Metro Mayor proposes £45m funding boost for Everton's new stadium

An early Crimbo present. This season keeps getting better. No doubt they have to be careful not to be seen to be giving Everton cash, hence the comment to that effect. Still, a welcome contribution to what now seems a definite goer.

The other money is coming from Wonga

Paul K, yes I am a bit surprised by this as Steve Rotherham is a committed RS Supporter. While I know this has been a joint decision, and not solely down to him, it makes total sense, because of the infrastructure and redevelopment in that whole area around BMD.

This will provide many jobs initially in the construction phases (hopefully many recruited from Liverpool) and then after with Transport links, businesses and staff that will inevitably spring up following a project of this magnitude and revitalise an almost (sadly) derelict area of Liverpool.

I think there could be a good commercially initiated promotion emphasising what Liverpool was like when every Dock was full of Ships varying in size and purpose when it was a vibrant Port. I am not so naive or optimistic that I believe all that will return, no way, but rather make way for new enterprises such as Bramley Moore Dock and the like. Who knows maybe a Passenger Terminal for Cruise Ships of the future and that area becomes 'alive again'.

Promote your assets (and Liverpool has many) plus the History, and turn the whole area in to a place that businesses want to set up, and people want to flock to whether they be tourists or home grown.

If Mr. Moshiri turned down a loan of £300 million from Mayor Joe I don't think he's going to be too bothered about a loan of £30 million from this guy.

The £60 million in funding / grants would be useful though as it will reduce the borrowing requirement.

I still have my doubts about the ability of the club to secure funding for the project with reasonable rates and conditions. The club has been recording record losses for years, with no clear plan of how to make the club profitable and self sustaining. I don't see lenders being attracted to this situation.

John, the clear plan is to build the stadium to generate revenue

Strategic planning and regional buy-in. I like this.

We may bemoan Moshiri's decisions or sign off to those he empowered in the player transfer market over recent years. But on this matter, I'd wager he's more in his comfort zone and knows what he's doing.

I think it's great that the local politicians are thinking strategically too. This is not just about Everton Football Club, so they should want to invest. Regional thinking and long-term benefit in terms of jobs and regeneration. I like that too.

I took interest in the point about Moshiri allegedly rejecting the offer from Anderson to cover construction costs and opting to personally fund alongside securing loans. Like putting a deposit down on your house and taking out a mortgage, eventually, it's yours. You own it.

He, and by default Everton, are taking ownership. So, although that the short-term pitch level view could be like what we've seen this summer, the long-term vision is that we own this. We are in control of our own destiny. Moshiri will (and should) benefit from his investment. But so will Everton, the city of Liverpool and the wider region.

No lease, no beholding to the authorities. It's ours. The city is ours.

I don't know if Steve Rotherham has a race horse recently minus its head, or somebody has made him another offer he can't refuse...or maybe its just good for the City - cue RAWK fume.

I dread to think how many millions will be paid in fees to MUFG and JPMorgan to facilitate the loans required to build the stadium. Nice work if you can get it.

Derek (3) - "Who knows maybe a Passenger Terminal for Cruise Ships of the future and that area becomes 'alive again'."

Already approved, Derek.

"The scheme has planning approval, and with funding secured from the city region combined authority, the council received approval in January 2021 from The Marine Management Organisation for a Harbour Revision Order for the Construction of the Terminal in the River Mersey.

However, given the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the council is currently assessing timescales for taking this scheme forward to the next stage.

Planning permission has also been obtained for a new, 200 room, hotel to support the new terminal and enhance the city's capabilities in handling the next generation of turnaround cruises, which can carry up to 3,600 passengers."

Got to be nice knowing that whole area will look different in 4-5 years. I only look at maps, being so far away. I do wonder what will need to be done, if anything, about the road net; given what will be a major increase in traffic.

Exciting to see, though.

https://www.ToffeeWeb.com/season/21-22/comment/general/41241.html

John,
if Mosh personally guarantees the loans we will have no problem.

The Stadium will be funded one way or another. One of Moshiri&Co objectives was to develop a stadium and they to will have access to the means and ways to fund it from various sources.

but why will cruise ships come to Liverpool - it is no longer a world heritage site.

All it has is 2 football grounds, 2 cathedrals, 2 Liver Birds, 3 Graces, Historic buildings, buzzing city centre, Beatles heritage, Speke Hall, great museums and concert halls and some lovely people. Who needs world heritage?

Derek #3
Don't be misled by all those old derelict docks. The Port of Liverpool does more tonnage than it's ever done, albeit with a fraction of the workforce.

I love it when BMD articles are in the Red Echo. The RS go into meltdown in the Comments section. You can almost feel their desperation and despair as work progresses. lol

James @10, & Bill W, thanks for the updates, which again can only be good news again, IF everything goes to plan. Bill, I think the Container Terminal at Seaforth probably accounts for most of that tonnage, but the 'actual old docks' see very little activity, apart from leisure crafts, tugs and Pilot Boats sadly.

The underlying financials absolutely do not make any sense. To spend £500m to be able to generate an extra £8 to £12m a year extra from gate receipts makes little sense. That income will barely cover the interest payments. Hoping that Usmanov will funnel in another £20m+ a year in sponsorship is not exactly sustainable.

Moshiri and Co have totally fumbled the management of the club on the field with one poor decision after another. Who in their right mind would trust a bufoon to suddenly get it right with the stadium?

John #17

I'm sure everytime Moshiri checks his bank balance he must think what a bufoon he must be!!

Gate receipts are only part of it. The new stadium will be a 24/7 operation with retail, restaurants, bars, conferences and concerts/gigs of all sizes.

The piazza, facing the river, will hold an estimated 7/9000. That alone is a uniquely stunning venue for outside performances.

John Z, worry about the football and let the owners worry about the finances. Moshiri might be a football neophyte but he knows his numbers.

John # 17.

Arsenal got £10M a year for ten years off Emirates for the naming rights for their new stadium. Usmanov has stumped up £30M just to have first dibs on our new stadium naming rights, so hopefully he will pump in something similar to what Emirates gave Arsenal. Eventually it will all add up to a far bigger figure than the £8M - £12M you quote. As Colin says, Moshiri knows his stuff when it comes to a few billion big ones!!

Agree Colin, us supporters should focus on the football. They've made mistakes for sure in that respect, but it's still a squad that narrowly missed out on European qualification last season and has made a promising start. And despite opinions and views on the "past their best" managers, they have installed 2 big names in world football.

Moshiri isn't a billionaire because he is rubbish at business and making investments. So I'm confident in his ability to deliver a world class iconic stadium on the banks of the Mersey that will benefit Everton and the Merseyside region for years to come.

I envisage us adopting a model similar to what Tottenham have taken. Facilities, bars and restaurants that encourage supporters to spend more time in the stadium before the match and stay behind after. So the money goes into Everton's coffers. Yes actual restaurants, not just the sausage roll and warm beer counter with an outrageous half time queue and rather stern ladies telling you they're shut and you can't have a beer. Sorry, I'm still bitter about that one from the Southampton game!

Along with concerts and, if you look at Tottenham again, other initiatives such as hosting additional sporting events (e.g. NFL), there is much more revenue to be had way beyond the likes of me who pays £49 for a ticket, can't even spend £5 on a beer at half time and then head off towards the Arkles or County Road to spend my money after the match. So for all my expenditure, Everton get £49.

This is absolutely brilliant. It is all the councils of Merseyside, the Mayor of Liverpool and the Greater Liverpool Mayor (Liverpool city region is a daft title) issuing a joint statement of support to the North of Liverpool and what Everton FC are bringing into fruition.

It's great news for us, great news for our area in the North end of the city, great news for the City and for Merseyside.

Apart from what it will bring our club in terms of revenue, and being a great place to play, the whole of Merseyside will benefit, especially if more cruiseliners come to the city.

We've got some of the best coastline in Europe, from Seaforth up to Southport. The Wirral has beautiful countryside and all our councils run fine museums and art galleries. There's a positive future for the region and we are being a major driver in bringing it about.

Makes makes me proud to be a Scouser and a Blue!

When Hicks and Gillette at Liverpool had a failed attempt to build a new stadium at Stanley Park, it cost Liverpool over £50m which the club had to deal with even after they were gone. To put that in perspective, that's a similar amount they are now spending to upgrade a stand and get 7,000 more seats.

If Moshiri gets this wrong, it's the club that will suffer even after he is gone.

The difference though, John, is that Stanley Park was a plan to move across the road onto the matchday car park and wasn't part of a wider regional (not just local) economic redevelopment scheme.

They may have still had to pay after their former owners left, but I'm sure a League title, Champions League win and runner up softened the blow for them.

Come on, I know it's been a tough few decades, but let's be positive about this. The future is bright. The future is Blue.

I can still close my eyes and see a Royal Liver Building lit up in blue lights (yes, the bird is blue) looking over at our iconic stadium.

Heading into London to watch the match unless anyone has a spare ticket and I dart to Birmingham to take one step further to marital disaster over Everton.

John, (23) If we don't move, we will suffer even more, as I could not see us keeping up a chase to catch up with the Slimy Six, or even to pay the bills! never mind have enough to buy players. You remember when Duncan Ferguson was sold, we didn't have enough money to pay the leccy bill.

You seem unduly pessimistic regarding our future. Maybe you're right to do so; but this is about the best chance Everton Football Club have of a new Stadium.

The alternative is to stay at Goodison in a stadium that has had its day. Maybe it is a risk to move into the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock but the benefits for the club and for him, far outweigh it.

Spurs have spent over £500 million on their new stadium, mainly through the finances of Joe Lewis (think that's his name) who has a personal fortune far larger than Mr Moshiri. However, Mr Usmanov has a fortune far larger than Mr Lewis and he is a very interested investor in the new ground.

The future is a risk for everyone but, when an opportunity comes, the alternative for us is to slowly wither away among the also-rans.

What makes you think that Mr Moshiri will "get this wrong"?

Jim #25

What makes me think he will get it wrong is based on his numerous poor decisions since he came on board for example:

1: keeping the bulk of the previous management team in place despite their poor results.

2: very poor manager recruitment decisions

3: not listening or overruling the experts he hired in critical choices such as his DOF

4: putting Brands on the board

5: putting a 26 year old on the board, who's main qualification is his bloodline

6: From all the locations in and around the city, he decided on the location that has the most risk and the greatest cost to build

7: signing off on ridiculously poor value for money signings throughout his time

8: hiring the most unpopular choice of manager for the last 100 or so years against the wishes of nearly everyone. (It's a great start but still very early days, the previous manager had an even better start last season )

9: making no effort to run the club in a sustainable way, each year the wage bill increases both absolutely and as a % of the total turnover.

10: having a CEO of a football club who doesn't know the first thing about football or business, but was good leading a charity project.

There are probably a few more such poor decisions that have slipped me. I don't have much faith that Moshiri will lead the club to success on or off the field, nothing he has done up to now has made me think otherwise.

Well hopefully John, you'll be disappointed if and when this happens!

On this season, as long as the manager has a better finish to the season than the last one, I think we'll be in a good place despite the not-so-good start and we'll be checking our passports for next season.

He didn't sign Benitez against my wishes, John, I was made up we got him and wished it had been 5 years earlier. Nor was it against the wishes of my mates, nor was it against the wishes of many Evertonians. I think he's the best manager we could get and I'm pleased with his choice of player and his progress.

As for the numerous locations around the city, Kenwright lost us the King's Dock, the best site we were ever going to get. The rest of the sites either shite, like Cronton Colliery, and were never going to happen, Thankfully, the free stadium at Kirkby turned tits-up and was booted out. With thanks to KEIOC as well.

He was (and is) the owner, not a board member, and the board made the decisions and a number members of the board you've mentioned, including Kenwright, I'd be glad to see the back of as well.

I think the new addition to the board is to look after Moshiri's and Usmanov's interests and about time too, as he's Usmanov's nephew.

I think the appointment of Benitez was against the wishes of the old brigade; if he's been guilty of one thing, it's been listening to Kenwright too much and too long.

All-in-all, he's made mistakes; fancy backing the DoF and Manager for many of their choices, it's a big mistake, but the football "experts" not him.

I look at it this way: Moshiri (and probably Usmanov) don't buy into the club. That would leave us eactly where?

I've got the view that not only Moshiri but Usmanov as well, could retire tomorrow and live a life of luxurious leisure every day of their lives. I think they want to prove they can make Everton FC a successful club and have us playing in a great stadium.

Pity, a great tragedy for the club that we lost the oppportunity to have our stadium at the Kings Dock.

We have an opportunity now and as long as we keep some of the board out of any major decision-making, I think we have a great chance for a successful future.

Nowt is certain, except for one thing: if Moshiri had not come into this club, we would be well and truly up shit creek without a paddle.

Well said, Jim Lloyd. I agree with your superb post wholeheartedly.

How anyone can look at what is happening at Bramley-Moore Dock with the negativity that John Zapa posts is mind-boggling. I think we can safely say John is a "glass half-full" type!

Jim, good post but Bill Kewright didn't lose Kings Dock. We couldn't afford KD and Kenwright was absolutely correct in turning down the terms of finance offered which was a fraction of what the eventual cost would have been.

That's not correct, Martin.

For the KD project to go ahead, Everton needed to stump up the £30M which had been ring-fenced from the start according to Kenwright. But when it was needed, it wasn't there... what a surprise.

Paul Gregg offered a perfectly reasonable and workable finance scheme that would provide the missing money but Kenwright rejected it because he saw this as a means for Gregg to oust him and take control of the club, even if it meant KD could proceed.

Kings Dock was sacrificed so that Kenwright could hold on to his trainset.

Jim - good post.

I agree with you: Bill Kenwright lost us the King's Dock which was a great opportunity to have been a successful owner rather than the person responsible for our football nonentity status he has imposed on the club.

But Bramley-Moore Dock, if handled correctly and if Mr Benitez can do the business, stands a good chance to finally shake off the mediocrity that has sadly characterised the Kenwright era.

Hahaha, Martin, you sound as though you believe that! If we ever meet up, I'll enjoy having a natter with you over a pint or two somewhere near The Bramley Moor.

I'm afraid that, as far as Kenwright goes (and the further he goes, the better!), I learnt what happened from an employee of the Playhouse what went on there. That'll do me. What's happened at Everton until Moshiri came has reinforced that view.

I assume though, hopefully, you are in support of the move to the Bramley-Moore Dock, under the regime of Moshiri in giving us this opportunity to get our new ground.

I'll just mention one point regarding the eventual cost if we'd have got the Kings Dock, it would have been as nothing to the cost of where we languished financially and football wise, until Mr Moshiri came along. Look after yourself.

Billy (29), Thanks, mate.

Jim (28), many good points there Jim and I agree with most of them, including the Kirkby site, how much did Everton waste on this project with fees alone for the inquiry, I listened to a lady on Radio Merseyside outlining why this whole plan would fail, eighteen months before she was proved correct, she pointed out six main points on why it would fail, but Everton ploughed on through Kenwright, with Everton FC providing the costs not Kenwright, as usual.

Derek (#16);

The tonnage record for a year through Liverpool was set in, I think, 1956, when about 30,000 dockers worked the port. It was beaten at around 1993-94 but, owing to containerisation, there was less than 10% of that number of dockers.

As I've been out of that business for quite some time now, I'm not sure if that record still stands.

I'm as excited by the new stadium as most blues, but have some similar concerns and reservations as John (#26).

I'm not yet convinced about the financial model nor the transport plan. Yes, if Usmanov is paying the lion's share via sponsorship or whatever vehicle but that is speculation on our part and has hardly been reflected in the loan deal negotiations to date. Nor have we seen any projected figures covering this and what it will mean to our finances in the medium/long term. Someone will have to pick up that tab and we've yet to see whether that is going to be a long term debt that we can cover.

The stadium design itself is great on the outside but nothing remarkable as regards capacity, size of corporate or multi-functionality. At that cost I would've expected greater capacity and/or closing roof, moving pitch etc.

Also, people saying that staying at GP is not an option are judging it on spending nothing. For a fraction of our proposed outlay at BMD, GP could easily match BMD for capacity. for £200m+ it could go beyond that with superior anciliary back-of-house facilities too.

The process to date has all the hallmarks of Moshiri's other dealings with the club lots of money thrown at the problem, but some questionable logic/processes.

Hopefully it's the practically free, deal of the century, most accessible stadium in the country we're apparently being promised where have I heard that before?

Personally terrified of building a new stadium they NEVER match fan expectation and deffo curse the club going by precedent.

Boro, Bolton, Southampton, Arsenal, Cardiff, Hull, Sunderland, Swansea and now Derby none transformed as per the brochure in fact most look beyond repair

It requires a non football build as a freebie like City and West Ham to avoid catastrophe otherwise expect a downturn in form, relegation, administration or blood sacrifice as per Leicester and the helicopter.

Shakespeare appeared to prophesise our demise in an unfinished tragedy set in the future involving a great edifice crumbling into a mighty north west river penning "Beware the tides of march". But he binned it to wrote some guff about Julius Caesar only to return briefly to the topic in Macbeth with "A little water clears us of this deed."

It's all very grim

Barry, on the back of yesterday, you are making me consider an early glass of Sunday vino.

If it's good for a Priest!!

Tom #37, the question then has to be, "can the stadium be sponsored (naming rights I assume you mean) while it is being built?" Or does it have to be finished and operational before someone can sponsor it?

My expectation is that sometime in the near future a shares rights issue will be floated and a friend of Moshiri will buy them up, thus injecting a load of capital into the Club, just like Johnson did.

Eric,
I suppose if you can put up millions just for first dibs at naming rights (albeit only to balance the accounts book at that time), then it's not inconceivable that you can start those payments whenever you like. but nothing has been said about the size of the loan and the annual payments yet.

Yes, a shares rights issue could change the dynamic dramatically in terms of formal ownership and funding. Even some other type of stadium bond issue (and the likes of this grant) could all play a significant part too. In the Johnson example, he opened up the offer to all shareholders to increase their shares on generous terms, helping to preserve the proportional make-up of ownership. However when Moshiri expanded his shareholding recently (which may have been to convert debt to equity), he took up the entire allocation alone. This greatly affected those proportions, effectively nullifying the voting powers of all other shareholders in the process. A further rights issue could either help redress some of that balance, or marginalise the small(er) shareholders further.

Whichever funding mechanism(s) is adopted, my only concern is what it all means to our financial model going forward, as there has been little clarity on those fundamental issues to date even at this comparatively late stage, when we might have expected much more to have been tied down to solid figures.

Does anyone have any idea what a standing area at BMD would do for capacity? I seem to recall there was talk that a large standing area could / was included in the design.

If the legislation remains at 1:1 ratio for safe standing then it will do nothing for the capacity. If the tread depth chosen for those areas is just 700mm (2×350mm steps), that will have to allow for the width of a rail seat too, which only allows 650mm clearway. If that's the case then I'm not sure that the ratio will ever be much higher than 1:1 regardless of new legislation. Of course the lower that ratio, the lower any uplift in capacity.

If it's 750mm tread depth, then this might allow for increased ratio, but not sure if that will be higher than say 1.5:1, which for a 6000 seated section could add 3000 new spaces in safe standing mode.

I mentioned on the specific thread about standing that if it's like anything I have seen in Germany, you still have a seat, just more of a place to plonk your arse down, not a fold up. So it's basic just the bottom part fixed to the ground.

And then there's a rail in front of you, so not terracing in the traditional sense, it just allows fans to stand. So in that context, no change to capacity.

I suppose to make it more realistic, you could remove the optional seat, but even then I don't see it making any difference to capacity.

Randomly this made me think of the old away end at Maine Road. Does anyone remember? They were actual benches rather than seats and unless my memory is really starting to go, they were not fixed and moved. Yes, actual benches!

Danny,

I think the rail seats they are proposing have a seat that folds into the rail and can be locked in the up position. They also have a step so that people can stand at two levels in the same row. In theory this would allow double the number of people in the same row. Obviously the wider the row the greater the ease of movement, so for this reason and issues of people potentially migrating I'm not sure if doubling capacity is realistic.

Danny. This subject was done in depth some time ago on here when standing at the game was first raised.

If you remove fixed seats and replace them with the rail seating, which is essentially standing, each seat removed is worth one and a half standing places generally speaking.

So two seats out, three standing places created.

https://www.ToffeeWeb.com/club/bramley-moore/