. It takes the fans to actually make some noise, we could do it seated but all our fans want to do is moan and shout TEEEEEEEERNNNNNNNN at the youngest player on the pitch that game.

 

[DrEFC]

I'm not a fan of safe standing to be honest. Not against it as such I just don't see the point of it.

Yeah we are always better when are backs are against the wall.

Re: rail seat/standing- how come?

 

[DrEFC]

I don't get this line. Away days are apparently the loudest and best atmosphere, we all stand for 90mins on away days too...yet it's embarrassingly quiet.

Standing up won't suddenly make an atmosphere happen. It takes the fans to actually make some noise, we could do it seated but all our fans want to do is moan and shout TEEEEEEEERNNNNNNNN at the youngest player on the pitch that game.

My view of aways, is that we sing far more, and apart from being more die-hards that , the standing encourages it.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

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

Chelsea are building a new ground mate