Everton to propose stadium capacity of 52,000 at Bramley-Moore Dock

Thursday, 20 December, 2018 185comments  |  Jump to last
Everton will propose a ground holding 52,000 when they submit a planning application for Bramley-Moore Dock next year according to an announcement made today.

That conservative figure would represent an increase of over 12,000 on the present seating capacity of Goodison Park but it is significantly smaller than the 60,000 mark that has proven to be the most popular number during informal polling of supporters.

The proposal will provide for expanding the stadium to 62,000 at a later date, a possibility that previously wasn't thought to be open to the club given the constraints of the site.

"It is important to stress that this is our 'proposed' capacity and it is what we are currently working towards," said stadium director Colin Chong.

"We believe that our approach is the right one because it is commercially and financially sustainable and will mean that, in the long term, we will be able to increase the capacity should there be a demand and requirement to do so."


Reader Comments (185)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer

Chris Gould
2 Posted 20/12/2018 at 20:23:50
Makes perfect sense to me. Size isn't everything. As long as it is state of the art and has an intimidating atmosphere, then the capacity isn't so important. They would have worked out the figures and obviously this capacity makes more sense than 60k.

Some people are fixated by a certain number but a filled stadium full of noise and passion is what counts. No point going big, not filling it, and struggling to finance it. If it has the option of being extended in the future then they've covered all bases.

Kevin Byrne
3 Posted 20/12/2018 at 20:26:20
I'd love to see Rupert's Tower somewhere on the site too, would love one in each corner.
Brian Hennessy
4 Posted 20/12/2018 at 20:29:40
Sounds like the best of both worlds. A 52,000 capacity gives us a good chance of filling it regularly to create great atmosphere. If it turns out to to be too small we can go bigger and having that factored into the construction design from the outset will make expansion less costly.

Martin Berry
5 Posted 20/12/2018 at 20:32:16
I understand the club taking this conservative approach initially.

Grounds gates normally go up when a new stadium is built and ours has the potential to attract fans and tourists/day trippers, package deals the skies the limit.

I really hope the contingency for extra seating is a serious one.

I think the plans for the stadium will blow people away as I think Don Meis will give Everton, the most iconic and talked-about stadium in the Premier League. A footballing landmark that will attract massive interest nationally and internationally for that matter.

Darren Hind
6 Posted 20/12/2018 at 20:32:37
"The proposal will provide for expanding the stadium to 62 thousand at a later date".

For me, that's key. I'm okay with an initial 52 thousand.

Stewart Lowe
7 Posted 20/12/2018 at 20:47:32
I'm absolutely deflated to put it politely. We finally get a wealthy backer, we find a site, go through consultation, then we get a stadium 4,074 seats smaller than Anfield.

Whenever will we get the chance to be bigger than them just one time?? I'm my life, I'm guessing never, and I'm only 45. I have supported Everton since 1982, then thought, it's our time, our time to be big, just once.

Our already arrogant rivals will be rubbing our faces in it. They get to stay in a stadium oozing their history, and still hold the biggest ground, even when ours is brand new. Gutted isn't the word.

And so what that we have the ability to increase capacity in the future??? Every year that passes, building stadia and adding to it gets even more expensive, so not likely to happen. Liverpool FC, you win, I give up. You are the best and always will be.

Chris Corn
8 Posted 20/12/2018 at 20:47:34
I think it's a good starting point.
Dennis Stevens
9 Posted 20/12/2018 at 20:49:09
I didn't think that they'd go as high as 60k but didn't expect capacity to be less than 55k. What a shame.
Kevin Prytherch
10 Posted 20/12/2018 at 20:50:49
52k is a joke.

We could fill 52k at Goodison with obstructed views.

We will easily fill 52k in a new stadium.

We could easily fill 62k against the big teams.

We have a chance to show that we want to be bigger than Liverpool and we settle for the small club mentality that we have always had. And the fans, who often demand instant success, are happy with it.

We are, and always will be, a small club from directors to fans with an acceptance of this.

Hundreds of millions of pounds for 12k extra. Tell me the park end couldn’t have added 5k for a fraction of the price.

Tell me the corners between the park end and the main stand / bullens being filled couldn’t have added an extra 2-3k for a fraction of the price.

Completely mugged off.

Justin Doone
11 Posted 20/12/2018 at 20:52:44
Sensible capacity, 52k minimum with the option to extend should we have the demand and finances to do so.

Without wanting to get into design commentary I want a FOOTBALL stadium that when seen ensures a feeling of positivity, surprise and inspirational not embarrassment!

Due to the location, unusual weather patterns we appear to be facing every year and the threat of terrorism or just shear mindless vandalism it needs to be sturdy, long lasting and easily cleaned / maintained.

I don't want a lego monstrosity, a prefab concrete car park, a hall of mirrors or some wooden crate. I'm a fan of bricks and mortar with modern design incorporated, ie, glass and steel. Something huge, imposing and timeless that looks like it may last 1000 years not a shoddy shed designed for the next 25.

Anyway, at this moment, it's another distraction from what's most important, the actual on-field football being played and results.

Kevin Prytherch
12 Posted 20/12/2018 at 20:58:31
Projected Premier League Capacities, 2023-24:

Man Utd: 74,994
West Ham: 66,000
Man City: 63,000
Chelsea: 63,000
Spurs: 62,062
Liverpool: 61,000
Arsenal: 60,260
Wolves: 60,000
Newcastle: 52,338

Why would you want Everton to build a smaller stadium than these?

Projected to be the 10th biggest stadium in the Premier League.

Vijay Nair
13 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:00:48
Stewart (7), Anfield capacity is 54,074 with plans to increase that to 61,000. We are looking at 52,000 with plans for 62,000. It's not the end of the world.

What really matters, as Chris (2) has said is that we have a filled stadium full of noise and passion.

John G Davies
14 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:03:04

Do you think City would fill a 63,000 stadium?
If yes. Why?

They have never had a full house in their current 55,000 stadium.

Stan Schofield
15 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:09:50
When I started going the match, we sometimes had 64,000 at Goodison, of course when there was standing on the terraces. But most big games got in the mid-50,000s, and to be honest you can't see any difference in atmosphere between that and 64,000.

Having said that though, I can't quite see the logic of not going straight to 62,000. Going to 52,000 and then maybe extending to 62,000 seems lacking in ambition given that it's supposed to be an iconic stadium comparable with the best, like Goodison used to be.

Brent Stephens
16 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:11:14
Kevin #12, they are projected capacities but whether those other stadiums will always be filled to capacity is another question. As you say, we might easily fill to 62k against the big teams, but against the rest? I hate a stadium less than full, from an atmospheric point of view – it just sends a message that you have supporters for big games but many are not arsed beyond that.

Let's fill the stadium every game at 52k. For top 6 opposition, if some of the irregular attenders can't get a ticket, so be it – by definition, they are the less solid / core support.

After a few years experience at Bramley-Moore Dock, after the novelty of new stadium has worn off, and if we judge that we can regularly fill the stadium to a higher capacity, we can expand.

Where I think you have a point would be from the financial point of view, from bigger gates for the bigger games.

Jay Harris
17 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:12:22
I thought Meis had already stated that it would be too expensive to increase capacity once it was built.

I am totally underwhelmed. I thought we were becoming a big club again but at the first opportunity we think small.

I am totally embarrassed by this statement which will have all the reds laughing their cocks off.

Tony Twist
18 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:14:05
Small fry. I know big isn't everything but, my God, how the mighty have fallen.
Kevin Prytherch
19 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:17:11

Below are Man City's attendances this season.

Their lowest attendance in the Premier League had 1693 seats unsold out of 55,000. Considering that was against a London team, this might suggest it had a lot to do with the away support.

They might not have had a 55,000 game, but nearly every premier league game is within 1500 of this. That means that nearly every Premier League game is at least 97% full.

I'd hazard a guess at saying, if they had a 60,000 ground, their average would be around 58,000.

Are you saying that, just because we haven't had a match that was a complete sell out this year we shouldn't look to increase the number of seats?

Huddersfield 54,021
Newcastle United 53,946
Fulham 53,307
Lyon 40,111
Brighton & Hove Albion 54,152
Burnley 54,094
Fulham 35,271
Southampton 53,916
Shakhtar Donetsk 52,286
Manchester United 54,316
Bournemouth 54,409
Hoffenheim 50,411

Simon Dalzell
20 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:18:52
A little disappointing. I only get to about 4 or 5 games a season nowadays, due to several factors, mainly health issues and the distance to travel. I find it very difficult, or usually impossible to get tickets for the big games. Will an extra 12,000 capacity make it much easier? I don't think so.
Sam Hoare
21 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:19:21
I get having a ground that we can fill but if going 52,000 then why not just up a little to 54,000 just so we are bigger than Anfield currently... and St James?
Mike Galley
22 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:19:23
John #14.

That's interesting. I don't follow or read anything to do with them, so I wasn't aware of that. How many do they usaually fall short of filling it?

I was hoping for about 55,000 with scope to go bigger if needed, so I'm not really sure what I feel about this.

Mike Jones
23 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:19:34
Juventus's new stadium has a 41,000 capacity. Do you think it considers itself a small club?
Stewart Lowe
24 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:19:35
55,000 - 56,000 had to be the bear minimum. Just like Everton to play it safe. So so many reasons have always played second fiddle to Liverpool FC. From an endless list of quality players turning allegiance to Liverpool after supporting Everton as children, to the Heysel disaster, when are we going to have our turn??

I saw the 52,000 and my heart sank. Just another of a long list of push backs that keep us in our place, 2nd. We should be well used to this by now.

Paul Hughes
25 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:21:16
I think that 52,000 is a very sensible starting point. If we generate the Champions League football that we all aspire to then we'll have the funding to increase it, if it is designed in. The allowance to convert to safe-standing, if and when it is accepted, also makes sense.

Yes, we'd all like to have a bigger stadium, but let's be realistic. City's ground is known as the 'Emptihad' around Manchester for a reason. I'd much rather have a ground that we can pretty much guarantee will be full, with a rocking atmosphere.

Brian Harrison
26 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:21:49
I know that it is early days and Colin Chong says "it's our proposed capacity" so maybe that could change in time.

I will be interested to see if in the design there is any possibility of incorporating a safe standing area, which if nothing else might create a better atmosphere. I know many from this city will object to safe standing but there are many grounds in Europe that encompass this without any risk to the fans.

I just hope that, once the planning permission is applied for in the spring of 2019 and hopefully passed, that we press on and get it built asap.

Lawrence Green
27 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:25:00
A BBC freedom of information report, showed that capacities at those newer larger stadiums were not quite what they seem. Newham Council say average gates at the London Stadium were 42,779, some 12,530 fans fewer than West Ham’s claimed 55,309. Manchester City’s figures were 7,482 fewer, Southampton 4,246, Spurs 3,740, Chelsea 3,505 and Watford 2,602 fewer.

If Everton FC have a great team, winning trophies and playing great football, any capacity will be too small, but if the club can't find a way of doing those things then anything over 52k will be too big, save for the odd 'big game'. Empty seats influence a lot of things not least restricting the uptake of people purchasing a Season Ticket.

On this occasion I think the club have got their maths correct for several reasons. A smaller capacity increases the chances of getting the stadium built and funded, it keeps those already members or ST holders interested in renewing their memberships and Season Tickets. It keeps the other lot from having severe penis envy and thus stops them jumping on any stop the stadium bandwagon that may happen.

If the designs are as good as Dan Meis has suggested and the new place actually produces a proper football atmosphere in better conditions than Goodison allows then we should be happy. Yes I wanted a bigger stadium to begin with but not if it puts Everton FC in a precarious financial position in the long-term.

Brian @26 I don't think planning application will be put in until late in 2019, there is another round of public consultation to navigate in the summer of 2019.

John Malone
28 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:28:42
West Ham 66k, Spurs 62k, Everton 52k!!!!!

The 62k adaptability is is clearly bullshit threw out the there to appease the fan's who have demanded 60k plus since day one!

I honestly feel like giving up on Everton FC we are the biggest let down in football.

We get a billionaire owner buy shite over the hill player's sell off our young talent and build a new stadium that is smaller than Wolves'.

And while I'm on one how is it that we can come into the Premier League as it was, one of the top five teams in the country and 20 years later end up light-years behind the other lot??

I'm so sick of Everton being mismanaged and being behind the times in our recent history and alway's being the bridesmaid and never the bride.

This ground move is massive for our future and could propel us into being regular top four contender's if done right.

The accommodation and surrounding bars, restaurant's, nightlife etc. will undoubtedly bring in more fans from far and wide if the club marketed itself correctly i.e. weekend stay packages, family group tickets etc.

I look at Spurs' stadium and think wow I really hope I think the same when our design is released but for some strange reason I'm starting to doubt that now.

Little old Everton used to be a big club!

Brian Hennessy
29 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:32:24
Kevin, I would take those figures provided by Man City with a large pinch of salt. Attendance figures provided by many clubs include all season ticket holders even if they are not at the match, along with free tickets handed out.

How many times have we watched matches on TV (particularly at the Emirates) where the official attendance figures just don't add up to the thousands of empty seats we can see.

This from The Echo sums it up:

"Newham Council say average gates at the London Stadium were 42,779, some 12,530 fans fewer than West Ham's claimed 55,309. Manchester City's figures were 7,482 fewer, Southampton 4,246, Spurs 3,740, Chelsea 3,505 and Watford 2,602 fewer."

I was at a match in the Nou Camp last year with 75,000 at it and the place sounded like a library – terrible atmosphere.

Give me 52,000 packed in with not a spare seat any day.

Lawrence Green
30 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:32:48
John #28,

Everton FC had the best ground in the country in the 1970s but who won all the trophies? – Just saying like.

Brent Stephens
31 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:36:23
John #28,

"The 62k adaptability is clearly bullshit threw out the there to appease the fan's who have demanded 60k plus since day one!"

How do you know?

Dean Johnson
32 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:37:10
Seems sensible to me, we need sensible and if the design can incorporate it then great.

My thoughts always turn to the Lucas Oil Stadium. The end with the big window, if our new gaff had something similar, then you could just add a deck for an extra 10k seats, but you'd still have the big window overlooking the city.

A bit like the rugby stadium in Dublin maybe (but more of a square).

David McMullen
33 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:39:11
Totally agree, Kevin @ 12. We'll be a long way down the list in stadium sizes.

I'm so disappointed. I don't care to be bigger than Big Stand FC but I want us to be bold and ambitious enough with a big stadium. 52k is underwhelming and not showing our rivals that 'we're back' and we mean business.

Sure, new ground, Middlesbrough and Sunderland have new grounds.

Expand to 62k? I could accept it Man City-style. Even Man Utd and a few others have gone up bit by bit. But I really have my doubts now. It'll be a generation before they'd consider expanding.

Simon Dalzell
34 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:42:25
"52,000 packed without a spare seat." This is what concerns me. This means that there are people who cannot get tickets. I'm sure adding another 5,000 or so would not alter the atmosphere if there was a very small percentage of empty seats.
John Malone
35 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:44:45
Brent 31, because if they were going to build it at 62k capacity they would have announced 62k and not 52k with the possibility of...

Bullshit mate, clearly!

Peter Roberts
36 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:46:02

I've heard the Lucas Oil Stadium is the basis for the design and, if true, I think it'll work. Interestingly, capacity there is around the 62k mark which puts it among the smaller NFL stadiums.

People are looking for a landmark and ground-breaking football stadium. I want something along the lines of the new NFL stadiums (Atlanta's Superdome, Indy's Lucas Oil Stadium). I think we'll get it.

John G Davies
37 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:54:18
Kevin 19,

The problem occurred against teams in a radius of 20 miles in two of the examples you gave.

Both of whom would have sold out. Are you suggesting the lack of a full house in the Man Utd game was because Man Utd didn't sell their allocation?

Brent Stephens
38 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:54:35
John, "if they were going to build it at 62k capacity they would have announced 62k and not 52k with the possibility of".

John, but they're not intending to build at 62k initially so why would they say otherwise?

They've announced 62k as a possibility in future – if appropriate. But not yet.

Michael Kenrick
39 Posted 20/12/2018 at 21:54:36
Really really disappointed with this. We needed to make a statement; this makes completely the wrong statement. It's 'plucky little Everton' all over... We are a small club now... and always will be. Totally pissed.

Incapable of building a full-size stadium, we have this half-assed "we will be able to increase the capacity should there be a demand and requirement to do so."

Absolute bollocks. "Build it and they will come." Or in our case: "Half-build it only half of them will come." This is a real kick in the balls to the dwindling enthusiasm I had for this nickel and dime project.

Lawrence Green
40 Posted 20/12/2018 at 22:01:33
Demographics are an important part of any development; how many people currently attending Goodison on a regular basis are approaching their late 50s and early 60s? Ten to fifteen years down the line, if they have a mind to keep attending, those fans will be approaching their early and mid 70s, if they are fortunate enough to still be able to attend.

If currently we have and I'm guessing, 25% of the support in those age brackets then it will take a great effort by the club to replace those older fans with younger ones in the same numbers. These are the considerations that financial institutions will have uppermost in their minds as they deliberate the merits of loaning money to the club for a new stadium.

Man City and West Ham had a 'helping hand' in delivering their stadiums, Arsenal and Spurs have gone it alone, Arsenal because Highbury was in a prime location in London and it already had a winning team, were able to be ambitious. Spurs, also following a relative period of success via regular Champions League qualification and a London location, are able to reach for the stars with their new stadium at an eye-watering cost.

Everton not too long ago, couldn't afford to buy players, yet some are expecting a man who has already pumped £250m into the club to show more ambition by having a bigger stadium than most of their Premier League rivals – expectation is one thing, pie in the sky thinking is quite another.

Anthony Murphy
41 Posted 20/12/2018 at 22:06:07
Meis said there would be no way of extending, so my concern is that this is PR bollocks by the club to keep those who want to see 60k happy. It'll be 52k and we will fill it no problem.

We won't see an extension, fellas trust, me. My gut feeling is that Moshiri wants bigger but the UNESCO mob, Commonwealth Games decision and physical constraints of the site have led to this – rather than it being a decision based on ‘consultation'.

On the Man City comparison, fanbase wise we are more than a fuckin match, surely?

With that capacity, they absolutely must get everything else right. It all feels like a compromise to me. I remember Meis tweeting about 60,000 not too long before the Commonwealth Games bid went tits up. I just can't see how the Premier League's 8th biggest stadium will ever be thought of as iconic, groundbreaking etc. It'll be fitting for a club that finishes 7th or 8th each season.

Bit underwhelmed, but fingers crossed it'll blow our socks off when we turn up in August 2023.

Kevin Prytherch
42 Posted 20/12/2018 at 22:06:15
Brian 29

Man City, along with the rest of the clubs mentioned, report on tickets sold instead of bodies through turnstiles. So they are still getting the money. The difference comes from those who buy season tickets then only attend 10-12 games a season. Everton's link with StubHub helps stop this happening as much to us.

Regardless of the difference, Man City sell 97% of their seats minimum for every match.

£250 million investment for 12,000 extra seats is shocking.

Matt Woods
43 Posted 20/12/2018 at 22:23:29
Please stop worrying about the capacity or what the Reds may be saying.

We are slowly progressing towards the Bramley-Moore Dock. Dan Meis is going to deliver something for us that is going to be world class and is going reestablish us in the big time. Make no mistake, the Shite will be absolutely devastated with our new home on the banks of Our Royal Blue Mersey.

Forget what they are saying now, just wait... Everton on the Mersey in a beautiful state-of-the-art atmospheric stadium. Do you really think they will find that funny?

Terry Farrell
44 Posted 20/12/2018 at 22:40:57
Why aren't we pushing for a German-style standing home end where we can increase capacity without making the stadium bigger and improving the atmosphere?

Also, our future fans, the youngsters, get ultra-cheap prices and tourists would come to say they've seen a Premier League game, like we do when in Barca or Madrid or Milan or Munich etc..

John Raftery
45 Posted 20/12/2018 at 22:43:41
Lawrence (40) That is a good point you make about the demographics. Looking around me in the Park End there is a very high proportion of blokes in their mid-sixties and older.

Given the low percentage of revenue which comes from attendances and the size of the financial investment required to build a new stadium, I can well understand why the club are proposing to increase capacity by only 33% rather than the 50% many have suggested. From a business case perspective, the 33% stacks up because we now have a waiting list of over 10,000 for season tickets.

Before Arsenal moved from Highbury to the Emirates their waiting list was 40,000. So we have some way to go before the club can demonstrate there is a solid case for aiming higher than they propose.

There is of course time for fans to influence the club's thinking by joining the waiting list in their thousands in the coming months as Silva and his men take us towards Wembley glory in May.

Lee Whitehead
46 Posted 20/12/2018 at 22:49:50
What a fucking let-down!!!!

Small club – small mentality.

RS will be laughing at us again – will we never learn?

John Kavanagh
47 Posted 20/12/2018 at 23:02:05
It should be clear once the design is finally unveiled whether or not it is capable of expansion to 62,000. Until then, we will just have to take it all on trust, which is admittedly a big ask after previous fiascos.

We need a stadium capable of hosting European finals or even being a world cup venue. Much will also depend on the support infrastructure – particularly access by public transport, which may act as a brake on capacity in the planning application.

Rob Halligan
48 Posted 20/12/2018 at 23:22:07
I have read through every post on this thread, and so far everyone has been forgetting one thing – corporate hospitality boxes.

At Goodison we have ELEVEN corporate boxes in front of the main stand. I heard a few months ago that there are plans to install anything between 80 - 100 corporate boxes in Bramley-Moore Dock.

Kevin Prytherch #10 says why can't we just put in an extra 5K seats in the park stand, and fill in the corners either side of the park stand? All very well, but what kind of income will this generate?

I don't know the average price of a season ticket at Goodison, but for argument's sake, let's say it's £700. Times that by say 15k additional season tickets, and we've got an extra £10.5M income, but still stuck with those 11 executive boxes.

So what will an extra £10.5M buy us? Sweet FA. Corporate facilities is where the most income is generated nowadays, not season ticket sales.

So while I thought the capacity would be a minimum 55k, I'm certain the 52k will change before building starts. Besides, 52k is not definite.

Bobby Thomas
49 Posted 20/12/2018 at 23:26:01
Stewart #7

Get a grip.

This obsession with Liverpool FC that has paralysed our club from top to bottom – to the point we can't even win a game of football against them home or away – needs to stop. It is utterly self defeating.

Nathan Ford
50 Posted 20/12/2018 at 23:26:51
The club is being run much more astutely these days! The revenue for the club is higher than it's ever been! The club is laying the foundations to improve and expand year by year! Let's sit back and enjoy the ride.

Everything within the club is improving and, with 12,000 extra people at the stadium, the club should generate at least an extra £500k per home match this works out at around £9.5mill a season minimum. That's without stadium naming rights and other endorsements.

What we need at the stadium is Champions League football. People looking at the negatives but let's look at all the positives. COYB

Bill Watson
51 Posted 20/12/2018 at 23:27:12
I'm totally underwhelmed by this. What a let down.

We sell out every Premier League game and we have the maximum allowed season tickets of 32,000 with (according to EFC) at least 10,000 on the waiting list.

With a new ground that's a starting basis of around 42,000. Around 3,000 seats would go to away fans. That leaves 7,000 for the 'new ground' lift most clubs have experienced when they move and any increase in support an anywhere near successful team would attract.

It's ludicrously short-sighted and the 'possibility to increase to 62,000' is pure bullshit. Thank goodness we didn't have such lack of ambition from the people who developed Goodison Park!

Andrew Presly
52 Posted 20/12/2018 at 23:38:01
It just feels small-time... but it's Everton, so no surprise. Not arsed moving for 12k extra capacity, personally. Spend the money on players and let's win things before we're all dead.
Dave Bowen
53 Posted 20/12/2018 at 23:44:05
Have to agree with Bill @#51. 52k is extremely short-sighted. It should be 60k with the option of 70k. Or are we gonna settle for 2nd best yet again? Everton that!
Paul Birmingham
54 Posted 20/12/2018 at 23:54:43
My initial view is disappointment, but not so much on the capacity draft figure, but more so on the feedback from Everton fans over the past 3 years, in that it seems to have been weighted, or diced to suit, the cost constraint.

49 years ago, we were getting most games 40k plus and more in our epic quest for success with Gordon Lee. They were the days, in respect to the mid 80s etc.

Cost is key and potential in any part of life is the untapped unknown. Why not go in for the plan on 65k?

Legislation etc and upgrades cost fortunes at any scale. I sense that there's also some default design limits based on the purchased land, and stadium design and elevation of the pitch.

I work in Telecomms, I know this patch well, but this is the greatest chance in years for EFC, to Phoenix, but whilst I see caution, I see some sense of massive compromise with ambition, measured by on-the-pitch achievement.

May be it's a Euro, Brexit, factor unknown..

Down the line in the middle, this figure, pisses me off, as the Barcodes, and the rest, as we know. have bigger stadia in life and being planned. Fekkn RS, laughing again, with their Meccano Pigeon Loft.

Pre and Post Brexit, is there more to know, and God knows, how fate deals us all in life.. EFC.. please review the last 50 years, and pitch level and club governance success?

It's not gloom and doom and I sense this is a twist to raise profile and anger from fans, but, I smell a rat as surely for such a so-called lavish, North Liverpool regeneration, you pre-design-build access infrastructure, and transport access with a minimum 15 to 20 year footprint? Safe costs to the LCC?

It doesn't stack up in terms of efficiency, governments an councils.. Perhaps back door deals? I'm just smelling some rat, but in context based on the value deal, this is perhaps the optimum elevation capacity figure.

Exceedingly pissed off tonight...

Goodison even under restrictions had over 52k.

Not much to say, but another kick in the gonads..

I hope this is a draft and only a miss informed draft notice, of the capacity. We have nearly 11k waiting list, so perhaps, 42k, plus 10k, for the waiting STH owners, plus tourists etc is the optimum level, without proven success. 52k, is based on an assessment but paves more to win a trophy this season.

If the club shows the capacity increase design, then great..

Still waiting for the draft design issue and the ground capacity upgrade plans. I see the scale of this site means you hit it right first time, else get whacked later, to redesign to increase from 52k. Cost plan and sustainability?

Merry Chrimbo and The Best of The Seasons Greeting to All Evertonians,

Anthony Burke
55 Posted 20/12/2018 at 00:12:50
I'm more than happy with the 52k proposed as long as we really can up it to 62k in the near future. I'd rather have a full 52k at the match than say 57k at 62k; it would look empty in patches and the atmosphere wouldn't be as good as a full stadium.

My thinking would be let's see how it goes for 5 years, see if we can fill the capacity season after season then ramp it up to 62k.

If we are regularly challenging top 4 or even the title, I can't see 62k being a problem. It's important we progress as a team; it's just as important as building the new stadium.

Dan Davies
56 Posted 21/12/2018 at 00:12:57
Bunch of ungrateful bastards! A new stadium! On the Docks. State of the art. Giving Everton life for generations to come.

A huge upgrade on ancient Goodison and all some can do is bitch and moan. Unbelievable.

Waaaaaah! Waah! It's not fair! Rattle out of the pram, grow up.

Everything Everton and Dan Meis have proposed makes absolute sense business wise, financial wise and fan base wise.

Until we hit Man City level- Man Utd level, God forbid, Liverpool level, you sound like absolute clowns.

Bill Watson
58 Posted 20/12/2018 at 00:19:47
Lawrence # 40

Thanks to astute ticket marketing at younger supporters I believe Everton has one of the youngest age profiles in the Premier League.

Others have mentioned transport restrictions as a possible hurdle in the planning process. What restrictions? Bramley-Moore Dock is 12 minutes walk from Sandhills station and Merseyrail has been proposing a new station between there and Moorfields, probably between Bramley-Moore Dock and the Titanic Hotel, which is minutes away from the Bramley-Moore Dock site.

This line runs from Hunts Cross to Southport, Ormskirk and Kirkby (3 routes) thus linking the south and north ends of the city with links to The Wirral at Moorfields and Lime Street via Moorfields or a short walk from Central. It's also an easy bus ride from the city centre.

It will have much better transport links than Goodison Park or Anfield could ever hope for.

Paul Birmingham
59 Posted 21/12/2018 at 00:20:09
Matt at 43, good analogy.

Let’s wait for the plans which should include design and upgrade capacity plans.

Paul Birmingham
60 Posted 21/12/2018 at 00:23:27
Dan @ 56, fair comment but let’s get the full design facts.

Which will be interesting to see next summer.

Lawrence Green
61 Posted 21/12/2018 at 00:36:03
Bill #58,

I'm not saying that Goodison is exclusively full of old codgers like myself, and the club has attempted to recruit new blood in recent years.

According to the Echo from two years ago, Everton sold 8,000 season tickets to people aged 22 or younger which represents 25% of the total season tickets sold. Therefore those youngsters are already on board which is fantastic but the number of people of my age and older will naturally fall away as the years progress.

Therefore the need for more new blood will continue for some time to come. A winning team would help of course but I still think that with all of the other attractions and different interests available to younger people, it is far more difficult to get the long-term loyal supporters that the club needs in order to justify a huge capacity at the new ground.

I actually think that, when the summer 2019 consultation period is over, the club will probably be persuaded that 55k is a more realistic minimum capacity.

Paul Birmingham
62 Posted 21/12/2018 at 00:50:20
Lawrence @61, 👍 top review.
Paul Birmingham
63 Posted 21/12/2018 at 01:01:03
It seems like a very tight business model but cost-viable and effective plan. It will be good to see the drivers, ethics, and rational for such a plan.

On a tight footprint, based on space, why not go high, first?

Loads to learn on this plan, via EFC and Dan Meis. The club should state min and max capacity design, constraints and factors.

Thank you.

John Pickles
64 Posted 21/12/2018 at 01:19:19
We're gonna take a deck chair to a 3-piece suite fight.
Steve Carse
65 Posted 21/12/2018 at 01:27:14
52,000 – total waste of time. And how obvious was the softening up by the Club in the last few months to have us expect a lower capacity?
The 62,000 later possibility is absolute bullshit. That would infer that we'd only be using just over half the increase over the Goodison Park capacity that the site offers. Why would you do that when it's an accepted fact that the costs of adding additional capacity way exceed building the complete stadium from the off?

The capacity is definite. That it will be an 'iconic stadium' is at this stage, in the absence of even the flimsiest of illustrations – pure speculation.

In any event, with the money set aside, wouldn't a reconstructed Goodison Park also potentially be iconic – and at least we've seen from the work of Tom Hughes just how big and how magnificent such a rebuilt Goodison Park could be?

Something just doesn't seem right here, when a stadium likely to cost in excess of £500m provides only 7,000 more seats for the regular support.

Brian Wilkinson
66 Posted 21/12/2018 at 01:38:03
What was the point of the survey with the majority saying between 55k and 62k?

I could live with it starting off at 55k with the option to expand, but with moving to a new stadium, 52k to me is not enough.

Kieran Kinsella
67 Posted 21/12/2018 at 01:49:39
This thread is embarrassing. Comparisons with 50 years ago when it was practically free to get in are meaningless. Talk of having a bigger one than Liverpool? What are we 5-year-olds? 52,000 percentage wise is about a 30 percent increase on what we have now. That is huge especially considering ticket costs.

We have had 38 or 39 thousand gates with low cost tickets the last few years. Mid 30s a few years back. Struggling to hit 30 in the 80s. It is a low income area and like it or not we haven't won 17 league titles or a handful of European cups to lure in thousands of much maligned Norwegian fans.

52,000 is bold.

Tom Hughes
68 Posted 21/12/2018 at 02:17:44
Sounds like they're pitching low to settle for 54k or 55k, to appease the majority at the final consultation.

I also think that initially this scheme was very much dependent on a major funding uplift via the commonwealth games. Obviously the collapse of that has made this a very expensive option.

At the poorer end of the stalled Liverpool waters scheme, there doesn't appear to be too much in terms of enabling projects which would've been the case if the games had happened.

Coincidentally, Dan Meis's other European project is Roma's new stadium, and also 52k capacity (approx £250m). Perhaps the club are adopting the Italian model for new stadium planning: restricting the capacity to keep costs down, and drive ticket prices up?

It's becoming increasingly obvious that getting Goodison Park up to 55-60k would certainly be a much cheaper option. Judging by the fragmented process to date, probably far less problematic too.

Alan J Thompson
69 Posted 21/12/2018 at 03:12:49
Pathetic! It just confirms that those running Everton also think it is a small club. If you think you can increase the capacity in future from 52,000 to 62,000 then why do you think you won't attract that number now?

I don't think they have any intention of increasing the capacity at any time, pure penny pinching as it most certainly won't become any cheaper in future.

Fran Mitchell
70 Posted 21/12/2018 at 03:27:00
I am bemused by the responses here. 52/55 thousand, like it makes an effing difference to the individual match going fan.

this trying to read into something that isn't there 'just showing a lack of ambition?'...ey? we currently have like a 36/37 attendence, we are in a generally low income city, not much of a foreign fanbase, access to watch games online for free why would all of a sudden 20+ thousand more people all of sudden want to part with 50-60 quid every other saturday?

seriously, find something else to moan about. This is great news.

Gary Gibson
71 Posted 21/12/2018 at 04:13:22
I'm sceptical of the club's line that it might be feasible to increase the capacity to 62,000 in the future. For months, we were told that the size of the site precluded us from going beyond 55,000.
Gary Gibson
72 Posted 21/12/2018 at 04:19:05
To build a stadium that's smaller than that of Newcastle United would suggest a lack of ambition.

Over a quarter of the seats at Goodison have an obstructed view of some kind. What's more, the general facilities are abysmal and the corporate facilities are almost non-existent. In spite of all this we get almost 40,000 fans every week.

This decision will limit us severely. Once the RS have redeveloped the Anfield Road Stand, Mordor will have a capacity of around 61,000. Which stadium do you think will have the best chance of getting the big concerts and other events, the small one (ours) or the big one?

Mark Andersson
73 Posted 21/12/2018 at 05:00:08
Lots of dummy-spitting, small-dick, inferiority-complex, boohoo posts to balance out the more pragmatic posts.

If things don't improve on the playing field and the drought of no silverware carries on, what's the point in having a big-dick stadium???

Entertaining football while winning silver is my priority...

Stephen Davies
74 Posted 21/12/2018 at 05:15:06
Marl #73
Spot on.
Success will determine the eventual capacity
Dave McDowell
75 Posted 21/12/2018 at 05:15:52
“Two stands will be designed to be able to adopt rail seating/safe standing should there be a change in the law and supporters express a desire for it to be introduced, with further future-proofing meaning capacity could be upscaled to 62,000.”

It seems any increase in capacity may be achieved by taking seats out and packing more bodies in standing.

55,000 was my minimum expectation but I think the club is concerned how supporters will be watching football in the future.

It is likely in the not too distant future you will have a digital season ticket and be able to watch all live matches on your smart device.

This might not heavily impact “tourist clubs” like the RS, United and some London clubs but could hit the clubs with more local support such as ourselves.

Gavin Johnson
76 Posted 21/12/2018 at 06:39:29
52,000 sounds about right for Everton.
Mark Murphy
77 Posted 21/12/2018 at 06:41:06
“We don't care what the Redshite say...”

Clearly lots of you do. Too much!

Jack Convery
78 Posted 21/12/2018 at 06:47:07
John Pickles@ 64 – Love it! Ta for making me smile!!
Brian Porter
80 Posted 21/12/2018 at 07:12:18
Kieran #67, thank you for saving me a lot of typing. You have said exactly what I was about to say. Good job I read all the previous posts first.
Ian Hollingworth
81 Posted 21/12/2018 at 07:13:22
I have had mixed emotions on the capacity announcement. Initially, I felt it was about right, then I went through the small club mentality dilemma that many on here are clearly facing also.

The stadium will not be ready until 2023 if it goes to plan. I was kind of hoping we would have an improved team challenging for honours by then?

We quite often fill Goodison Park but the atmosphere isn't always great, so we can't assume a full 52k means a good atmosphere. A good team playing exciting attacking football will generate the atmosphere.

I also have other concerns about the stadium:

1. Via the surveys, the club are already indicating that car parking will be a problem. We cannot assume that everyone will use public transport. If we do, then I guess 52k might be a struggle.

2. Corporate facilities may well be improved but what does this do for the average fan? We haven't seen anything that shows what facilities will be available to the average fan in and around the stadium.

3. We are assuming a lot about how great and iconic the stadium will be. We hope it will be but again we have not seen any plans yet.

We are going to spend a lot of money on this project moving forward — let's hope we get it right.

Peter Thistle
82 Posted 21/12/2018 at 07:16:35
Probably won't be built until we're all dead anyway. I wouldn't worry about it.
Andy Meighan
83 Posted 21/12/2018 at 07:24:38
Great post from Mark @73. Big Dick stadium indeed.

I've got to be honest and say, when I first heard the news, I was underwhelmed Now the dust has settled, I'm seeing the sense in it.

But Mark is right: Why have a big lovely brand newie if we've got a shit team? Sunderland, anyone?

Obviously, we are a far bigger club than them but be careful what you wish for. As long as there's no posts in the way, it'll do for me.

There's actually seats at the back in that Lower Gwladys Street where you are actually struggling to see the pitch. I just hope there's a massive home end housing about 16 or 17 thousand – à la Dortmund.

Justin Doone
84 Posted 21/12/2018 at 07:51:50
Why compare our potential new stadium against rivals? I just want what's best for Everton.

In terms of growth and increasing commercial revenue, I'm pretty sure a new river front stadium will far exceed what may be possible at Goodison.

We could try and build the world's biggest football stadium to satisfy a few hundred unhappy fans and whilst at it build the world's tallest skyscraper for even more potential income. Wow.. would that be ambitious enough?

Who knows... in 50 years time we may redevelop Goodison and move back into a downsized stadium as everything turns to online streaming and the atmosphere at Goodison Docks is so poor, the only spectators are away fans who have come for the Beatles tour.

John G Davies
85 Posted 21/12/2018 at 08:00:37
Bottom line: We wouldn't fill a 62,000-seat stadium. We have a core base of fans that, in my opinion, a 52,000-seat stadium would suit.

Through clenched teeth, they across the park would fill a 62,000 stadium. We wouldn't. You only have to look at demand for tickets at both grounds currently. They have touts outside getting hundreds of pounds per ticket for ordinary league games, we don't.

Nothing worse than a stadium only full to capacity 3 or 4 times a season, big gaps for the remaining games.

Stephen Bird
86 Posted 21/12/2018 at 08:12:22
A serious case of penis-envy occurring here

Will we generate 20% plus more revenue? – Yes!
Will we fill every seat? – Yes!!
Will we have a state-of-the-art new stadium? – Yes!!!
Will we consolidate cost? – Yes!!!!
Will we still have cash for player recruitment? – Yes!!!!!
Can we go bigger when we want? – Yes!!!!!!

Bingo!!! This is a great Christmas present, celebrate!

Am I interested in other clubs and their shitty grounds? – Absolutely not!

Have a great Christmas. COYB

Tony Abrahams
87 Posted 21/12/2018 at 08:27:13
Dan Davies @56, I couldn't agree more mate.

Brian Harrison makes a very good point about standing rails, so perhaps Dan Meis was telling the truth and this is where the stadium expansion might come from at a later date?

I would have loved 55,000 but always remember Jamie C saying most stadiums lose something once they go too big. One thing that I do know is how cold it gets down by the river Mersey during the winter months, so hopefully there will be some kind of heating incorporated into the design, now that I'm getting old!

Laurie Hartley
88 Posted 21/12/2018 at 08:32:34
Stewart # 7 – I reckon most of the Reds would swap their extra 4074 seats for our location on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey. Having said that I was hoping for a capacity of at least 55k.

What interests me is how the design can accommodate an increase in capacity from 52k to 62k. Let me try to explain why.

Once you decide on the position of the pitch on the site, and then the width and height of the seating terraces, you can establish the footprint of the stadium based on a 52k capacity AND the footprint of the roof.

To increase the capacity to 62k the size of the footprint would increase proportionately (approximately 20%) and for me therein lies the puzzle. Presumably the extra 20% of terracing would go around the rear of the existing seating which would mean the 52k roof would have to be raised. That's not going to happen because that is big time and money.

I will be interested to see how Dan Meis has solved this problem – which I am sure he has.

Eddie Dunn
91 Posted 21/12/2018 at 08:43:26
Some very good points on here on both sides of the size argument.

I would like us to build as big as possible and, if we have a 60,000 capacity, we can do many things to ensure that we fill it. For starters, we could sell more season tickets, especially without our obstructed views.

We could welcome the certain clubs who could bring larger away followings. I actually loved it when Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City and some others filled the Park End. The atmosphere was improved. Part of our "Library" current atmosphere is partly down to the fact that away fans are shoved in the corner of the Lower Bullens.

We could also increase capacity if we have some standing areas. This could be a possibility by the time we start work.

Finally, there are thousands of fans, like me who now live a long way away but, when visiting the city, can't get a ticket for the bigger games. These people all add up to a substantial number. Currently, they can be put off by the unlikelihood of getting a ticket.

The increase in tourism in Liverpool has also opened up a new market, and if we were in the new Bramley-Moore Dock Stadium, we could attract many visitors.

The current proposal is only about 12,000 above what we now have. Surely we will be able to attract more than this???

Jimmy Hogan
92 Posted 21/12/2018 at 08:53:33
As long as it has padded seats, I don't care how big it is...
Andy Osborne
93 Posted 21/12/2018 at 09:14:12
Laurie 88, I think the increased numbers from 52k to 62k will be because of safe standing/rail seats. So stadium size stays the same. My speculation of course.

Also, it's not my money, so I would like as big a stadium as possible, but if it too big, it might not be full every game, which I think would be bad.

If we build 52k and move to 62k with safe standing (if that ever comes in) then other clubs will do the same too. So Old Trafford will got to 85k, Man City 71k etc. So if it is important to have a stadium that is in the top 5 in size, then it has to be 62k now.

Personally, that is not important to me. I would just like a ground that is good for Everton. Unfortunately I am a tourist fan now (as I live overseas) so my say is not as important as all of you who go to every game. Here are some figures that I think are interesting:

In 2016, Everton increased the season ticket cap to 32k. I have heard there is a waiting list of 10k. Our average attendance last season was 39k.

So, given the current demand, and if all of the waiting list bought season tickets. That would put an average attendance in the new stadium at around 49k. Add on the "new stadium bump" and you might expect another 5k?

So, for me, 52k is a bit too small, 55k to 57k is better.I don't care what other clubs have, particularly the RS. I think our stadium, whatever the size, will be fantastic because of its location (and the supporters inside, of course).

Tony Dove
94 Posted 21/12/2018 at 09:16:27
That's the first part of the Consultation process which has been totally ignored. Did anyone actually vote for anything smaller than 55k?

It will never in a million years be extended.

Dean Johnson
95 Posted 21/12/2018 at 09:26:18
Mmm, padding.

It would also be nice to have some skin left on my shins at the end of each game too.

I can't understand why so many are so pissed off, led by cheerleader Michael. As some have said, can only be penis envy.

Put it this way, it's not what you've got, it's how you use it. I'm sure our stadium will shit all over Anfield in every single way except capacity, yet I have no basis for that claim, like all complaints about the capacity.

No-one really gives a reason why 62k is better than 52k or even why 55k is better than 52k. I mean it's all numbers, we as fans know absolutely fuck all so lets trust this new regime to get the ball over the line.

They certainly seem better qualified than a) the old regime and b) all of us on here.

Brian Hennessy
96 Posted 21/12/2018 at 09:26:54
It would be interesting to know if the 62,000 figure is absolutely dependent on the introduction of safe standing in the future, or can this figure be achieved with seating.

I'm okay with 52,000 to start with if the extra capacity can be achieved in the future if needed regardless of the introduction of safe standing or not.

We have no guarantee that safe standing will ever be introduced in the Premier League and to base future capacity projections on this would be a mistake.

Brian Murray
97 Posted 21/12/2018 at 09:27:45
Eddie Dunn, post 91 — what possible reason would you want the away fans like that in full view and prominent in our new ground? Put them up in the gods, out the way, preferably behind a Perspex screen so no one can hear them either.
Eddie Dunn
99 Posted 21/12/2018 at 09:30:02
Another point is that, back in the Bingham years, our attendances slumped down to ~20,000 and even less a few times, midweek, League Cup etc, when we were averaging around 30,000. Yet last season, gates at Goodison Park remained at almost capacity — despite Big Sam's brand of football.

This points to greater interest in every game and the popularity of the game as a whole. In this light, we would have no problem filling a 60,000 ground, even if our football was piss-poor.

Christy Ring
100 Posted 21/12/2018 at 09:37:56
We're going to have a state-of-the-art new stadium. I don't see a problem with a 52,000 capacity, rising to 62,000. Some of the comments expressed, say it's only 12,000 more than we have now, but the bigger picture, revenue is in the corporate boxes, which Goodison can't cater for, that's where the big money is.

The reason the redshite built the new stand wasn't to cater for the fans, it was solely for the corporate area, but the yanks went back on their word to build a new stadium.

We'll have a state-of-the-art new stadium on the docks; who'll be the happier camper?

Jim Hourigan
101 Posted 21/12/2018 at 09:43:18
Interesting comments about other clubs and City in particular. I went to the match last week and unfortunately had to sit in the City end, the guest of one of their accountants who is interestingly based in London as he deals with commercial activities, not players. He was saying that as a club the big debate is about expending the ground up to its 60k plus capacity by building the third tier behind the goal.

So, as the current Champions, League Cup winners Champions League etc etc, you would think it a no-brainer, but it clearly is not. Currently, they do not fill their ground on anything other than 2/3 occasions per year, have relatively poor European attendances, and give away thousands of tickets for most matches. Add to that the style of football and you would think the ground would be bursting at the seems.

Despite having a massive global sponsor and seemingly bottomless pockets, they see little point at this stage playing in a stadium that may have 2/3,000 empty seats for all but the odd game.

Whatever heritage we had in the '60s and '70s with our ability to fill a 60k stadium, our current fan-base would not repeat those feats for all but, like Man City, the odd game – 60k versus Fulham, Cardiff, Huddersfield, Burnley etc on a Wednesday night – I think not. Man City's view is that it will take a further 10 years of consistent success to build the fan-base to fill the stadium, exactly what Liverpool and Man Utd had.

We are a proud and loyal group but many of those '60s supporters (like my dad) have passed away and I'm not sure they have been replaced by the same numbers. Sentimentality over business sense is not the way to run a club... so, for me, 52k is right.

Tim Smith
102 Posted 21/12/2018 at 09:59:21
Jim, I agree with your analysis. I was at Man City vs Southampton recently and there were lots of empty seats.

For me, it seems more sensible to go for the lower figure with the option of increasing. In the era of the Sky big 6, etc., looking longer term, how many younger fans will we attract as our fan base increases in age? These are the type of strategic issues the Club has to consider.

I used to organise the office Christmas party, and I always used to say we had a better atmosphere with a smaller but full venue rather than being in a warehouse.

John G Davies
103 Posted 21/12/2018 at 10:00:09
Jim 101,

Perfectly put.
100% correct.

Gary Gibson
104 Posted 21/12/2018 at 10:05:04
Having a couple of thousand empty seats is better than turning paying customers away.
Brian Harrison
105 Posted 21/12/2018 at 10:06:34

You are right about most clubs have a set number of core supporters, and it takes decades of success to attract new fans. So it will take Man City another 10-15 years to build on their core support, and as long as their current owners are in place then I think their attendances will increase.

City also have the same problem as we do, in as much that when the team playing in the same city is better known worldwide that also makes it harder to attract new fans.

I am old enough to have been inside Goodison Park when we had 75,000 in the ground, but it will take many decades for us to even contemplate them sort of crowds again. I think the difficulty in assessing what the fan base will be like in 5 -10 years is the main worry. Yes, we will always be able to fill a 60,000 stadium for the top games, but against the other teams probably 52,000 is about right.

You only had to see Spurs game the other week at Wembley when only 30,000 turned up the stadium looked empty. What sort of effect half-full stadiums have on players compared to a full house roaring you on, I can only guess.

Chris Gould
106 Posted 21/12/2018 at 10:11:56
Jim #101,

That's a very enlightening post.

Unfortunately, there seems to be many fans who are more interested in being able to say, "ours is bigger than yours!", rather than accept that this proposal makes the most sense financially, and from an atmospheric perspective.

The size and success of a club is measured by how big their trophy cabinet is, not their ground.

Does anybody view West Ham or Newcastle as bigger clubs than us because they have bigger stadiums?

Give me a thriving, intimidating, full stadium over an empty, soulless one any day. I have worked in The Emirates stadium on match days and it is rarely full. The noise and atmosphere at a relatively small ground like Selhurst Park is far better.

I have faith that we will be blown away by what we get. Atmosphere and state-of-the-art facilities are the most important factors.

John Raftery
107 Posted 21/12/2018 at 10:16:04
There seems to be a misconception that rail seating provides extra capacity. It doesn’t. All it does is enable a person to stand in front of their seat with a rail in front of them. It is considerably safer but it is neither a cheap option nor a way of squeezing extra fans in.
Craig Walker
108 Posted 21/12/2018 at 10:16:16
A 52,000-seater state-of-the-art football stadium which has great views of the game from all seats with no obstructions, modern facilities and has an intimidating atmosphere will do me. I'd sooner have this than the situation at certain Man City games when it looks like their fans have turned up dressed as sky blue seats.

Let's see some designs and visualisations now.

Michael Lynch
109 Posted 21/12/2018 at 10:16:40
Like a few others on here, I'd also prefer smaller but packed, with an intimidating atmosphere if possible. The Man City comparison is fair – there's no way we will fill 62,000 seats in the immediate future, if they can't with their fancy dan football and trophies galore.

The new stadium won't be ready for another five years, and that's where the money will be going (see Arsenal and Spurs for the trade-off between new players and new stadium). Therefore we'll probably still be hovering around the edges of the Top 6 by the time we move.

Even if we do a Man City, it will be a further ten years before we are starting to be an international force, and probably another ten after that before we have an international fan base. So, about 25 years in total before our stadium starts looking a bit small. I'll probably be pushing up the daisies by then, so good luck with the rebuild.

Tony Everan
110 Posted 21/12/2018 at 10:20:42
52,000 to get through planning; then, we will present a case for 55,000 if the sums and infrastructure necessary can justify it.

As for the up to 61,878 figure (62k) mentioned, I think that is just there to appease the fans (including me) who voted for it in the poll.

Even so, if we get a fantastic stadium on the banks of the river at preferably 55,000, I would still be jumping through hoops. I would regard that as a resounding success and much more than the club and fans could have wished for 10 years ago under the Kenwright regime. It's like getting a Porsche 911 for Christmas and moaning it wasn't the Ferrari you asked for.

Derek Knox
111 Posted 21/12/2018 at 10:27:09
I had hoped like many others, that the capacity would have been a bit bigger, but I suppose they have factored all the statistics into the equation, and the question of cost, not being unlimited too.

I suppose it's better to have a 52k Stadium (with the possibility of a 10k increase) than none at all. As has been mentioned too, it would be great to see some sort of design or architect's picture of what the finished project will look like.

John Raftery
112 Posted 21/12/2018 at 10:29:09
One thing the club could do is introduce a special concourse ticket for the pie and pint brigade who hardly bother sitting at their seats but prefer to watch the match on the TV screens in the concourses while they feast themselves on food and awful beer. These people clearly don’t value a seat watching the game so they won’t need to trouble themselves with buying one.

I noticed at City last week there were thousands of empty home seats throughout the game with the number probably doubling after half-time. There are supporters, especially at the big clubs, who just want to say they were at the game and are not bothered if they spend the afternoon watching it on the TV screen.

Peter Mills
113 Posted 21/12/2018 at 10:39:40
The proposals sound very sensible to me. More importantly, they sound as though there is a real chance of them being implemented.
Roger Helm
114 Posted 21/12/2018 at 10:56:36
I doubt very much that 52,000 will be the final figure, as we already have 32,000 season-ticket holders, a waiting list of 10,000, plus presumably some more who would like to buy season tickets if there was no waiting list. Also, the city centre riverside location will make it more attractive to casual or tourist customers.

More than seat numbers, I am more interested in the fan experience. For example, seat size (Goodison Park seats are painful if you are over six feet), concourse facilities etc.

Also, how will those of us who drive from outside the city get to the ground? Driving to and parking round Goodison Park at present is difficult enough.

Steve Brown
115 Posted 21/12/2018 at 11:28:08
Rob @ 48, you called it early in this thread but no-one was paying attention. An extra 3000 on the capacity will not generate significant additional revenue but 80-100 corporate boxes will.

Also, bear in mind that the potential to increase to 62,000 will only be justified if we expand our fan base through success. The possible introduction of secure standing would also allow us to hugely increase the attendance without building a stadium that is too large.

Eddie Dunn
116 Posted 21/12/2018 at 11:37:00
I think that a bigger capacity is realistic. There are many ways to sell more seats. Not only could we offer them as part of tourist packages but we could offer half-season tickets, where a seat is divided between 2 people and they attend once a month, keeping costs down and encouraging those who simply can't get to every home match.

Pricing is another way of attracting people. As a lad, I could go to a game, have a bag of chips and get buses to and from Goodison Park, all on my pocket money. Youngsters today need substantially more money (or their parents do).

I would like to see children (under 16) allowed in for free. The fanbase of the future.

Heated seats would be nice too! the wind off the Mersey will be biting in those winter months.

John Chambers
117 Posted 21/12/2018 at 11:41:47
Whilst, like many others, I would have liked to see a larger capacity, one thing that nobody seems to have considered in all these comments is the accessibility to Bramley-Moore Dock.

Today, Goodison Park can be accessed from all four corners of the ground and has a network of streets and roads approaching. At Bramley-Moore Dock, this will clearly not be possible with everybody having to enter and exit via the Dock Road.

I suspect, in the overall planning, this will be one of the bigger hurdles the club have to address and it will surely be easier to do this for 52,000, prove this can be safely achieved, and then increase capacity.

David McMullen
118 Posted 21/12/2018 at 12:00:40
Really hate the way this has split the fans. Some polar opposite views!

I know this is hypothetical, but I'm convinced if Goodison was 52,000 now, we'd fill it. I was saying that under Allardyce. So to move in to a new, state-of-the-art stadium on the waterfront, at 52k, is surely only accommodating the here and now?

All new stadiums have taken each club to a new level in terms of attendance. Sustaining it is the key. It's not rocket science. To anticipate a new era of success which we all hope surely we need to anticipate more coming?

I don't buy the "size envy" Meis spoke about nor the knock-downs about we all want to keep above the RS. For me it's about making a statement "We're a big club" and we strive to be the best. Tottenham are clearly showing the way.

Also, this about the safe standing. Surely other clubs like Tottenham will incorporate it too. So if it is a bigger ratio than 1:1, we may increase our capacity but so too will other clubs!

Geoffrey Williams
119 Posted 21/12/2018 at 12:02:17
I don't understand why people think a stadium has to be packed to the rafters to create a good atmosphere. There are lots of things that contribute to a great atmosphere and one of the most important being proximity of the supporters to the pitch.

Another has to do with the make-up of the crowd. I'm as passionate as the next Evertonian but, at my age, I wouldn't be chanting my way through a match. However, having a substantial element in their teens, 20s and 30s would add to the atmosphere.

A successful team playing good football is vital too. There is also the assumption that it is the same 38,000 people who turn up at Everton each week; the fan base is much wider than that with many attending less than half the fixtures maybe due to work or family commitments.

Psychologically, a stadium with a capacity of 52,000 is seen as a huge let down by many and a sign of a lack of ambition on the part of the club. This will only change if the design of the stadium is state of the art with the best facilities in the Premier League and a landmark statement on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey... but we know that's unlikely.

James Hughes
121 Posted 21/12/2018 at 12:18:17
If the stadium gets too large, then the atmosphere can be easily lost. Let's face facts: the Old Lady isn't exactly rocking right now anyway. The possibilities of instead 38,000 sitting there in silence and groaning when a pass goes astray, there will 52,000 doing the same.

For the disgruntled out there, I would like to believe the club actually analysed the number, rather than just say... "Sod it, 52 thousand will do!!! Meis, draw up the plans, Son!"

Other clubs have been mentioned: West Ham have lost fans as the new ground has no atmosphere; they have to give Newham Council thousands of tickets as part of the tenancy. Most of those seats go unused. No seat occupied = No atmosphere generated.

That lot the other end of the East Lancs Road have grown their stadium. The feedback is that it is now known as The Library. Stadium — too big and too many football tourists.

I'd rather have a 52,000 fortress than a 62,000 cathedral, but if it has to be bigger than Anfield, a cathedral it is then.

Tony Marsh
122 Posted 21/12/2018 at 12:22:53
So the club asked supporters to fill in that tedious questionnaire the other week to gauge the views of what the people thought about the proposed new stadium and to get some insight into what fans want with regards to building the new ground at Bramley-Moore Dock. Why bother when the views of the fans have been completely ignored??

I can't find a single supporter who put down 52.000 as a figure for stadium capacity. Not many on here happy with that figure either. What is the point of building a stadium with such a small capacity and then talking about the club emerging from the shadows and joining the elite clubs of the Premier League and Europe??

Daft decision showing complete lack of ambition. This news of suggested stadium capacity shows me the true intentions of the club which is to be an average mid-table club. Miles behind the likes of Spurs and Arsenal — never mind Man Utd and Liverpool.

The City of Liverpool have already messed up building the Echo Arena with such a small capacity. 12,000 means the Echo Arena is not fit for purpose. Same thing happening with the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, I'm afraid.

When are Everton FC ever going to learn? 3 years of pissing about to then come out with this nonsense. I don't believe for one minute they will add seats on at a later date. Small-time club with small-time mentality — that's us.

James Lauwervine
123 Posted 21/12/2018 at 13:26:23
Seems a sensible approach. I don't care about other stadiums and I don't care about where we 'rank' in size of capacity. I just want the thing to be built and to look amazing.
Will Mabon
124 Posted 21/12/2018 at 13:49:32
Strange, eh? In earlier supposed naive days, without "Modern" thinking and access to computation, data and so much "Vital" information, somehow big things just got done without the song and dance.

There were less of us, paying less tax and lower prices, yet you didn't endlessly hear "No money" and "No budget". Earlier times, you could go ahead and build a motorway or a big bridge project, but now, it's a feasibility study to decide there's insufficient money to install that new bin on the street corner.

It's been 25+ years of the same old cost-is-everything mantra across the board and it's sticking now – many believe money really is tight, even to hugely profitable corporations.

This proposed capacity is not missing a chance, an error, a lost opportunity, small-mindedness — it's the club's attempt at what it believes to be the absolute most efficient, rationalized number in terms of money invested against return and other measures. Thing is though, against the measures that really matter to an historic top football club, it looks parsimonious and rather pathetic, in my humble opinion.

Kieran Kinsella
125 Posted 21/12/2018 at 13:50:45
Newcastle fans are ecstatic. They and Chelsea both made a push for success in the 90s.

Okay, fine... Chelsea won a few titles but Newcastle fans had the last laugh because they know if their team is ever good then more people can fit in St James than Stamford Bridge.

Pete Edwards
126 Posted 21/12/2018 at 13:56:54
God help us when we actually see some designs — heads all over the floor!!

Love a moan, don't we!!!

John Raftery
127 Posted 21/12/2018 at 13:58:21
David (118),

Regarding your last paragraph, safe standing can't be installed at more than 1:1.

Will Mabon
128 Posted 21/12/2018 at 14:01:52
Pete, I believe we're talking about the capacity here, not the design.

Also, a contrary opinion is not automatically a "moan".

Bobby Mallon
129 Posted 21/12/2018 at 14:04:02
Don't you all get it? This is not about the ground... it's about the money made from infrastructure: hotels, bars, restaurants.

I'm pissed off it's only mooted to be 52,000... fucking disgrace if you ask me.

Charles Barrow
130 Posted 21/12/2018 at 14:31:04
People are forgetting the most important ingredient. Success! I couldn't care less about 52k, 56k, 62k, 65k. What I care about is the team and trophies!

I would rather we won leagues and cups in a 52k stadium than win bugger all in an Aztecs style 99k stadium that everyone admires.

Pete Edwards
131 Posted 21/12/2018 at 14:37:34
Will, I know what is being talked about on here, the fact that so many are moaning says to me that, when the designs are out, it will be tenfold!

And I don't disagree, everyone has an opinion, but some are plain moaning and do so with every bit of news out of the club (that's my opinion)!

Dave Evans
133 Posted 21/12/2018 at 14:37:43
Dan Davies @56 Exactly.

Kiddies don't have to worry about the cost of their Christmas prezzies.

Robin Cannon
135 Posted 21/12/2018 at 14:56:42
It's a good job we never went even smaller. No team could ever be successful with a stadium like that. You know, like the purpose-built 42,000 seater stadium Juventus built for themselves.

52,000 with scope for expansion seems completely sensible. Something that we will be able to mostly fill, and maintain an intense atmosphere. I don't know what the obsession is with a bigger stadium, other than the shite will have a few extra seats.

Absolutely supportive of the plan. It's both ambitious and realistic at the same time.

Richard Reeves
136 Posted 21/12/2018 at 15:45:35
Obviously, when it comes to money, fans' consultation means nothing. Most of us wanted 60,000.

I just hope they can design that blue wall to be bigger with the option of turning the whole of it into safe standing.

Paul Brown
137 Posted 21/12/2018 at 15:55:08
You know what?

If we were Champions League regulars, won the odd FA Cup or League Cup, regularly beat Man Utd, Chelsea or Liverpool home and away... then, yes, I would be pissed off at 52k.

The last time we won the league, we averaged 30k a game so let's get the football side right first. Get a few troops, the league on the table, sell out 52k a week with a waiting list of thousands. Then, if we can expand to 62k, who is to say we won't be able to go up to 70k?

It's about getting the team all right first and start winning things.

Kieran Kinsella
138 Posted 21/12/2018 at 16:14:23
Regarding the 62,000 capacity being pushed by many. I have lost count of the numerous postings down the years on ToffeeWeb along the lines of:

"I have just sent a letter to Kenwright / Dunsford / Elstone saying I am not renewing my season ticket until we get rid of Smith / Moyes / Martinez / Koeman / Allardyce, Nil Satis Nisi Optimum — not piss poor football bla bla bla."

Will the notion of a bigger stadium with more expensive seats be a game changer that keeps disgruntled fans in their seats if we finish 5th, 15th or 20th?

Also, many on here (like myself) now live overseas. I honestly think it is a bit of a cheek for us expats to put an expectation on the folks back in Liverpool that 60,000 have to fork out money for season tickets come wind, rain or shine on the field and off the field.

Yeah, give fans some consultation but any decisions have to be business-based, not emotional. We have to look at analytics and data about attendance trends, disposable income, travel logistics, population demographics, market share both current and projected versus our rivals, etc.

Yes, have some kind of input from fans, and if the business logistics happen to match Tony Marsh or Colin Glassar's aspirations then great. But, if they don't, then oh well.

Don Alexander
139 Posted 21/12/2018 at 16:42:09
If it's a mere 52k, it'll show me the small-minded curse of Kenwright is still embedded in the boardroom.
Frank Crewe
140 Posted 21/12/2018 at 16:48:04
52,000 seems more than adequate to me. A brand new, purpose-built ground with proper transport links, top corporate boxes (where the money is), no stanchions restricting the views. If we need more seats, which I personally doubt we will, we can put more in.

It will already be risky to get this ground built. Look at Spurs, still squatting in Wembley while they spend a billion quid on their new ground... or Sunderland. A bigger better ground didn't do them much good. I'll bet they'd have Roker Park back if it would keep them in the Premier League. When the side is struggling, those thousands of empty seats really show.

Getting a stadium built from scratch is a very big risk for a club like Everton. Without a doubt, the initial estimate of the cost will inevitably go up, as it always does with big construction projects, so we have to allow for that.

It will be better to get a 52,000 seat modern stadium built that we have a chance of filling on a regular basis than going for some giant white elephant with a bloated capacity that we can never fill, unless half the ground is away support, and will bankrupt the club and never get finished.

Anthony Murphy
141 Posted 21/12/2018 at 17:09:18
I think a lot hinges on the actual design. If the plans look amazing, I don't think capacity will matter as much - especially if the conversion to a larger capacity is doable and there is a genuine commitment from the club to make this happen should demand be there. I have doubts here.

I've read some good points here both for and against, but still think the capacity is a little conservative. I think we have a bigger fanbase than many realise - just look at our support when we play away in Europe. In my opinion, we are underestimating demand. Everton have been largely shit for years, but more often than not we've always showed up. Just look at the attendance against Southampton in the League Cup this year compared to other Premier League clubs in the same round. I've got no doubt than in the current climate with a decent team playing attractive football in a brand new stadium that we'll see a huge demand from a wide range of punters.

On saying all that, one thing I do agree with is that larger capacity does not mean better atmosphere – as a fanbase, we need to work on this once we do move as right now the atmosphere at Goodison Park is crap.

Bernard Dooley
142 Posted 21/12/2018 at 17:41:43
Like David #118 said, I too hate the animosity which is spewed out by some posters on TW just because fellow Evertonians (surely the point) oppose your particular view. Dan Davies #56 was endorsed by a couple of posters though lord knows why. It was petulant and childish in my humble opinion.

It is interesting that a number of posters profess to understand the business case for a smaller stadium that others would prefer. I have looked in vain in the TW archives for the last poll TW conducted on the preferred size of the new stadium but can't locate it. This at least would be a starting point regarding the emotional or hard-headed preference for a smaller or larger stadium.

In the official EFC consultation, I don't believe we were directly asked what capacity we thought was right, though views could be expressed under Stadium Design or "Other Matters". Of course, those responses have not been made public, so again we haven't got a guideline as to what people thought.

I would be more comfortable if the club had published some figures showing the estimated cost differences in building a 52,000 or 60,000 ground, or indeed at a compromise figure of 56,000. This insight might have had us all putting our hands up and saying, we see where you are coming from, the lower figure makes sense, Or is it the footprint itself the problem? Would 60,000 impact adversely on the facilities the Club hope to provide?

We have 32,000 season tickets holders (an amazing amount for a not too successful football club, and apparently low-income fan base). 10,000 wait in the wings. the If Bramley-Moore Dock stadium reaches fruition, might that not add another 10%? If so, that's 46,000+. So it is beginning to look as if, after we accommodate the away fans, there won't be that much capacity left for the more occasional attendee who may wish to buy tickets for a game say against a Spurs rather than say a Huddersfield.

Six years ago this month Everton hosted a Sunday game against Tottenham, attendance 36,500. We won 2-1, our last victory against them. That weekend, I had four, mostly younger, family visitors coming up from London (Arsenal fans!) and they requested tickets for the game. I rang the box office and after a bit of to and fro they came up with five tickets, all together in the Gwladys Street End and managed to avoid the posts. After being 1-0 down, Pienaar equalised in the 90th minute and Jelavic got the winner in injury time. My visitors had the time of their lives.

Couldn't do that this weekend. Getting two together is a challenge. A decent-sized new stadium should be able offer non-season-ticket holders decent opportunities to get to some games. No justification to build 62,000 seats in itself, of course, but show us the info that you have so that we better understand the issue.

"The final capacity remains subject to the designs being finalised and ongoing consultation with supporters and other stakeholders." What form will this ongoing consultation take? Open to all (Evertonians) or maybe just a focus group? Time will tell...

Jamie Crowley
143 Posted 21/12/2018 at 17:43:19
Very pleased.

Big enough to increase revenues, "small" enough to keep it filled and create a fantastic, bear-pit atmosphere. Tickets will be in demand and I always want a full house. Worst thing in the world are these 75,000 seat (read 62,000 in our case for comparison) stadiums over here where the home team gets 55,000 fans. It's a hideous looking thing that simply deflates the atmosphere at the games.

I think all the 62,000 shouters, and the, "plucky little Everton" gang, along with the, "Anfield has a bigger stadium than us, oh no!" folks are the same type of people who in my part of the country:

Drive a Ford F250 if you bought the Ford F150.

Put in a bigger wad of chewing tobacco than you because it's more "manly".

Buy an AR15 when you bought a Glock.

Measure penis size after drinking 12 to 15 beers, just to see who's is bigger.

Decaf... find your sense of humor before you're offended please.

This stadium will be the bomb. I don't care if it seats 40,000 a la Fenway. It has character, it will greatly increase revenues, will be (thankfully) sold out frequently if not always, and be something to be proud of.

Lee Whitehead
144 Posted 21/12/2018 at 18:06:50
Jamie @143

What a load of crap!!!!

Just because I have a different view to you... Grow up!

Bernard Dooley
145 Posted 21/12/2018 at 18:19:55
Jamie # 143 Move House!

ps: Find your sense of humour (British Spelling) by all means, but are male reproductive body parts that funny??

Paul Kelly
146 Posted 21/12/2018 at 18:28:01
Jamie, "Measure penis size after drinking 12 to 15 beers, just to see whose is bigger."

I do it around the three-pint mark, each to their own I suppose.

Colin Glassar
147 Posted 21/12/2018 at 18:33:32
I can live with 52,000 to kick off with. Like Jamie says, a smaller, packed stadium will generate far more atmosphere than a ⅓-empty, cavernous monstrosity.

If we can have a successful team, we will fill a 60k+ stadium. If not, we'll be stuck on the 40,000-mark.

Chris Gould
148 Posted 21/12/2018 at 18:34:15
Well, Bernard, mine have been laughed at plenty of times. So I guess they must be.
John G Davies
149 Posted 21/12/2018 at 18:46:19
Paul, it's better after 15 pints. You're seeing double by that time.
Paul Rimmer
150 Posted 21/12/2018 at 19:45:46
Location, Location. Make this easily accessible from Town and an iconic design and the capacity matters not one iota. We will be the envy of most on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey.
Jay Harris
151 Posted 21/12/2018 at 20:19:22
I remember Goodison Park holding 60 to 70 thousand and it never sounded empty when there were only 40,000 there.
Andy Crooks
152 Posted 21/12/2018 at 20:24:25
I can' t get a ticket now without the intervention of a blue like Tony Abrahams. I reckon it will be the same with the new ground.

I believe this suggested capacity is utterly small-minded. I feel totally disinterested in the project now.

Adam Bradshaw
153 Posted 21/12/2018 at 21:14:55
Having read 150 comments, I just wanted to add a few things:

- Everyone is focusing on what stadium we could fill *now*, surely we need to be looking at what capacity we need in 10, 20 or 50 years time? How long ago was Goodison built and how have times changed? When I buy shoes for my 3-year-old I buy them with space to grow into, same theory surely?

- What if the Sky money bubble bursts? Obviously a gamble and as others have said it could shift to more virtual tickets but I expect the Saturday 3pm games to remain untouched.

- My (maybe somewhat pessimistic) view is that this is a clear sign Everton is just an investment to Moshiri and 52k is the most optimal/efficient number to get the best return for him.

- I feel anything less than 60k is a lack of ambition but it won't suddenly be a bad stadium, it will undoubtedly be a significant improvement on Goodison Park.

- I feel a higher capacity with reduced prices (or free) for children was the way to go, that's earmarking the fans for the future, as ruthless as it sounds, get them hooked to the experience young and they'll pay for it later in life.

I'm unfortunately not a season ticket holder any longer due to work commitments and a young family but now I have a little lad on the way (due in January) it has always been a plan to get it back when he's old enough to come too. The current suggested capacity and touted numbers/waiting list make me doubt that'll be a possibility. I'm already put off and that's a pretty tragic thought; time will, of course, tell.

I've absolutely no doubt we'll all love the new stadium but why not make it more accessible? I'm not buying the “bear pit” atmosphere being any sort of guarantee at 52k.

Sean Kelly
154 Posted 21/12/2018 at 21:42:12
I think Michael Kenrick has it right “nickel-and-dime” stadium for a nickel-and-dime club run by spoofers.
Stan Schofield
155 Posted 21/12/2018 at 21:57:29
Adam @153: I think you're spot on.

Looking at the posts on here, there is some ridiculous criticism of those posters who question the wisdom or ambition of 52,000, even if it might be increased at an unspecified date in the future.

The fact is, both Everton and Liverpool could each easily fill a plus-60,000 stadium regularly enough even when neither team is winning trophies, so long as they're competing and entertaining the supporters. I believe the history shows the fanaticism to back that statement up.

If we're not playing decent football and competing, no stadium will have atmosphere. If we ARE playing decent football and competing, any stadium will have atmosphere if it's in Liverpool.

It's totally down to how we perform on the pitch, and since we supposedly have ambitions to be the best at that, then I can't see why the ambitions for the stadium should not be commensurate with being the best. Just as Goodison was when we were at the top of the playing pile in the 60s and 80s.

Jamie Crowley
156 Posted 21/12/2018 at 22:03:28
Lee @144 -

I can assure you a father of 5 children, who owns his own business, and has been married to one lovely lady for 22 years is a very grown up individual.

It was a joke Lee.

Bernard @145 -

Yes, penis jokes can be funny. And on that note, I probably need to listen to Lee and realize at 49 years old, I do, indeed, need to grow up a bit. ;0)

Merry Christmas.

Tony Abrahams
157 Posted 21/12/2018 at 22:09:15
Jamie, take it from me – that there's nothing to really grow up for except a little bit of knowledge, but I reckon you already know this anyway!
Danny Baily
158 Posted 21/12/2018 at 22:19:15
After two failed moves, Everton stadium announcements are beginning to feel a bit like Liberal Democrat manifestos. They can promise any number, safe in the knowledge they won't have to deliver. With that in mind, 120k for me.
Brent Stephens
159 Posted 21/12/2018 at 22:25:46
Jamie. Your jokes are always welcome. Even if they do flop after a while.
Jamie Crowley
160 Posted 21/12/2018 at 22:29:34
Tony @ 157 -

Jamie, take it from me that there's nothing to really grow up for except a little bit of knowledge

And that, sir, is the true gift of aging. I concur.

Endeavor to retain the spirit of youth. Even if it means reverting to 10-year-old humo(u)r every now and then.


Danny @ 158 -

120k?! You win the pissing contest! And I might, just maybe, vote Dem in the next election now. On second thought.,...

Jamie Crowley
161 Posted 21/12/2018 at 22:31:00
Brent -

Please tell me that pun was intended.,

Brent Stephens
162 Posted 21/12/2018 at 22:49:38
Sorry, Jamie. I couldn't hold it in.
Jamie Crowley
163 Posted 21/12/2018 at 22:52:09
Well played, sir. Well played.
Bob Parrington
164 Posted 21/12/2018 at 22:56:43
Going back some way in the thread to Kevin's posts, I'm excited that Lyon, Shaktar and Hoffenheim are in the Premier League. This would likely mean that the misplaced idea of Brexit really worked and UK baled out Europe, instead of the other way round!!! :) :)
Ernie Baywood
165 Posted 22/12/2018 at 04:16:09
I can tell you from experience that sitting in a 60k stadium feels empty with 10k empty seats.

I'm happy enough with 52k. We'll fill it each week. The bean counters will also tell you that there's a sweet spot in the supply/demand model that they'll be aiming for. It's nowhere near as simple as just filling it.

I'm assuming that 52k also includes plenty of premium packages which is the real point of the move.

You didn't think it was about you did you?

Peter Lee
166 Posted 22/12/2018 at 04:39:31
Anyone listening to the interview with Ryasantzev would recognise that this decision on capacity has been well thought through.

A stadium is a means to generate income. Yes, the atmosphere is vital, but it doesn't deliver the cash to buy/pay players/boost profits (you choose according to how cynical you feel).

The better the team, the better the performances, the better the atmosphere. It doesn't work backwards.

The current survey, ostensibly about travel time and transport, also generates data about the time supporters spend in the stadium/fanzone. If movement into and out of the area is over an extended period it eases pressure on transport capacities but it also increases the likelihood of additional match day income.

Everyone I know who attends games, without exception, arrives as close to kick-off as possible and seeks to get away after the game. Most of us like a pint and none of us have had a decent one served in a football stadium, ever. There was a notice at City last week saying that last season 1.2m supporters bought 1m pints of beer, an average of less than one each. I suspect its less at Goodison.

Increasing match day income is a goal that is, therefore, going to be achieved through corporate sales. That being the case the capacity overall is largely irrelevant. Our neighbours have driven up income through sales of much higher priced tickets through package providers from whom they take a cut. As City have found out, it takes many years of success to become a must-have on the football tourists' agenda and we are years behind that.

Laurie Hartley
167 Posted 22/12/2018 at 06:50:12
Peter # 166 – I have just finished listening to the Ryazantsev Blueroom interview. I have to say I was very impressed with this young man and would recommend everyone to listen to the interview which is 45 minutes long – well worth the time.

I am convinced that the 52,000 capacity has been well thought out and, having had time to read through everyone's posts, listen to the interview, and weigh it all up, I am feeling very positive about the whole thing.

I still haven't figured out how we can enlarge the capacity to 62,000 in the future but I do believe Dan Meis has allowed for this in his design.

Ryazantsev, Brands, and Silva – Farhad Moshiri mightn't be very good in the soundbite department but it appears to me that he knows how to surround himself with good people. Not surprising really seeing as how he is a billionaire. He has got a plan which involves us going places.

Stan Schofield
168 Posted 22/12/2018 at 09:59:43
Ryasantzev always sounds impressive, and I imagine most (perhaps all) on here recognise that a lot of thinking has gone into the stadium capacity. That's fairly obvious. As is the idea that Moshiri has a plan, and all that.

However, the debate in the posts on here is based on the limited information we have available, and as far as I can see reasonable points have been posed questioning the choice of 52,000. Supporters are quite right to raise such questions.

There are many corporate situations where there's been a public perception of logical coordinated planning and all that stuff, only to find subsequently that it's been a piss-up in a brewery or something else untoward.

So, despite the positive messages from the club, and despite some on here saying trust in Moshiri and it's going to be great, it's quite natural for supporters like us to raise questions. It's neither pessimism nor optimism, but just sensible caution based on experience.

Eric Myles
169 Posted 22/12/2018 at 10:51:17
A big factor in determining the capacity and design is how the contract will be awarded.

Will Meis finalise a design in accordance with the board's desire and produce a fully scoped out specification and bill of quantities that a contractor can accurately price? He's certainly had enough time to do that so far.

Or will they go for a 'design-build' contract where the outcome is not so well defined and is largely down to the contractor who will always be looking to maximise profit at the least cost? It needs a fully detailed Employer Requirements to ensure this approach is a success.

My guess from what's happened so far is Meis will provide a concept design from which a design-build contractor will execute the project. This increases construction costs and takes a lot of control from the Club unless there are clear specification and employer requirements.

Jonathan Agger
170 Posted 22/12/2018 at 13:24:38
This must be nil satis because it most definitely is NOT optimum. I really hoped for 55,000 with the caveat of being able to further expand. 52,000 seems small and limiting. The club reinstated our motto on the badge but the desire to live up to it still seems sadly lacking.
Bernard Dooley
171 Posted 22/12/2018 at 13:40:49
I believe that the club will settle on the 52,000 figure but the points made by Andy #152 and Adam #153 are, in my opinion perfectly valid and touch on the concerns of a lot of posters who are dismayed at that number.

Relatively easy access to match tickets is surely a driver to bring in the more occasional attendees, and lower ticket prices for youngsters help to get more of them at the ground, building their allegiance well into the future.

An earlier poster dissed Man City for giving tickets to schools, but why not? More chance those kids will support City when they grow up than some other club, like Salford City.

Tony Abrahams
172 Posted 22/12/2018 at 13:53:53
I think it's best to wait and see how the club is going to show us how they intend to increase the capacity before we criticise too much. If the team goes through a bad period, then the occasional attendee might not have to worry too much about how they are going to obtain a ticket.
Danny O'Neill
173 Posted 22/12/2018 at 14:17:58
I'm in the "It's a sensible approach with a path for future development" camp.

We shouldn't be making these decisions based on playground sentiment (my ground's bigger than yours etc). If I recall, throughout the late 70s and early 80s, Goodison had a larger capacity than Anfield; that didn't seem to affect Liverpool's success or ambition.

And I concur with the capacity vs attendance comments. I see there's another 60k "attendance" at the Emirates today; many fans cunningly disguised as empty seats.

Chris Corn
174 Posted 22/12/2018 at 15:14:13
My purely anectdotal opinion as an on-off season ticket holder of the last 40 years, is I'd love to see us fill a 60k stadium but I just don't see the support base to justify it at this point.

Our match-going support is mainly local to the Merseyside region. When I've been to a pub or social club on the Wirral to watch an Everton home game, it is business as usual. There are about 10-15 Blues; the other customers are there to have a pint or eat and may take a passing interest. Go the same place for a Liverpool home game and it is rammed. I just do not see the thousands who are supposedly locked out.

It may be different elsewhere, I don't know ...but when I've been in town watching games, I've never known it packed to the rafters with Evertonians who can't get a ticket. And this 'think big, be big' is a noble thought but there were all sorts of empty seats at the Etihad last week and today at the Emirates. Chelsea have stepped back from a new ground and all three are considered the elite.

We are running to standstill with a billionaire in charge and finishing 7th is now a major challenge. We rarely challenge for the 'winnable' cups and our forays into Europe are... well, I'll leave that there.

I think it's naive to think that we can conjure up a regular 20-odd thousand supporters on a fortnightly basis plus cup games from the beginning. Man City can't do it yet and they have been winning titles regularly for the best part of a decade and have consistent Champions League football. And, as much as it pains me to say it, if Liverpool get over the line and make themselves a credible title-winning force again, it will make our job of attracting support through our gates even harder.

Steve Taylor
175 Posted 22/12/2018 at 18:59:35
For Public Consultation – read Delaying Tactics.

For submitting planning permission in nine months, plus Public Consultation Part Two, read – Delaying Tactics.

It's like the Anglican Cathedral was — never ending but never starting.

Brian Williams
176 Posted 22/12/2018 at 19:16:48
For something that "never started" the Anglican cathedral is a pretty impressive mirage!
You should read the book "The Return of the Man Who Never Came Back" I think you'd like it.
Brent Stephens
177 Posted 22/12/2018 at 19:29:21
So just like the Anglian Cathedral, it will be built. Our Anglican Cathedral to their Paddy’s Wigwam.
Tony Abrahams
178 Posted 22/12/2018 at 19:37:32
I might be a catholic kid Brent, but I’d take that every day of the week!
Brent Stephens
179 Posted 22/12/2018 at 19:40:53
I’m an atheist, Tony but God has some fine stadiums. Walking through York Minster almost converted me!
John G Davies
180 Posted 22/12/2018 at 20:03:44
Some great stadiums Brent.
Its some of the players who are in them stadiums who spoil it.
Brent Stephens
181 Posted 22/12/2018 at 20:13:10
Those stadiums have naves, John. Ours has a knave as chairman.
Mike Jones
182 Posted 22/12/2018 at 22:38:00
I've just watched a walk-through of Spurs' new ground on YouTube; if our stadium looks like that, I'll be well pissed off. I trust in this regime and Dan Meis to deliver better.
Roberto Birquet
183 Posted 22/12/2018 at 23:07:18
Stewart Lowe 7
Whenever will we get the chance to be bigger than them just one time?? I'm my life, I'm guessing never, and I'm only 45. I have supported Everton since 1982, then thought, it's our time, our time to be big, just once.

When you were a kid, that's when. I used to look over at Anfield in the 80s, and think: Shit, they're small.

Roberto Birquet
184 Posted 22/12/2018 at 23:08:55
Laurie @88,

This has become a real irritant to me. There's nothing blue about the Mersey.

Laurie Hartley
185 Posted 23/12/2018 at 00:29:36
Roberto # 88 - my Christmas present to you is to promise I will never use that expression again (not even in the song) and as a measure of goodwill let me rephrase my comment:

I reckon most of the Reds would swap their extra 4074 seats for our location on the banks of the River Mersey.

How’s that?

Alan J Thompson
186 Posted 23/12/2018 at 06:03:58
Does this mean we shall take the mantle from Stockport County of being the nearest football ground to the River Mersey?
Laurie Hartley
187 Posted 23/12/2018 at 07:46:17
Alan # 186 - not quite. (But ours will be bigger than theirs ;)

Edgley Park

Eric Myles
188 Posted 23/12/2018 at 08:18:03
Looks like it will, Alan #186:

Edgeley Park

Steve Taylor
189 Posted 23/12/2018 at 17:18:02
Sorry I made a mess of my post. I meant just as the Anglican Cathedral building but took many decades to build - the Stadium looks like taking years to even start.
David McMullen
190 Posted 24/12/2018 at 13:49:06
Mike (182) what was it you didn't like about the new White Hart Lane?

I saw a few things I didn't like not least the roof!

I'm not expecting a retractable roof sadly but Bramley-Moore Dock needs to have extensive covering – it will be cold over there on the waterfront.

I do like Tottenham's big home end though; I hope ours is still just as big if we are to have a smaller capacity.

Lukas Polster
191 Posted 24/12/2018 at 17:29:51
Saying extra capacity doesn't matter or better full stadium than empty seats at some games is okay if you're a season ticket holder. For those of us who either live abroad or can only get to a few games, those 'empty seats' could mean we can actually get a ticket.

I managed to get to the Southampton cup game but no chance for league games. I know it can never return (worse luck) to the days where my Dad could suddenly decide on Boxing Day to come to the match with me and pay at the gate, but just to get to a game when home would be good.

The point about atmosphere, I watch Hajduk sometimes and the ground has empty seats most games (except against Everton) but the atmosphere there far exceeds that at Goodison Park.

Alan J Thompson
192 Posted 25/12/2018 at 05:34:53
Laurie(#187) & Eric(#188);
Thank you, Gentlemen, you've restored my faith in the consideration of all sides by TW contributors. May the New Year start with as big a laugh.
Chris Jenkins
193 Posted 26/12/2018 at 17:52:30
For a club that has, historically, been in the top flight longer than any other, this proposed capacity of 52,000 just smacks of a total lack of ambition.

The possibility that a further 10,000 seats may be added at some unidentified date in the future is just pie in the sky.

For goodness sake, the additional cost of increasing the initial capacity to 62,000 pales into insignificance when compared with the enormous amounts that have been wasted on player signings over the last three years.

Any half decent civil engineer will confirm that it is much cheaper to have a capacity of 62,000 initially rather than having to add a further 10,000 some years down the line...

Tom Hughes
194 Posted 28/12/2018 at 11:11:45
The cost of stadium expansion is very much dependent on the type of extension required, and can vary dramatically. Similarly, it is possible for whole-stadium build-costs to double with every 10k increase in capacity over 40k. It isn't necessarily a linear relationship.

Again, it may very much depend on the overall approach and design philosophy, and/or peculiarities of the site.

That said, Feyenoord's new 63k waterfront stadium is reportedly coming in at less than £350m. If we are struggling to create 52k for less than £500m, without sliding or full roof, moving-pitches etc, then perhaps we should be looking at a different architect or site.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.

About these ads