January 23, 2019, 01:49:18 AM

Author Topic: [News]Bramley Moore Dock update  (Read 355012 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

July 18, 2018, 03:24:41 AM
Reply #30
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
I did see a rumour albeit from twitter that we are about to announce a head of stadium development position or something.

Probably bullshit.

The club announced it themselves.

Quote
There is one remaining position to be filled on the new Everton Leadership team. The recruitment process for this final position of Stadium Development Director is currently underway and will be completed soon.

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/2018/06/13/executive-team


July 18, 2018, 05:50:51 AM
Reply #31
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
Yeah like a month a go

I feel for you, I really do.

July 18, 2018, 06:04:44 AM
Reply #32
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
Reckon if we change to Brap3 we'll get a more optimistic one?

I think it gets worse as we go up the numbers.


December 20, 2018, 11:06:52 PM
Reply #33
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
Commence operation Bramley Moore fewm.  :whistle:

December 20, 2018, 11:58:37 PM
Reply #34
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
I think it's about right, maybe 2-3k light but the reasons given are perfectly understandable. The club have far more information than we do as to ticket buying habits, waiting lists and general ticket enquiries. We've just over 31k season ticket holders so 41k if everyone on the waiting list takes theirs (they won't for many reasons) so still nearly 11k to go on general sale and we won't give much more than we do now to away fans, we're not going to suddenly sell 21k more. I'd rather we had a 52k sell out every week with a decent atmosphere than scores of empty seats, loads of neutrals just wanting to see a Premier League match and look like the Etihad does most weeks.

I'm more concerned about the design, make sure it's right on top of the pitch and as steep as allowed to keep the fans as close to the game as possible.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 12:02:16 AM by Gash »

December 21, 2018, 12:50:16 AM
Reply #35
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
Iím not advocating 60k and empty seats.

Iím saying all the forward thinking clubs in the country are aiming for stadia that facilitates those sort of numbers and all the amenities they entail. For the past two and half years weíve been hearing about how we need to bridge this divide, well part of that is portraying ourselves as as close to equals to them off the pitch as possible. This still leaves us lagging massively behind and who knows where these other clubs will be in 4/5 years when we get into BMD.

Even Wolves, a club just up from years in the championship, are planning to have a 50k+capacity stadium soon.

Who cares what other clubs capacity's are, it's not a competition to see who can have the biggest stadium? You only need to look at Arsenal and Man City as prime examples of successful big clubs that look awful on a matchday when there's thousands of empty seats. We could build 100k seater stadium, there's not point if it's only going to be half full.

The club haven't just picked a number our of thin air, they'll have done proper research into it, gathered lots of data and looked into how much other clubs get an increase when they move, whether there's a spike and then a drop off after it. They're not just going to build a bigger stadium just because some blokes on the internet wanted more seats so that we're as big as other stadiums. Affordability will have come into it too, build a state of the art 52k stadium on budget or build a 62k stadium, end up going over budget and have to cut corners and then affecting our spending on the pitch. Spurs, the apparent benchmark club financially have gone over budget, had to borrow more and are now 4 months late in getting into their stadium and no date yet to start using it and have rarely hit 60k at Wembley even before a capacity limit was set.

There's no point quoting other clubs capacity when most of the clubs with bigger stadiums have been successful recently and still can't fill them.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 12:53:34 AM by Gash »


December 21, 2018, 01:44:41 AM
Reply #36
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
Other clubs ability to earn more money should be a massive concern. Itís no coincidence that clubs with higher capacities have great ability to generate more match day income than us, and thatíll always be the case if we donít at least try and match them at some point.

No its not a massive concern, most of the clubs with higher capacities are making it through being bigger, more successful clubs so able to charge more and get better sponsorship deals, are in London, or as in the the old White Hart Lane made a fortune off all the corporate hospitality. Spurs had a smaller ground capacity but thanks to London prices, decent sponsorship deals and lots of corporate boxes were comfortably turning over more money than us. Basic bums on seats don't make the big difference to clubs ability to make money and the club will have worked all this out before deciding on the capacity.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 01:47:45 AM by Gash »

December 21, 2018, 04:52:24 AM
Reply #37
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
:cheers:
When Spurs finally decided on rebuilding WHL 4/5 years ago we were their equals pretty much on and off the pitch thereís now a massive gap between us and them. Unless we look to close that gap ourselves with forward ambitions planning weíll never succeed, in fact itís only likely to increase. None of the clubs above us are likely to regress we need to improve ourselves and having a stadium that matches the top teams is part of that.

Ambition shouldnt be something we fear we shouldnít simply accept our position below these clubs because we wonít just stagnant weíll fall back and be over taken eventually.

Around 2012/13 their turnover was nearly double ours, it was for a long time before and it still is and since then we've finished above them once, that's about six of those years they've been at White Hart Lane. They are proof that bums on seats aren't going to take us to the next level and that you need a lot more than that. Having a 62k seat stadium isn't going to be the holly grail to challenge the clubs above us.

There's six (seven when Spurs finally open) club stadiums that have more than 52k capacity, Newcastle, one club city who have won nothing for over half a century, West Ham, gifted a shite stadium with no atmosphere. After that you've Anfield, The Emirates, The Etihad and Old Trafford, all have have had recent success and two of those four still can't fill 55-60 seater stadiums despite being long established, well supported, (even Premier League winning clubs) traditional English top flight clubs just like us. Having less seats doesn't show "fear" of ambition and doesn't mean we are "below" them.

December 21, 2018, 05:21:37 AM
Reply #38
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
It was a £60m difference in turnover between us and Spurs and that was the year Bale joined RM for £85m I believe.

No, Bale didn't leave until September 2013, a full year after that. Even allowing for that year they blew it all on incoming players anyway but have still easily outperformed us in turnover before and after the Bale money. It's such a weak argument you're making.

December 21, 2018, 05:39:45 AM
Reply #39
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
Forgive me I hit the year wrong. The year before Spurs brought in roughly £65m.

You should actually brush up on the difference between profit and turnover as well, its not a weak argument in any way. The added transfer income boosted Spurs turnover for the year.

I'm well aware of the difference between profit and turnover. You're the one making the point about less seats being a fear of ambition, more seats doesn't mean more turnover or profit if they aren't filled. I've put across the point about the clubs above us who have bigger stadiums and you skipped over all that and started to talk about Gareth Bale which is only a small part of the whole comparison to Spurs and other clubs.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 05:53:18 AM by Gash »

December 21, 2018, 01:34:12 PM
Reply #40
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
You brought turnover up not me hence the reference to Bale, not a great leap to make really. I said we were pretty much on par with Spurs around the time they decided to think big and are seemingly crossing the divide to the top clubs. I said we need to do something similar and by not being ambitious enough well never break through actually.

Thereís actually many comparison between where we are now and where Spurs where at the same point. Be it attendance figures, finances and positions in the the league. Theyíve been brave at a time weíre being timid thatís the biggest difference.

The reason turnover and profit was brought up was because you seem to think a bigger stadium with more seats automatically means we'd have more of both, it's been pointed out that's not correct and that despite having a smaller capacity Spurs have generated far more revenue than we have over the last 10-15 years or so.

There's also absolutely nothing timid in what we're trying to do.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 02:10:01 PM by Gash »

December 21, 2018, 01:43:23 PM
Reply #41
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
I just don't get the point that gash made saying 'who cares what other clubs' capacities are?'

This seems have become some people's sole issue, just because it"s not as big as Anfield or St James's etc. It's totally irrelevant what other clubs capacities are in relation to ours. We aren't going to spend money on a 60k stadium if all the data and research shows our absolute ceiling is 52k just because X, Y and Z have 60k seats stadiums.

I honestly don't see the big issue with the capacity or the reason to push for another 8-10k seats when you only need to look at bigger, more successful clubs struggling fill their grounds.

December 21, 2018, 09:03:11 PM
Reply #42
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
Again Iíve not mentioned profit anywhere so how you come to the conclusion about me equating more seats with bigger profit is beyond me.

It's all linked together, profit, turnover, revenue etc, call it what you like. It's you that made the initial point that 52k will mean that we can't 'bridge the financial divide' to bigger clubs.

Not sure how you claim to want to be challenging the top teams and bridging the divide in finances while planning to build a new stadium thatís significantly smaller than the clubs we say we want to compete with.

You mentioned money here as well.

Other clubs ability to earn more money should be a massive concern. Itís no coincidence that clubs with higher capacities have great ability to generate more match day income than us, and thatíll always be the case if we donít at least try and match them at some point.

And here.

The most important point here isnít the ascetics itís the capability to generate revenue and to stop being left behind.

You've got yourself convinced that more seats mean more income for the club when it's been pointed out it's not as simple as that. The club will have looked at the benefits and costs of going to other capacities between 52k and 62k, all their data has obviously concluded that 52k is the cut off point between cost v income potential and that anything above that, at this time would not be economically sensible to do. That doesn't mean we "fear ambition or are "timid" it means we've done things properly and looked into all the pros and cons before making the decision.

December 21, 2018, 09:57:54 PM
Reply #43
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator
I get what your saying, but theres also a case for do it right and do it once, lets say BM sells out every week and we then need to upscale, that'll mean closing at least 1 side of the stadium for a good year, crap atmosphere while its closed, disgruntled fans etc. I personally think 62k is probably too big and 52k a little the other way.
The one biggish issue I have with this is Meis tweets etc saying 'look at the miles in my car, it says 62,178', its pointless and slightly irritating when large majorities wanted that number only to then be told its 10k short.

Yeah, I get the case for doing it right and doing it once. I just think that club will have carried out all sorts of studies, gathered lots of data (there will be factors that us 'outsiders' wouldn't even consider) and fully researched everything to come to the figure. They won't have taken it lightly and 52k must be the optimum figure where we can still make money and not get to the stage where the cost outweighs the benefit.

I'm no architect either but I think if it's done right then the increase will also be able to be done with the minimum of disruption. We'll only know that when the designs come out but I'd imagine it could easily be 2,500 seats at a time rather than having to do all 10k at once.

January 01, 2019, 06:24:47 PM
Reply #44
Offline

Gash

Global Moderator