Stadium thread: Reprise edition

[Guest]

Don't know how to do a link but I was driving to work this morning and around 06:20 on the Alan Brazil show he was saying that he was talking to a big everton fan in "the know" and they said Everton are waiting till the end of the season to announce a takeover by the Abu Dhabi family/group. He was probably pissed but it perked me up

[Matt]

Don't know how to do a link but I was driving to work this morning and around 06:20 on the Alan Brazil show he was saying that he was talking to a big everton fan in "the know" and they said Everton are waiting till the end of the season to announce a takeover by the Abu Dhabi family/group. He was probably pissed but it perked me up

http://toffeeweb.com/season/13-14/rumour-mill/27375.html

 

I assume you mean this?

 

edit:

 

http://talksport.com/radio/listen-again/1398834000#

 

from about 13mins in

Edited April 30, 2014 by Matt

[Guest John Burns]

Look at this thread. EFC are 90% certain of going to Walton Hall Park. The Bootle Branch line will run between LFC and EFC and most prob be opened with station serving both. Transport issues solved. But EFC would be better getting the eastern section of the Outer Loop opened and have a high throughput station yards from the stadium. Transport problems solved even moreso. Think rapid-transit and all comes clear.

LCC have announced they will be spending money on a stadium for anyone to rent. They may rent the land of WHP.

 

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Rapid-Transit-Football.html

 

http://www.toffeetalk.com/index.php?/topic/25128-to-the-future/&do=findComment&comment=342545

Edited April 30, 2014 by John Burns

[Louis]

I wouldn't go as high as 90%, Robert Elstone said it was 20-30% a few months ago. I knew you'd be back as soon as it was announced John.

 

Robert Elstone speaks post AGM: http://www.evertonfc.com/evertontv/home/10250

[Guest John Burns]

WHP is a near goer. It is there if the club get its act together. It is that simple. They only way of not getting WHP is to screw it up like at Kings Dock.

 

The club and LCC are learning from Kirkby and are moving to a location where mass-transit is easy to implement. Lack of mass transit was a major issue re: Kirkby. The Dept of Transport has spent near nothing of significance on Liverpool for 40 years. Manchester has have a whole new tram network built. They owe Liverpool. This stadium is the ideal opportunity to extend the metro and benefit the club and city, so many gain - why LCC are pushing the site. LCC can get the metro extended using the EFC stadium as an lever as it may put over 1 million passenger trips on the adjacent line per year. With the normal day to day passenger usage through the districts plus the stadium, the Dept for Transport may cough up.

Edited May 1, 2014 by John Burns

[Louis]

The Echo ran a story earlier saying there is a £30m shortfall in necessary funds.

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/everton-fc-must-still-find-7056446

 

It's no longer working, but this is the content:

 

Headline:Everton must still find £30m to fund dreams of new stadium

Subtitle:Liverpool council ruled out bankrolling the Goodison Park replacement

 

Apr 30, 2014 18:38 By Joshua Taylor

 

Everton FC must still find £30m to fund their dreams of a new stadium, the ECHO understands.

 

The news came as Liverpool council ruled out bankrolling the Goodison Park replacement.

 

The Toffees have seen previous moves to switch from their 121-year-old home hampered.

 

A well-placed source told the ECHO the club still needs to find around £30m – on top of any cash already secured – to make the new ground a reality.

 

But the source described this shortfall as “not insurmountable”.

 

The club's preferred site is believed to be land on the 130-acre Walton Hall Park. It is thought houses will be built alongside the new stadium to help shore up the project financially.

 

James Asquith, from the Everton FC Shareholders’ Association, said: “The club have to be fairly tight-lipped about these things and we understand that causes frustration. We are keen to see progress.

 

“One option to raise additional money is to sell more shares in the club. The shareholders are entitled to vote to do that.

 

“Another option is to downgrade whatever stadium is being planned.

 

“If you can't afford a five-bedroom house with a pool and three-car garage then you go for a three-bedroom house with a one-car garage instead.”

 

He described the club's position as a “difficult needle to thread”, but added: “People will ask difficult questions and snipe from the sidelines but ultimately we all want what's best for the club.”

 

Liverpool council issued a statement saying it is willing to fund improvements to go alongside any new Everton stadium, similar to the redevelopment projects around Anfield.

 

But the authority is clear it will not pay for the new ground – a model used in Manchester where the city council owns the Ethihad Stadium and leases it to Manchester City.

 

The Liverpool council statement said: “As with all large-scale regeneration projects with the potential to create jobs and investment in Liverpool, the city council will look at ways it can support the wider regeneration scheme but no firm options have been developed in terms of how or where this will take shape.

 

“This work is ongoing and we will announce the details of the location and support we will be offering once this has been further developed.

 

“However, we must stress that the city council is clearly not in a position to fund the costs of a new stadium.

 

“Any investment the council makes would be in a wider regeneration scheme, subject to a sound financial and economic rationale for doing so.”

 

It is thought Liverpool council could agree to fund improvements to roads, housing and transport in the area around any new stadium.

 

An Everton club spokesman declined to comment on the £30m funding shortage figure.

 

Proposals for a new 55,000-seat Everton ground in Kings Dock were rejected more than 10 years ago, then the Government vetoed plans for a Goodison Park replacement in Kirkby in 2009.

[Guest John Burns]

But the source described this shortfall as “not insurmountable”.

 

Transportation is the key, like at Kirkby. LFC cannot expand Anfield to 60,000 plus unless the Bootle Branch rail line runs passengers. LFC will have to part fund that, maybe just part fund the rail station. EFC maybe doing the same - having the stadium only at 50,000 but expandable - easier to incorporate in new build.

 

The reality is that EFC can fill a 60,000 seater and LFC a 75,000 seater. The mass-transit rail network is awaiting to serve the stadia. It needs heads knocked together.

 

What is the season ticket waiting lists for LFC and EFC? Isn't LFC 20,000?

Edited May 1, 2014 by John Burns

[Romey 1878]

The Echo ran a story earlier saying there is a £30m shortfall in necessary funds.

 

 

 

Isn't that the same shortfall we couldn't find for King's Dock?

[FairWooney]

who says we can fill a 60,000 seater stadium?

 

I don't see us averaging more than 50,000.

 

yes crowd's often go up with a new stadium, another 1000 or however many away seats may also be allocated as well but i don't see an extra 20,000 turning up week on week.

 

This season as I look at it we only sold out 7 of our games completely (39,000+) while a further 4 we had 38,000+.

 

In any of those games we could probably have sold another 6 to 10,000 tickets maybe. I still don't see us getting more than 45,000 on a dreary winters weekend against Fulham.

 

--

 

It seems Everton are reliant on Liverpool council pretty much offering to build them a stadium and they seem to think that could happen on the basis that Man City got one built for them! The huge difference being that City's was built for the Commonwealth games.

 

I don't see us getting a new stadium built without some funding/sponsorship from elsewhere ala Tesco's at Kirby.

[Hafnia]

 

Isn't that the same shortfall we couldn't find for King's Dock?

 

Bill said it was ring fenced... Gregg knew otherwise and offered to stump up the cash for Kings Dock in a bid to take over, Kenwright seen the risk of losing the club and along came Christian Samuelson and the made up Fortress Fund. A very convenient "means to an end" as Ian Ross described it. Kenwright retain power, Kings Dock never happened and lets just say we would be looking at a ridiculously well funded club if it did.

 

 

who says we can fill a 60,000 seater stadium?

 

I don't see us averaging more than 50,000.

 

yes crowd's often go up with a new stadium, another 1000 or however many away seats may also be allocated as well but i don't see an extra 20,000 turning up week on week.

 

This season as I look at it we only sold out 7 of our games completely (39,000+) while a further 4 we had 38,000+.

 

In any of those games we could probably have sold another 6 to 10,000 tickets maybe. I still don't see us getting more than 45,000 on a dreary winters weekend against Fulham.

 

--

 

It seems Everton are reliant on Liverpool council pretty much offering to build them a stadium and they seem to think that could happen on the basis that Man City got one built for them! The huge difference being that City's was built for the Commonwealth games.

 

I don't see us getting a new stadium built without some funding/sponsorship from elsewhere ala Tesco's at Kirby.

 

There are a few factors in getting the numbers up which a new stadium will alleviate. 60,000 is achievable, no question in my mind.

 

Transport:- At present getting to Goodison is a pain. No parking, no nearby train staitions. Its a big factor. I've had my car done in, my brother has, train journey from wirral is a bit of a pain with crammed trains.

 

Restricted seats:- There are loads of them at Goodison, even the ones that arent restricted can have you at bad vantage points.

 

Facilities:- 15 minute wait for a pint and pie, disgusting outdated toilets.

 

The very fact that we can attract 37,000 fans with previously less attractive football and the above to consider says we have far greater potential. In the 80's we were getting 45k+ in a terraced stadium.

 

My guess is that for the average game we will see 50k fans, for the likes of the derby, man united etc 60k. An increase per match of £700k - £1m (factoring in improved commercial revenue)

[Guest John Burns]

Liverpool City Council has no regard for creating a green, sustainable city. In the current climate it is simply outrageous not to have any major new infrastructure (EFC & LFC) that generates millions of journeys to be convenient for eco mass-transit public transport. In Liverpool City's case meaning being adjacent to a high throughput Merseyrail metro station with easy connections to mainline stations and park & ride. No-one should have the need to drive to a football match in Liverpool from any part of Merseyside and beyond. The city has a mass-transit network that other cities would droll over having and to ignore it is gross irresponsibility.

Edited September 20, 2014 by John Burns

[Guest John Burns]

The council are pushing this regeneration of Anfield with LFC as the core. They may hoodwink us with EFC as well. The economic regeneration returns from major sports stadia projects are very bad. This has been researched and proven in all cases. It is a veneer by the fans and owners to extract public funds to subsidise their passtime. This gets them permission to build in totally unsuitable locations. The value of match-day trade to local traders is not justified by the public subsidy involved. It is very poor return on public investment.

 

So, if we need stadia, then they have to be in locations that do not affect local residents too much. They also have to be eco and the transportation to and from eco. In short, get the fans to and from the stadia fast using high throughput rapid-transit rail.

 

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Rapid-Transit-Football.html

[Cornish Steve]

Council budgets, particularly the Merseyside area, have been massively slashed. I doubt they have much scope to splurge £150m on building us a stadium while they're cutting back on public spending!

 

But this is EXACTLY the reason they should invest! Is the city looking for new sources of revenue to make up its shortfall? If you do nothing but cut, cut, cut, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You have to give companies and teams a reason to be on Merseyside. By adding 20,000 to the number of people who come, stay, and spend every weekend, Liverpool would pretty much guarantee many tens of millions more revenue every year. It's just plain ridiculous that they expect Everton to pay them. That's ass about face.

[Cornish Steve]

The economic regeneration returns from major sports stadia projects are very bad.

 

 

Sorry, but that's simply nonsense. How can you say it's been proved time and again? Nothing could be further from the truth! (Let me guess: you are a councilman!)

 

Here in Atlanta, for example, the city, sponsors, and owners are about to pay almost $1 billion (that's Billion with a capital B ) to build a new stadium for its football team. The city contributed hundreds of millions for the current stadium not 20 years ago. Indeed, the city just agreed to pay another $17 million simply for a parking deck! (I would add that there's no public transportation to get to the stadium from most parts of the city.) Our county is about to spend hundreds of millions on a new baseball stadium for the Atlanta team, and they too play in a stadium built only 20 years ago.

 

The city will see that money come back quickly in terms of increased tax revenue (and taxes are much higher in the UK, so the return would be much shorter), new jobs (and hence more tax money and less paid in welfare), an influx of small businesses (more tax revenue and more jobs), millions in TV money for hosting other sports and city events and concerts (Paul McCartney is playing this week in Atlanta - why not Liverpool at a new Goodison?), increased revenue from public transportation, a share of parking fees, and so on. 30m is nothing! For pity's sake, add a temporary one pound "city fund" surcharge for tickets for one year, and that would generate a million right there. Add another pound to the train fare for those alighting or departing from the stadium and you have more money. Why couldn't the city waive all taxes to Everton over and above those paid this year at the current stadium - and let Everton reclaim its investment in terms of more gate revenue?

 

The city of Liverpool would get this money back, and more, in comparatively short order. It just takes a little initiative, vision, and entrepreneurial spirit.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Cornish Steve

[Ant1979]

Sorry, but that's simply nonsense. How can you say it's been proved time and again? Nothing could be further from the truth! (Let me guess: you are a councilman!)

 

Here in Atlanta, for example, the city, sponsors, and owners are about to pay almost $1 billion (that's Billion with a capital B ) to build a new stadium for its football team. The city contributed hundreds of millions for the current stadium not 20 years ago. Indeed, the city just agreed to pay another $17 million simply for a parking deck! (I would add that there's no public transportation to get to the stadium from most parts of the city.) Our county is about to spend hundreds of millions on a new baseball stadium for the Atlanta team, and they too play in a stadium built only 20 years ago.

 

The city will see that money come back quickly in terms of increased tax revenue (and taxes are much higher in the UK, so the return would be much shorter), new jobs (and hence more tax money and less paid in welfare), an influx of small businesses (more tax revenue and more jobs), millions in TV money for hosting other sports and city events and concerts (Paul McCartney is playing this week in Atlanta - why not Liverpool at a new Goodison?), increased revenue from public transportation, a share of parking fees, and so on. 30m is nothing! For pity's sake, add a temporary one pound "city fund" surcharge for tickets for one year, and that would generate a million right there. Add another pound to the train fare for those alighting or departing from the stadium and you have more money. Why couldn't the city waive all taxes to Everton over and above those paid this year at the current stadium - and let Everton reclaim its investment in terms of more gate revenue?

 

The city of Liverpool would get this money back, and more, in comparatively short order. It just takes a little initiative, vision, and entrepreneurial spirit.

I agree with a lot of your points there Steve. Just one thing I had to say, if the city is building 2 new stadiums replacing both that are only 20 years old, that's some pretty appalling management and forward planning! If one of our local councils jizzed that kind of money up the wall there would be a revolution

[Cornish Steve]

A 20-year stadium lifetime is not unusual. It's not poor management at all. Those stadia are used all the time, for all kinds of events. It doesn't take long for them to require more and more maintenance - and for teams to require more and more seats. If the city makes it money back in ten years, for example, and generates net profit for the next ten years, whyever not invest again?

 

The county investment in a new baseball stadium is interesting. Currently, the stadium is in the centre of Atlanta. However, our county sees all that potential tax revenue and is offering huge sums to relocate the team here - which is about 15 miles from the current location. There's a big fight going on as to who will invest the most in the team - the Atlanta city council or our county council. Right now, our county is winning the duel. This is the difference: Both see it as a huge revenue opportunity, not a short-term investment they can't afford. You have to invest to grow.

[Cornish Steve]

Minnesota is hardly the most entrepreneurial state in the US, but here are the numbers behind their potential investment of $1 billion in a new sports stadium. Their numbers don't even take into account many of the factors I mentioned. Doesn't this make 30m look like peanuts?

 

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2011/05/tax-revenues-and-new-vikings-stadium-payback

 

Edit: they are looking to invest 1/2 billion, not 1 billion - sorry.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Cornish Steve

[Ant1979]

A 20-year stadium lifetime is not unusual.

It should be!

 

I don't know enough about US economics to comment about the rest really. Like I said I agreed with a lot of your points I just have an issue with something costing hundreds of millions only lasting 20 years. I used to work at the Reebok Stadium (BWFC) when I lived over that way, it's 17 years old and would still be considered fairly modern and certainly fit for purpose for a long while yet

[Cornish Steve]

It should be!

 

I don't know enough about US economics to comment about the rest really. Like I said I agreed with a lot of your points I just have an issue with something costing hundreds of millions only lasting 20 years. I used to work at the Reebok Stadium (BWFC) when I lived over that way, it's 17 years old and would still be considered fairly modern and certainly fit for purpose for a long while yet

 

In that case, the argument for the city investing in a new stadium becomes even stronger!

[Ant1979]

In that case, the argument for the city investing in a new stadium becomes even stronger!

I don't know the state of the 'old' one (term used very loosely haha). My issue is with the money wasted 20 years ago, that's where the poor forward planning was

[Cornish Steve]

I don't know the state of the 'old' one (term used very loosely haha). My issue is with the money wasted 20 years ago, that's where the poor forward planning was

 

If you achieve a return on investment in ten years and pure profit for the next ten years, why is a lifetime of 20 years a poor investment?

[Ant1979]

If you achieve a return on investment in ten years and pure profit for the next ten years, why is a lifetime of 20 years a poor investment?

Ok. First I'm only replying from a UK point of view, like I said I don't know US economics.

 

So a stadium achieves a return on investment in only 10 years? That's great. But if it had been forward planned and future proofed properly, it would have still achieved that return, whilst also still being viable for the next 30 or more years. So all that extra time is pure profit yes, without the need to blow an extra billion? That money being spent comes from our taxes, etc; in this hypothetical, if it was in the UK. So a billion saved and the 20 year old stadium still fit for purpose, with proper infrastructure, including public transport, from the start.

 

Last thing I'll say on it, I do like a good debate haha, but you're a good guy so I don't want it to seem like an argument

[Cornish Steve]

Hey - you're not being argumentative at all! You're making valid points.

 

My frustration comes from the fact that the city expects Everton to make the investment while still reaping all the benefits, which is outrageous. By not investing in a new stadium, the city loses out on all that new revenue - and just whines about having to cut budgets.

[Ant1979]

Hey - you're not being argumentative at all! You're making valid points.

 

My frustration comes from the fact that the city expects Everton to make the investment while still reaping all the benefits, which is outrageous. By not investing in a new stadium, the city loses out on all that new revenue - and just whines about having to cut budgets.

I do get your point. But as much as local councils have been guilty of poor financial management for years, they are cutting jobs at present and the money just isn't there. If they could guarantee to all the non-football fans (who would be in uproar), that everybody would see a long term financial benefit from doing this, perhaps lower council tax due to surpluses from stadium income, then it might be a goer. But the in the UK I just can't see this ever happening.

[Peter H]

So if Everton find 30 mil they get a new stadium? Who do I call about making a donation? I like the sound of 'Peter H Stadium'

[Matt]

It should be!

 

I don't know enough about US economics to comment about the rest really. Like I said I agreed with a lot of your points I just have an issue with something costing hundreds of millions only lasting 20 years. I used to work at the Reebok Stadium (BWFC) when I lived over that way, it's 17 years old and would still be considered fairly modern and certainly fit for purpose for a long while yet

The 20 year thing in the states doesnt suprise me, the franchise might change hands, move states even, and build a new stadium.

 

I completely agree with Cornishs logic, but comparing American economics vs English economics just doesnt make sense. For example in the US, you wont pay through the nose for a site - theres a fuck-ton of space about so buying the land is less of an investment. Liverpool aren't going to sell the land on the cheap just because a club is looking for a new space. Which is incredibly short sighted. On top of that, the British government is making big council cutbacks (if I understood the news correctly), so even if LCC isnt being short sighted and wants to invest, they may not have the money to invest anyway thanks to the fuckwit politicians

[Sibdane]

The 20 year thing in the states doesnt suprise me, the franchise might change hands, move states even, and build a new stadium.

 

I completely agree with Cornishs logic, but comparing American economics vs English economics just doesnt make sense. For example in the US, you wont pay through the nose for a site - theres a fuck-ton of space about so buying the land is less of an investment. Liverpool aren't going to sell the land on the cheap just because a club is looking for a new space. Which is incredibly short sighted. On top of that, the British government is making big council cutbacks (if I understood the news correctly), so even if LCC isnt being short sighted and wants to invest, they may not have the money to invest anyway thanks to the fuckwit politicians

 

Agree for the most part, but look at Beckham's bid for the Miami Port as a site for his future MLS team's stadium -- it's not going so well, but only because Beckham's team is being picky.

[StevO]

I know I'm bumping a thread a but late here, but the idea we couldn't fill a 55,000 seater stadium on the basis we only fill GP a hand ful of times a season (though 7/19 isn't bad) just doesn't sit right with me.

As about 10% of our 40,000 seats are obstructed views I personally consider 36,000 a sell out. I think we could get 45,000 evertonions at most games without obstruction. With room for away supporters. I'm not saying have 10,000 away seats either. But if we could get around 50,000 fans in total for most games it would be realistic for me.

The big issue is the corporate seating. We have heard for years we need more corp seats. The fact of the matter is at GP we have award winning food in our recently refurbished high quality lounges, with great seating and very good service from good staff. Yet we still can't fill them. If we go bigger on the corp seats we need a much more creative marketing and sales team to push it forward, and I'm not confident we would get that again.

 

I like the idea of an iconic home and a luxury main stand.

[Guest John Burns]

Arsenal before they moved to the Emirates were about then same size as EFC. Similar grounds and size, similar fanbase. For 8 years they have sold out every game in a 60,000 seater. GP is in a dowdy area and a dowdy stadium. A nice new stadium will encourage the corporates.

Edited May 8, 2014 by John Burns

[Dalziel Kane]

Arsenal before they moved to the Emirates were about then same size as EFC. Similar grounds and size, similar fanbase. For 8 years they have sold out every game in a 60,000 seater. GP is in a dowdy area and a dowdy stadium. A nice new stadium will encourage the corporates.

 

The club may not be situated in a location that's the epitome of paradise but last I looked the Arsenal arena vicinity didn't resemble Monte Carlo either. You're right with the stadium capacity pre-2006 (circa 39,000) but would argue that Arsenal had (and still have) the bigger fanbase and global attraction. Have they really sold out every game they've put on since moving from Highbury ? Little skeptical on that one, but we'll let it rest. I realize you're eager to see Everton relocate from Goodison Park but is it really going to occur anytime soon ? Some would see the need to leave our long-standing home as imperative, while others are content to stay put and let events pass. As with previous responses, there's no guarantee the club would fill a new stadium on a regular basis, and moving to a new venue isn't always the way forward or a recipe for success. Guess you'll (and others) will have to wait a significant time to see any chance of Everton playing at a different venue other than Goodison Park. Only going over old ground with this issue.