The views below are submitted by registered users of evertonfc.com and do not necessarily reflect the views of Everton Football Club. View the Blueroom acceptable usage policy.

'Everton 'can't compete without new stadium'
  • sambo applecart
    Posts: 24,216
    IhateRS said:


    sambo applecart said:

    sky money is propping the game up at the end of the day, theres more money in having a game on tv than there is going to watch it at the ground, and we all know where most of the tv money goes dont we......


    -----------------



    True, but the wages for players would have to drop if the money to pay them wasn't there. Sky is currently providing the money that is saving football from the mess that Sky's money has made in the first place.



    Yes mate i agree, if theres 1billion in the sky kitty for tv rights every season, that IMO should be split evenly between all the 20 clubs in the premier league, But its not, and thats the exact reason it benefits sky for the likes of manu to be at the top of the tree so to speak cos they generate the most cash.

    And then you end up with bent referees, b'cos to keep these teams there, yes it takes good management from the club and to have good players, but how many times a season do you see games where 'strange' decisions go the way of the top sides?? Cos the system is bent and corrupt imo, and anyone can be bought if its beneficial for certain teams to be at the top of the league.

    Call we a conspiracy theorist or whatever you like, but there will be more going on than we ever see with regards football, the refs will be getting perks here there and everywhere from alsorts of quarters imo to keep them sweet.

    You can believe it  if you like, but thats how i see things.
  • AllAroundMyHat
    Posts: 772
    im with IhateRS. Why get a new stadium when we arent even close to filling our current one
  • sambo applecart
    Posts: 24,216
    because a new stadium brings in new revenue mate :)
  • 11blue
    Posts: 4,669
    I think that Trevor Birth is spot on to be honest.
  • IhateRS
    Posts: 1,091
    sambo applecart said:

    because a new stadium brings in new revenue mate :)


    -----------------



    How?
  • sambo applecart
    Posts: 24,216
    IhateRS said:

    sambo applecart said:

    because a new stadium brings in new revenue mate :)


    -----------------



    How?




    The stadium can be used fore more than just football for starters, the corporate side to things can be expanded, i dont know everything, but these are just 2 examples to start with........stadium naming rights is another, fresh sponsorship etc theres another couple, you'd be surprised mate how different it would be tbh :)
  • OldGoldenVision
    Posts: 19,509
    To be honest, I think LCC would object to the additional uses as it would detract from their nice little Kings Dock scheme.

    Also the problem of the RS being so near, which would mean problems in competing for those revenue streams.

    A multi purpose sports stadium (for athletics as well) shared with the RS is to me the only viable way of creating something that LCC would have to give serious consideration too. 

    A shared stadium would hopefully be bigger and that would pave the way for larger events that the echo couldnt cater for.
  • Beano
    Posts: 3,273
    As much financial/economic sense as it makes for Everton & Liverpool to share a stadium, it does have it's disadvantages.

    How do you sell the naming rights? Do you change the name of the stadium every week? If both clubs are in on the same deal, how do you split the dosh when Liverpool cry that they're the big attraction for the advertiser who has bought the name?

    How do we keep our identity? When people hear mention of the Allianz Arena, nobody thinks of 1860 Munich - just Bayren Munich. In the past when people heard mention of the Stadio delle Alpi, nobody thought of Turino. Just Juventus.

    Attendances? Liverpool probably want to build a 75,000 seater stadium. we only need a 55,000 seater. Firstly, why should we pay half the extra cost for the extra capacity we woun't use and secondly, how are we gonna look playing in a stadium that on our current attendances would be only half full? Even if we get attendances up to 50,000, only two-thirds full. How are we supposed to create an intimidating atmosphere in games to make any sort of home advantage for ourselves.
  • OldGoldenVision
    Posts: 19,509
    All good points Beano.

    For me, I accept that Liverpool are a bigger draw than us and that any funding agreement would have to reflect that, by way of more cost/reward being carried by them.

    The seating could be arranged so that perhaps we dont sell out the top tier of seats - condense the fans. There would still be a good turnout and the noise would be generated.

    I do wonder whether the RS would actually be as ambitious as that in their plans? The talk is 60-72k. I think they would be a bit more conservative than the 72k
  • ToffeeCup
    Posts: 2,959

    Some interesting points regarding size and requirement. But any investment in a new stadium would, you'd imagine, come with things that would make those issues disappear.


    Paul Dickov was playing for Citeh in 2008.  In 2011 Sergio Aguero signed a boot sponsorship deal that in ranked third in the world behind Messi and Ronaldo. Its even bigger than Rooney's deal. And lets not beat around the bush, the idea of Liverpool attracting that calibre of player is pretty improbable now. But it was very likely when Gerrard was at his height of his powers and Dickov was wearing sky blue.



    Its probably fair to say that investment can change everything. Or at the very least, investment of the sort required to build stadiums, either in part, whole or redevelopment, certainly does change everything.


    Stadiums to time to build, but you guess there there is an awful lot more demand to watch City in 2011 than there was three years previously when you may have be treated to Paul Dickov in full flow.

    Its a fickle industry these days, and clubs seem to be able to turn from giants to small clubs and vice versa in the passing of a few years.




  • cjohno
    Posts: 5,123
    the shoite will hit the fan soon, just wait for the likes of man utd, the rs, chelski not agreeing to a tv deal with sky, fergies already hinted about the tv dictating to much to clubs regarding fixtures, the yanks want there own tv revenue as they do in the states, the money utd and the rs will make from global tv sales, will make the sky money miniscule in comparrison, sky will not offer the same deal with the prem league without the bigger clubs in it . baton down the hatches were all doomed doomed doomed :-))
  • Sheltieforce
    Posts: 435
    Snowcone said:

    ToffeeCup said:


    Its a big priority. Any investor would bring investment on the pitch. I suspect that Mr Mancini isn't having the same trouble Mr Wenger is with attendances.

    But the corporate side is huge too financially. And on that front Everton are just miles behind.


    These BU shower won't want to hear it.

    But currently, the biggest thing Everton has going for it in terms of finding a top notch investor is the opportunity to build an absolute show stopping, world class stadium with Liverpool sharing the costs.


    -----------------



    Fully agree but when you have people who refuse to drive a red car, or eat tomatoes etc. Its gonna be hard to win  them over. It is the only sensible option for both clubs at the moment. When you think about it, the average football fan is really rather stupid.

    -----------------


    f st
    A good point well made , but your forgetting where wools !! Who just cant comprehend the local level of stupidity on both sides :-D
    If its good enough for Milan ,, imagine 80 thousand on derby day and the the manc pair , the north east mob and the cockney crew
    Plenty of big attendances 50 plus , just opening certain tiers and the like
  • 11blue
    Posts: 4,669
    We need a new stadium for many reasons, and investment is one of them.
  • Knoxy2001e
    Posts: 1,424
    I think the best way forward for clubs like us is to quite the epl and form a breakaway league with the f.a.

    the epl is responsible for the mess that british football is in, and the fact that only 4 clubs have ever won the epl is an indication that as a competition its a joke. its all about money.
  • Jayee019
    Posts: 902
    Also people are forgetting that according to BK and the books it is costing Everton £20 million per year to run goodison. One of the most expensive stadiums to run. With that in mind a new stadium would leviate a lot of these costs. There are a hella lot of obstructed view in GP where as the Emerates has none.

    New and modern design can introduce better facilities to reduce running cost, improve sustainability etc. but it is that initial out lay that is a problem.

    I still have no idea where this 300 - 400 million came from. You look around the world. Juventus has a brand new stadium Yes only 43000 seater (but most watch ther TV channel as all there games are live.) that stadium was more designed for retail and execitive use as the actual fans that go is slowly decreasing. But it only cost just over £100 million.

    Whould you have that stadium? i would snap it up in a jiffy. The schalke stadium Nearly 50,000 seats and only £120 million. Working it out $00 million would be for a nou camp style stadium with nearly 200,000 seats. (well just messing with that thought.
  • Knoxy2001e
    Posts: 1,424
    that lot next door have similar problems...

    http://tinyurl.com/36c345g

    "Rafael Benítez, and Gérard Houllier before him, frequently complained about the expectation to deliver a first league title since 1990 on such an uneven playing field.... In the financial year 2008-09, Liverpool earned £42m from gate and match-day income. Manchester United generated £109m and Arsenal £100m in the same period."

    a shared stadium is the only one that makes any financial sense.

    on a related topic, that lot next door seem to have more problems on the horizon...


    Tom Hicks and George Gillett continue to seek Liverpool damages

    • Former owners claiming hundreds of millions in damages
    • Almost one year since Hicks and Gillett were ousted from club

    Friday 30 September 2011

    "Liverpool's former owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett are still seeking damages from the club's present owners, former directors and the Royal Bank of Scotland, almost one year after New England Sports Ventures gained control of the Anfield club in the high court."

  • 11blue
    Posts: 4,669
    A shared stadium would be an alternative for both teams. In an ideal world I would prefer to have a stadium that EFC could call their own, but we can't have a stadium of our own I would go along with a shared stadium. We desperately need a new stadium, for more reasons than one. 
Add a Comment

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Forum

Poll

No poll attached to this discussion.

In this Discussion