Stadium thread: Reprise edition

[Guest blueboy122]

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.

Arsenal are a lot bigger club than us in my opinion. Arsenal are even bigger than Liverpool on some footballing sites.

 

The fact that they are London based is a huge part of that though. But without being London based they are a lot bigger than us in every way. Unfortunately.

[Dalziel Kane]

I read it as comparing the size of venue (then Highbury) and crowd allocation. I don't believe Mr Burns was stating that Arsenal (pre 2006) were the same size and stature as Everton Football Club - at least hope not !

 

Whichever way you want to read it, they've been bigger than us since our last championship win in 1987. And what have we won in that time duration ? One single FA Cup win... And then you take their honors list and achievements into comparison.. It's a no contest.

[StevO]

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.

 

A new stadium isn't new forever. Also, Arsenal being based in a relatively wealthy area, Everton being in Walton, is a bit of a difference. Add to that Arsenal make use of their stadium seven days a week, we will struggle with that too.

[Guest John Burns]

All the stay at GP bunch all attempt to make out EFC are a tiny club. Hogwash !!

 

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.

 

If EFC have a 60,000 seater that is easy to get to by mass-transit, 60,000 will turn up.

 

LFC are not in a wealthy area but they will fill a 75,000 if they had one.

Edited September 20, 2014 by John Burns

[Cornish Steve]

All the stay at GP bunch all attempt to make out EFC area a tiny club. Hogwash !!

 

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.

 

If EFC have a 60,000 seater that is easy to get to by mass-transit, 60,000 will turn up.

 

LFC are not in wealthy area but they will fill a 75,000 if they had one.

 

I agree with your basic argument, but I wouldn't link success to mass transit. That adds considerably to the investment. More important is ease of access - whether via public transport or private cars.

 

As someone wrote earlier, Everton could expect more corporate sales with a more modern stadium. Most of the best seats in US stadiums are sold to corporations, who award them to employees, given them to customers, and so on. It's a bit unfair on the regular fans, since the best seats are always taken, but it's great for the team's finances.

[StevO]

Also, using the train system in London is a lot more common than up north. The tube is used en mass daily, where I would bet most people who go the everton games would go by car. As much as a good rail network would help, I don't think it would be the major difference for us.

[johnh]

As someone who spent half his formative years (1940's) in Walton Hall Park, playing football, cricket, climbing trees, collecting birds eggs, fishing, even played on the tennis courts on one occasion, my question is: What is the Councils view on losing this amenity and are they able to replace it?

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

Also, using the train system in London is a lot more common than up north. The tube is used en mass daily, where I would bet most people who go the everton games would go by car. As much as a good rail network would help, I don't think it would be the major difference for us.

 

I drive in most games , but if I had the option to go by train I would never take my car again

[Newty82]

As someone who spent half his formative years (1940's) in Walton Hall Park, playing football, cricket, climbing trees, collecting birds eggs, fishing, even played on the tennis courts on one occasion, my question is: What is the Councils view on losing this amenity and are they able to replace it?

They are doing it for nature's sake. So the birds will nest else where and stop getting their eggs nicked.

[Oztoffee]

Also, using the train system in London is a lot more common than up north. The tube is used en mass daily, where I would bet most people who go the everton games would go by car. As much as a good rail network would help, I don't think it would be the major difference for us.

Depends where you live really. By car from the Wirral is real easy until you want to park! The rail link to Sandhills is fine and the shuttle to the ground is great....but getting home again is a nightmare. I was lucky enough last year to wangle a couple of tickets for the Derby game and doing the trip in reverse (ie Shuttle, Sandhills, Moorfields, Moreton) got me back after 21/2 hours from leaving the ground. Not to be recommended for an evening fixture in any way, shape or form.

 

Living in OZ, the only info I get is through this site and nothing has been mentioned in this reprise thread about potential ground sharing. Previously I know that many were against it but honestly the reasons behind their thinking were mostly parochial ('It would never work') not 'how can we make it work?'

Seeing other newish stadiums around the country (I passed by Brighton's stadium and what a little gem it is), Swansea etc. you have to ask how they did it when a 'bigger' club such as Everton can't? I know many of them are smaller than we would like but we can't even get an agreement on a site for god's sake, let alone actually build anything. As L'pool need a new stadium too doesn't it make sense to combine efforts to build rather than both clubs facing refusal many times?

note to self; stand by for the tirade ofabuse fir raising this subject again.

And FFS please don't let us build in Kirkby or any other outlying area without some transport links....rail, rail, rail!

[Cornish Steve]

I'd be very much for sharing a stadium. It's a good idea.

[Matt]

I'd be very much for sharing a stadium. It's a good idea.

logically yes, but emotionally - NEVER.

[Oztoffee]

Problem is...there may eventually be no other options.

But how did the likes of Pride Park, Britannia Stadium, Liberty Stadium, Reebok, St Mary's get built? These are 'lesser' teams with newer stadiums but generally lower support than Everton. Where did the cash come from........how did they get their respective city councils to agree on sites?

In a nutshell, are we doing something wrong, or is it just a matter of money?

[EFC-Paul]

Liverpool have already announced they are going/plan to extend Anfield rather than move so the idea of a groundshare is dead in the water

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-anfield-stadium-redevelopment-7024981

[Oztoffee]

Liverpool have already announced they are going/plan to extend Anfield rather than move so the idea of a groundshare is dead in the water

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-anfield-stadium-redevelopment-7024981

Great! So what's stopping us doing the same? Is it just money?

Just had a look at the age of EPL grounds. Goodison Park is only one of many built in the late 1800's/early 1900's. In fact Stamford Bridge, St James' Park and Anfield are older than Goodison. Villa Park, White Hart Lane and Craven Cottage are much as they were when they were built although slightly younger.

 

If the World Cup ever came back to England a repeat of 1966 groupings at various existing grounds would be totally different. Probably only Old Trafford would get games. Until I looked it up, I wasn't aware that White City in London actually hosted one match! Unbelievable!

 

There has been a distinct lack of investment in facilities in England compared to the rest of Europe. Maybe we have paid too much for players, who knows?

Point of all this of course is that all the income (in Everton's case) since 1892 has gone somewhere, but where? Certainly not into facilities.

Newish UK grounds like Swansea, Brighton, Cardiff, Wigan, Bolton, Stoke, Hull.......the list goes on.......these are not generally known as top flight clubs. The money can only come from good management and many on here have been disparaging about the manner in which Everton has been run for many years. Maybe we are really only now reaping the rewards of many years of malpractice.

 

The cheaper option obviously is to redevelop Goodison. But can it be done?

[jofanon]

With all this extra TV revenue maybe now is the time to reinvest that in the stadium and once and for all getting rid of debt (buy Finch Farm back too?)

 

All for improving the squad but this seems a golden opportunity to get our house (literally) in order

[Matt]

Great! So what's stopping us doing the same? Is it just money?

Just had a look at the age of EPL grounds. Goodison Park is only one of many built in the late 1800's/early 1900's. In fact Stamford Bridge, St James' Park and Anfield are older than Goodison. Villa Park, White Hart Lane and Craven Cottage are much as they were when they were built although slightly younger.

 

If the World Cup ever came back to England a repeat of 1966 groupings at various existing grounds would be totally different. Probably only Old Trafford would get games. Until I looked it up, I wasn't aware that White City in London actually hosted one match! Unbelievable!

 

There has been a distinct lack of investment in facilities in England compared to the rest of Europe. Maybe we have paid too much for players, who knows?

Point of all this of course is that all the income (in Everton's case) since 1892 has gone somewhere, but where? Certainly not into facilities.

Newish UK grounds like Swansea, Brighton, Cardiff, Wigan, Bolton, Stoke, Hull.......the list goes on.......these are not generally known as top flight clubs. The money can only come from good management and many on here have been disparaging about the manner in which Everton has been run for many years. Maybe we are really only now reaping the rewards of many years of malpractice.

 

The cheaper option obviously is to redevelop Goodison. But can it be done?

Basically no due to space. Plus, I imagine the whole ground needs an upgrade so it would probably cost about the same anyway, not to mention the impact on the surrounding area.

[StevO]

Oz, though Goodison was originally opened in 1892, it wasn't built in it's current form. It has been rebuilt/expanded on many occasions. Over the last century Everton did spend vast sums of money on Goodison, and it was the most modern stadium around until after the three tier main stand was built. Then they stopped expanding and other stadiums over took us. We build the park end at the end of the century, but in my opinion we did a very poor job of it. It should have been the beginning of a wider regeneration of the stadium. Two tiers, some better corporate facilities, set further back to align the pitch with the off centre main stand. But all too late now.

[Guest John Burns]

 

I agree with your basic argument, but I wouldn't link success to mass transit.

Guarantee fans get there in comfort and fast and the success of the stadium and high attendances are guaranteed. Liverpool has a mass transit rail network, not to use it is asinine.

Edited May 15, 2014 by John Burns

[Guest John Burns]

Also, using the train system in London is a lot more common than up north.

Merseyrail is the largest urban mass transit rail network in size and passenger usage in the UK. Only London's Underground is larger. It was planned to be one third larger than it is now, in the 1970s when Merseyrail was formed by connecting up diverse lines - work was stopped with some underground tunnelling and junctions built. An Outer Loop of the city was planned - a line that circles the city. The eastern section of the Outer Loop line is now mothballed trackbed and skirts Walton Hall Park. This can be brought back to use and the full Outer Loop utilised for the city and EFC. The city should insist that the two clubs use the mass transit rail network for obvious reasons. This is where the mayor is lacking, he is way out of touch not knowing how large cities work. Not to use Merseyrail for two new stadia is openly foolish. The knock of benefits to the city are enormous.

 

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Merseyrail-Extensions.html

 

This shows the full city Outer Loop line in solid red and dotted green. The solid red line is mothballed trackbed, the others are used. The red star is Walton Hall Park. It is very cheap to get the full loop up and running. EFC can have a 6 platform station with cheap concrete zip-up platforms. Walton Hall Park is ideal for EFC, the club needs to lobby the city and the Dept for Transport and other politicos to get the loop up and running. The city as whole would greatly benefit from expanding Merseyrail. Then EFC is accessed from all over Merseyside and beyond directly, ensuring success. As London has shown, have the transport in place and it is a success. As Arsenal and the O2 have demonstrated.

 

 

 

The dotted lines are trackbeds. The solid red line is the dusused Walton tunnels.

 

Opening the eastern section of the Outer Loop (the dotted line east of WHP) rather than have the Bootle Branch Line (the dotted line to the south of WHP) reopened to passengers is the better option for EFC.

 

The lack of public transport was major factor in the rejection of Kirkby. Have the rail transport in place and local objections reduce heavily.

Edited May 15, 2014 by John Burns

[Cornish Steve]

Guarantee fans get there in comfort and fast and the success of the stadium and high attendances are guaranteed. Liverpool has a mass transit rail network, not to use it is asinine.

 

No, it's not! That route would be needed just once every two weeks. How can you justify the economics of that? It would add many millions to the project unnecessarily and likely run at a loss. Worst case, arrange for some buses running between strategic points on game day.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Cornish Steve

[Hafnia]

 

No, it's not! That route would be needed just once every two weeks. How can you justify the economics of that? It would add many millions to the project unnecessarily and likely run at a loss. Worst case, arrange for some buses running between strategic points on game day.

 

would a new stadium not re-generate the area? Making the need for the existing transport lines to be utilised moreso?

 

Only on match days would you see a more frequent, higher carriage service in place

[Matt]

[Guest John Burns]

 

No, it's not! That route would be needed just once every two weeks. How can you justify the economics of that? It would add many millions to the project unnecessarily and likely run at a loss. Worst case, arrange for some buses running between strategic points on game day.

If EFC & LFC averaged 60,000 between the two of them with only 50 games per season and half of the fans using the mass transit will give 3 million trips to and from each year. Just from two stadia. The figures now look good. But no one is saying only open the lines just for stadia. The lines will serves many districts and the take up will be far, far more than what the stadia figures are being used 365 days a year, so even better to get public money to open it all up. Use the stadia as the cherry on the top to get the mass transit up and running.

 

Liverpool was promised this full mass transit network over 40 years ago and it is now payback time to the city. EFC & LFC can benefit also.

Edited May 15, 2014 by John Burns

[Cornish Steve]

 

would a new stadium not re-generate the area? Making the need for the existing transport lines to be utilised moreso?

 

Only on match days would you see a more frequent, higher carriage service in place

 

Build it and they will come! Where have I heard that before?

 

Has anyone put together the business case? Would the line pay for itself, and repay the investment, on non-game days? I'd feel 99% certain that the business case for the city investing in a new stadium would be better than any investment in a rail line.

[Cornish Steve]

If EFC & LFC averaged 60,000 between the two of them with only 50 games per season and half of the fans using the mass transit will give 3 million trips to and from each year. Just from two stadia. The figures now look good. But no one is saying only open the lines just for stadia. The lines will serves many districts and the take up will be far, far more than what the stadia figures are being used 365 days a year, so even better to get public money to open it all up. Use the stadia as the cherry on the top to get the mass transit up and running.

 

John, I never understand the argument for public transportation. Politicians call for it all the time, but everyday people almost always prefer to take a car. I've seen that happen time and again. Much better that the local authorities invest in better roads and adequate parking. Still, if a business case proves me wrong, I'd be only too pleased. But, again, experience around the world shows that cities should invest in stadiums before public transportation, because the business case is much stronger.

 

There is some merit in the argument for city investment, but the economics imply the investment should be in the stadium, not in a new rail line. As mentioned before, the new tax revenue and the new jobs would justify such an investment in the stadium itself - and in public parking around the stadium.

[Matt]

 

John, I never understand the argument for public transportation. Politicians call for it all the time, but everyday people almost always prefer to take a car. I've seen that happen time and again. Much better that the local authorities invest in better roads and adequate parking. Still, if a business case proves me wrong, I'd be only too pleased. But, again, experience around the world shows that cities should invest in stadiums before public transportation, because the business case is much stronger.

 

There is some merit in the argument for city investment, but the economics imply the investment should be in the stadium, not in a new rail line. As mentioned before, the new tax revenue and the new jobs would justify such an investment in the stadium itself - and in public parking around the stadium.

Because its convenient, flexible and sometimes cheaper. But if the public transport was properly invested in and prices made reasonable, people would use the services more. Pay back for the investment would then take longer, meaning less desire to implement.

[Cornish Steve]

Because its convenient, flexible and sometimes cheaper. But if the public transport was properly invested in and prices made reasonable, people would use the services more. Pay back for the investment would then take longer, meaning less desire to implement.

 

I don't know the Stanley Park area, so let's take someone in Cornwall wanting to visit the only local team, Plymouth Argyle. You must walk or bus it to the railway station (often many miles away), wait for a train, then connect to a bus, then walk from the bus stop to the stadium - often in the cold and pouring rain. Taking a local train straight to the stadium might help a bit, but there's still the inconvenience of getting to the local station and waiting. It's so much easier just to get in your car and drive. If stadium parking is planned, there's no walking in the rain at all. If the authorities don't want everyone to drive, then offer free parking to those who car-share, for example. To quote your words, Matt, it's much more convenient, flexible, and cheaper. It just takes a little creativity.

 

The answer is not government planning and an expensive rail line that will rarely be used outside of game days and, I might add, subject to the whims and political activism of unions. It sounds nice on paper, but I very much doubt the investment would ever be recouped.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Cornish Steve

[Matt]

 

But take someone in Cornwall wanting to visit the only local team, Plymouth Argyle. You must walk to the railway station, wait for a train, then connect to a bus, then walk from the bus stop to the stadium - often in the cold and pouring rain. Taking a local train straight to the stadium might help a bit, but there's still the inconvenience of getting to the local station and waiting. It's so much easier just to get in your car and drive. If stadium parking is planned, there's no walking in the rain at all. If the authorities don't want everyone to drive, then offer free parking to those who car-share, for example. It just takes a little creativity. The answer is not government planning and an expensive rail line that will rarely be used outside of game days and, I might add, subject to the whims and political activism of unions. It sounds nice on paper, but I very much doubt the investment would ever be recouped.

As someone who lives on the side of a mountain, I understand the inconvenience of public transport, or at least I would if the Swiss hadn't made such a damn good job of it. The way they structured the train line and bus routes for example, means I can get pretty much anywhere with a 15m walk of a station/stop. The initial reasoning for the network? The ski centre behind us, which is used rarely most of the year. They designed the network in such a way that it is useful on a day to day use but also service its main goal. It just take a little creativity

 

Parking at a stadium is always going to require walking to the gate, but more importantly than that, parking takes up masses of space. I think I mentioned it a few pages back, that space is less of an issue for most of the US. I think if Everton want to stay somewhere nearby, the added cost of additional land for parking would be a big put-off as EFC would have to take all the expenses, as it benefits noone else. The advantage of the public services is that the government/council have to invest and therefore less cost impact for the club, whilst adding value to the surrounding area and potentially encouraging new business to the area.

 

Whatever the area turns out to

 

edit: and " It's so much easier just to get in your car and drive" youve been over there too long mate

Edited May 15, 2014 by Matt

[Cornish Steve]

edit: and " It's so much easier just to get in your car and drive" youve been over there too long mate

 

You're probably right!