October 22, 2019, 08:59:46 AM

Author Topic: [News]Bramley Moore Dock update  (Read 474156 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

March 23, 2017, 08:55:25 PM
Reply #30
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Liverpool Waters tweet:

The perfect day to hit 4000 followers! Keep your eyes peeled for some exciting news coming soon...! #LiverpoolWaters #Liverpool


March 23, 2017, 08:56:17 PM
Reply #31
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
It's also because of how social media is now it is so easy for things to spread quickly and expectations get bigger and bigger. Plus you will get people or sites on twitter wanting to make it seem like they have info they might not so are happy to big things up and each time someone makes a tweet about it being a huge announcement peoples expectations rise further. As a result peoples expectations have grown from there will be some kind of announcement to people expecting the club to come out with plans and announce moving in dates by 5pm today.

If this was a decade ago we wouldnt have had the mayor of liverpool talking about it on twitter, we wouldnt have had any access to the architect involved and noise about it would have been kept to a minimum. There would have been rumblings and rumours but ultimately it would have been an announcement made that we've agreed a deal to purchase land and details to follow.

A deal for the land is the first part of the process, and it's a really good step because realistically they wouldnt have got to the point where the land purchase is agreed and announced unless they knew the next steps including funding to build it weren't going to be an issue. It's not like Kirkby where there was fan opposition let alone obstacles from locals, or the Kings Dock where we had no idea if we could get the money together, or WHP where there was no chance the council were going to fund it for us.

This is good news, and if this is the only news about it today, social media hyped rumours shouldnt make people disappointed about what is the first step to what is finally going to happen this time.

Especially as @van der Meyde says the prospect of it being in Liverpool Waters was always seen as a pipe dream as Peel didn't want a ground there.

March 23, 2017, 09:06:48 PM
Reply #32
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
He was right.
Ashworth is on record as saying specificsally he didn't want a stadium there.

Then the financial world turned to shit, HS2 said it wasn't gonna come closer than Crewe and preservationists destroyed Liverpool waters to the point Peel will accept anything 'big' getting built there.

Plus we can afford something that won't look shite ;)


March 23, 2017, 10:03:30 PM
Reply #33
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
They own mucho land.
Liverpool Airport, Trafford Centre and pretty much all docklands in merseyside.

Think they sold the TC.

They own the ship canal and the port at Salford too.

March 23, 2017, 10:29:39 PM
Reply #34
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Looks like we will still be waiting for the funding of the stadium and planning permission

A step in the right direction though

Looking forward to seeing some pics of what it might look like

Think the funding issue will be done already or at least all lined up pending planning permission.

March 23, 2017, 11:18:57 PM
Reply #35
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber


March 23, 2017, 11:26:48 PM
Reply #36
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Looks like its envisaged that we'd be in there for 20/21.

March 24, 2017, 02:41:26 AM
Reply #37
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Didn't Elstone mention somewhere about more considerations re capacity in this next stage?

I'd be seriously unimpressed if we came in below Newcastle's capacity.

March 24, 2017, 03:17:03 AM
Reply #38
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Came on to say a similar thing to Confucius.

Planning permission must be a formality in their eyes if they are throwing their full support behind the project. It'd be a fuck up of Everton proportions to fully back the scheme and then have one of their own departments derail it.

As said already, the seemingly open ended planning permission Peel have been granted may be adequate as is to build a stadium on the back of.

Didn't it say somewhere that Everton would only take ownership of the land once the staidum was built? So we wouldn't even need to apply for PP if Peel will still own the land.

Apologies if already posted.

The PP wouldn't be so open ended to cover things like the transport issues; although as you say this is a gift horse.

March 24, 2017, 12:23:57 PM
Reply #39
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Barcelona are generally 20k below capacity, but you never hear people moan about empty seats there.

There's absolutely no problem with having a few empty seats, providing the stadium is designed adequately and tickets are sold in a logical manner.

Given we already sell 40k out despite several thousand obstructed and restricted views, there's no reason we shouldn't be looking at 55k as an absolute minimum.

We were short-sighted when building the Park End. I really hope we don't repeat that mistake.

Yes.

From a business point of view being sold out every week shows that you don't have enough capacity to meet your potential income levels. Obviously there's a balance between being able to hold peak demand and ensuring the average attendance supports the forecasts re the costs of the stadium. But I think it should be normal to get 60,000 for the derby but 50,000 for Hull, for example.

March 24, 2017, 12:35:06 PM
Reply #40
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Security Package
The proposed security package comprises:
 EFC opening two bank accounts in EFC’s name, but charged in favour of the LCC SPV.
 The first account (Cash Flow Account) will be used as security for the payment of the rent in the Occupational Lease by EFC. All season ticket revenue, hospitality fees and naming rights income will be credited to this account. EFC are only entitled to access and use the funds once the rent for the forthcoming year has been paid. It is proposed if EFC is relegated from the Premier League and for as long as EFC are not in the Premier League, they will be required to credit a significant sum of the season ticket revenue (excluding hospitality membership fees and naming rights income) to this account.
 The second account (Rent Deposit Account) will be used as security for performance of EFC’s obligations under the Occupational Lease. EFC will be required to make annual payments to the Rent Deposit Account for the first five years of the term of the lease. All interest which accrues on the deposit remain in the account. If EFC is relegated, then they will be required to top up the Rent Deposit Account using parachute payments paid by the Premier League.


Hmm not sure how I feel about that. They saying that we pay the rent before wages which I know will need to be done anyway, I Just hope we can afford it all!!

Other than the completely illogical hope that someone would have just given us over 300m then we'd have had to take some sort of loan / mortgage.

That would always have security over assets / income streams.

In the event of the financial issues the Council isn't likely to take action that would potentially put us out of business for all the political reasons etc. This is I would assume a lot safer than a purely financial institution who may just take the quickest option (e.g. sell all the players).

March 24, 2017, 02:06:56 PM
Reply #41
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Upkeep will also tend to be more expensive. Looking at the financial statements, the club made 17.6 million from gate receipts last season and if I counted correctly there were 23 home matches. That's about 765.000 pounds per match. If ticket prices stay the same, an extra 20k normal seats would increase income by 50%, or about 9 million. So the difference between a 50k and 60k stadium would be maybe 5 million per year. That has to be offset by the rising costs. For instance Emirates (which has a capacity of 60k) cost 400 million just for the stadium, total development was almost 500 million.

So it would either mean increased yearly payments or cutting corners and building cheaper.

Yes.

So if not in the actual build then there must be the option to (relatively) easily expand.

I'm just conscious of the fact that we're already behind (taking into account planned expansions etc) the teams above us in the table and Newcastle and West Ham.

50,000 would only be just above Sunderland.

It seems a question of where we're positioning ourselves. I don't think being restricted to 11,000 behind Spurs, 10,000 behind West Ham would be ideal.

Of course City and L'pool are behind hem but they have the flexibility to match that should they wish.

March 28, 2017, 07:58:27 PM
Reply #42
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Meis in town...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BSLidgUjZTu/

Only a couple of buildings where that could have been taken from... ;)


March 29, 2017, 08:35:53 PM
Reply #43
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
How do people think this design consultation with fans will work?



Can only think big things like whether it's a bowl would be taken into consideration.

All the other stuff is neither here nor there really.

March 29, 2017, 10:53:16 PM
Reply #44
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
I do like the fans forum, and I think the new design should probably stay with them, and not be passed out to the masses like the badge did.

There's the bit of me that thinks....we've hired someone to design the stadium....can we not just let him do it?
You will never make sure everyone is happy.

Meis seems like he's getting involved in all things Everton, he's going about it the right way, it seems like he's already consulting with fans in his own way.

I don't really see the point in doing something similar to the badge. The original badge design was shit, and that's because the original people hired were not good enough, they clearly had very little background knowledge of the club (which lead to the backlash), Meis isn't falling for that mistake, just one look at his twitter ot instagram will show you that.

It's a bit like the brexit referendum, why ask everyone?? We put you there to make the decision for us!


Yeah I think it's a fair point.

As with the badge there'll be people with "alternatives" that are being ignored.

Obviously it's a lot easier to knock up a crest than design a ground so it won't be quite as ubiquitous but I think it does increase the risk of people getting annoyed at not being listened too.

One point would be what the stands behind the goal should be like.

There's quite a lot of support for huge, one tiered stand.

Yet one of the key characteristics of GP is that due to the tiered nature of 3 of the stands, most seats feel close to the pitch (Moshiri has noted this).

You won't be close to the pitch at the back of a 20,000 capacity stand for example.

That's just one example of potential to get bogged down in arguments.

As you say, if the noises from the people who will decide were seemingly completely at odds with what would seem to be common view points then it would be worrying.

However Moshiri and Meis in particular seem to be very attentive to what people are saying and appreciating the new environment and the benefits of the old.