Louis Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/ju...n-stadium-share Liverpool and Everton must share a new stadium if they are to thrive in future, the leader of Liverpool City Council has said. If they do not, the city will not be included within England's 2018 World Cup bid because "Anfield and Goodison Park do not fit Fifa's criteria". Warren Bradley, also head of the city's 2018 bid committee, has brought the groundshare debate to the fore again after Liverpool's accounts showed the club lost £42.6m last year. Bradley, who says he has "seen the books of both clubs", told The Observer: "We've got to do something if we are serious about being a bidding city for the World Cup. I don't want to see everything migrate down the M62 to Manchester where there are two fabulous stadiums," he said, refering to Old Trafford and Eastlands. "There is a need for a 60,000 fit-for-purpose, 21st-century stadium in Liverpool. It would cost around £300m. Sure, we still have the tribalistic supporters in the city who would say, 'I won't sit in it after a Liverpudlian or Evertonian has.' But that's not the argument, is it? I don't see any reason why it can't work – it does so across the southern hemisphere, and in Germany, Italy and America." The prospective stadium would be situated between the two clubs on Stanley Park, where Liverpool have said they would like to build their own new ground. Both clubs are dismissive of Bradley's claims, but Bradley is confident he has support across Liverpool. "What I've said is absolutely right and is now being amplified in the city in business, at the clubs privately, and with the supporters. When you speak privately to different people at the clubs – at director level – they tell you what they think, but will never publicly go on record. "There is a groundswell of support now that it is the only way forward for both football clubs." Bradley's views are backed by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, a major stakeholder in the city's bid, which said: "The Agency was supportive of the idea of a groundshare between Liverpool and Everton due to the economic sense this made. However, we accept that any decision has always been a matter for the two clubs." Bradley accepts that they must be on board, but believes that there is now no other choice. "We recognise the Fifa criteria that both clubs must have 40,000-plus seats available to the paying public that doesn't include VIPs. I don't believe either club is in a position to satisfy that criteria, so therefore something needs to be done quickly." Goodison Park is definitely too small, while Anfield's capacity of 45,000-plus may also fall short of requirements. The struggle of Liverpool owners Bill Hicks and George Gillet to refinance their £350m debt facility by the end of next month would seem to threaten the club's plans to build its own stadium on Stanley Park. Liverpool declined to comment, but it is understood they maintain it is business as usual. Everton, meanwhile, will find out by the autumn if their proposed controversial move outside the city to a new stadium at Kirkby – in partnership with Tesco – will be agreed by the government. Bradley is sceptical. "The longer it goes on the less likelihood it can be delivered financially by the club. I firmly believe Everton is taking the wrong step by moving out of the city," he said. "This is raw economics. I've had a season ticket at Everton for 30 years, so this is not about which way the wind is blowing. "I firmly believe the economic viability of both clubs, not only in the present climate, but, in the future, has got to be the ability to invest on the field, not in hard infrastructure. Having looked at the books of both clubs, at the moment about 70% of the bottom line goes to hard infrastructure. If they shared a stadium they could cut that down to about 30 to 35 per cent and the rest could go on footballers." While Liverpool would not comment on the record, Everton spokesman Ian Ross was explicit in voicing the club's anger at Bradley. "Yes, the Everton directors have one view and that view is that we should push ahead with the destination project. For Warren Bradley to suggest that the directors have one view and that is [to have] a shared stadium is the usual utter nonsense. "We have spent nearly three years working on destination Kirkby and are giving absolutely no consideration to any other scheme. Perhaps councillor Bradley should have fought somewhat harder to keep Everton inside the Liverpool city boundary if he is that intent on a joint stadium. "We would have welcomed more help from our city council – that never happened, which is why we pursued Kirkby. For councillor Bradley to now claim there is a weight of opinion to suggest we should now have a joint stadium would appear to be opportunism of the first order." Bradley said he will chair a meeting over the coming fortnight of the stakeholders involved in the city's bid to be part of England 2018. It will include the directors of Liverpool and Everton and the idea of a joint stadium is bound to be discussed ahead of the first visit to the city by the 2018 committee next month. By then Liverpool's financial situation may also be clearer. If RBS, one of the two main creditors, does not wish to refinance its part of the debt the bank could countenance actually running the club itself. As the credit crisis has made the government and taxpayer a sizeable owner of RBS this would be unprecedented in English football and would have major implications for the Premier League as a global brand. The Premier League was unavailable for comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest efctaxi Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 The only way I would like that is if the Derbies were split right down the middle in allocation , which if I remember correctly , it would't be . I couldn't care less about the World Cup to be honest , and doubt England will host it again for some time . Will Liverpool even be around in 2018 ? If City or Everton get into the top 4 next season , and they don't , we might be a 1 club city by 2011 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted June 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 All this Liverpool debt nonsense is just that, RBS will renew the loan. At the end of the day Liverpool fans are willing to pay to keep the loan payments up to date, the government own RBS and RBS will want their £35m per annum to keep coming in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 id still be happy for this to go ahead, but it would have to be a brilliant stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest efctaxi Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Daft hypothetical question . ( yes , Louis mentioned something ). If we did do a ground share , and either club hit financial issues , how would that affect the situation ? Liverpool are in huge debt . Would that debt then affect us ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 im sure a separate holdings company would be set up for the stadium, possibly stanley park stadiums ltd, everton football club limited and liverpool football club limited would probably rent the stadium from that company. or maybe both clubs would have 50/50 shares in the holding company. i think either way we wouldnt get burdened with their debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted June 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Pretty much what SteveO has said.. a new holding company would be formed. Shares would be divided between Everton, Liverpool, an events company and Liverpool council. In Germany, 1860 and Bayern share the Alliance arena, 1860 had problems and sold their share of the stadium to keep the club solvent with clauses attached so that 1860 could buy it back at the same price plus interest. Stadium naming rights would be sold to the holding company and put towards construction costs. NWDA are willing to throw a few quid at it European Union funding too FIFA would too if it was part of 2018 bid. It's probably the cheapest option (even cheaper than Goodison refurb) when all is said and done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Pretty much what SteveO has said.. a new holding company would be formed. Shares would be divided between Everton, Liverpool, an events company and Liverpool council. In Germany, 1860 and Bayern share the Alliance arena, 1860 had problems and sold their share of the stadium to keep the club solvent with clauses attached so that 1860 could buy it back at the same price plus interest. Stadium naming rights would be sold to the holding company and put towards construction costs. NWDA are willing to throw a few quid at it European Union funding too FIFA would too if it was part of 2018 bid. It's probably the cheapest option (even cheaper than Goodison refurb) when all is said and done. There is no way FIFA would chip in and it wouldnt be the cheapest option, I still think that would be Kirkby, but I would still prefer a shared stadium than to move out of the City Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest efctaxi Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 How would we fill a 60 thousand stadium though ? The atmosphere would be pants unless we allowed a larger allocation of away support to every game . How would we stand on this ? Would there be police objection and FA rules preventing it ? And derby days .... Wouldn't it be great to have a full stadium half and half ? It wouldn't happen though would it . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted June 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 There is no way FIFA would chip in and it wouldnt be the cheapest option, I still think that would be Kirkby, but I would still prefer a shared stadium than to move out of the City Why wouldn't they? They are spending £640million in South Africa for 2010. How would we fill a 60 thousand stadium though ? Personally, I think if the prices were lower it would sell out providing the stadium was in an accessible place. The atmosphere would be pants unless we allowed a larger allocation of away support to every game . How would we stand on this ? Would there be police objection and FA rules preventing it ? The rules are currently fixed at 3,000 for league and 15% of capacity for domestic cup. And derby days .... Wouldn't it be great to have a full stadium half and half ? It wouldn't happen though would it . Nope.. against the rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy the blue Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 How would we fill a 60 thousand stadium though ? The atmosphere would be pants unless we allowed a larger allocation of away support to every game . How would we stand on this ? Would there be police objection and FA rules preventing it ? And derby days .... Wouldn't it be great to have a full stadium half and half ? It wouldn't happen though would it . I bet you didn't expect me in tonight IMO Steve has it right, we used to get 70,000 plus years ago, those days could return if parts of the ground had vastly reduced prices thus making the product more widely available to the poorer supporter. It would have to be the case that in the event of derbies the home team should get the highest ratio of tickets with a 50/50 split for cup games and the like, it works well in other places so why not Liverpool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DangerMouse Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 I honestly dont think we would have to make it cheaper... people DO NOT & WILL NOT go to Goodison because of the poor facilities..... I know several family members & mates with families that just wont go because of restricted views and poor services..... Success is a major part Im all for a shared stadium and wouldnt mind to much if it went ahead..... I see more "enthusiasm" for this though from fans not wanting us to go to Kirkby...... I can just imagine the groups being set up if this actually got off the ground Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted June 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 It's divisive but there's no real argument against it, is there? People simply say they'd prefer not to, Peter Reid said "there would be blood on the streets" but acknowledges it makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest efctaxi Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 For starters , it would need 2 very important stands , which would be impossible for them to have any hallowed ground status surrounding either club . No more Kop . No more Gwladys street end . ( some might prefer that ) . I can see graffiti being another problem . What colour would the seats be ? No way would either team be happy sat in a blue or red seat if that was not their colour . Season ticket holders might argue that they are now paying for a seat that is used every other week by someone else , and should there be graffiti etc , would they want to sit there ? Where would the ground be ? Built on one of the old grounds , and the other used as a car park ? Hmmmmmm Away supporters stands . Would either team be happy sitting in there in their own stadium ? There could be lots of arguments against if people wanted to find them , regardless of how petty . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) For starters , it would need 2 very important stands , which would be impossible for them to have any hallowed ground status surrounding either club . Which bits are hallowed ground status now??? You could still have your Shankly Gates at one end and the Dixie Dean statue at the other No more Kop . No more Gwladys street end . ( some might prefer that ) . I can see graffiti being another problem . Why? if its not a problem now? What colour would the seats be ? No way would either team be happy sat in a blue or red seat if that was not their colour The tecnology is there to change the colour of the seats at a flick of a switch. Season ticket holders might argue that they are now paying for a seat that is used every other week by someone else , and should there be graffiti etc , would they want to sit there ? Another argument for why there would be no grafiti, why would you vandalise your own seat?? Where would the ground be ? Hopefully within the City boundaries! Could easily build it in Stanley Park where the Shite current plans are for Built on one of the old grounds , and the other used as a car park ? Hmmmmmm Wouldnt have 2 see above Away supporters stands . Would either team be happy sitting in there in their own stadium ? Why not? But if you dont like it buy a ticket for the home end! There could be lots of arguments against if people wanted to find them , regardless of how petty . Edited June 8, 2009 by duncanmckenzieismagic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest efctaxi Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 I see I forgot to press the tongue in cheek button Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowensda Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 I see I forgot to press the tongue in cheek button Oooo you're a cheeky boy Tax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 as above, pretty much. the ground could be white, with blue and red lighting for the home team. two massive end stands, a kop and a gwladys. it would be iconic. could even have a bullens and a centenary stand to give each club a bit more "home" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubecula Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 While Liverpool would not comment on the record, Everton spokesman Ian Ross was explicit in voicing the club's anger at Bradley. "Yes, the Everton directors have one view and that view is that we should push ahead with the destination project. For Warren Bradley to suggest that the directors have one view and that is [to have] a shared stadium is the usual utter nonsense. "We have spent nearly three years working on destination Kirkby and are giving absolutely no consideration to any other scheme. Perhaps councillor Bradley should have fought somewhat harder to keep Everton inside the Liverpool city boundary if he is that intent on a joint stadium. While I personally think Bradley should take a long walk on a short pier, I am also a little disappointed with Ian Ross here. Is he saying the club directors are totally blinkered and can see nothing that is not already fed to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.