A 40 minute walk will suit Siggy..

Mark, I doubt Sigurdsson will be with us by 2023 (smile).

In which world does spending around £500m on a new stadium when the club is already running at a huge loss make sense? Especially considering that the increase in revenue will barely cover the annual interest costs of the loan, let alone pay back the principal.

Everything the new ownership has done on and off the field has me extremely concerned. The missing words from their actions are 'viable' and 'sustainable'. The new stadium is neither of them, nor is the way they have spent money on signings or the wages offered.

Shady sponsorship deals is not a real plan or a wise way to run any business. The good ship Everton is closing in on the iceberg...

Concerning the Planning Application, there are two points I consider are worth an airing.

The first is the capacity and size of the stadium. It is a boundary-constrained site that lies within the Mercantile City World Heritage Site, the Stanley Dock Conservation Area and in proximity to numerous listed buildings (see the CBRE Planning Statement).

The scale of the stadium complex and, in particular, the height and mass has to pay respect to those matters. The resultground is a that can hold 52,888 spectators. The scope for creating a bigger stadium with a higher capacity is constrained. Furthermore, the design does not lend itself to further enlargement, which could only be achieved by increasing the height and scale of the complex.

CBRE correctly point out in my view that the most important consideration about this proposal is the relationship between the surrounding Heritage Assets and the design/scale of the new building. Whilst that might be a finely balanced argument, the wider benefits in term of new jobs, income generated, and the fact that the proposal represents a catalyst to stimulate the continuing transformation of North Liverpool, sway the arguments in favour of the application. A bigger stadium might not at this stage.

My second point concerns the 3-week period for submitting comments to the Council. Normally this would be an opportunity for objectors to pile in, in order to sway the members of the Planning Committee. Fortunately, there aren't too many (if any) nearby residents. To the south, there are a number of tall residential buildings that overlook the river. Some may have a longer view towards Bramley-Moore Dock. But if you elect for urban living, it's generally in the expectation that you will be surrounded by "big" buildings.

Those who like to indulge their hobby of historic architecture or industrial archaeology may forensically crawl over the application and find some negatives but I cannot envisage those arguments outweighing the scale of support this scheme enjoys.

Nevertheless, I will submit comments in favour of the scheme and would encourage others to do so. The decision-makers must be left in no doubt where public opinion lies on this one.

So maybe it would be better if Moshiri just fucked off!

Does this mean that the 10,710 seats earmarked would become (1.5 x 10,710) 16,065 standing spots or an extra 5,355 spots for spectators. That would bring the capacity up to 58,243?

The comment by Colin Chong about a possible future increase in capacity has me believing that a safe standing option has indeed been built into the design – as Brian Williams suggested @ 231 on the “Planning Application” thread.

I mentioned on that thread that the planning height restrictions mean that, once you have decided on the row height and the depth of the roof structure, the number of rows of seats is fixed.

The only way you can get round that, is by reducing the row height and / or row width which adversely affects both spectator comfort and lines of site. A compromise that I feel sure Dan Meis would never have agreed to.

My view is that given the site dimensions and the North to South orientation, Dan Meis has nailed it.

It also looks like the Club has put a lot of effort and thought into the heritage aspect of the application. I think it was very clever of the club to refer to the footballing heritage of the City and EFC.

I do share your concerns about the transport plan. It does look a bit half baked to me but I think that is a discussion for a seperate thread.

I can see nothing but positives about the whole scheme and the regeneration, extra jobs and encouragement for others to develop in that area. My only reservation is the capacity, which I appreciate is restricted and obviously dependent on extra finance.

My reasons are by comparisons in the table provided, where you have reported the average attendances before either expansion of existing structures, or occupation of new stadiums, there has been a significant uptake in numbers.

If we are to become a great club once again, surely that would attract more fans and younger ones too. Hope all goes to plan and the next stage is preparation of the site.

I hoped they would use the suggestion of transport via a ferry, which could drop fans at various car parks spread along the waterfront – hopefully making it one of the best stadiums for lack of traffic congestion. That's a shame, it was in the plans for Kings Dock.

I'm glad though they didn't suggest circa 1,000 fans would cycle to the stadium as they did in the plans for Kirby though!

Two observations - those turreted gate entrances on Regent Road are a little redolent of Rupert's Tower, in my view; and what an asset the "dockers' umbrella" (Overhead Railway) would have been. By the way, does anyone remember the "support Soiet vokers" (sic) graffiti on the Regent Road dock walls - and is it still there? I guess mid-late 60s vintage, so it may have faded by now. Possibly one of Bankski's? ;-)

Let's all hope the permission comes through on time and work can commence.

Now to carry on reading...

COYB!

A major development at a rundown but potentially brilliant area of Liverpool is just what the city and club need. Just let them get on with it.

The way football is continuing to grow globally and teams becoming increasingly valuable, isn't it perfectly reasonable that, with a new ground and with some more success on the field, we might be forecast to be worth £700m, £1bn, whatever it might be in 10 years?

The ground itself might be worth double its cost in 5 years time. I'm pretty certain without having the figures to hand that Kings Dock would be worth more today than it would have cost at the time...

Also, the new ground will presumably have scope for additional revenue for concerts, events etc.

I haven't read anything about the plans, I cannot get my head around this type of thing... Maybe Everton and Peel Holdings are waiting for local government to take over this side of things?

I am not sure we would allow the spectator density to increase in the designated away section with its near 3,000 seats.

Ultimately all of this is subject to legislative change and I'm sure the local authorities who issue the safety licences would want to see how safe standing works on a 1:1 ratio basis before allowing an increase in capacity.

#12 Tony – ultimately the provision of public transport is down to the combined authority. I think the club first has produced a plan which will meet planning requirements. I hope once planning is approved we will pressure them to provide more and they, themselves, will realise that for the stadium to be a success greater public transport resources and infrastructure is required.

Hasn’t there been another train stop mooted for somewhere between Sandhills and Moorfields?

The current project brief confirms a minimum target capacity of 52,000, with the potential to increase subject to alteration to the stands and should safe standing be introduced in England in the future under a seating to standing ratio larger than 1:1.

EFC_TPP_Bramley-Moore Dock ES NTS_Final.pdf

Liverpool2: Link

Just Princes Dock alone:

Link

Link

Link

Don't know who's in charge of adjusting the road net merseyside, but they have their work cut out over the next 5 years. Getting to, in, and out of our new stadium is just a piece of that.

Link for road work around the city,
Link

They obviously want more people to walk, so the only things I can think of are congestion charges for the motorist, and a much better railway system, or the introduction of trams maybe? But as I've already said, the scope for a big station around 500 metres from Bramley-Moore Dock definitely makes a lot of sense for the future.

I, like you, am hoping to renew my season ticket at the new stadium. Just wondering how they will allocate the new seats. Do you think they will try and keep it a like-for-like basis were possible? Anybody else got any ideas on this? Thanks.

I would imagine that the fairest way, would be to give the season ticket holders with the longest history priority of selection, and then to process the remainder. Using the same system on the season ticket waiting list, failing that, they should find out how West Ham United and Tottenham Hotspur dealt with the problem, if indeed it is a problem. I would imagine that, no matter what system they adopt there will be objectors.

I sit in the Upper Bullens, on the halfway line. If we assume they would try to relocate us on a like-for-like basis, then I'd be located in the upper East stand at BMD. A rough count of seating numbers in the BMD upper East stand comes out at somewhat more than the Upper Bullens Road. So, hopefully moving us all en bloc would see us sitting in like-for-like seats, with seats left over.

Having said that, the away section at BMD is in the NE corner, whereas it's in the SE corner at GP. So, if we number the Upper Bullens, say, as follows: current away section in the NE corner as A; the home fans section from there to the halfway line as B; and then the remaining seats as C (halfway line to 3/4 way along; and D in the NE corner. Then, I see no reason why they can't relocate the current B and C blocks en bloc.

And surely they could relocate block D so that those currently nearer the halfway line would end up at BMD in a comparable position, and not disadvantaged.

Surely a simple computer programme would achieve all that. (There would be other considerations such as whether the number of rows is comparable from GP to BMD).

I reckon there will be a seat that is deemed "the same seat" to the season ticket holders present seat and that that seat would be offered to them first and foremost. So if you're two rows back on the halfway line in the top balcony then you'd be in "the same" position in Bramley-Moore Dock.
That's my idea and I've no basis for believing that other than common sense.

Billy, I think you need to do a count: current seating Goodison Road; West stand at BMD. I thought there weren't that many corporate seats at BMD, and in any case there's probably more seating BMD West stand compared to GP Goodison Road stand.

I'm guessing. Brian is good at these things!

Will they get a free pie and beer to help energise their legs...

Lose their seat?

The selection of Bramley-Moore Dock as a site for a stadium was pre Moshiri, as Paul the Esk has pointed out. This explains the initial hype, without figures. It appears that, when the actual feasiblity of the stadium on the site available was examined that the 60, 000 capacity for the Commonwealth Games bid was found not to be feasible given site 'constraints', hence the lower capacity. (Don't worry – I am not going to blame Kenwright & Co for losing the Commonwealth Games bid. )

Elizabeth France, who came across as being very astute in her Lyndon interview, did query the size of the site and why Everton had not got a larger site from the Peel Group, considering that Everton would be in fact the anchor tenant in the whole Peel Group development site.

In the planning application, increased capacity is cited as potiential, giving the impression that the parties know it is going to be necessary. Safe standing is mentioned as a solution, which appears to be an embryonic thought, which Groucho Marx once described as a small town outside wishful thinking.

It appears that Everton know that they now need a 60, 000 capacity, as Paul the Esk says is necessary, but have not intially negotiated a large enough site from the Peel Group to build it on. It is obviously financially more feasible to build a 60, 000 stadium, than build an approx 54, 000 stadium and change it into a 60, 000 stadium afterwards. If other buildings are going to developed on the Peel Group site, they too will have an impact on the heritage of the site, which again would suggest that Everton have not negociated a big enough site. Which would not be like them.

Just saying.

I feel (sorry to be negative) that the club and the architect are selling us short with a stadium that could and should be at least 10,000 bigger. Don't go there with "size envy" (Meis) and measuring anatomy. We just want the best for the club, not settle for less.

Eeek!

I hadn't thought of that! I'm also in row B Upper Gwladys and hate being right down at the front. Apart from anything else, you tend to get soaked if it's raining!

Liverpool had a very interesting overseas visitor the other week.

Link

Worth a read.

There is going to be a lot of opportunity on Merseyside in the coming years.

''with the potential to increase subject to alteration to the stands ''

Does this leave the door open for when this planning application get the green light.

It's commonplace that as soon as the main principles of any project are rubber stamped then more minor alterations and changes are put forward.

It leads me to believe that once we have planning permission an amendment of the seating density will be put forward. It will have fully thought out supporting evidence and increase the seating capacity to beyond 55k.

Paul, do you think this is a possibility or even likely ?

I’m sure there might end up being a ship or ships to transport, these big trucks across the Mersey once this really gets going, akin to the Woolwich ferry, maybe?

This scheme reminds me so much of the one in your adopted city, it’s been well thought out alright, and Usmanov’s steel, must have been one of the main deciding factors!

In regard to the latter I was struck by the number of empty seats, several thousand of them, in the upper tiers at Arsenal last Sunday. Then I read in their match programme that at a recent Fans’ Forum ‘The Arsenal Supporters’ Trust raised questions about how we might drive better home attendances..’

Obviously the official figures for games at The Emirates show more or less a capacity attendance for each fixture reflecting the number of season tickets sold. Those figures mask considerable over provision and a consequential adverse effect on the atmosphere with the club resorting to a variety of measures to maximise attendance. They have frozen prices for general admission areas for six seasons in a row and they continue to develop their Ticket Exchange service with the aim of improving attendance. Work has also started to review the possibility of introducing home match credits.

Manchester City have had recent issues with empty seats while Manchester United continue to annoy their fans with their dubious methods of compelling fans to purchase tickets for less attractive or convenient games.

The three clubs I have quoted have enjoyed success beyond our dreams this century. In that context I think 52,000 seems about right for a club without any sustained success for a whole generation and which operates a heavily discounted season ticket pricing system.

Interesting link Laurie, obviously someone is thinking beyond Brexit and exploring the potential for maritime trade. I’m quite excited by the whole north Liverpool development and I think that BMD will transform Everton as club and raise our profile at home and abroad. Imagine the cruise liners berthing close to the ground!! Can’t come soon enough.

Thanks for that link. It possibly comes as no surprise to you or I with both of us expressing the belief for some time now that the Everton stadium build is part of a much larger and grander scheme.

That some very smart people are investing BIG in Liverpool city due, in part, to what your linked article refers to:

Liverpool city docks being revived as, post-Brexit, the UK looks westward rather than eastward for its trade.

And what better west coast located docks are there in the UK than Liverpool?

I take your point of fact. Agree with you regarding the capacity.

That must change, surely? Many thousands of people could get to the ground via the water, from as near to the west as Wallasey, as far as...where?

On a related subject, does anyone else agree the design facing the main road, which, in theory, according to the planning document, will be the main access point, is very disappointing when compared to the awesome riverside aspect?

Can't wait for half time to try those chlorinated chicken burgers!

I managed so much on all the documents before my head was cabbaged, so cutting out the blah, blah, blah and highlighting the key points is a godsend for me, Paul.

The one thing that came out was that the seats they replaced were like for like, and the converted seat was again like for like... so where will the increase come from by using this type of seating?

The guide says each spectator requires 0.21 sq metres. Using the dimensions and number of seats per row the theoretical calculation is as follows:

460mm (seat width) x 700mm (clearway) x 28 (seats per row) = 9.016 sqm. Divided by 0.21 sqm (space needed per fan) = 42.

Thus theoretically 42 could stand in a space with 28 seats (1.5:1)

My understanding is that it would be a number of years of data collection and study of crowd behaviour of safe standing in the Premier League (when permitted) before higher densities would be considered.

If we can really upgrade to ~62,000 later, I am perfectly okay with the current plan. If we can't, it's still hard to argue against to be honest, especially given the factors around having a full house and generating the Goodison "bear pit" atmosphere that can be so important to the experience and the result.