February 17, 2019, 05:26:27 PM

Author Topic: [News]Bramley Moore Dock update  (Read 363458 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

December 21, 2018, 12:28:25 AM
Reply #60
Offline

Ross


Because 10k empty seats wont help us catch the clubs above us either.
Stadium generated income is less and less relevant nowadays anyway.

make no mistake, they will have crunched the fuck out of the numbers and 52k will have come out as the number that maximises - to the penny - our profitibility.

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.




There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.


December 21, 2018, 01:35:54 AM
Reply #61
Offline

Ross


I've been told by someone pretty close to this that once you go over 52k, the costs increase exponentially. Not just on a structural level with the stadium, but the work (and negotiations with eg HE) needed to be done to disperse 52k becomes much more difficult too.

It's a case of a 52k seater there or having to do it elsewhere. The club think the profile of that site is worth it. Though for what it's worth, I'm told there's an opportunity to increase capacity a bit with safe standing.

Those problems with EH and crowd dispersal arenít going to go away in the future though are they. In fact if the area gets developed like Peel having been saying gaining planning permission to increase the capacity in the future will only be tougher.

Wolves plans have been in place for at least a decade and are actually overdue thanks to their previous relegation. The stadium is done while they are a Premier League club. Development stops when they are relegated.

They have the benefit of being a one club town too.

Well letís be honest we donít realistically have to worry about dropping out the league given our record so that shouldnít be a factor for us.

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.

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.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 01:37:18 AM by Ross »
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.

December 21, 2018, 02:07:13 AM
Reply #62
Offline

Ross


 :cheers:
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.

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.
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.


December 21, 2018, 02:17:27 AM
Reply #63
Offline

Ross


You donít catch people up by putting in more seats my mate.

More seats might be needed if we catch up.

Perceptions key.

You canít go round telling everybody you want to be challenging the big boys when your building a stadium thatís only pulling you on par with mid table rivals or ambitions upstarts.

And again why not plan to be successful? Why just accept what we are now? What weíre capable of now?
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.

December 21, 2018, 04:25:08 AM
Reply #64
Offline

Ross


Oh again, no way did I mean to like that, meant to say you are so deluded itís embarrassing.

Whatís actually ďdeludedĒ or ďembarrassingĒ sausage fingers?

Wonít we have the same capacity as Man City near enough, and the shite, oh and more than Chelsea.



All of which are looking to expand though arenít they? City looking to expand, Shite looking to expand and Chelsea looking to expand, and both City and the shite already have bigger capacities now than we actually would if this happens.


« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 04:35:57 AM by Ross »
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.

December 21, 2018, 04:52:18 AM
Reply #65
Offline

Ross


And we will be expanding should the demand be there.

Iíll give you the options here and tell me what you would rather want.

1. Expanding on your original ground because the owners promise of a new state of the art stadium fell through. In twenty to thirty years time Anfield will be very dated.

2. Have a glorified athletics stadium as your ground that you struggle to fill at the best of times.

3. Become the first club from outside of London in absolute years to build a new, state of the art, purpose built football ground that will be up to date with the modern age, in a location that can become one of the most desirable places in Europe should all the developments come to pass.

I know what Iíd rather have. A 56k seater, 120 year old ground in breck road, an athletics stadium that we struggle to fill, or a brand new ground on the edge of the city centre, ready to kick Everton into the modern age.

No brainer. When this is built weíll be the envy of a lot of people.


On the recent survey (I canít remember the exact question or options) but how did you vote when asked this?

I also really doubt the likes of Utd, Spurs, Arsenal, City or a few others will cast an envious look our way if itís 52k to be honest. They might admire its shiny new facade but much like Iím nonplused about how good Spurs new stadium will be it hardly be of consequence until the money starts rolling in. The most important point here isnít the ascetics itís the capability to generate revenue and to stop being left behind.
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.


December 21, 2018, 05:01:29 AM
Reply #66
Offline

Ross


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.

It was a £60m difference in turnover between us and Spurs and that was the year Bale joined RM for £85m I believe.
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.

December 21, 2018, 05:29:08 AM
Reply #67
Offline

Ross


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.

Forgive me I got the financial year wrong. That 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 would have clearly boosted Spurs turnover for that year.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 05:31:23 AM by Ross »
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.

December 21, 2018, 05:56:31 AM
Reply #68
Offline

Ross


I'm well aware of the difference between profit and turnover. Your 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.

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.
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.

December 21, 2018, 07:29:13 AM
Reply #69
Offline

Ross


Love the ambition. Really do. But youíre Not having perspective here mate.

You want us to be catching the likes of city spurs and arsenal all in one shot.

Sometimes the business mind has to win over the sporting heart. Maybe we will stretch ourselves to thin if we go to 62k right away? Lots of factors at work here

Yeah but Iíve never stated it should be anything like 62k BN.

As for saying Iím being over ambitious here all I can say is this sort of figure would only be 1500 more seats than DKís planned capacity, and we all know how people hated that for being ďsmall timeĒ (amongst other things).

No, you're right, it's kick it down the road.

Fact remains that it's not currently affordable for us to build a substantially larger stadium on that particular site.

The merits of a 52k seater on the docks vs a 55k or a 60k seater elsewhere is a different argument.


Thatís the crux isnít it, forget everything else.


« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 07:37:12 AM by Ross »
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.

December 21, 2018, 07:26:24 PM
Reply #70
Offline

Ross


Would it be 'brave' for us to look to bridge that gap by charging £1000+ for a season ticket like Spurs do?  Surely us only charging £450 is us fearing ambition because if we believed in ourselves then our stand would pay.

If 52k was the max then it would lack ambition.  52k with plans and designs in place to increase to 62k 'if demand requires it' isn't small time at all, it's just being smart.

Your being very naive if you think the price of a season ticket at BMD will be the same price as a season ticket at Goodison, be it 52k capacity 55, 58 or 60+.

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.

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

If we're going to have a proper comparison with Spurs, can someone look at increasing the capacity of Merseyside to match the London population?

Thanks.

Obviously London will be significantly higher as it no doubt always has been. But itís not really relevant because our supporter base isnít exclusive to Liverpool.

So if we want to grow as a football club we need to realise that simply marketing ourselves to the Liverpool area and ignoring the market beyond will see us fall further down the pecking order than we currently are.

There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.

February 12, 2019, 11:07:08 PM
Reply #71
Offline

Ross


How did only just over 20,000 people respond?

They held these events on match days, in the city centre and at other popular local locations, as well as it being open to anybody with an interest online through the website with 2 minutes to spare.

Itís only just over half of the average weekly attendance.

Are people that apathetic about this? Seems bizarre that so few people bothered to have their say on this.
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.

February 12, 2019, 11:32:11 PM
Reply #72
Offline

Ross


Would have hoped people would have done this for their kids online if they couldn't get to an event.

Its a big number but crazy that they had just over 10k responses to the 11 principles survey and 20k to this

We got more people signing a petition to change the badge ffs.

Iíd like to know how many took part in those online design questionnaires for the redesign.
There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.