Ground Share?

[nogs]

So come on - Kirkby is dead, we're all broadly happy about that, but let's face the facts, we're back to square one with a ground that is too far gone to redevelop, that is not capable of producing enough match day revenue for us to compete with other clubs that have built/redeveloped stadiums, and which is arguably a main reason why we're unable to attract investment. Elstone has apparently now suggested we would consider a joint stadium scheme with Liverpool. Without any other options on the table, can we seriously afford to dismiss it based on not liking the red shite very much?

 

Liverpool is putting in its World Cup 2018 bid today - I don't know what's in it, but I imagine it will get laughed out the room at the moment given the fact that no one knows if either of the two football grounds currently in the city will even exist in 2018. It might be too late for the World Cup bid, but isn't it time for the council and the two clubs to sit down and seriously talk about the Stanley Park site anyway? The ares over tit stadium redevelopment plans of both clubs must be making the city a laughing stock all the way from Sunderland to Southampton.

 

I know what the reaction of most of you will be, but we're just been turned over by Hull, our manager looks as if he's ready to pack it in, we've got a casualty list like something out of a Die Hard film, we've failed in yet another stadium plan and right now it's pretty hard to decide who are the bigger bunch of clowns, the team or the directors. We're in danger of proving all the snides who aid it was a fluke we finished in the top 6 three years on the row right, and being relegated (literally maybe?) back to being an also-club. We need to do something drastic, and if sharing an 80,000 stadium with the shite will mean we can attract investment and stay close to where we belong, then I'm up for it.

[Romey 1878]

Could either club really afford their share of the costs right now? Liverpool's finances are looking like shit and ours are hardly looking positive either.

[MikeO]

I'm geographically removed from it so I'm talking without having to deal with the ramifications for supporters locally but I certainly wouldn't be against it. Think if it were in Stanley Park though it would have to be redesigned....we couldn't move into something that was designed specifically for them, would make us seem very much the tenant rather than an equal partner.

 

There's lots of nudge, nudge whispering going on on the net currently about supposed imminent "developments." Could be crap, we'll see.

 

Something needs to happen quickly. Worrying times for me .

[AGENTSMITH]

I wasnt totally against the move away from GP but shes an old ground that is well & truly out of date. I never understood alls these people that kept on saying "hey why build outside Liverpool? There is a spot here or here or here" I dont think they realsied that Everton FC could not afford to build the stadium and only with the help of Tesco's was it ever going to happen. I think those who thought we could go it alone where living in "money grows on trees land"

 

Everton still cant afford a stadium on our own but as luck has it neither can the sh1te since those American blokes are doing such a good job

 

So a shared stadium would be ideal. Just do all the seats white to stop people complaining/crying. The name of the ground wont matter as it'll be sold to the higest bidder for naming rights anyway.

 

Costs cut in half can only be good news for both clubs and help one another compete in the transfer market.

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

So come on - Kirkby is dead, we're all broadly happy about that, but let's face the facts, we're back to square one with a ground that is too far gone to redevelop, that is not capable of producing enough match day revenue for us to compete with other clubs that have built/redeveloped stadiums, and which is arguably a main reason why we're unable to attract investment. Elstone has apparently now suggested we would consider a joint stadium scheme with Liverpool. Without any other options on the table, can we seriously afford to dismiss it based on not liking the red shite very much?

 

Liverpool is putting in its World Cup 2018 bid today - I don't know what's in it, but I imagine it will get laughed out the room at the moment given the fact that no one knows if either of the two football grounds currently in the city will even exist in 2018. It might be too late for the World Cup bid, but isn't it time for the council and the two clubs to sit down and seriously talk about the Stanley Park site anyway? The ares over tit stadium redevelopment plans of both clubs must be making the city a laughing stock all the way from Sunderland to Southampton.

 

I know what the reaction of most of you will be, but we're just been turned over by Hull, our manager looks as if he's ready to pack it in, we've got a casualty list like something out of a Die Hard film, we've failed in yet another stadium plan and right now it's pretty hard to decide who are the bigger bunch of clowns, the team or the directors. We're in danger of proving all the snides who aid it was a fluke we finished in the top 6 three years on the row right, and being relegated (literally maybe?) back to being an also-club. We need to do something drastic, and if sharing an 80,000 stadium with the shite will mean we can attract investment and stay close to where we belong, then I'm up for it.

 

 

 

Well for a start we are not all broadly happy about the decision. The way I see it is although Kirkby was far from an ideal solution it was at least a possible light at the end of the tunnel and now the tunnel has caved in!

 

I would take a shared stadium but I do think the atmosphere will be embarrasingly poor if we can only fill half a stadium and I cant see where the club will come up with the money

 

We would probably be better off approaching Tranmere the way things are going at least that size of stadium may be affordable!

[Lowensda]

You do realise that this decision had been made, a very long time ago. This IS the outcome that the council wanted. Think about these points. The council want to show ambition, they want to show they're capable of competing with some of the biggest cities in the world, so their thinking behind alot of this helped by the proposal of a shared stadium.

 

The shared stadium has been mooted ever since the Kings Docks plans came to light and they're pushing it even to this day. Why was the Kirby plans realy rejected (possibly in favour of a shared stadium), lets looks at the pros for the council, of green lighting the SS.

 

* Losing EFC outside of the city limits will have an immediate effect on revenue.

* A potential new shared stadium would be UEFA 5* rated, which means being included in larger football (and other sporting) competitions etc Champions League, World Cups...but also Rugby games among others.

* LCC could increase the rent of the stadium rationaly higher, as a result of a joint tenure. i.e instead of 1 team paying say 12%, both teams would be paying 7.5% each. (Thats an example people.) Looks a better deal for each team but jointly contributing to more.

* The LCC would be showing the ambition they promised to do after the Capital of Culture had gone.

* We would have a stadium envious of most teams in the country, the LCC would be steaming ahead with the benfits of having an amazing stadium, that could potentially rival Wembley in design (for example)

* The whole surrounding areas could be developed into a huge football village, a place that tourists and other football fans who want to come to England to see the home of football. Tourism alone could be worth soo much a year, look at the San Siro.

* Revenue can be made from other areas including music concerts, festival events, tv events anything they want?

* Having two stadiums would cause traffic issues in two places, so having the joint stadium would allow designers and traffic planners to devise the most convinient, whilst the LCC save money.

* Potential to have new major transport links.

* Huge revenue from naming rights; as the ground would more than likely be owned by the LCC, they can sell to who they like! (highest bidder)

* Housing redevelopment. LCC for years have wanted to redevelop the surrounding areas of Anfield and this could be the catalyst to help that.

 

Ok so there are a few. Its a win win for the council, no question. and as my insiders (one is a housing development officer and the other is on the Merseyside sports council) have told me, plans like these have been on the back burner for a number of years.

 

Anything else will be rejected from the council, why do you think its taken this long for an ansswer?? because the council wanted to drag it out for as long as they can so that EFC and LFC will eventually have to agree. EFC being desperate for a new stadium (income reasons) and LFC to show their own 'ambitions'.

 

I will tell you now, the only time the council will say yes, is when designs for the joint stadium come through. Fact.

 

 

ten.

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

You do realise that this decision had been made, a very long time ago. This IS the outcome that the council wanted. Think about these points. The council want to show ambition, they want to show they're capable of competing with some of the biggest cities in the world, so their thinking behind alot of this helped by the proposal of a shared stadium.

 

The shared stadium has been mooted ever since the Kings Docks plans came to light and they're pushing it even to this day. Why was the Kirby plans realy rejected (possibly in favour of a shared stadium), lets looks at the pros for the council, of green lighting the SS.

 

* Losing EFC outside of the city limits will have an immediate effect on revenue.

* A potential new shared stadium would be UEFA 5* rated, which means being included in larger football (and other sporting) competitions etc Champions League, World Cups...but also Rugby games among others.

* LCC could increase the rent of the stadium rationaly higher, as a result of a joint tenure. i.e instead of 1 team paying say 12%, both teams would be paying 7.5% each. (Thats an example people.) Looks a better deal for each team but jointly contributing to more.

* The LCC would be showing the ambition they promised to do after the Capital of Culture had gone.

* We would have a stadium envious of most teams in the country, the LCC would be steaming ahead with the benfits of having an amazing stadium, that could potentially rival Wembley in design (for example)

* The whole surrounding areas could be developed into a huge football village, a place that tourists and other football fans who want to come to England to see the home of football. Tourism alone could be worth soo much a year, look at the San Siro.

* Revenue can be made from other areas including music concerts, festival events, tv events anything they want?

* Having two stadiums would cause traffic issues in two places, so having the joint stadium would allow designers and traffic planners to devise the most convinient, whilst the LCC save money.

* Potential to have new major transport links.

* Huge revenue from naming rights; as the ground would more than likely be owned by the LCC, they can sell to who they like! (highest bidder)

* Housing redevelopment. LCC for years have wanted to redevelop the surrounding areas of Anfield and this could be the catalyst to help that.

 

Ok so there are a few. Its a win win for the council, no question. and as my insiders (one is a housing development officer and the other is on the Merseyside sports council) have told me, plans like these have been on the back burner for a number of years.

 

Anything else will be rejected from the council, why do you think its taken this long for an ansswer?? because the council wanted to drag it out for as long as they can so that EFC and LFC will eventually have to agree. EFC being desperate for a new stadium (income reasons) and LFC to show their own 'ambitions'.

 

I will tell you now, the only time the council will say yes, is when designs for the joint stadium come through. Fact.

 

 

ten.

 

 

 

All sounds very good except for one small point, the decision had nothing at all to do with Liverpool City Council it was a government decision

 

The super stadium idea does sound exciting but what makes you think that LCC would be prepared to pay for it?

Also if the Counncil owned it and we were only tenants how would that increase the clubs revenue?

[MikeO]

Couple of points out of that ten, one minor, UEFA Five star stadiums don't exist any more, not since 2006. The top rating is "elite" which Kirkby would have been.

 

Second. The decision is nothing to do with Liverpool council so they couldn't have dragged it out even if they'd wanted to. They had their say at the appointed time but it was a government decision overturning a Knowesley decision.

Edited November 26, 2009 by MikeO
Too slow. That's the second time in two days.

[Lowensda]

Ok, apologies boys! Well could LCC be pushing it i.e whispering in the Govs ear? I only said LCC really, because a) it would affect them most and thats where my insiders were

 

Dunc, im sure the Council would have an imput in the short term for results in the long. and economy wise, i dont really understand most stuff, im not gonna lie,= (i recruit volunteers for disabled children so i dont need it lol) so maybe i mis-interperated what they said.

 

 

edit - Kirby would be an Elite!? fuckin'ell, that makes Gresty Road a bloody elit then hahahaha

Edited November 26, 2009 by tenaciousj

[MikeO]

edit - Kirby would be an Elite!? fuckin'ell, that makes Gresty Road a bloody elit then hahahaha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Elite_stadium

[Lowensda]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Elite_stadium

 

I thought you'd given me the shortcut to Crewe's unvailing of Gresty's Elite title

[Matt]

no.

[nogs]

Could either club really afford their share of the costs right now? Liverpool's finances are looking like shit and ours are hardly looking positive either.

 

Who knows? You'd kind of hope two clubs the size of Everton and Liverpool would be able between them to leverage enough investment to get a project like that off the ground.

 

Tenaciousj - Good argument but if Liverpool City Council are thinking like this, why haven't they been pushing the idea in public for years, and putting pressure on both clubs to make it happen? The way i see it they've just been interested in flogging land to the highest bidder whether its football-related or not, and don't really seem to give a shite about either club

[Andy Forsyth]

I don't know the ins and outs of what happened to the demise of Kirkby, all I know is it was rejected and 'quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn' now because it's in the past. However, what I DO know is that financially, it would be better for both clubs to share a ground, atmospheres at derbies will be 20 times more exciting, and the city benefits as a whole. Plus, I'm only 22 but I've been told by many people about what it used to be like, the days of EFC and LFC dominating the leagues and cups, the chants of 'Merseyside'.... Maybe I'm young and deluded, but a return to those days is what I'd love to see. Plus the fact that us united together against the SCUMMY MANCS just makes me get goosebumps! Of course, I'd want Everton to be the dominant team, there's no other team I could and would support. A super stadium shared by the two grounds is too good an opportunity to pass! I'd like to see a stadium like the one in Germany where it lights up in the colours of the team who's playing there.

[Romey 1878]

Ten - If that was the case, why did the council agree to let the shite use Stanley Park all on their own?

[landrews]

I know this as a really emotive issue, but it is common sense to ground share, people just dont like change. But if this club is to ever get back to where it once was (and Liverpool FC for that matter) then I can see this as the only way forward. If it was a choice of grounshare and win the Premiership, or keep Goodison and get relegated then what would you choose............? I know Id be happy to see Everton parade the Championship at a shared stadium, how about you guys ?

Edited November 26, 2009 by fergie's tatoo

[MikeO]

Bit tongue in cheek at times, but an interesting read...

 

Liverpool. Great city, terrible week. It's an interesting time for the Merseyside derby.

 

There was no great escape for the Reds as they stumbled past the might of Debrecen on Tuesday night and then stood in forlorn hope of a late late Lyon goal that might save their bacon. Unfortunately Insua and Skrtel weren't in the Fiorentina line-up so the goal never came.

 

Hansen and Lawro would've been growling about how that's not 'the Liverpool way', but at the moment it's the only way.

 

 

Benitez trotted out a few careworn clichés on the merits of staying positive. But that won't do. The Europa League means diddly to a club of their aspirations. It's like getting up on Easter Sunday in anticipation of a glut of Easter goodies and finding the only thing on offer is a past-its-sell-by-date Crème Egg.

 

Besides they'll have to get past Fulham to do it and you can't see that happening.

Purslow is right behind Rafa, and given that the bloke's just signed a five-year contract, you wouldn't expect him to say owt else.

 

The thing is, Benitez has had this coming. He's got out of jail so many times in Europe. His two great successes with the club were the work of fiction writers with a highly-developed imagination. 3-0 down to Milan, 3-2 down to West Ham, and the No.8 pulls on Stevie's Magic Boots and saves the day. (And even more miraculous, Smicer scores).

 

I'm not saying these triumphs weren't damn exciting - hell that night in Istanbul was probably the most exhilarating club final ever. In fact, if you want to know why Liverpool fans still cling to the Red Rafalution just watch the highlights of that match again.

 

Whatever else the Spaniard does he has given the Koppites an unsurpassable night of bliss. I mean I used to have a recurring dream that I was under a duvet with the Three Degrees but that just pales into insignificance in comparison.

 

The thing is, what does Rafa do now? Torres's hamstring nags away like a 70s sitcom wife and Gerrard is reportedly playing with pain-killing injections (perhaps they could hand out some of them to the fans 'n' all). And now Ryan Babel's been chipping away to the press. I'd ground the adolescent fool.

 

One good strike in 105 appearances and he's bleating to the papers. 'It's too cliquey, they're too greedy'... Get over yourself, son. Benayoun's got more of a case for complaint and he's keeping schtum. So should you.

 

I really don't think they'll get fourth place this season and then where's the money going to come from to fund next year's revival?

 

Bill Kenwright'll tell you. From building a new stadium. Only Everton won't be doing that. And their form's worse than Liverpool's, just about. At the KC and you're three down after half-an-hour? And that was just the number of pints my Bluenose pal had sunk in that time.

 

At least Moyes is not using the injury list as a get-out-of-jail free card. No Arteta makes the Toffees very dull boys. But you can't see a manager of his capabilities holding out for a transfer budget while various Merseyside boroughs come round to Uncle Bill's for canapés and Chianti for another decade.

 

So here's where we're at. Everton fans don't want to move from Goodison, and Kenwright, even with the big Tesco connection (in fact because of the Tesco connection in the latest ruling) can't get his plans through anyway.

 

Liverpool, with Statler and Waldorf loading up the club with debt, and a manager who keeps handing over cows for what he hopes are magic beans, haven't got enough in the coffers to build their new ground either, even though the location is far less unsettling for the fans.

 

Now everyone in the city of Liverpool knows there's a solution. It's as easy to swallow as a porcupine coated in wasabi, but it is a solution. Ground-sharing.

 

There's only a bit of a park between the two grounds anyway. Knock down Anfield, knock down Goodison, build a new stadium directly between the two and you'll have a spanking new ground and twice as much green space for the happy Scouse toddlers everywhere.

 

I know the rivalry's intense - hellfire, Babel's not even allowed to wear his precious blue boots - I mean crikey even Tony Blair got to wear a blue tie once in a while - but let's face it, the real enemy has never been within - they're a short trot down the M62, and what's worse there's two of 'em now.

 

It may seem hard to put aside age-old allegiances and traditions - although from what I can gather there's a whole host of Liverpool greats (Carragher, Fowler, McManaman, Owen) who grew up as Everton fans, so it's not like people can't put these things to one side when they have to, eh? And it's not as if opposing fans will see each other on match days any road.

 

And if you're worried about the state of the pitch then I suggest Everton replace Moyes with Allardyce and then every other week the ball won't get anywhere near the grass.

 

The home ends can be at opposite sides, directors' boxes too, and you know what? If this former European Capital of Culture is to mean something significant, how about years of enmity being put to one side in the names of a celebration of two great names in British football history coming together to share the same piece of green sward in the name of community cohesion, common sense and, let's face it, financial desperation.

 

They do it in Milan. It's not like them two teams have achieved nowt since. It makes sense in every regard except that the people who are most intimately involved are football supporters. Oops! That's logic out the window, then.

 

But the time has come for summat to give, before the Europa Cup truly becomes something worth winning.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/robborobson/2009/11/the_miseryside_derby.html#more

[Louis]

Nothing is decided yet... it's only been a day!

 

What I don't understand is why Goodison is still being touted as a no go zone. It's been proven it can be expanded without reducing capacity from the current 40158, but for some reason the club say it's too expensive.

[Lowensda]

Ten - If that was the case, why did the council agree to let the shite use Stanley Park all on their own?

My only response to that is that when the Yanks took over across the park, they had the ideas and money (at the time) to fund it. The permission was given in favour because it was a larger 'project' than one that EFC could rival, however things have changed and its been made very public that the shite dont have the money. So financial sense and redevelopment issues now rely on ourselves making the move. If the shites cant raise the money, they'll come crawling!

[Louis]

Liverpool fans have apparently started to lobby Liverpool City Council against a ground share.

 

Already, one fans' group has started an email petition, demanding that Liverpool City Council drop any idea of a shared stadium with Everton, and also the kind of support for Liverpool Football Club they believe is warranted.

 

Kopfaithful, a group that played a major role in the departure of Tom Hicks and George Gillett from the club, have set up the campaign.

 

They are asking all supporters to join them into pressurising the council into backing the club.

Read more: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-news-Club-could-be-forced-scrap-all-stadium-development-plans-because-dispute-with-Liverpool-City-Council-article780037.html#ixzz1Ts3DrRKO

There's no quotes in the article.

[Adam Partington]

As the last post before the previous was in 2009, what are the current thoughts of everyone on this idea now?

 

For me, I honestly don't have a problem. I'll take a battering for that I'm sure. But I don't, I actually think it's logical.

[Hafnia]

The question I am asking myself now is would I favour a shared stadium? The answer is a reluctant yes.

 

Never before did I think I would say this, but it's the sign of the times.

 

Would we lose our identity? A little, but under the current regime and increasing debt we are slowly doing that on our own. Bellefield has been sold, we rent finch farm, we have mortagaged goodison to the hilt.

 

The San Siro is base for both AC Milan and Inter, the Olympic Stadium in Rome hosts Roma and Lazio. The Allianz Arena in Germany accomodate Bayern Munich or TSV 1860 Munich.

 

How did I even type that? Maybe it's the fear that our club is getting into increased financial trouble, I suppose it's a case of would I want to watch Everton at Goodison year on year seeing the best players sold off, or do I want to see 50,000 fans in a new state of the art arena that enables the club to compete with the big boys?

[Lowensda]

Not a preference of mine but its looking like the only possible way for the club to progress.

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

I would definitely be all for it because we simply cant afford to go it alone and I think it makes perfect sense anyway.

 

Especially if it meant we could get a decent pint at half time instead of warm nats piss Chang!

[flaminfox]

I think it would be a better idea because we could make an even better stadium than we would be able to with our own money. But I am not from Liverpool and I think the people from around the city would probably know how it would effect them :/

[Philinsuffolk]

Taking out the emotional ties of football (for supporters of any club) and just looking at this very coldly - it is hard to disagree with the idea.

And although they may deny it, it also makes a lot of sense for Liverpool FC, albeit we would have to reluctantly accept that they would probably get larger gates. Again, truth hurts.

None of us would really want a groundshare, if we were also offered either our own new ground or a wonderful, clever redevelopment of the greatest place I can think of! But then given the choice we'd all probably opt for bigger houses, cars etc too...

[Hafnia]

i always thought keioc were going to sort our stadium out,as they were determined to stop the kirkby plans going ahead, the tits.

 

Have you seriously looked at kirby and what it was all about??? A massive outlay for an extra £6m a year, no transport links that would even get the extra little increase on capacity. In effect a totally flawed project...

[pete0]

Have you seriously looked at kirby and what it was all about??? A massive outlay for an extra £6m a year, no transport links that would even get the extra little increase on capacity. In effect a totally flawed project...

It potentially had the best transport links in the country. would have been right next to the motorway and also kirkby had plans to start a tram line.

[Hafnia]

It potentially had the best transport links in the country. would have been right next to the motorway and also kirkby had plans to start a tram line.

 

 

No it didn't, not at all. That was what they told the fans 6 months before they gave the flawed details,

 

In July 2007, Keith Wyness said:

“Fans will be asked to review the plans in detail before they vote in the ballot in the first week of August with the results due later that month. They will be shown transportation plans, to reassure them that Kirkby is the right location.”

 

http://www.keioc.net/index.php?page=transport-appraisal

[pete0]

No it didn't, not at all. That was what they told the fans 6 months before they gave the flawed details,

 

In July 2007, Keith Wyness said:

“Fans will be asked to review the plans in detail before they vote in the ballot in the first week of August with the results due later that month. They will be shown transportation plans, to reassure them that Kirkby is the right location.”

 

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.keioc.net/index.php?page=transport-appraisal" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">http://www.keioc.net...sport-appraisal</a>

Thats a very flawed argument. The ranter says that the parking will be the strictest the clubs ever had for people parking in residential areas. ATM you can't park in residential areas around the ground, and the plan would have had a bigger car park, also kirkby town centre has a purpose built car park so parking would have been less of a problem than it is now. They also go on about train links and about how it will take people an hour to get the game from where-ever, however they don't mention that this is only an extra 10 mins on a train with a slightly longer walk from the station to the ground. 10 mins extra on a train and a five minute extra walk outweighs the benefit of a new stadium in a different area code-actually thats wrong it's the same area code jus under a different council. KEIOC are possibly the most disruptive group of fans who have effectively played part in stunting their own clubs development.

Also under the current regulations Goodison (and also most old stadiums) would not be granted permission to hold events because of how bad the traffic logistics are. This stadium would have.

Edited August 2, 2011 by pete0