What would you prefer capacity v location

[Cork Evertonian]

Locaction.It's the docks or nothing.Anything less would be a massive disappointment.

 

[Woolverhampton_Blue]

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

Can't fault this at all. A 50,000+ stadium, well designed and built, in an iconic location, would serve us much better than the same stadium but with 10,000 extra seats in a less ideal location.

We haven't fallen into mediocrity because we didn't have enough seats so we won't climb out of it because we have a few more.

 

[crockyblue79]

53000 was about the capacity in the 80s when we had our most successful years.Think we should aim for at least this as having smaller than West Ham and Newcastle would be small thinking, forget the RS and United,them two would get full houses on the moon but we should aspire to match any other club.

 

[DrEFC]

Ideally 61878, but can get onboard with a tight, intimidating 55K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juventus_Stadium

 

[AdaBrummieblue]

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

Great points mate. Also, only have to look at Juventus abroad who reduced stadium capacity. Nothing about them screams lack of ambition. 50k is fine for us I reckon, with the possibility of perhaps expanding if necessary. I don't know where this 50k figure has come from though tbh. Has anyone came out and said that that's definitely going to be the figure, or is this just more 2 + 2 = 5 nonsense?

 

[Wizard]

Ideally 61878, but can get onboard with a tight, intimidating 55K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juventus_Stadium

Juve’s new stadium is 41,000, having downsized by nearly 30,000 seats. Fiorentina, and the shared Milan and Rome stadiums are bigger. Since they moved there at the beginning of 2011/12 they have won the league every year. It’s almost like capacity doesn’t really mean much!

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

51,878 is fine, as long as it's boss enough to become known as the Terrordome to the opposition.

 

[Papa Shango]

We outstripped those clubs historically in terms of stadium development. To believe the wheel cant turn again is ahistorical.

50K is a signal that the Everton are moving to the docks to be the anchor to a bigger development down there rather than as a move that underlines the club's ambition.

No it doesn't. 50K says that we are building an ideal ground to suit our needs and enables us to improve instead of some massive white elephant that we wont fill.

 

[Papa Shango]

The following clubs in our division either currently have or will soon have a larger capacity than 50k:

Tottenham,
Arsenal,
Liverpool,
West Ham,
Newcastle,
Chelsea,
Man Utd,
Man City.

By a couple of hundred in most cases?

So what anyway? We are not any of those clubs.

 

[davek]

No it doesn't. 50K says that we are building an ideal ground to suit our needs and enables us to improve instead of some massive white elephant that we wont fill.

Nah, it'd be a big retreat from what was heavily hinted at.

55,000 is the bare minimum in pacifying Everton fans on stadium capacity. The club can have their little helpers crawling all over fan forums all they wish, but they wont get any traction for a sub-55,000 seater stadium. Not a chance.

 

[brian labone]

Its got to be 60,000 to allow for growth when we start winning trophies and its got to be BMD to show the world that we are building for the future and mean business.

 

[Papa Shango]

Nah, it'd be a big retreat from what was heavily hinted at.

55,000 is the bare minimum in pacifying Everton fans on stadium capacity. The club can have their little helpers crawling all over fan forums all they wish, but they wont get any traction for a sub-55,000 seater stadium. Not a chance.

Our fans would moan if it was a 200,000 floating structure of beauty.

The capacity really doesn't matter as much as some people think it does (as long as its not 20k or whatever..).

 

[davek]

Our fans would moan if it was a 200,000 floating structure of beauty.

The capacity really doesn't matter as much as some people think it does (as long as its not 20k or whatever..).

Fans aren't daft though. They see a natural block on growth with a smaller stadium. It's an admission that the club dont have faith in the team, and that cant be great mood music to go into any new stadium with. If it was barely 9,000 more capacity to Goodison that would be a hammer blow to prestige. No club looking to kick on is going to be that conservative.

 

[TraffordBlue]

Nah, it'd be a big retreat from what was heavily hinted at.

55,000 is the bare minimum in pacifying Everton fans on stadium capacity. The club can have their little helpers crawling all over fan forums all they wish, but they wont get any traction for a sub-55,000 seater stadium. Not a chance.

Have to agree. They were planning 55K back in the early 2000's:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/3009397/Evertons-stadium-fit-for-a-king.html

The article is from July 2001 when we'd just averaged 34K and finished 16th. We're now selling out 99% of games and have done for well over a year, have had far better league finishes than 16th for the last decade and Bill Kenwright said 55K would be the minimum when asked about BMD. Anything less than that would be a huge disappointment after what the club were hinting at on several occasions in the last year.

 

[davek]

Have to agree. They were planning 55K back in the early 2000's:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/3009397/Evertons-stadium-fit-for-a-king.html

The article is from July 2001 when we'd just averaged 34K and finished 16th. We're now selling out 99% of games and have done for well over a year, have had far better league finishes than 16th for the last decade and Bill Kenwright said 55K would be the minimum when asked about BMD. Anything less than that would be a huge disappointment after what the club were hinting at on several occasions in the last year.

55,000 has been the minimum KO point for all our stadium schemes. Is it any wonder a huge stick was poked into a hornets nest when the divvies at the club issued their "99% of fans want a 50,000+ seat stadium" comment?!?!