Planning Application now open for comments

New stadium docs online now:

Details Page for Planning Application - 20F/0001

Appendix 11.3 Flood Risk Assesment:

"High risk of flooding to the majority of the site when climate change is taken into account based upon existing site levels"

Bring your wellies lads.

Loadsa information making Everton's planning application totally transparent and possibly making it harder for 'new stadium deniers' to continue to claim the club is not sincere and it ain't gonna happen.

Would you know, Ryan, on the Dates Page relating to the application what 'Dates first advertised' and 'Dates of First Consultation' refers to? I ask because both are dated for a couple of days off - 21 February.

Would the first be like placing an ad/pubic notice of the application in local newspapers, and would the 2nd be a formal meet between the council planning committee and the club?

On the same page, would you also know what 'Stat Cons Expiry Date' refers to? It's dated for next month, 24 March. What needs to happen by that date?

Very interesting to read the various 'constraints' on the site, including 'Area Susceptible to Groundwater Flooding'. Eek! But then, it is the docks.

Also reassuring for me was to see a long history of many successful planning applications to the site dating back nearly 30 years in some cases, albeit none of them on the scale of Everton's plans.

LOADSA PDF and Word docs to download and read related to every aspect of the planning application.

Great thanks again for the link, Ryan.

Actually, Speedo Mick is going to love it. In an incredible turnaround, he's going to be the only sensibly-dressed matchgoer.

Jay, "On the same page, would you also know what 'Stat Cons Expiry Date' refers to? It's dated for next month, 24 March. What needs to happen by that date?"

Could that be statutory consultation?

Could well be Brent.

Still none the wiser what the hell it means!!!

This is a whole new lexicon for me!

"No env assessment required" - assuming "env" is short for "environmental" then kopites will need to rethink any plans they had for finding a colony of great crested newts at Bramley-Moore Dock!!

Jay, if you go to the related documents section, there's loads of info there.

Everton doing to a lot of work for something that's never going to happen!

Update: looks like you were right on the 'statutory consultation' call Brent.

I'm scan reading some of the (many!) downloadable PDFs and Docs and there's one called 'PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS RECORD SHEET' with loads of steps to be taken and different agencies to be informed with a target date of completing the same by 24 March.

There's some fascinating and detailed stuff to look at on this page with lots of downloadable stuff:

Link

For example, the club commissioned Burohappold Engineering (Liverpool firm, anyone..?) more than a year ago to do a 'Privileged and Confidential Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage' for the delightfully named 'Project Blue' – the stadium build at Bramley-Moore Dock.

In February 2019 there was a meeting with many attendees, including reps from the club, Liverpool City Council, the Environmental Agency, Gardiner & Theobald (a global company that specialises in delivering large city centre mixed-use facilities), United Utilities (isn't that the local public water supplier for the region these days?) and a few others.

For those huffing and puffing 'all smoke and mirrors... I won't believe this is happening until a spade goes in the ground' might want to reconsider such thoughts.

And... right on cue, Ryan pops back to piss on my cornflakes.

Not a believer then Ryan?

Jay, Ryan believes absolutely, I think he is having a pop at the cynics.

If you must to have a standing area then please sell tickets related to the height of the spectator. I can't see a bloody thing when I go to away matches and a couple of wide six-footers stand in front of me.

Gotcha Andy. I thought it strange for Ryan to put up the original link then seemingly sniff at it. I can see now how it can read both ways.

Some of the downloads are taking an eternity, but thars gold in them thar PDFs and DOCS. Lots of minuted meetings throughout 2019 of different invested parties.

Definitely an exceedingly elaborate hoax if Moshiri and Co have no intention of seeing the Bramley-Moore Dock stadium to completion.

Ron. I'm in the same boat, re height. Rather than reduce the price I want a box - executive.

ps: Why have I never seen you at away matches! Ah, of course! Call out at Arsenal on Sunday – I'll listen out for you.

Irony is obviously lost on the Internet 😂

If rising sea levels don't getcha, UXOs - unexploded objects, namely bombs dropped on the docks in World War 2 will!

One report in the docs is saying there is 'excellent evidence' that they are a 'potential threat'.

There's some cracking stuff here!

Some striking photos of the existing structures of the site can be seen in some of the PDFs. The striking hydraulic engine house, for example, looks pretty sad from both outside and inside shots. The Everton project will help protect and restore such features as this and some of the walling.

Has the final capacity been set (for now anyway) at 52,888? I saw that somewhere within the planning application.

Rob, what I'm looking at is a lot of technical stuff and fine detailed analysis on the viability of the site rather than the broad stroke details of things like final capacity.

A lot of it is way over my head, but I now have a greater appreciation of just how much goes into a planning application on such a protected site as Everton is proposing to develop.

It appears they have left no stone unturned. Indeed, from the volume of documents and detail within them, they've looked under every one of them and into every nook and cranny on the site!

It really is very impressive.

Rob #60.

Well, if that IS the initial capacity, the introduction of safe standing, even if it was only in the home end terrace, would increase the capacity to 59,388 in one fell swoop! Sorted!

Jay, it's all over my head!! How many appendices are there, and there's loads of pages within each one. I expected about a ten-page planning application, saying "Please can we build a new stadium on Bramley-Moore Dock?" (Only joking of course!!)

I could have saved the club a fortune drawing stick people diagrams for 'em Rob!

Some of the files run to 50+ pages with incredible detail.

Frustrated now that some PDFs won't download and I'm getting a 'corrupted file' msg.

Rob, yes, the stated capacity is 52,888.

Jay,

As long as it's not a "corrupt file" message.

Don't want to be facing a Man City type situation before we even get there! 🤪

Liverpool Echo is reporting that, from tomorrow, the full planning application should be available to view on the City Council website (hard copy at the central library) and that people will have until 20 March to submit comments. This is inline with the 24 March target date that is in the tracking document that can already be viewed on the Council website in relation to the application.

Great job on tracking this, Ryan, thank you! There is a huge wealth of project-specfic work in there, dating back to the site investigation we flagged up in 2017!

Of great interest to me is the geotechnical and geoenvironmental work on the site, which looks to be quite comprehensive at first glance – they have done a fair bit more than I expected, but I've not done a project like this in the UK for quite a while now, so that's down to my ignorance.

A big thing too is filling in the dock: Appendix_4.2_Dock_Infill_Method.pdf. They are going to rake the mud at the bottom to remove foreign objects, bits of metal, sunken ships, UXO etc, then sink a separateion membrane to lay over the bottom mud, before they pump in sand ('hydraulic fill') on top, dredged from somewhere out in Liverpool Bay.

Once the sand has settled, they will use rapid dynamic compaction to inccrease its density and packing, reducing the tendency for future settlement. Then it will form a stable base for constructing a massive pile cap that will support the new stadium structure, with piles extending below through the sand to the sandstone bedrock below.

In this process, it apppears they will bury the Grade II Listed dock walls... I've yet to read how that constitutes protection in perepetuity. I guess they'll still be there, obviously... just outa sight and outa mind.

Planning permission request for Bramley Moore Dock was registered today.

Mike @ 32 (and others). You don't have to wait until tomorrow to see extensive detail on the planning application.

Thanks to Ryan Holroyd on the Bradley Moore Dock thread anyone in the world can access a MOUNTAIN of info on the planning application. Follow this link:

Link

In particular, scroll down to the bottom of that opening page and click the 'Related Documents' link (or this following link):

Link

There are dozens of PDFs and Word Doc files to download covering every aspect of the bid, even minuted meetings with different agencies dating back more than a year.

It shows just how thorough Everton is being in preparing this planning application and just how much goes into a project of this scale.

It also makes a nonsense of the skeptical claims of some that this is all an elaborate hoax and is not going to happen.

Fascinating reading, or rather, scan reading! There are scores, hundreds of pages, to get through.

There is obviously a higher level of interest than I anticipated in the minutiae of this application, much of which lies beyond my comfort zone but nevertheless fascinating e.g Michael's comments on the proposed method to infill the dock.

The application documents were posted on the Council's website on 20 Februay sometime later than my first inspection of the site at around 9:30.

Us mortals it would appear have until 13 March to comment on the application online, whereas the statutory consultees (e.g United Utilities) have until 3 June. That seems rather odd to me and gives the public only a narrow window in which to read and then comment. The web site makes provision for posting the comments online but you will be limited to 2000 characters.

I am aware that ground capacity is giving rise to widespread interest. I think it likely the approved application will be conditioned to the figure shown. Any later increase would then be the subject of a further, albeit not so extensive application.

I intend to have a look at the documents over the weekend albeit for the most part the summaries and will post a short note possibly next week if there is anything worth highlighting.

In my first skim through the documents, I did read somewhere that paper copies of all the plans and documents could be seen at the Central Library. Can anyone confirm that as I cannot find the reference again.

52000 Capacity is consistent and in keeping with our long-standing lack of ambition. Pathetic.

Aye, Graham. I think the Board still don't really appreciate the scale of the Club they're running.

Graham, Dennis, I think that the “safe standing “ will eventually be introduced which will increase the capacity to something nearer your desired numbers.

Ray #32. My 'desired numbers' are completely irrelevant here. The club should be building a stadium with intent and with a starting capacity of 60000 plus. The 52-53000 stadium will doubtless be nice but it will scream to everyone that we are second-tier and here just to make up the numbers. It is like Marcel Brands saying Everton cannot afford £60M players when time and again we spend and waste £20 - £45M on mediocrity. We should be building a larger stadium, working flat out to fill it and shouting to the world we are here and here to win again. If every Everton fan screamed 'pathetic' then maybe the message would finally get through.

Graham, how about trying to be pleased or happy, maybe optimistic perhaps. It is going to happen, we are getting a new stadium. Nothing pathetic about that at all.

Whilst going to The old Lady is always a great, we need a new stadium. Build a new stadium too big then we remove one of our benefits, our support.

Graham, I would think that your “desired numbers” are totally relevant to this discussion and your comments in it. In your opinion, 52,000 is too low, hence your “desire” for a different, higher number. My comment related to the possibility of a safe standing area which would, I have read, increase the capacity to between 58,000-60,000. I imagine this is more in line with what you consider would be acceptable.

It's also 6,000 more than our best ever average attendance.

Bit of perspective re the capacity, Man City are probably on a par with us in terms of fan base and match going hardcore. They have also been very successful lately in terms of trophies won, and yet, not for the first time, watching last night's league game, the ground was embarrassingly only 2/3rds full, maybe 40,000 tops, they will report a higher attendance by factoring in season ticket no-showers etc but they cannot fill the place,be it league or even Champions league.

I believe 55,000 would be about right for now, don't know why, but psychologicaly, 55,000 seems a lot more than 52,000 to me, and would probably satisfy the majority of us.

Michael K

Interesting stuff...Well explained.

Yet again the assumption is that Everton is a much less significant Club than it actually is. When other clubs have built a new stadium there has been a dramatic increase in the average attendance. However, Everton, it seems, will be the exception to the rule.

My personal view is that we will only be building this stadium the once & so we should maximise the potential of the site, right from the start. Goodison Park operates at near capacity despite the offering, both on & off the pitch, being rather poor. Therefore, it makes sense to plan for the increased demand that will come with a much better offering both off &, especially, on the pitch.

I mentioned on another thread that I am surprised, unless the Club are keeping it quiet, why we haven't planned other streams of revenue at the site.

I know a hotel is being mooted to be built over the road but wouldn't it have paid us to build something like that to give us another revenue stream.

Pub/restaurant, even gym/fitness centre would give us something. If we didn't want to do these things alone possibly in a partnership with an established company?

Using the Club and it's amenities 7 days a week rather than just on matchdays would surely help us money wise.

I can't believe the club are making the same mistakes as they did when they built the Park End stand regarding capacity, you would think they would learn.

It has to be 60,000 minimum, I don't care if we have an upper tier empty on the occasions we don't sell out and anyone making a big deal about that is being short-sighted.

One of the things you should do in building a new stadium is factor in future growth but, yet again, the club are acting on the here and now.

John K @39, a very good point and one that I have always felt relevant in this day and age, as it is a business too, and there is no reason why the stadium could not be used by a variety of other events.

While I also appreciate that a larger capacity also increases the costs, but I 'm sure that a slightly larger stadium would reap the rewards down the line. and the atmosphere inside wouldn't be diminished too much.

It would be of little use finding out that after the project is completed, if we had only increased it's capacity we could have been able to host a plethora of events and bring in more income. Just a thought!

If people bother to read the application covering letter it details the other uses that could potentially be at the new stadium such as concerts, conferences, conventions etc.

Again, if people bother to read the covering letter, they will see that the height of the stadium had to be below a certain level, restricting the size. Hence 52,888 all-seater and also over 50 different sites were looked at and this was the only one worth suitable.

I still maintain we can fill a 60k capacity or near most games, maybe not on Wednesday nights in windy rain January or February (like Man City last night).

We basically fill 40k into a dated dump with wood and restricted views and awful facilities now; surely a spanking shiny stadium will attract even more fans who are put off because of the restricted views.

If the stated capacity is believed to be the maximum that the site can support, it does rather beg the question: "Is this the right location to build Everton's new stadium?" I can't help but think the Club's solution will be to increase prices for the limited capacity available.

Michael #4, spot on!

Like I said earlier, if the safe standing is implemented it will raise the capacity considerably. Man United have applied for permission to install it and it seems to be something that a lot of clubs will introduce it if it is given the go ahead. And so it should, it's been used successfully at Celtic for some time. Instead of moaning about the club and the new stadium, why not wait to see if this is to be used?

That's all very well, Ray, if it actually happens (and I also hope it comes to fruition), but it won't change the fact that the seated capacity is too low, imo.

Does anybody at all give consideration to the club doing in-depth research with regard to the capacity, or do those who want a 60k capacity believe the club plucked 52,888 out of thin air and/or 52,888 was the maximum capacity for the site but the club just decided Bramley-Moore Dock was the best site and bollocks to the capacity?

All this "we could easily fill a 60k, 65k, etc capacity stadium" – is there any empirical evidence? No, it's merely opinion.

With a 13k home end seated capacity, there is a potential increase to 19.5k should safe standing be introduced there. (Check out Dortmund's yellow wall capacity.) That's an extra 6.5k capacity by introducing safe standing in one area only. New capacity: 59,388.

So we settle for a capacity much lower than the mighty (two titles) Spurs and the mighty West Ham, what the hell is that all about?

Finally building a new stadium only to increase capacity by a mere 13k? Get a 60k-plus new stadium built and get it filled with reasonably priced tickets, reconnect with the people again in the city as the city's first football club.

I agree with pretty much everything Dennis Stevens has said, this lower capacity stadium just allows and almost encourages higher ticket prices. Bollocks to that. We are not all GPs on a GP's salary!

Apparently, the Planning Application goes into great detail, Brian. However, I don't know whether this "in-depth research" you mention is included in the supporting documentation.

Maybe the club did indeed pluck "52,888 out of thin air and/or 52,888 was the maximum capacity for the site but the club just decided BMD was the best site and bollocks to the capacity". Perhaps there is no "empirical evidence" in support of the stated capacity & "it's merely opinion".

Yes, Dennis, I'm sure you're right.

Dennis, Graham, read Brian's thoughtful and intelligent post. Everton are obviously just having a 52,888 capacity to piss people off.
And what's a “GP's” salary got to do with it?

Yeah that's right Graham, the owner wouldn't want a bigger capacity which would bring in more revenue and profit would he?? Let's worry about 60000+ capacity, which we are being sensible enough to have the option in place to do, when we consistently fill the 52000. Fantasy land if you think we are going to all of a sudden find an extra 20000 fans every matchday. I'm pretty sure the capacity has been well thought out and would much rather have a full stadium bouncing than empty seats everywhere a la Etihad.

Somehow I doubt that bragging rights or club "ego" are the appropriate incentive for determining how many seats the stadium should have. The primary criterion should be the calculation of how large a stadium can we actually fill to capacity for every game.

Yep, West Ham has 60k seats available at London Stadium -- and supposedly plans to expand, first to 62,500 and then to 66k -- but watch their home matches and you'll see vast tracts of empty seats. That destroys the atmosphere.

According to an article I saw recently, 98.9% of the seats at Goodison are filled on average. I'm assuming that maintaining that figure, rather than raw attendance, is the club's priority statistic for the stadium designer.

Maybe consideration has been given that 53,000 all-seater / 59,000 with safe standing is the sweet spot for the cost per seat, ie, any larger and the cost per seat is significantly higher.

The alternative is that a 53k stadium that is sold out will drive up ticket demand, resulting in possibly higher season ticket sales. Season ticket sales are a better revenue stream as they are guaranteed revenue not affected by club form.

Personally I think a sold out every game 53k Bramley-Moore Dock stadium is going to look far more attractive to investors, sponsors, and occasional fans compared with what you get at West Ham. West Ham didn't build the stadium they moved in for next to nothing, I bet most of their fans would prefer less seating and a smaller stadium to what they have.

The only reason Spurs went to a larger capacity is due to the NFL games and possible team they hope to permanently attract as without the higher capacity the NFL would not consider them to host games.

Comparing to Anfield is not a good comparison, frankly our neighbours have a larger international following than us and can put more people in the seats. Even then the sightlines from the new stand are horrific in places and I don't expect much better with the new extension they are putting on the back. There ground will have more seats as I don't think they will ever dare go for safe standing for obvious reasons. The capacities in the end with our standing room will not be too far apart but we will have by far the better stadium with sight lines / closeness to pitch and overall atmosphere.

Jeff Armstrong in an earlier post said 55 000 for some reason seems a lot more than 52k. I agree with him, I think there is a tipping point where a top player will think that there is no difference playing in front of 55, 60, 62 .

55 000 is the big league, it's a better figure psychologically, ( to Jeff and me at least!)

When this planning get approved I wouldn't be at all surprised if another 2200 seats were squeezed in by reducing the seating bum area a fraction or utilising the space a bit differently.

And that's before the rail standing possibilities, which will take us possibly to the hallowed figure of 61878.

I wonder if any thought has been given to achieving that figure for the big matches. What a statement that would be, us fans would be in awe of that if they pulled it off.

That hallowed attendance figure would be, on its own, a marker that would contribute to the stadium being full to the brim of Everton's history and an impregnable true blue fortress.

Graham # 50 - Spurs lowest season ticket is 𧿓, RS 𧽥, us 𧹜.

Our new 52,888 stadium will be chock o block every week and will be our new bear pit - something to look forward to and fight for (on and off the pitch).

Michael # 26. The good thing for Everton is the infill exercise and associated learning curve has been done before next door. That would have helped I am sure. Here is a link to how it was done which you may be interested in.

Here is the link:

Sandon Dock Infill

Laurie @ 58.

I'm glad you've 'turned up' and found this thread.

I thought of you immediately when opening Ryan's goldmine link yesterday.

I fancy you in particular will enjoy poring over all the included PDFs and Docs.

Yes Jay I am very excited about this project - it is huge not only for Evertonians but all the people of Liverpool.

Like you I live many thousands of miles away - and in my case have done for nearly half a century but I have never gotten the City and The River out of my system not to mention The Blues.

Also a big shout for Alisdair Jones @ 29 - he has put some effort into this.

The PDFs will keep me busy for a few weeks.

Laurie #63,

Your previously analysis unlike what Everton produced, made the whole scheme seem more plausible for the first time. Will be interesting to see your analysis of this information. Usmanov purchasing the name rights helped a lot as well.

We're building a fantastic new stadium, it's massive for Everton and the City, the capacity is 52,000 +, and we can make provisions for a bigger capacity, don't worry what Analfield can hold, there owners promised a new stadium, but been American, they renegaded on there promise, and what we're doing will define us, and totally sicken the redshite.

Incredible positives for EFC, and and let's hope the next phase in this process go through without issue.

I was working around the RS ground today, and whilst it's grown there's no sense of proportion, and is becoming the blot on the landscape across Liverpool.

Interesting facts about our new stadium design, height limits.

Onwards and upwards, now to despatch Arsenal. That would cap a very good week, for EFC.

Thanks for that link, Laurie, and very interesting that the way they did it next door is a little different in a key respect: they removed the layer of silt at the bottom of the dock before pumping in the hydraulic sand fill.

I haven't found the bit in the geotechnical report where they decide, recommend or justify leaving the silt in place at the bottom of Bramley-Moore Dock but the problem is that it has a high water content and will tend to compress slowly with the weight of the sand on top. This can produce settlement of the sand over extended time, especially as the membrane is designed to allow the water released in the consolidation process to move upward, into the sand.

If the piles can fully support the pile cap, without any direct support from the sand fill, then there should be no problem. But if not, then the pile cap could suffer differential settlement.

The argument that a sold-out stadium at the proposed capacity is better than a slightly bigger stadium with huge empty spaces doesn't really make sense.

Why the assumption that at 52k there's likely to be a sell-out crowd, but there'll be no demand beyond that point? Even if that assumption was correct, the unused 8k seats would not form one large block of empty seats, anymore than the equivalent shortfall of spectators at Goodison Park (a little over 5k) would result in one large block of empty seats.

Although, the reason for wanting a higher capacity than proposed is simply the belief that there will be sufficient demand to utilise that capacity. Anybody who doesn't think that demand exists will, obviously, feel it makes sense to be rather more conservative.

I don't know what the maximum capacity of the Bramley-Moore Dock site is, although if it's as low as suggested, it seems overly restrictive to me. However, the Club aren't going to engage in construction on a grand scale very often, just look at the history of Goodison Park, so it makes sense to get the maximum out of the site straight away.

I don't have a set figure in mind as ideal, but I do think it would be a shame to be lacking in ambition at this stage in the process, especially if it ends up costing a lot more to increase capacity later on, should that even be feasible.

I wonder why the council put limits on height?

If they (the council) are asserting it's in the interests of taste, where was this tastefulness when the darkside built their new skyscraper main stand on a piece of land that is on one of the highest points in the city?

Rob #67.

I think I read the height limitation had something to do with a "glass ceiling." 😂😂😂

Dennis, others have said that we don't know the capacity of the site for future expansion, or the cost per seat of doing so. I'm just assuming the club and the stadium developers have studied the issue extensively and have come to a decision based on cost effectiveness and attendance projections. Having seen the new site exactly twice in my life, I have absolutely no insight into the facts.

What we do know is that the proposed number of seats is almost exactly 1/3 larger (33.65%, to be precise) than the current capacity of Goodison.

Will a new stadium, with its (presumably) higher ticket prices, attract 1/3 more fans?

Nobody knows.

But it now seems more than likely that we will, in fact, find out in September 2023.

Yay.

Michael #65, won't the piles be bearing on rock rather than friction piles relying on the sand?

Another thing, if it's a D&B contract, it will be up to the contractor as to how he designs and builds the underground structure.

"FFS" or (for those brought up in "select" households) "goodness me", who gives a shit right now given the fact that right now Champions League qualification is realistic.

If we achieve that, the Bramley-Moore Dock "project" (and I use the word "project" only to show that I'm striving to move on from the lies perpetuated by Kenwright) should be a given, instantly.

And, given that all of the extra money will be spent on the new stadium rather than signing better players, the comfy Finch Farm squad should be totally relaxed too as they seek to put the requisite number of points on the board....

Or am I being too cynical?

On the question of height, as I understand from the project docs I've read so far there are restrictions in place to maintain a coherent skyline and aesthetically pleasing blend to its surroundings.

Don't forget, we are building on a (still) World Heritage Site.

We also need to be mindful of lighting which doesn't intrude on or even prejudice the river traffic, so no red (as if we would!!!) or green lighting allowed apparently but blue is OK!

There's so much fascinating detail in the shared documents if you care to look.

Indeed, Mike, there's much we don't know & many assumptions can & have been made. I suspect I'm able to be fairly confident in assuming that my criteria may not be 100% aligned with those of the Board. However, it's the view of the Board that holds sway, quite rightly I suppose, when one considers that they've got to deliver the thing.

That's marvellous, we have to be aesthetically pleasing and blend in at considerable cost, while that lot get to build their unlimited version of the Reichstag.

The 'consultation' which concluded 52,000 was the optimum capacity was done by a London firm of consultants.

I've been a season ticket holder and shareholder for years and wasn't consulted and I've never met anyone who was.

Like many others, I feel the (now) 52,888 is far too low and a huge missed opportunity. Yes, our best ever average attendance was circa 51,000 but that was when football was very localised. It now has global 24/7 coverage and even Everton have 'tourist' fans.

Well said, Bill Watson!

Michael K. Just to prove I read it in 2020, this Friday is 21st February. Not that it really matters in the whole scheme of things, though.

So happy to see things progress. If BMD stadium is opened for the 24/25 season, I'll be 76 and my ambition is to be there for the first game (living in Adelaide, Australia, for the past 33 years or so).

It's great to have that warm, fuzzy feeling about Everton again. Onward and upward.

Laurie @58

A season ticket for a senior, and there are plenty of us, costs £299 I think.

Ray, when I convert this price to Aussie dollars, it seems a lot of dosh. How does it stand compared to average earnings of the typical football fan?

Jerome #62 - I don't understand the first sentence in your post - would you care to elaborate? I am going to have a good look through the drawings which I think will be very interesting and also the report Michael K mentioned.

My view is the finance is already well and truly in place for BMD. Actually, Dan Meis said that after the presentation night.

Don #72 - I also think there will be plenty of “extra money” for our new manager if he wants a few players.

Ray #79 - I got those prices of this web page

Teamtalk Premier League Prices

The new stadium is going to be fab and hi-tec, and the corporate boxes will bring in huge revenue to the club. But, for me, I was at the Crystal Palace game, and I couldn't see a part of the penalty area because of a big column in front of me in the main stand. Look at the comfort we'll have when we go to a game.

Laurie #81,

Prior to your comparison of Bramley-Moore Dock with the adjacent Sandon Dock development, the figures that were being presented by the Club, though few and far between, did not seem plausible.

I simply want to see those "Everton" letters put back at the front of the stadium, visitors to the City and the world need to know who we are.

I want it in blue with blue under lighting at night please, this is so important.

I never thought silt, sand, and piles (I believe we'd phrase that "pilings" over here) would intrigue me.

Kindergarten logic:

Silt has water. That water will seep into the sand thrown on top of it, causing it (the sand) to compact. Compaction would equate to settling / shifting. That's not good.

Their fast compaction process better be pretty damn thorough. And those pilings better be strong enough to hold up the entirety of Liverpool, in the event that sand base shifts.

How in the hell do you get nervous about silt, sand, and pilings?

I'm sure the experts know what they are doing, but it does concern me a bit. Probably unnecessarily.

Jamie, I think you've been spending too much time on the beach building sand castles, with a channel running through it to let water flow into the sand castle, slowly watching the sand collapse!! 😁😁😁

Bob #80 "Median weekly earnings for full-time employees reached £585 in April 2019" (Office for National Statistics). That's £30,400 annually. In real terms, this is lower than a decade ago.

Liverpool Echo (Nov 2018, so a year earlier) "If you live on Merseyside and earn less than £30,000 a year, you're not alone - nearly three quarters of all workers in the North West are on wages below this level".

I'm no engineering expert, but if they use the same principles as oil rigs, then it will be fine.
But in general, the major types of offshore oil rigs include the following: Fixed platform: anchored directly into the seabed, fixed-platform rigs consist of a tall, steel structure known as a "jacket" that rises up from the ocean to support a surface deck.

To me, this another tangible step of progress. This is fantastic news, a new iconic stadium will be built in our lifetime.

The images have not only met about 95% of people's approval, they have actually exceeded our expectations of what a new modern build can achieve; in essence, it looks like something we can be proud to call home.

This is on top of the location, by the riverfront 10 minutes from the city centre and smack bang in the centre of a proposed regeneration of the docks that would literally extend the city "centre" as we know it. The process seems to have been handled impeccably and judging, by our more patient readers, exhaustively.

The petty comments about the attendance are ridiculous put against all this positivity, the time for that squabble has well passed. Why would you even get agitated by something that has been considered greatly and moved on now? Brian Williams correctly keeps pointing to the future increase or safe standing yet they still choose to moan and whinge about some magical figure.

Dennis and Graham, when this new stadium is complete, can you tell us where your seats are? — so I can make sure I sit far away from your mind-numbing negativity!
The "spade in the ground" moment is getting nearer and I can't wait.

I'm not sure what the gripe is with the capacity. All I can think of is penis envy. I have been to several games at Goodison this season and last season (especially the televised games) when it was not a sell-out. We don't have the level of tourism that Barcelona, or Liverpool have and we don't want to be playing in front of a less than packed stadium.

Jamie #85, you want the sand compacted, otherwise it will settle. What's proposed seems to be a method to 'sponge' the water from the silt to allow it to dry and compact, rather than remove the silt.

Bobby #88, exactly, hence my question about bearing piles versus friction piles.

I love these threads because even people being negative cannot take away the positivity that I'm feeling. My own view is that safe-standing will take it up to around 60.000 eventually and this is more than enough for us imo.

We are building a new and historic stadium on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey and Carlo Ancelotti is our manager!

Rejoice and believe, stand up tall, smile, then remember our song — the one that tells everyone why we have played more top-flight games than any other club in this country, and sing out loud, “We shall not be moved!”

Eric 91. Given your last sentence, a standing area will be imperative.

Jamie # 85 - according to Wikipedia 😉 the average weight of a human being in Europe is 70.83 kilogrammes so the weight of a capacity crowd will be in the vicinity of 3,746 metric tonnes - that should really rattle you.

And that's not counting the weight of the concrete and steel used to build the structure. Like you I am hoping they have got it right.

I am pretty sure they will have given this subject a fair amount of thought - if it was my £500m I would certainly be asking the question.

Jerome # 83 - got you now.

Perplexed to see that a lack of ambition is now being portrayed as positivity!

Good comments, Eric (#70, 71, 91), and you're right about the piles being end-bearing in rock, rather than relying on friction in sand. That's where the description of the SBR construction next door that Laurie provided has something interesting about the pile cap design:

The piles were then installed flush with the top of the piling mat without continuous reinforcement negating the need for pile capping, removing significant health and safety risk and expediting follow-on activities. The piles were installed on a 5m grid, lining up where required directly beneath the corresponding column of the SBR structure.

I think 'continuous reinforcement' and 'pile capping' refer to the top of the piles, where they would otherwise be integrally attached to the pile cap / base slab to transfer the weight of the entire structure above.

If settlement does occur, there's also a thing called negative skin friction, where it applies a down-drag force on the outer surface of the pile, increasing the load the pile has to take. This extra load can cause the piles to fail, but I think it's unlikely here.

Bobby (#88), it's not entirely like the oil rigs as they are entirely supported by the legs. Most buildings transfer some weight from their floor or base slabs directly to the ground below, and rely on it not settling. I'm just not sure what the balance is here between this and the pile load in their conceptual design.

ps: Bob (#80), thanks for spotting that mistake. I've corrected it now.

Having scanned through a number of the PDFs, a recurring theme is WIND!!

The "intimidation" factor, making BMD an Everton Fortress is certainly going to be exaggerated as the Away fans gather in the shade of a miserable North stand (see the Elevation file), with little or no shelter from the Atlantic storm, having to huddle together and rotate who's on the outside, like penguins.

Meanwhile, we all gather in the South East corner, in the sunshine, under the trees, with a gentle breeze wafting through the wisps of hair growing from our ears, sipping ice cold beer, looking at our satisfied reflection in the glass of our new home. Which is nice!

Surely not perplexed, Dennis, more just a different opinion?

Jame #85, the United Utilities plant has been operational for at least 5 years now and appears to have been built on the same principle so there is a track record there that says this works.

Dennis @95
Try and look at the images of the new ground,maybe go down to the site now? Walk around Goodison inside and out, it has magic right throughout, it was monumental, look at the pictures of them floodlights ( another thread)and that amazing stand that sadly I didn't see, it's the past that has caught up with us, going the main stand or top balcony isn't a great experience today.
Don't get perplexed Dennis, if this doesn't happen now it never will, your imaginary 70,000 megadome is a fantasy based on fresh air, what appears to be happening at BMD is a lot of things but unambitious isn't one of them.
Can you and others who are bitching over capacity answer me one question?
Are Juventus ambitions?

Well, Tony, those of us who think the Club should be a tad more ambitious are being told that we are "negative", so I can only presume that being less ambitious is deemed to be "positive". It is, indeed, a different opinion but I find the spin perplexing.

Billy, I'm not remotely arsed about Juventus, or any football club other than Everton. I don't have an "imaginary 70,000 megadome", that's your invention not mine. My views are quite simple, based on the assumption that the Board are committed to a completely new build at a new location. Firstly, I think we should maximise the potential of the chosen site right from the start so that we don't have to revisit issues like capacity in the future. Secondly, if the chosen location is too restrictive then maybe it's not the right location. As for the timing, that's an issue for the Board, but I'm as keen to see the Club progress as any.

Alan #93 - cracker! Brought tears to my eyes!

Take a (standing) ovation)!

Just spent the last hour skim reading a load of the PDFs. The level of detail in there across all aspects is impressive.
The facilities this will offer over the Grand Old Lady are immense. Clear sightlines for all the stadium; the scale of the hospitality areas and associated catering; proper viewing stations for disabled fans at a high level right around the stadium; wide concourses behind the stands; a large fan plaza.

Wind baffles positioned all around the sides to reduce the obvious risks, and you can see all sorts of analyses with the Environment Agency and United Utilities to mitigate any flood risk.
And, I'm no fluid mechanics engineer, but weren't the Liver Building and Liverpool One built on infilled docks?

My only concern is the travel plans which seem a little half-assed to me - Sandhills and shuttle buses won't cut it. Let's hope some private car parks (like Stanley Park and Alsop) emerge.

This is brilliant.
Regarding UXB hazard, the RN attend Liverpool on a regular basis and sweep the river, can't remember if they do inside the docks.
Also, when United Utilities filled in the adjacent dock for their new building they used a system which appears similar to that proposed. Correct me if I am wrong.
Finally, is there mention of a landing stage? Would love one.

Cheers Brent. The success of the planning of BMD will all be down to Preparation ( H)

Richard @ 97, re: the wind and chill factor.

"Away fans gather in the shade of a miserable North stand (see the Elevation file), with little or no shelter from the Atlantic storm, having to huddle together and rotate who's on the outside, like penguins."

Having just watched the superb (as always) BBC nature documentary 'Dynasties' in which one episode showed King Penguins doing just that, your description and the mental imagery it conjured up gave me my first laugh out loud moment of the day.

Thank you!

We can sort out the Arse this weekend, Alan.

My understanding is that fhe BMD footprint will support a stadium with a maximum of approximately 52,000 seated, perhaps up to 60,000 with safe standing. As the saying goes, "location, location, location" - EFC could no doubt build the bigger stadium (a?most certainly at lower cost given the complexities of the proposed BMD build) that Dennis and others crave but it would be at the expense of location, perhaps at Kirkby or the like. The question for Dennis etc is therefore "would you sacrifice location for the larger stadium you prefer"? Hypothetical of course because the decision has been made, but like most, I wouldn't.
As for ambition, I think we need look at the wider picture. In footballing terms, Moshiri (and Usmanov?) have invested millions in the squad (admittedly, much of it mis-spent), installed (at last!) a top manager and are committed to construction of a new stadium at enormous cost - the purchase of the Royal Liver Building is also not without significance. I don't see any lack of ambition there but in my view, such investment is no more than a "foot in the door" for Moshiri and Usmanov, the ultimate and greater prize being huge involvement in the wider regeneration of the area and the profits that will bring - that, again obviously my opinion, is the real reason for selection of BMD. I for one am delighted with the choice of location whatever their underlying motives might be.

I don't think building a stunning stadium, designed by Dan Meis and incorporated into a world heritage site, on the banks of the Mersey, lacks ambition.
Nor does installing a three times Champions league league manager to oversee the transition.

We could build a bigger stadium in a field in Kirkby but lack of money and motivation play a part. Investors and stakeholders wouldn't invest a bag of beans into a field in Kirkby but give them a stadium as part of a redevelopment in the heart of Liverpool and they start to get " ambitious".

Bob the builder can't build stuff and Father Christmas doesn't exist. Motivated business people can and do.

Martin @109
Well said, I echo your sentiments completely.
As for Dennis, I asked him a question, he couldn't be arsed considering it. Juventus are clearly not a team to be taken seriously.
He doesn't want 52 rising most likely to 60 but he doesn't want 70 either, he thinks we should have chose somewhere else but cant or wont say where, but he has ambitions and aspirations unlike us and the club who are doing nothing, he just doesn't like to talk about his details.
Some people unfortunately are addicted to moaning.

I have some sympathy for Dennis' sentiments - few would have thought that moving home would have only improved capacity by circa 12k or that the club wouldn't include many more corporate boxes etc particulary as the move is going to cost the club nigh on half a billion pounds.

However, the bean counters have run the figures and they have decided that the location itself is of intrinsic value and I have to agree. A 70k or whatever figure capacity on the outskirts of town wouldn't have the same impact on our profile as BMD will, with circa 52k.

We also have to consider that attendences play but a bit part in any clubs income nowadays as TV revenue dwarfs all other revenue.

it's quite possible that before this decade is out each club will broadcast it's own matches live around the planet and therefore quite possibly reduce the demand to visit the stadium compared to what is the norm today.

Not that I'll get to see it for myself any time soon, but Meis himself is noted for saying "every extra seat you add is the most expensive one that yields the least revenue in return."

53k seems perfect to ensure that intimate, loud, bear pit atmosphere.

Fair enough Dennis, I never meant to put any spin on it mate, and I'm sure I stated my reasons very clearly when I talk about my own positivity.

If it is staying at 52,800, then I would prefer 55.000, but I look at City, sometimes struggling to fill 55.000, and only United have consistently got over 60.000 fans into their ground, and this is what I think the capacity at Bramley Moore, will end up, once they have introduced safe standing?

Our neighbours are flying, but whose to say it will last? And I remember my childhood when the ground never looked empty with only 30.000 inside Goodison, but this would not be the case inside these all-seater stadiums, and you only have to see Man City on tv, to realise this.

This is a difference of opinion, that only the future will be able to answer, but I'm personally looking forward to our future, because I feel a lot different, now that the dark clouds of the Bill Kenwright era, (plucky little Everton) are slowly starting to disappear.

I have previously said the capacity should be 60,000, but lets move on, the capacity is decided.
What concerns me more is the many statements of the noise behind the team. Well I have been to many games where its been like a grave or worse on the players back constantly. So I would say, make the noise happen now and get behind the team ready for the move.

Carlo's live presser just starting.

Link

A typically cheery presser from Carlo.

For him, Andre is ready to play, but he intends to sit down and talk with the player and others before Sunday's game to decide if he starts or sits on the bench.

When asked, he said he doesn't know of another example of a player suffering a similar injury returning to peak condition and ready to play as Andre has.

He said he is not surprised, knowing the medical staff we have at Finch Farm. It's his belief that the key moment was the excellent treatment they immediately gave him on the field following the break. Huge compliments and endorsement to the medical staff from the manager then.

Asked about Tom and Dom's dress sense and their trip to New York, he laughed and said he liked it and complimented them on their look on their return, adding next time they must take him with them!

Likely to be without Walcott on Sunday. He only started training again - and alone - today. Bernard is OK.

Avoided saying much about the Man City situation, other than to say we should aim for 5th which at least ensures a Europa League place at this time.

Also spoke in favour of Wegner's VAR proposal this week.

All very mundane, but all cheerfully and charmingly delivered by the affable Italian.

On the one hand, I can understand the disappointment some are expressing that the base maximum capacity at the new stadium is 'only' going to be a tad under 53,000.

However, like others, it's a non-sequitur to me that this equates to a lack of ambition and vision by the club. New stadium in a prime city centre location. New multiple-trophy winning manager widely regarded as one of the managerial greats. A DoF also with a highly regarded reputation. A billionaire accountant (and friends...) bankrolling the club.

That all smacks of big-time long term thinking, not small-time compromise.

BMD is potentially a huge game-changer for the club's image, standing and how it is perceived by others.

The constraints of the location is possibly determining the max capacity available to us, but again as others have stated, I for one am happy to concede that for the prime location where it will be built.

Nor is the capacity expansion compared to Goodison unsubstantial. It constitutes a 33% increase, possibly more if and when safe standing is allowed.

Who cares how big (and how great an eyesore) t'other lots shack is in comparison to BMD? It will forever be a patched up and makeover of a 1960s stadium, far from the city centre, unless and until they bulldoze it to the ground and do a complete rebuild.

Thanks to Steve Ferns I also have a better understanding as to why the club has gone done the route of having more exclusive premium suites as opposed to having more corporate boxes. The lounges can house more people and be affordable to far more people than renting a corporate box, so the club will make, not lose, money by doing this. Spurs did the same with their own White Hart Lane rebuild.

And like Martin @ 109 I've long held the belief that Everton FC is key to the grandiose plans of some seriously monied people. Moshiri bought the Liver Building and secured the leasehold on BMD for the stadium. A front and back build between those two compass points is going to make some people a LOT of money to the benefit of Everton FC also.

Laurie @81

They may be the lowest standard ticket, for seniors it's £299 for ANY part of the ground.
Of course, some junior tickets are even cheaper.

Paul H@104, last paragraph is my only main concern, especially because all the roads are getting re-serviced right along derby road, but nothing is getting done to widen them.

It's the same in the city centre, because they are reducing the lanes right along the strand, (absolute madness, imo) which can only mean, that they don't really want cars going into the city anymore, and it won't be too long before we are faced with congestion charges, if we want to drive inside certain zones?

The scope for a decent sized train station, between Sandhills and Moorefields, is already there, (right opposite the magnificent re-transformation of the tobacco warehouses) possibly with enough land to replicate South Parkway, although I might actually be stretching my imagination just a little bit with these thoughts!

Martin #109 Were it down to me, I'd like nothing better than to stay at Goodison Park & see the redevelopment occur there. However, I can see the appeal of a new build & fully agree with the points you make regarding Moshiri, etc. These people are looking beyond the stadium & beyond Everton & the investments made & planned are, as you said, a "foot in the door", for them. Hence the chosen location.

Billy #111 You feel free to take Juventus as seriously as you like, they are of no interest to me, I'm an Evertonian. My apologies if you missed my previous response to you, but just to reiterate: “Firstly, I think we should maximise the potential of the chosen site right from the start so that we don't have to revisit issues like capacity in the future. Secondly, if the chosen location is too restrictive then maybe it's not the right location.” Please also try to understand that not everybody who has a different opinion to you is moaning, or negative, they just have a different opinion to you.

Tony #114 No criticism intended, I agree with much you've said. I just find it odd that some other people who disagree don't address the point of disagreement, ie capacity, & instead start disagreeing with points that haven't been mentioned at all, which only serves to muddy the waters. Although I do appreciate that the waters will be very muddy once construction is under way.

Being an Everton supporter since the mid 1950's and now living in Canada, getting back every few years during the Sept / Oct period so I can take in some games.

As I will be well into my 80's when it is ready, I just hope there will be a seat available for me when I can watch a couple of games when I come back.
Although I left Liverpool in1976 I still call it home.
I watch a lot of football on T.V. as I can get every premier league game, and apart from Anfield there are very few stadiums that show full capacity.

So going on Evertons new ground capacity, unless they are fighting for the title, or a European cup, the capacity seems OK, and I am sure if it became necessary there are plans for expansion.
Just make sure it is built as quickly and as safely as possible as I may not be able to wait to long to watch a game, at what seems a magnificent ground to watch Everton.

Tony #120

I think it is set in stone at the Highways Agency that all roadworks are secretly planned and no effort to contact the Utility Services about any renewal work they need to do is carried out. If the newly laid surface has not been dug up within a fortnight of the resurfacing being completed then it is proof miracles can happen.

Nothing more irritating than this ground move shite.

It will be the biggest disaster in the clubs history, nailed on, and only a few people seem to see it.

Absolute nonsense.

Juventus one of the biggest teams in world football,

Stadium capacity = 41,510

I think with 52,888 were fine, bigger isn't always better, well according to my Mrs.

Tony #120 like you my only concern is the transportation to/from the ground. Today you can access Goodison from all directions but BMD only has the one access point. Looking at the summary transportation report there is talk of shuttle buses etc but no access for cars (don't think I'd be able to afford one of the 400 or so on-site!!).
I also wonder if access is a requirement to limit the capacity as well as I would think there must be some regulations nowadays about how quickly an arrear can be evacuated in an emergency?

Dennis @121
Sorry for calling you a moaner, I now realise you were putting up a very considered counter argument with your detailed description of the ideal attendance befitting EFC and how you came your final figure? You're still being very coy about this.
The prime locations you have given us as a more suitable spot to build the stadium.? Oh go on give us just 1 of the many sites you know.
And I realise now that we shouldn't consider any other professional football club stadium as your an Evertonian and there is nothing to be learned outside of our unique bubble.
By the way I did read your response and as for people not addressing their disagreements! you are a prime example.
It turns out you would really like to stay at Goodison, that ship has sailed a long, long time ago.
Negativity?? Never, I understand you are a top Evertonian who has no interest about any other football club in the world.
Ignorance is bliss eh.

More nonsense, eh Billy? You're clearly at pains to refuse to comprehend very simple things, so I'll leave you to your "reality".

Dennis, Billy has a point. You ARE simply moaning because the "points" you raise are, ironically "pointless." I'll address them specifically and only disagree with the points you've raised.

Were it down to me, I'd like nothing better than to stay at Goodison Park & see the redevelopment occur there.
It's not down to you, we're not staying at Goodison Park, the decision's been made.

I think we should maximise the potential of the chosen site right from the start so that we don't have to revisit issues like capacity in the future.
We CAN'T increase the capacity from the 52,888 from the start as that's the maximum possible due to a number of factors including, but not exclusive to, the footprint of the stadium and legislation regarding safe standing.

If the chosen location is too restrictive then maybe it's not the right location.
The location's been chosen. Nothing you say will change that.

So you see, you're not putting across constructive points, you're disagreeing about decisions that have already been made, and plans that are already well advanced and, for the most part, unchangeable.
Sounds like moaning, looks like moaning, smells like moaning.

My guess? It's moaning!

Daniel @125. I'm sure Juventus are trying to get there capacity up to 60 k.

Yes John C, Bramley Moore reminds me of Wembley, when you think about access, so maybe one day, they might extend an underground link to one of the Mersey tunnels, or possibly even make another tunnel or even a bridge, such is the scale of this whole redevelopment scheme?

Park-and sail, is an obvious way to free traffic congestion, and a rail network that will also extend to stations around Anfield, must surely be in the long-term thinking of the City-planners, but we are effectively building a ground against a wall, and it's going to absolute chaos, without a much better service from the trains?

Thanks Dennis for leaving me to my "reality "
I much prefer it to yours.
As for me talking nonsense? I can live with that.
I wouldn't describe your thoughts on BMD as nonsense as to be honest you never really offered anything to consider let alone describe as nonsense, oh sorry yes you did.
You want it to be bigger.
Thanks for a riveting debate, I will have to live with the fact that I couldn't comprehend "very simple things " and you with the fact you couldn't put them into words.

The debate regarding capacity is interesting to read, both sides of the argument have validity. BUT, the decision has been made (on paper) so it's not so much the size of the crowd now, it's the power that's important. Would the away side want to be faced with thousands of wildebeest or hundreds of lions?

Noise, atmosphere, passion, connection with the team, songs, sirens and unity. thats what will make the difference. Get into the opposition ears, through their hoodies and ludicrous Louis Vuitton headphones, from the minute they get off the bus!

Billy #89.

I have not been negative about the new stadium or the building of it or the move itself: it is only really the capacity I have an issue with and I am not alone in this. Funnily enough, my 'negativity' actually stems from positivity: deep in my heart a part of me believes (hopes) that we will one day return to being a top force in football.

In life generally, you have to believe you can win and succeed and conquer all because, if you do not believe, particularly in sport, you will fail. I would, therefore, like to see a stadium with a larger starting capacity than 52,888 because I believe that we could fill it and we could again have a team and players worthy of the Everton name and fit to wear the shirt.

Ways can be found to fill a larger stadium where there is a will. I believe, Billy.

Richard @ 133.

You've avoided the critical question in all this, Richard.

Will there be fish on a stick for circling penguins?

Jay @135.

For a small fee, foil wrapped Baked Potatoes available for Away fans to carry on their feet and pass to each other to keep warm. All monitored by a squad of bearded scientists from a tent located by the Media centre. Wish them well.

Brian #129 I think you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by stating the obvious, ie it's just an opinion. However, thanks for enlightening me to the fact that I don't have control over the issues I'm expressing an opinion on. Thank goodness you made use of bold & CAPS, otherwise I might have missed the point.

Tbh, if you don't think we should have an opinion on anything outside of our control then coming on a forum to express it seems rather pointless, as does the existence of the forum. Yet here we all are, & guess what - you have no control over my opinion & so, by your own definition, you are merely moaning about it.

Brian @129,

Thanks for agreeing with my nonsense!!

Graham @134,

Thanks for explaining your thinking, I understand supporters' concerns as far as the attendance is concerned because, once it is built, only the rail seating will increase it, and any opportunity to change will effectively be gone.

BUT... I believe the capacity is round about right. With rail seating, it will be touching the magical 60k people seem to be fixed on, I believe, given the considerable time they have spent on all other aspects, then this number 52,888 was reached after serious research. As Brian states, the constraints of the site dictate this also, and not forgetting the design.
I am well happy with the design, the location and the capacity (rail seating inc). On a day like today, when it appears we are a little step closer to this, it is extremely churlish and frankly puzzling or perplexing as Dennis describes it to be nitpicking over issues that are way beyond debate.

I really believe, if this goes to plan, all those worries will soon fade away.
Here's to a new ground that we can all be proud of.

Apologies in advance if this has been mentioned before. I had a quick skim through the posts above and could not see it mentioned...so not sure if the links that are referred to are the same as in those in the People's Project website.

I received a link to the People's Project website..and the Lowdown on our Planning Application...Interesting reading (if you have time).

Link

Paul #130, no sir, they are not. Juventus rarely fills its Allianz stadium, which is less than 10 years old. A recent game attracted only 30k fans, making even their 41k seating capacity look like a patchwork lawn.

The issue is pricing. The least expensive walk-up tickets now cost a brutal €160 (they raised prices again when they signed Ronaldo). And that's an intentional strategy for Juve -- it's their way of trying to keep the Ultras out, hoping they can't afford the tickets. They'd rather the seats stay empty than filled with right-wing maniacs.

Over 100 years on from when the Liver, Cunard and MD&HB buildings were constructed on St Georges Dock, and don't appear to have sunk or subsided that much, I don't think filling BMD should pose too much of a problem.

Transport; I really don't see the need to bring cars right into the area (and pay for the privilege). Why not just park somewhere near a station and get the train in. That's what I'll be doing. if I'm still around!!

Seems like an enterprising young person with a decent car could make a lot of money as an Uber driver on game days, just dropping people off at the new stadium.

Mike - the money in the City on match days is on LFC home games and accommodation. The price charged in the City is astronomical owing to demand.

Dennis #95,

I do think that a 53, 000 capacity does show lack of ambition. Paul the Esk, I seem to remember, did point out the need for a larger capacity if Everton were to fulfil projections on a future realistic financial plan.

But in the case of Moshiri and Usmanov, in my opinion, there is a wider plan than Bramley-Moore Dock, when the whole Peel site comes into play, with Everton as an anchor tenant or purchaser.

I expect changes down the line as Moshiri and Usmanov come more to the forefront in controlling the development.

😴

How can moving to a brand new, 𧺬 million, 53k all-seater stadium on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey be 'lacking in ambition'??? 🤣 🤣 🤣

It was only 6 or so years ago we went 2 years without paying a transfer fee for players

Our fans, man 👨

Brian #145.

Why the stupid emoji face? Was it in response to Jerome (who rightly stated in my opinion) saying that the 53000 capacity showed a lack of ambition?

You have already tried to bully Dennis Stevens (with your post at 129) for simply having an opinion and voicing that opinion. As Dennis rightly said, this is a forum, the main purpose of which IS to offer opinions.

Jerome #144,

There is a wider plan for Bramley-Moore Dock. There wouldn't be for a 65,000 stadium built on a rabbit field in Kirkby.

Some of our fans Ryan, but not as many as the ones who voted to go to “Kirkby near Wigan” though, to a cow-shed at the back of beyond. Now that's something I always found perplexing, especially when the perpetrator said, “he was glad it never happened!”

Bill Gall(122)

I am also one more scouser living in Canada close to Niagara Falls. I have been Canada since 1963. I left Liverpool but Liverpool never left me. I don't mean the RS. Blue through and through. I will also be in my mid eighties when the Stadium opens but I WILL be there.

I am bringing my son John "Everton" and my son-in -aw Dan over in four weeks to see the derby. I hope to meet up with John McFarlane Snr in the Central Hotel at 12:00 noon in preparation for beating Liverpool the next day. My son will be celebrating his 50th Birthday. This trip is the best present he could ever wish for. Two years ago, I came over for the derby with my other son Andrew "Goodison". Had a great time and always will. I would love to meet any other ToffeeWebbers who can make it to the Central.

Regarding the new Stadium, I can only think of positives. As regards the financing, I don't care as long as I can get a seat. In life, there are only two things that are not important to me: (1) Money, because I never had enough; and (2) Liverpool FC, because I had far too much.

Graham #47,

How can building a Dan Meis designed stadium in the heart of Liverpool, with a three times champions league manager to oversee transition, lack ambition?

Everton in a dream could build a 70,000-seater stadium in a field in the stix but no-one with any sense or more than a pot to piss in would invest.

The new stadium's situation as part of a redevelopment in the heart of Liverpool, is what attracts business, investors and stakeholders.

Without these, there would be no ambition at all. We'd be left with a few 'nothing but the best' crusties watching the Bullens Road fall about their ears.

Can anyone from the "this club lacks ambition" group come on and tell me what the magic number is? Can they also tell me if it can be achieved on Bramley-Moore Dock site? And if so why the club chooses to stick to the 53-60 model?

Can they also say whether they would abandon Bramley-Moore Dock if another bigger site was available?

Graham, you explained honestly why you thought a bigger capacity was important to you well, but to accuse Brian of bullying Dennis? Come on... Brian was, like you say, expressing his opinion, a lot better than Dennis did.

Behave yourself, Graham, and read the full thread.

Bullying? I've heard it all now!

The size of the crowd and the noise it generates are two different things altogether and not necessarily linear in relationship.

The demographics of those attending football matches has also changed the atmosphere within.

What was it John Lennon said?

"I'd like to ask your help. Will the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands? And for the rest of you, if you'll just rattle your jewelry..."

Dave #148

This is true.

I do think that when this stadium is built, the capacity will be insufficient.

It's just my opinion of course, but I am pretty sure I will be proved right.

At present, it's very difficult for families to attend a game and sit together unless you own a clutch of season tickets in a row. Prices on StubHub have risen in recent years as well so getting a family (2 adults & 2 kids) to a game is nigh on impossible And even a Dad and two kids is very hard. I know this from personal experience.

Once this beautiful new stadium is built, the demand to go the match will skyrocket, especially as there'll be no restricted views etc. I think a lot of families will want to go. 13,000 extra tickets sounds a fair few, but I seriously think that a lot of fans simply aren't attending much at present because they can't, and that's when we have sold out every league game for over 3 years now and at a time when the football has mostly been rubbish.

I can only hope that safe standing happens, plus there's obviously room to put an extra tier on the ‘away end' and lose that big glass screen, so hopefully expansion, albeit limited in scope, will be possible.

Just to add, there is already a season ticket waiting list of 8,677 totalling over 11,000 people.

That's most of an extra 13,000 spaces gone already. There's plenty of fans who don't want a season ticket or can't attend every match too, so an extra 20,000 on what we have now seems about right.

I think that most of the people on here who think that the capacity of the new stadium is too small are of the assumption that it will be filled at every game. The gate attendances usually are determined on the opposition.

I believe the architects were asked to design a modern world class stadium and given a set area of land to be used, and this has been achieved. You can't build a 2,000 sq ft house on a 1,000sq ft of land unless you build it higher.

With a limited amount of land plus trying to keep the heritage of the area. Going higher to increase capacity will mean, to the spectators at the top, it will seem like watching little stick men kicking a marble.

With the amount of close scrutiny in the design and details, I am sure the stadium has been designed to give the supporters a first class facility, to enjoy a matchday in a secure safe environment.

The designers using other stadiums for comparison have fixed this capacity to offer comfort and safety to the home and away supporters on matchday.
As a proud Everton supporter, I wish I was able to attend every game at this stadium.

Whether 52,000 or 55,000 is enough or not, won't be an issue until we start actually winning things. Are we saying there's 12,000 people now on a regular basis who can't get a ticket for the matches at Goodison? I'm lucky to have a season ticket, but if I ever want a ticket for a game for a friend who's visiting etc. I never have any issues.

I was at the Spurs stadium for the first time this week for their Champions League match. What a sensational piece of work that place is. It is wonderful! Got me excited about Bramley-Moore Dock.

The hardest thing being an Evertonian is getting in the away end when we play on the road. We must sell out every away game!

Isn't there a pretty large waiting list for season tickets?

10 to 12,000?

How many of those actually buy one is another matter, of course...

Chris, the waiting list is just over 8.5k. See Karl's post, he's quoted the exact figures.

Carl #159,

I've never been to the new Spurs stadium, but I should imagine ours will be a fairly simplistic affair next to it.

Except for our new away end, each stand is the same height and with two tiers and it's square shaped.

I am hoping that they do something slighty different in the final build to what's in the graphics now. Maybe 3 tiers on the mainstand, 2 tiers on the opposite stand and one huge wall for the home end. Something to give a bit of character to each part of the ground as we have now at Goodison Park.

As it is it looks just a bit too uniform for my tastes, however before someone calls me a kill-joy, I am excited we're getting it and it will be a big improvement over what we have.

Rob - I thought the Home End of Bramley-Moore Dock was just one enormous tier of 13,000 seats. (Not two tiers )

And actually, 3 of the sides of the Spurs stadium are basically the same with just the ‘big home end' breaking it up, so you could certainly say that Bramley-Moore Dock will be far less uniform than the Tottenham Hotspur stadium, not the other way around.

I think ours is going to be a match for theirs in terms of style, the location of ours is clearly more spectacular, but theirs is more suited to the size of their fan base than ours will be ie. Ours is just a bit too small in my opinion, needs another 5,000 or so seats to satisfy demand.

The Spurs stadium is outstanding and is a the benchmark for all new ones.

Karl # 163

Yep, I've just had a look at the Spurs stadium and as you've said it is uniform on both sides.

My basic point, though, is that, if you have a look at the graphics of our new stadium, interior wise, then to me, it looks 3 sides all the same with 2 tiers and a slighty smaller away end.

I had a decent look at the graphics when they first came out and there was actually a "mish-mash" of different interiors, I'm curious if the design is fixed at this stage.

If you fast-forward the video to 2:04 and watch, it's very uniform and the home end does have 2 tiers also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoexyBq8N-4

I did though see in some of the graphics released by EFC, a 3-tier mainstand and solid wall home end.

I can't wait to see what we get or maybe the design is now fixed at two tiers all around?

Brian #161

Karl's post is correct but the waiting list (for an underperforming side), as he says, is actually over 11,000. Some of those 8,000+ must want more than one season ticket.

The actual figures are in the planning document. Yes, I'm one of those saddos who's actually wading through it!!

Bill, I believe the figures Karl quotes are from the planning documents, mate. It did say something about the 8,600 and something waiting list wanting 11,000 tickets. Obviously some family groups in there.

May already be posted somewhere above, but rather than visit the City's paling portal and downloading stacks of pdfs, the People's Project website has the info condensed in 10 docs which are easy to scroll through:

Get the Lowdown on the New Stadium Planning Application

Brian; I think that's what I actually said, ie, the 11,000+ comes from the 8,000+ actually on the waiting list. As we haven't had a decent side since Martinez's first season, that figure, in itself, is remarkable.

Imagine what the demand would be in a state-of-the-art stadium with a half-decent team on the pitch!

On the subject of the waiting list for season tickets.
We cant just add 11000 to our average gate now as week to week amongst those on the waiting list will be people who are actually attending the match, they are purchasing tickets individually.
It is to be assumed someone who puts themself on a waiting list for matches actually makes the effort to go anyway.
I don't think we have 11000 fans sitting at home listening to the radio.
What the real difference makes could be 3-4 000 who knows? It's hard to establish.

Hard to establish of course Billy, by there must be plenty like me and my family who aren't on the waiting list either.

Hard to quantify, but just by looking at the upswing in attendances after ALL new stadium builds, they have all been more than 33%.

Your right Karl, it is hard to know the amount who haven't been for years and will renew their interest? In the past I have gone regularly
buying individualy, I have had season tickets, I have gone just a handful of games or missed whole seasons for a number of reasons ie work, kids, financial.
We are hard to predict, you are correct about the upswing most definitely but if our attendance now is 40,000 and the new stadium is 53 rising to near 60 if ( more like when) rail seating is introduced then that is a near 50% increase on Goodison!
Surely that is enough,

Karl/Billy. We will have no problem at all selling out the new stadium capacity of 52,888. I know people who won't go now because the only tickets they can have severely obstructed views. The season ticket waiting list would undoubtedly be greater if quality seats were available. In addition there will be a significant increase in the number of premium corporate seats (at least 5K so the increase in the number of seats available for supporters will be a hell of a lot less than the 13,000 overall increase in capacity compared with Goodison.

Mike#172.
That's a good point regarding the corporate seats, never thought of that.
Demand for the "regular" season tickets could outstrip supply, certainly pre any capacity increase.

I would imagine the piles will be end-bearing and they will be sitting on solid ground, rather like table legs. These things are usually well over-engineered to make sure that it will be solid and safe. I used to do this, albeit on a much smaller scale!

The capacity seems about right to me, about 30% more than our current capacity. Safe standing might have been brought in by then, making it a 50% increase for us from our current maximum. I hope that I will be able to buy tickets for my infrequent visits.

Very exciting stuff

Mike @172,

Good point about corporate seats eating into the regular seating and season ticket demand... But, how many of the new corporate crowd will have previously had season tickets or just went occasionally? Therefore freeing up seating.

I realise Corporate boxes are for entertaining guests generally and not regular Evertonians. I'm not trying to be pedantic but it just shows you how hard it is to predict a future average crowd for EFC.
We go by our instinct and common sense mostly as Evertonians. We have to remember that, if this work started tomorrow, it will be 3 years off and surely safe standing will be accepted then.

Mike @ 172 (and others).

I'm still working my way through all the provided documents, but I think you are mistaken, or possibly confusing things, when you say at least 5k of the near 53k capacity will be taken up with premium corporate seating.

The new stadium, from memory, hasn't radically increased the number of exclusive corporate boxes over the existing numbers at Goodison Park.

The path Everton wish to go down is similar to Spurs at their new build who also reduced the number of exclusive corporate boxes. What both clubs are doing is expanding the number of match day suites – eg, from Goodison: The Captain's Table, Alex Young Suite, etc – which offers an upmarket match day experience – meal, drinks etc – for a more expensive season ticket.

The club came out a few months again saying all Goodison Park suites had undergone a refurbishment to experiment with the likely livery and look for the Bramley-Moore Dock suites.

There is NO corporate box involved in this arrangement. You retain your seat in the stands like every other 'commoner', but your membership allows you access to one of the exclusive matchday suites.

As already exists at Goodison, this caters for a range of different budgets and makes it far more accessible to many more people than stumping up for a corporate box for the season.

We will generate MORE matchday money from this model than squeezing in more corporate boxes which only rob space for more bums on seats.

That's good news Jay. 👍

Thinking about it, 5k in corporate boxes would involve a huge number of boxes!

On checking it seems Wembley has 160 boxes catering from 8 to 20 people.

If Bramley-Moore Dock was catering for 5k corporate customers, we'd need 250 boxes using the same maximum capacity as Wembley.

Brian, on a running question in this thread – that if the Bramley-Moore Dock site limits us to a 53k capacity, then possibly it is the wrong location.

I recommend people look at the PDF Alternative Sites Assessment, Part 1 of 3.

A 'mere' 259 pages long, it goes into enormous detail of:

* the history of Goodison
* the restraints of rebuilding Goodison for modern day purposes
* the history of possible stadium moves in the last 20 years
* the criteria used in identifying North Liverpool as the most viable location for a new stadium
* no fewer than 50 (F-I-F-T-Y!!!) possible stadium locations around the city that were evaluated in detail
* six key assessments made of each potential site (size; site-specific planning issues; if available; if viable; accessible; visual/environmental impact)
* a 5-6 page detailed report of each and every potential site

There is not an alternative location anyone sniffing at the (real or imagined) 'costraints' of the Bramley-Moore Dock site could possibly come up with as a better alternative that wasn't considered.

Jay, I'm taking the fifth on this one, mate, for reasons that may be apparent earlier in the thread. 🤪

And I can't wait to walk up to that shiny, iconic, cathedral of footy for the first time!

Jay #179, great summary (don't take so long over summarising the rest of the submission, please!). This really does seem to put the ball in the court of those criticising BMD as a location.

I should add to my post @ 179 that details of each of the 50 potential sites continues into part 2 of the Alternative Sites Assessment (running to 287 pages).

Part 3 is just 7 pages and compares the size of the BMD project (8.7 hectares) to recent stadium builds:

Spurs 8.9 hectares
Arsenal 7.5 hectares
WHU 15 hectares (not really a like-for-like example as it includes the entire Olympic Park complex, custom built for the games, not football)

The part 3 document acknowledges BMD represents a 'significant challenge to develop a suitable design to accomodate 52,888 capacity stadium', but that the design is 'extremely efficient', allowing as it does space for other key features associated with the stadium.

Other than safe standing being introduced, I think it's fair to say there is little or no scope to increase the near 53k capacity as presented.

"Figure 11.10.2: The image does not reflect the final design of the stadium site or the updated Liverpool Wasters Masterplan".

Liverpool Wasters?!

Liverpool FC renamed the club, Brent?

Or have you city-based TWers got together and formed a team..?

The latter, Jay! Come and join us!

I'd fit right in, Brent.

The biggest waste of space of the lot given my gammy knee these days.

Further updates on the red echo website of when the club hope to complete the stadium, start dates for the work etc.

Everton hint at September 2023 opening of Bramley-Moore Dock stadium in planning application

Just going through the comments a bit late.

I agree with Graham (32), Dennis (38), Richard (40), and Joe (44) about the capacity and the ambition. I have all through this (the survey's etc) said it should be 60,000 plus and gave my reasons; many of you guys say the same as me. I've just sent an email to the planning application for whatever that is worth.

I think it's short sighted by the club and the architect to be planning a new stadium for what we could probably fill NOW at Goodison Park as it is, if it was 52,000. Cheesy, I know, but I'm going to say it: Build it and they will come.

John (39) on other revenue streams, I'm totally with that. Again, the club is not at the races as far as I can see.

Ray (47) on safe standing. Time and time again, people say this, but at the moment legislation is 1:1 – it won't increase the capacity. Why can't the club just grow a pair and join the elite teams? We're a big club, we get big crowds, and we will be successful again.

I get a bit miffed with people who say it's more than we've had as an average attendance, or the increase is a third more than we get in now, which doesn't mean didly. You want big crowds, you build big stadiums. I don't buy this about having a demand for tickets, why restrict the capacity and shut out new fans from going to Bramley-Moore Dock?

Not all corporate guests are in boxes; most are in ordinary seats. albeit special sections as we currently have in the Park End. So, many of the 5,000 corporates will be eating into the 52,888 capacity.

Everton really is missing a trick starting with such a small capacity and safe standing will add little, if any, to that figure.

Of relevance and interest:

Manchester United apply for permission to install rail seating at Old Trafford

Safe standing seems inevitable but, as someone posted above, is it just a 1:1 ratio or can we get a 1.5:1 ratio to get the uplift in capacity, as I have seen mentioned before (I think on these hallowed pages)?

I think there's some confusion over corporate guests (boxes) and lounge members. They're two separate things.

There are lounge members who sit in "normal" seats in various parts of the ground. Looking forward to Bramley-Moore Dock corporate guesting refers to private boxes, I believe, while there will still be various lounges where the patrons of those lounges sit in "normal" seats.

Season ticket holders can choose to have an "upgraded" matchday experience by being a member of one of the various lounges and they sit in their own seat every game just like other season ticket holders.

Corporate boxes could be populated by different people every game. They count towards the capacity but corporate boxes would no way account for 5k of the capacity, more like a couple or few hundred.

Thanks Brian, I wasn't aware of that.

No problem, Bill. I know it's a minefield with all this information which has just become available. We're all finding out new stuff every day!

Jay #179,

I'm sure it's a fine piece of work; however, the cynic in me recalls the club adopting a similar line back in the days of Desperation Kirkby. Although, they must have overlooked Bramley-Moore Dock as, if I recall correctly, I don't think they believed there were any suitable sites in the City of Liverpool.

However, surely much of this is moot, as only Bramley-Moore Dock will be likely to lead to further opportunities as the redevelopment of that part of the City unfolds over the years to come.

Presumably, an opportunity a savvy businessman would not want to miss out on. Indeed, it might even be that prospect that has enabled the Club to move on from the Kenwright era.

From the submitted plans:-

Standard home seats: 43,880
Premium seats: 5,334
Box seats: 448
Away seats: 2,968
Non-revenue seats: 258

Total 52,888

Yesterday, I was at the Principality Stadium and it did make me think about the Bramley-Moore Dock plan. I have been pretty much in favour of the proposal but yesterday, sitting with almost 74,000 others, did make me wonder if we could be a bit more ambitious with capacity.

The Principality is built on about 5 hectares, we have 8.5 available. I appreciate that this doesn't accommodate areas such as the fan zone or car parking (there is an NCP literally across the road though). It does make me wonder why we can't look at finding a few thousand more seats...

Bill @192,

Have a look at:

www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk

Wonder what the non-revenue seats are for? Anyone any idea on those?

Ray #197.

Thanks for that link, Ray. I looked at the gallery...

Do the photos in the gallery show a 2:1 ratio because it looks to me that, when the seats are down, there are (obviously) two people accommodated for, but when the seats are locked up it looks like there are then two "steps" so room for four people.

Or am I looking at that wrong?

Sorry for posting and posting but my last post wasn't editable. In one of the videos it explains that when the seats are "active" (in the stadium they're talking about) there was a capacity of 3,000 and when safe standing was in use, the capacity was 5,700. That's VERY interesting and could allay some fears of the capacity of BMD not being big enough (dependant on safe standing going ahead of course). That's 1-1.9.

Using those figures, if even just 10k of the 19k capacity of the home end at BMD was converted for dual purpose, the capacity could go from 52,888 to 61,888!

Now that's exciting to me!

Brian #198, the Board of Directors of both clubs and their entourage, sponsors, etc.

You don't think Kenwright pays for a season ticket do you???

Thanks Eric! No comment! :-)

So, Brian @200, that's 10 people too many??

Eric, took me a minute there haha! Yeh 10 too many!

Alan @ 195, thanks for the breakdown of seating by category.

It confirms what I said earlier in the thread. Less than 500 for corporate boxes, more than 10 times more for 'Premium Seats' which will include access to the suite of your choice.

Brian @ 198, non-revenue seats will probably be reserved for invited guests and visiting dignatories, such as England manager Gareth Southgate. Could this possibly include a ticket allocation for players also?

Brian @200,

I've mentioned a couple of times that the safe standing may well be implemented (and legal) by the time Bramley-Moore Dock is nearing completion and that that should allay some of the fears of the more negative posters on here. AND it's adaptable!

Was a capacity figure ever put on the proposed Kings Dock stadium or did Bill only get as far as the fence?

Such a shame the capacity is so low but the choice of site for the ground is probably the deciding factor in determining that.

I think cost is the deciding factor in the capacity.

Geoff @208, it's a real shame. I can't commit to a season ticket with my long working hours and family commitments, and I've a feeling it will be difficult for fans such as me to even get a ticket.

Ray #206 Can we knock this "negative" stuff on the head? If we have to leave our home at Goodison Park, I don't think I've seen anybody complain that Bramley-Moore Dock isn't an appealing location for our next home.

The reason people want to see a bigger capacity is simply so that more Evertonians can get to watch Everton play & also, hopefully, the Club will make more money on match days. This is based on a belief that there is sufficient demand to regularly fill a larger ground, hence the disappointment that the proposed new stadium has such a low capacity.

I'm also all in favour of the introduction of safe-standing, but we don't know whether or when this will be allowed or the ratio involved.

I don't see the desire for a larger capacity as negative at all, greedy perhaps, but greedy for the benefit of supporters & the Club. I see that as being positive.

Rob @187,

Thanks for the link. The Echo website is predictably awful, pop ups, adverts etc but the Club statements regarding starting and finishing dates is very interesting.

Fingers crossed, with the green light, the building work will start this September, that's only 6-7 months away, they predict that the ground would be ready for September 2023, meaning we would be homeless for a month or 4 games.

The completion dates seem unrealistically accurate for a build of this sort but who am I to disagree?? I'm thinking of Tottenham's delayed start but every project is different so we have to have faith this will go to the timeline predicted.

I didn't notice any mention of the redevelopment of Goodison but we would have to imagine this would be underway from the end of season 22-23, one interesting thing this throws up is where we play for this period of exile? ... Anfield?? Its a very interesting thing to ponder as we don't have the benefit of a National stadium or equivalent to use.

I'm curious to what other TWebbers think?

Billy #212, I'd read that Goodison would still be available to use but we would prefer to play the first games away.

Given that most construction projects run over schedule I guess we'll be using Goodison for the first half of the season.

Of course this throws up some problems with tickets etc.

Dennis @211

I think that when people constantly state that Bramley-Moore Dock will never happen, that, despite real experts pointing out reasons for an initial planned capacity of 52,888, and posters ignoring the probability or possibility of up to 60,000 with a rail seating system which I believe WILL happen before completion, then the likes of me can despair at some of the negative posts.

Man Utd are exploring the safe standing route. It exists in Scotland, it will arrive here and before Bramley-Moore Dock is completed.

Have some faith.

Ray, I think there are only a couple of consistent naysayers as regards the likelihood of the stadium actually being built, as far as I recall. All the other posts I've read are about the proposed stadium, mainly expressing concerns, preferences or hopes for what we'll finally end up with, or discussing how they'll actually build the thing.

Although I've seen a few remarks against safe standing, most of us seem to be in favour. However, I suspect the Government to move slowly on the issue and so, when it is introduced, which I'm sure it will be, I expect them to be cautious as regards ratios, probably 1:1.5.

Dennis, I think you'll find that there's more than a couple of negative souls on any live forum!!

Regarding both the team, performance and likelihood of Bramley-Moore Dock ever being built. It's borderline depressing. Like you say, the majority are pleased and looking forward to it opening, albeit with some reservations re the capacity. I do believe that Meis etc is aware that, on occasions, 52,888 may not be enough. I also think that the safe standing option is to the forefront of his mind looking forward.

I said on here months ago that I would like to see a plan which saw the, say, back ten rows closed and even hidden by a removable screen so that we wouldn't have the embarrassment of 10,000 empty seats like those at Man City last week. These back rows could be opened up for sell-out games against Liverpool or Manchester United or Champions League games.

Ray (@216),

I asked Dan Meis at St Luke's about a variable capacity, something that the Lucas Oil Stadium had. It was a straight No. But makes so much sense, especially your suggestion of the taking a few rows out at the back.

David, I'm very surprised that Meis hasn't considered the safe standing option. Whether that was “on the table” last June(?) at the Titanic, or whether Man Utd have been given a subtle hint that it would be successful were they to apply now, hence their intention to install it, I don't know. I'd be disappointed in Meis if he hasn't considered it as an option.

Ray,

I am sure during the consultation period when many Blues were disappointed with the limit being set at 52,000 for Bramley-Moore Dock.

We were led to believe that, although the initial limit was 52,000, if the law was changed to allow safe standing, that the limit would increase to 60,000. Now, I can't be sure but I think this came from the club, and was reported in the Echo.

Ray, I was referring to your suggestion of leaving the back rows of seats unfilled or a block (ie, have 60,000 plus seats and only open the full capacity at certain times). The safe standing is built in to the goal ends and remains a 1:1 unless the law is changed.

Interesting points, Ray. However, I do think you're unduly concerned. I really don't think we'll experience the same issues that Man City have had in filling their ground on some match days. But maybe I'm overoptimistic.

I'm also concerned that the Bramley-Moore Dock site is being portrayed as such that the stadium will not be expandable in the future. If so, it could become a problem at some point if the funding of football from TV diminishes and the volume of bums on seats becomes of greater significance once more.

As you said, different people have various reservations but, in the end, we all want a successful outcome for the Club and the supporters.

Brian @219, David @220,

I wasn't aware of anything in the Echo. I usually give that a wide berth to be honest.

David, I posted a link which shows different ratios other than 1:1 and I would imagine that, if this were to be successfully trialled in a more “generous” ratio, say 1:1.5 or better, then it would be employed.

If Bramley-Moore Dock were to sell out every week, then it would be folly not to increase the capacity.

As Dennis says, we all want what's best for the club and supporters.

Seems Dennis @221 Does follow the fortunes of other clubs after all, as in Man City? At 102, he says he's not arsed about Juventus or any other club as he's an Evertonian.

Strange... give him the end of the week, he will be saying that the savvy businessmen (his words) behind Bramley-Moore Dock have ambition.

David #220.

Any chance of pointing me in the right direction with regard to the law stating that safe standing is 1:1 only?

Billy #223,

I don't think it's necessary for me to follow the fortunes of other clubs, such as Manchester City, in order to express my view regarding the issue of empty spaces at their grounds that other people have raised as a concern.

My view is that I don't expect Everton to suffer the same issues other people have identified in their comments regarding attendance. It is simply a view of how I see Everton and Evertonians – not a reflection of my interest in other clubs, in which I remain steadfastly not arsed.

As regards the savvy businessmen behind the Bramley-Moore Dock stadium project, I've never said that they don't have ambition. I have said that I consider a higher capacity for our proposed stadium would be more ambitious than the one proposed... and so I was perplexed to find that those in favour of such were being told we were "negative".

Billy @223,

It may have been me who mentioned Man City first. I said that the thousands of empty seats at their game last week was embarrassing and I could see that happening at Bramley-Moore Dock some weeks if we had 60,000 capacity stadium.

Brian (200) and Eric (203), do you think you might have unearthed (and spoiled) Dan Meis's Easter egg hidden in the design? From memory, wasn't the overwhelming preference for 61,878 on TW's poll a couple of years back (with the additional 10 people being a proportionate increase in the non-revenue seats)?

Dennis @31, you seem to support and agree with Graham's post at 30. He describes his perception of Everton's lack of ambition as pathetic... You then added the board didn't understand the club they were running.

As for you commenting on Ray's comparison with Man City, am I supposed to believe you made this comment blindly, not knowing anything about Man City's well-documented attendances? Knowing and trying to make comparisons with other top-flight clubs doesn't make you unfaithful to Everton, you know?

The idea that nothing can be gained by looking at and learning from clubs like Juventus and Man City is incredibly short-sighted. I find it hard to believe you genuinely think this way. Thank God the people running the club don't.

Ray @,

I realise it was you who first mentioned Man City's attendance issues, I have enjoyed this thread and your detailed contributions.

I, like yourself, have found a few of the negative posts quite depressing. By these, I don't mean the posters who offer alternative views, I enjoy having a previous opinion challenged.

It is the posters like Dennis, who offers nothing. He still can't state what his ideal attendance is. This on a 2-day thread dominated mostly by our future capacity. When I asked him to consider Juventus, his condescending reply is, he can't be arsed!

Dennis goes on to say I'm talking nonsense by basically liking what the club and Dan Meis have designed as opposed to his grand vision. Dennis is the positive one, you see; he has vision and ambition – he just can't really explain it very well or offer a comparison because he doesn't know anything outside of Goodison and Everton (his words).

Billy #228,

I actually said, "I think the Board still don't really appreciate the scale of the Club they're running." That doesn't mean that they don't have ambition, nor does it mean that I think that they don't have ambition. It just means that I think they could be more ambitious, at least as regards the issue of capacity.

As for Man City, their attendance woes have been mentioned by others, so I'm not claiming ignorance, merely lack of interest. My view that we wouldn't suffer likewise is a positive view I have of our Club and our supporters, regardless of what does or doesn't happen elsewhere. I may be fantastically wide of the mark there and perhaps we'll struggle to even maintain the attendances we currently achieve, but I can only express my view as I personally see it.

I've not suggested "that nothing can be gained by looking at and learning from clubs like Juventus and Man City", merely that I can't claim to have done so. I commend you for your insight into the thought processes of "the people running the club", I can claim no such knowledge.

Well I've just received some exciting information (well I'm excited anyway). An amendment, or even scrapping of, the all seater policy is expected within this calendar year!

Also, Everton's plans, in areas earmarked for safe standing, have measurements, which using the correct formula, equate to a ratio of 1:1.5 (rounded down), so it looks like a capacity increase is being "built in" from the start.

This info wasn't received from the groundsman's dog's hairdresser's cousin but I'm afraid that's as much info as you're gonna get!

Call me whatever yer like!

Clairvoyant hopefully!

I'll call you the bearer of good news, Brian!

Tony, it could mean that the capacity is increased even before building actually starts mate!

Brian, it's not because of my earlier post is it? I was only musing!

No, Ray. Nothing to do with that at all mate.

Brian @231

I know that Man Utd have applied to have 1,500 safe standing places and, if approved, they expect to complete the safe standing spaces before the end of the season. But I still haven't seen any definite plans for us to incorporate safe standing areas in Bramley-Moore Dock, or how many extra places this would create.

Good news, Brian @231. Like yourself, I have thought that this was always going to give the club the ability to raise the capacity accordingly.

The ratio I thought was 1:1.5 meaning a 13,000 stand becomes 19,500, which means 53,000 becomes 59,000+

That is just one stand. The idea that any club would go to this length and cost to get a 1:1 ratio (the same number?) is ludicrous.

Some posters refused to consider this option whilst moaning and groaning about the 52,888 capacity, I am honestly puzzled why a lot of people weren't considering this effect more seriously, the images on the fly-through actually show rail seats.

Dennis @230,

If you don't wish to be considered part of the "this club lacks ambition" crowd, I suggest you don't follow up a post that describes Everton as unambitious and pathetic with a post appearing to validate it. "Aye", you said, as in "Aye, that's right".

Thank you for recognizing my amazing insight into the thought processes of the people running the club but it's nothing really... honest, I actually followed the announcement and press releases and engaged in the questionnaire. I followed it all on ToffeWeb, believe it or not!!

And I have come to the conclusion that they have got this right. Yes, Dan Meis, the fella who has designed other stadiums and stuff, has got this right!! Or maybe, like you, they just ignored everything out of the EFC bubble and plucked it out of the air (again, your sarcastic answer to Brian) suggesting how the figure 52,888 was reached.

I have said enough on the subject; you have posted lots but said virtually nothing.

If the big home end is going to fit in 13,000, then I'd add another 5,000 first and put 3,000 seats up above, instead of the scoreboard Ray suggested!

Tony. I believe the all seated capacity for the home end is 19k, mate, so start from there.

Billy, you seem to be saying much more about me than the stadium. Maybe that's because you seem to think the stadium's perfect as proposed. Fair enough, but you shouldn't be surprised that not everybody may agree 100%. I don't really know what you expect on a forum like this if you don't expect people to be free to express their opinions.

That's going to be fuckin massive, that, Brian. And looking at the brochure, I love the fact that it's going to be a very intimate stadium, mate.

I can't wait, Tony, but my missus says I mustn't wish my life away!

There's a hell of a lot of misinformation here.

The home end (13,000) won't be converted in entirety to safe standing. If you had any prior knowledge from the early plans it was for about half way with both the goal ends to be rail seating.

The legislation is currently 1:1 this means no increase in capacity. Unless of course it changes. We haven't even got safe standing yet in the top two divisions.

Home end is 13k, fellas, not 19k – although I'm sure that I know where you got 19k from as it's the capacity of the new home end at Spurs, where having a capacity over 60k has been the aim of a club who always manage to show Everton the way off the pitch.

I have had a good look at the section drawings and my opinion is that Dan Meis has maximised the capacity of the stadium base on:-

The site footprint
The height restrictions for the area
Line of site rules for seating / viewing

He can't get more rows of seats on the North or South stands due to the boundaries.

He can't go wider on the East or West stands because without going higher the lines of site would be adversely affected ( you would be looking at the back of someone's head).

The more I look at this the greater sense I get of the scale of this structure - imposing is how I would describe it.

To give you an idea of its scale the edge of the roof trusses are 46 metres (150') above ground - the actual full height of the trusses is about 54 metres (177') above ground. That is about the same height as the facades (walls) of the Liver Buildings.

The top row of seats on the East and West stands is about 38 metres (125') above ground and about 70 metres (76 yards) by line of site from the touch line. If you were sitting in the top row of one of these stands and you looked at your opposite number on the other side of the stadium he (or she) would be nearly 200 metres (281218 yards) away from you.

The roof structure is also very clever the way it cantilevers to almost the edge of the pitch. This place is going to be very noisy and the opposition will feel well and truly trapped.

So in summary it is still a big thumbs up to Dan Meis for me but, based on the above, 52,888 it is and will be for its lifetime.

Laurie, thank you for your analysis.

I second what Mike says, Laurie.

Almost three of our American Football fields, or come to think of it three lengths of any football / soccer pitch, from seat to seat at the top row is simply massive.

It's also good to know that seating was basically maximized with the footprint and restrictions in place. Seems maybe Everton aren't aiming as low as some might think.

I think every Blue in and around Liverpool will be thrilled with this stadium upon completion. It sounds like a gem, and certainly looks like a gem in all the renderings I've seen.

David #245.

Apologies for the mistake with the home end capacity. That however is the extent of the misinformation on my part I hope.

We know the rules are 1:1 at the moment, you've told us before. However, if you read post 231, it explains MY reason for being optimistic as I, and lots of others, believe change is on the way. I believe it even more after yesterday.

Missed the editing window. I've cut and pasted what I received yesterday regarding the safe standing:

Exactly what ratio will then be allowed will depend on a variety of factors, e.g. row depth, size of exits, size of concourse etc. As far as the row depth is concerned, it's a simple bit of arithmetic: it must be deep enough to accommodate the tipped-up rail seat (50mm) and two steps, each of 350mm. Everton's plans show rows in the areas earmarked for safe standing with a depth of 750mm and they mention two 350mm steps. They also say that the seats will be 460mm wide. So it's then a calculation: 460mm (seat width) x 700mm (space in front of the seat) = 0.322 square metres. The regs say 0.21 sqm per standing fan, so 0.322 divided by 0.21 gives you the ratio of standing fans to seat places = (rounded down) 1.5.

So basically Everton are planning for a 1/1.5 change.

Jamie #249 and Mike #248 – I just spotted a mistake in a conversion from metric to imperial. The distance across the stadium of 200 metres, converts to 218 yards – not 281 as I stated. It is still a long way though!

In regards to the Everton being removed from the glass end of the stadium, is this part remaining clear, or will we see USM there instead?

No, Brian – just a 50-ft high hologram of Usmanov's and Moshiri's heads. Except on match days when Bill has arranged for just his head to replace them...,