Kenyon looks ahead to second phase of stadium consultation

Follow the money, or the absence of it.

I know people will say 'you have to consult', but this dialogue isn't part of a process laid out by statute, otherwise they'd give us the timetable, ie, public consultation date, submission of planning date, and we'd know what the hell is going on.

Instead, we're getting lots of 'we need to be really really sure' and 'everyone must have a voice' all this hogwash. If they were serious, they would be nailing things down, not opening them up so they can kick the can five years down the road.

I'm amazed Dan Meis has stuck it out this long, trying to dance around the ever-changing directives he probably gets from a club that seems incapable of making up its mind and saying: "This is what we are planning."

The latest 'concept' shows the listed hydraulic accumulator tower was to be preserved but it's unclear how the Grade II listed retaining walls of Bramley-Moore Dock were to be preserved. Left in place but buried under the new stadium? With a nominal row of capstones visible as an incongruous feature behind the pitchside electronic advertising hoardings?

With Liverpool Waters threatening the World Heritage status already, and the seemingly impossible compromise of building new structures that will obviously obscure the old, that perhaps explains the impossible dance they have become engaged in?

I did find one report online that said this of Bramley-Moore Dock in 2010:

World Heritage Site asset. The dock basin with its associated remaining lock gate mechanisms and mooring structures is a key component of the Liverpool Maritime Mercantile WHS, of architectural and historic significance.

As a key physical attribute of the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site, Bramley-Moore Dock is a designated heritage asset of very high significance.

If that's the case, no amount of blather is going to get them past that hurdle? Or has English Heritage somehow downgraded things? Building anything at such a site that effectively destroys the dock seems to totally fly in the face of the World Heritage designation.

Enough of the talking and the fan participation. Get the thing built. If this doesn't happen I'll start building it myself on Stanley Park.

The city fails to get those games. The financial demand on the modestly blessed billionaire increases exponentially as a result. Only then are the first of a series fan consultations announced "to influence the final design" at some never-stated year in the future.

You, dear readers, are probably by now falling to sleep as I am in typing it. But it's what we should be well used to after decades of chronically bad management in our, erm, boring-room.

What I can say, with absolute certainty, is that, as a supporter living in Ireland, I will never, absolutely never, be able to buy a ticket for a game and pop over at random when I can get a flight hotel etc. New stadium? We will all be dead.

In another year, we may have everything in place to give us permission... and, a year after that, we may start to see the site being transformed.

Just like the first-team progress. It's going in the right direction but it's slow and there will be a few setbacks along the way.

Buying an urban site, getting it designed and over all the planning and financing hurdles takes time. And that's before actually building it! Just saying like...

Mind you, if it's only 52,000, it's hardly worth the effort. 60,000 capacity required all day long as far as I'm concerned.

Over here, once the owner takes the plunge of buying the land, the construction takes 1-2 years. Then you have your shiny, new, modern stadium.

As Karl points out, 11 years for Spurs (and one hell of a hiccup this year!) and 6 years for Arsenal.

Lord it takes a long, long time to put up a stadium in England! And I'm left asking, why? Why isn't municipal and government approval more streamlined?

It stifles progress in my opinion. The system needs serious revision from these American eyes.

Why would you delay the economic benefit of 1,000,000 new jobs? Barrett-Baxendale has assured us of this economic boon!

It just gets more fishy with time.

Buy the land, permitting should take 6 months to a year. Then break ground and start pouring the concrete and welding the steel already!

We should start a BMD Ghoul Pool. How many TWers will die before we open BMD? What's the over-under? Probably 250.

That would get it built quick enough. Got to be at least 3 noughts too many?

Just what have they been doing all these years?

It strikes me that this will go out as a Design and Build tender so there is minimal involvement on our side.

Not sure about your part of the country but here in Kansas there's a brown-belt site across from my work. They announced plans to build there in 2008. Since when there have been public consultations, permit issues etc. They finally broke ground in December.

As of March, it stopped. Funding fell through... so now we are 11 years and counting for the entertainment, shopping, high-end hotel multiplex.

I wonder if my grandson will get there?

I wonder if Gillmoss is still available?

I feel a good part of the delay is down to the fact that messrs Koeman and Walsh spent a fortune and yet we ended up looking down the barrel of a relegation fight to such an extent that Moshiri got the wobbles and felt he had to bring Sam in to protect our Premier League status. That cost us at least one year in my opinion.

Earlier this year, Moshiri was faced with another mini crisis. To his credit, he (and Brands) held their nerve with Silva. Many of us wouldn't have. It would take nerves of steel for any investor to surge ahead with a capital project of this scale under such unstable conditions.

Hopefully Moshiri and potential investors now feel the ship has been steadied. Our transfer dealings this window will tell the story.

I was being facetious. I believe DBB had said 1,500 jobs, or a number thereabouts. My flippant point was she promised the fucking moon.

Kieran @ 25 -

Florida is a proverbial human ant-farm. We build shit here quicker than they can supply the materials. Then when the economy tanks, the Godless developers and builders file bankruptcy, disappear with all the money, and there's unfinished complexes and subdivisions all over the place. It's like the Wild West of real estate development. So my clock with building is more like a stopwatch on cocaine, rather than a sun dial.

Be that as it may, there's a lot of bluster about BMD, and not enough shovels for my liking.

We've had DBB come out and give some absurd numbers and promises of the economic benefits of a new stadium. We've had consultations. Do we even have the financing secured yet? Is there a single tangible sign of progress other than the purchase of dirt?

Smell that? It's the faint waft of bullshit.

And I can't tell you how wrong I hope I am. But when things are going south behind the scenes, corporate honchos start spewing rainbows, and stringing out the process, while they look to salvage their desires and plans quietly.

What is the purpose of this public consultation? Why have it?

Ownership wants a new stadium to increase revenues so Everton continues life in the Premier League, to protect their investment.

Ownership wants a new stadium to increase the value of the Club, thereby increasing the value of their investment.

Nigel Broadfoot, the plumber who lives in Walton and scrapes together money for his season ticket – they don't give a shit what he thinks about the stadium layout and plans.

This, for me, is just a PR exercise, stringing out the time they need to get their ducks in a row, if they ever do at all.

My "don't trust this" radar is going off. I don't know why. I just have a feeling something isn't right.

I'm probably wrong and just grumpy. But until they actually put a backhoe on site and start digging, I'm not going to blindly believe it's happening.

A lot of talk, a lot of consultations, no financing secured to my knowledge, and no tangible progress.

I need something concrete. Pun intended. Rant over.

Moshiri may well (Martin) have his office in the Liver Building but that doesn't mean a thing. It's a nice place to work.

The scenario of us being dragged into the relegation scrap midway through the season would have had Moshiri and Co sweating buckets as they planned a spanking new stadium to potentially entertain Championship football. A big project like this is dependent on the club continuing in the top flight and keeping the money pouring in from the TV deals.

Moshiri's first priority will be to increase the value of the club so he makes his profit when he sells it on. Therefore, progress will be painfully slow and we will all have to be incredibly patient unless a bigger investor joins the party.... Usmanov?

There is no need for secrecy if, eg, we've got to adjust the design to allow for sea walls etc. And this makes me think it's not problems with design at all. I reckon it's about the viability of the whole project. I suspect he's a carpetbagger who saw the Commonwealth Games thing, and the opportunity to make a fast hundred million, and couldn't resist.

I reckon he's now crunched the numbers, and whichever way he pitches it, even with the Council supporting him to build it, he probably gets more money now if he sells than in three years time with a new stadium which has a mortgage of 𧸖m around its neck. Why? Any increased matchday revenue is probably more than offset by that gigantic loan.

If I was a betting person, I reckon he is scouting around now for offers. And the way these deals are done, the first we will hear of it is when it is all done.

It's all just a bit fishy at Everton. I mean, why on earth are we charging 𧷣 for a season ticket? Tranmere Rovers charge more. It does make sense though if you're only gonna be around for the next 18 months and you don't want the fanbase getting overly restless.

Another whiffy thing is why do we have a charity person as our Chief Executive Officer? Well again, it doesn't make much sense, save that it makes it very difficult to overly criticise the club when we are involved in so many 'worthy' projects. Just like FIFA with their endless 'No to racism' adverts...

Most fans seemed to want a 60,000 stadium but it seems like it's going to be nearer 52,000. So I don't know what else they want with further consultation? Surely all the consultation with various parties should already have taken place?

They have spoken to people and businesses in the area and have consulted with the Liverpool City Council since its inception, so who now do they want to consult with?

There is a thought that since it was decided that our new home was to be built at Bramley-Moore Dock, season ticket sales have increased since the announcement. Maybe the longer they drag it out, they think it will increase the demand for season tickets for the new ground?

For me, it's time for the consultation to stop and the planning application to be put in and build it.

The club bought the ground allegedly for 㿅M, and you'd like to believe the Everton legal team undertook due diligence, into what type, how, where and when the can build on this ground.

My hunch is they may not have yet secured the capex, due to no clear design for the stadium and the surrounding area.

I could be miles off the reality, but the club will have set a budget for development and consultation, and doing it fully for such a monumental phase of the club's history is good.

What I don't see is building allegedly a 52k capacity on a tight space, which would then cost a massive amount to upgrade, say to 60k, in the future.

Surely the club can't underscore future growth of the club.

This is Everton, and whilst the glass is always half-full as in life, and we live in hope eternal for them to get back to the top of the game, the Bramley-Moore Dock project does need the club to make the right business descision.

Bearing the other thread about profit and loss, it's duly concerning how Everton FC is performing. Farhad also must be looking for a viable healthy business, but it needs a first-class and affordable state-of-the-art stadium.

At this rate, the RS will have extended the Anfield Road while Everton may still be procrastinating about Bramley-Moore Dock.

Benefit of the doubt again to the club; let's hope what is shown at the next public consultation is believable and is punchy and will give us all genuine hope for the future.

It's the future of the club at the top table, being able to compete, on par, which is at stake. I'm hoping for a nice surprise, but my instinct is airing on caution.

There's a long way to go... or so it seems to me.

This whole process to fans (myself included) does appear to be seriously overlong but, compared to the frankly amateur shitshow from the tragically missed opportunity of Kings Dock to the Tesco Kirkby farce, it is we hope just the natural process of a massive complex development like this.

Knowing nothing of this type of project, I am going to blindly keep my fingers crossed and hope it all comes good; the alternative is too depressing to consider.

One question I may have missed but please can someone say categorically what date can we see the images??

I doubt any serious fan consultation has gone on at all... hence 52,000.

Do you mean he has a small penis?

I'm a fan, I have a season ticket and I've been to every cup and league game this season, home and away. I'm also one of the 1500 odd small (no, not that small, Mark) shareholders. I haven't been consulted and I don't know anyone who has.

Maybe the club could enlighten us as to which fan group they actually consulted?

Fan views are balanced against a business analysis of likely attendance in the future. So far, this has resulted in a plan for a 52,000 capacity and potential to increase capacity through rail seating. Decisions based on penis envy of Liverpool FC or Tottenham Hotspur will get Everton nowhere.

I'm so excited, "stadium erection" is a constant discussion in our household.

52000 capacity optimistic? For a club that gets 38000 now and tickets are available? What is the miracle that gets 14000 new fans and remember, they can't afford empty seats. If anybody believes that 52000 is too low and can show it to be so then hand waving isn't the answer, get your info to the club so that they can take it on board.

Does anyone know the date that the plans of the stadium will be revealed?
ToffeeWeb? Everton? Alan Myers? Joe Anderson? Dan Meiss? Speedo Mick?

I'll give you three examples, and there's many more if you care to look:

Sunderland: crowds at Roker Park were around 20,000 or less for many years. Well under capacity and no season ticket waiting lists. As soon as the Stadium of Light opened crowds doubled and despite the Club's subsequent 20 years of yo-yo ing between divisions and winning nothing they are still at that level.

West Ham: Upton Park was a regular sell out at 34,000, but average sales of seats now ( if not always attendances ) have increased by 23,000. And that's is a stadium whose design is not exactly ideal for viewing football.

Everton: As soon as the new Park End Stand went up in 1994, average crowds jumped from 23,000 to 31,000, a 35% increase. Team was bottom of the table until December that first season. After the Fa Cup win crowds went up to 36,000 and have stayed at that level or higher since. That's with restricted views, high prices unless you have a season ticket and no success. Recently season ticket sales are record levels and capped, we've had 3 seasons now of sell out crowds and that's whilst watching some of the most dreadful football ever played at Goodison at times.

It's called the new stadium effect. It has happened at every single club who built a new stadium and even those who expanded what they already had.

Crowds would go straight to 52,000 sell outs I am certain if a 52,000 capacity got built. I think we'd go straight to 56,000 or so, so 60,000 leaves a bit of wiggle room. The Club has lost a lot of money by only building the Park End with a 6,000 capacity. Had it been the original 10,000 seat design from 1991, we'd be looking at crowds well over 40,000 now.

That lack of foresight and ambition in 1993 should not be repeated now.

They'll never extend it once it's built. Too tight a location. Rail seating might happen, but I can't see it adding 8,000 to the capacity. You'd need 16,000 minimum rail seats to do that and the leaked drawings show only the lower half of the 'Kop' style end ( so 7,000 max) plus a few seats in the away section. You'd get an uplift of no more than 4,000 from that with the maximum density factor of 1:1.5 being applied.

I believe it's the 26th July, external views only, inside the stadium still up for consultation.

Ta

Ghoul Pool - love it! Haha

Thank you, It may seem unimportant to some but it at least gives us the impression that things are moving ahead.

The debate when these plans are revealed (inside as well hopefully) will knock all previous debates out of the ring.

Having a 60,000 capacity hasn't suddenly turned the Hammers into a super-rich club and a bigger ground didn't stop Sunderland or Newcastle from getting relegated.

These days, the bulk of a clubs' revenue comes from the TV deal, sponsorship, merchandise and how much a billionaire owner is prepared to stump up. Moshiri has probably put more money into the club in the last three seasons than the fans have in the last ten. Ticket receipts are a small part of the revenue and really fans are there just to add atmosphere to games.

When a game is on TV, you can't tell what the capacity of a ground is. As long as it looks full, that is all that matters.

When this ground is finally built, I'm sure it will look just as good as any other club's ground and better than most. Especially as it will be positioned next to the river. Maybe they could put a ferry terminal in for the supporters from the other side of the river. Get the matchday ferry to the game.

You aren't spending a cent of your money to build the stadium and have no accountability if the calculations on capacity are wrong so it's easy to pluck ever higher figures out of the air. There is no such thing as a long term, sustainable new stadium effect and it didn't stop Sunderland sliding down the leagues even though they are an amazingly supported club.

52,000 capacity has a new stadium factor of 38% already so how could the club justify increasing this? The only thing that will put bums on seats is a better product on the pitch and we can't guarantee that. The loss of atmosphere that a partially full ground gives could also have a detrimental effect.

For me, the best way of increasing the capacity if it ends up too low is well managed standing accommodation. If we genuinely get to 60,000 potential then we could look at moving. I'm certain the club understands all of these options.

Bob, to be fair, your post also says nothing and remember that the most difficult people to fool is yourself or, in this case, the people who are taking the risk and actually spending the money. What possible benefit could the club get out of deceiving its fan base and paying a fortune to do it?

And whilst nobody knows for sure what the future holds, we can make predictions based on logic and what happened in the past. You are pointing at a 38% uplift in capacity, but crowds now are already 70% higher than the early '90s with the insatiable thirst for watching live football in the UK showing no sign of abating.

The Championship is the 4th best-attended league in Europe and many of those clubs are selling out regularly, especially the ones with relatively new stadiums.

Like I said before, this club already messed up once before by underestimating future demand. We are going to do this move once and once only. Safe standing won't make up the shortfall.

Just for once, Everton — do something properly and we won't be saying ‘if only' and ‘what if' afterwards.

Yes, we're currently filling the place, but only the club know how big the waiting list really is, and how many individuals have bought tickets above and beyond that. What if 52k is closer to that ceiling?

They also know that cost per seat can rise almost exponentially with capacity (especially for larger stadiums) and will trim their capacity ambitions accordingly. The last thing they want is too much spare capacity.

Ironically, the only approach that could readily yield affordable spare capacity is a phased redevelopment, and once again this has been leapfrogged for the latest 'get rich quick' scheme. Hence, the convoluted arse-about-face process to date, where yet again we are forced to make the problem fit the chosen solution.

Yes, other clubs also had long drawn-out processes, but not normally after the site has been fully acquired. Spurs had to make substantial and complex property acquisition and clearances, and several joint venture partnerships. Arsenal, were pioneering whole new territory for large British clubs, and had lots of issues regarding the site, its suitability, infrastructure and preparation. Both published designs early in that process.

Bramley-Moore Dock was probably prompted by the Commonwealth Games bid and funding, and potential enabling projects via the Liverpool Waters scheme. None of which have been forthcoming, and the obvious problem issues still remain...

Anyone for the Loop site? The club rejected it out of hand because HOK's initial outline study mentioned a 55k capacity. The club said this was insufficient!!

God, Everton are a stupid, gullible entity. By trying to please everyone, they'll please no one.

The only ones who count are Everton supporters, get on with it, for Christ's sake.

Anyone else heard about this?

That is as funny and as whacky a conspiracy theory I have ever heard on any subject.

Anyone else heard that?

Are you serious, mate, honestly?

Uefa know about this but they didn't want Barcelona playing in the final in Madrid, but apparently Athletico are fuming because they don't want a team wearing an all-white strip to win the final at their new ground?

Juventus have pushed through the FFP rules to prevent the potential Newcastle owner, Moshiri or anyone else doing a Man City. Even City are in danger of being kicked out of the Champions League despite "negotiating" their own punishment for the same thing a few years back. So the only way for Everton to spend more is if the club generates more income.

Surprisingly they bit his hand off and, despite the press saying Martinez or Koeman are in line, it is actually Unsworth that they want. True story.

Why?