Jackal wrote: Right, so it's a new disability section. Nothing else is needed so.

Are you being deliberately dense, or does it come naturally?

The point Jakal, Hetfield, myself and others are making is that this "a nicer stadium will let us compete" stuff is nonsense. You used City as an example, it's the billions that went alongside that which made them compete, not the stadium. It's a step in the right direction for sure, but Everton will still be mid table with the new stadium. 

West Ham, Brighton and Southampton all have nice modern stadiums, so do Sunderland, Huddersfield, Brighton, Bolton, Derby, Middlesborough, they don't all end up like Man City or Leicester. 

Nowhere did I state that a "nicer" (bigger and more modern, actually) new stadium will guarantee success.

As I made crystal clear, there are a whole number of factors which need to be in place before a club can hope to compete at its proper level. But one of those factors is financial clout, and it is increasingly clear that even if you possess all the other factors, if you still lack the necessary finance, then you cannot hope to keep up long term.

Which brings us back to Everton. It doesn't matter if Moshiri and Ancelotti have all the personal qualities and experience needed to revive the club, since FFP now means that they can't also plunge Moshiri's millions into better, more expensive players.

Which is why nearly two decades after Kenwright identified the need to move from Goodison, but couldn't find an acceptable location, his successor Moshiri has made it a top priority to find a new stadium which will in part contribute towards closing the (growing) financial gap between themselves and the likes of Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs and Man City.

Worse still, even if Everton can afford the transfer fee and wages for a potential signing who fancies playing in the PL, what impression does it give when he looks at the state of Goodison vs. the other shiny big stadia in the PL? Lack of real ambition, that's what.

Shedite wrote: West Ham, Brighton and Southampton all have nice modern stadiums, so do Sunderland, Huddersfield, Brighton, Bolton, Derby, Middlesborough, they don't all end up like Man City or Leicester.

WHU do NOT have a "nice" stadium, nor did they move in order to improve the club's playing prospects, they moved solely to improve the owners' bank balance.

Bolton, Sunderland and Derby have been horribly mismanaged for years now, with the stadium having nothing to do with their decline.

Neither Brighton or Soton have anything like the history and potential of Everton, but are actually doing all right in their new stadia - or what level do you think they should be at?

And Boro's move to the Riverside 25 years ago came after a long run in the second tier at Ayresome, (plus a brief drop down into the third tier where they'd only ever been for a single season previously).

Yet upon moving, they achieved promotion to the Prem, where they managed to spend 13 out of the next 14 seasons, during which time they expanded the stadium twice. Of course, the key factor in that was actually the takeover by Steve Gibson, one of the cleverest owners in football, but the stadium move was his vision in the first place!

Jackal wrote: Bolton have an awful kip of a place. They play miles out from Bolton too.

True, but I don't see how a club with ideas above their station (Wanderers), moving miles away to a kip in Horwich from a stadium which was probably big enough for their needs, equates to Everton moving to a stadium nearby in central Liverpool which will provide much needed extra capacity and revenues.

Which comes back to my essential point, which is that just as a new stadium doesn't automatically bring success (as with Leicester), neither does it automatically bring disaster (eg WHU).

Rather you need to move to the right stadium in the right location and for the right reasons.

And the Board, Management and (most importantly) supporters of Everton reckon their club are on the right lines with Kings Dock.

Time will tell, of course, but I'm not going to gainsay them in the meantime.

Borussia wrote: It seems strange as they don't always fill the capacity that they currently have

Not always, but sometimes.

In any case, they're probably looking to build up support over the long term - such projects typically have a "shelf life" of 25 to 50 years.

And if a club find they're turning new people away from the big games eg in the PL, then those same people are unlikely to settle for eg a midweek League Cup game against a League One side instead.

But if you get as many in as possible for the big games, some become converted into regulars for the lesser games

The fella in Dublin would probably have heard the ads City used to have on Irish radio pre-covid advertising tickets for their games.