Louis Posted December 30, 2006 Report Posted December 30, 2006 Now I must admit, I was all for Kirkby originally but now Im starting to have doubts. I'm actually coming around to the idea of a groundshare, I've been reading about the 100,000 seater Olympic Stadium that is possibly being built in London for 2012. Apparently because of soaring prices of land in London residential area, three clubs; Spurs, Charlton and West Ham are considering moving in together to so that their expenses are dramatically reduced (logically being reduced by 66%!). I've been reading Financial Times website and there is a guy nicknamed "Footy Prof" Chris Brady (he's an Evertonian) and he has created a report on whether a groundshare is viable or not for all of the Premiership clubs (not all 20 together obviously but regionalised West Ham+Charlton, QPR+Fulham, Liverpool+Everton) and the result is a resounding "yes, it would benefit". He asked Peter Reid what he thought about a potential groundshare and Reidy said "There will blood on the street". Just out of curiousity what is it that you personally don't like the idea of a groundmove? Quote
aaron Posted December 30, 2006 Report Posted December 30, 2006 id rather have our own stadium, i know it will cost more but it would be our home not shared with someone else, i like the kirby idea Quote
Bill Posted December 30, 2006 Report Posted December 30, 2006 Your a young man Louis, but in years to come you may well get Married and have 3 or 4 kids, the Housing Market is fast getting out of reach for the Working man.............................. SO, would you consider living with another family because it would save you some money, and put the house within your Reach. Not the same i know, but thats the way it would feel like to me. But if it was a super 65,000 stadium in stanley park between both of the present Grounds (not out in the sticks), then i would say yes, give it a go. Quote
CraccerC Posted December 30, 2006 Report Posted December 30, 2006 no to groundshare kirkby suits me fine but i dotn wanan share a groudn and they wont either with all the money they have Quote
Louis Posted December 30, 2006 Author Report Posted December 30, 2006 To be honest, I reckon they would. I think it's just a matter of time before one of the big english clubs bites the bullet and shares a stadum and reaps the financial benefits. Quote
CraccerC Posted December 30, 2006 Report Posted December 30, 2006 ^ but with their investment talk,s and the amount of money that will be put in, surely they wouldn't? and the investors themselves see lvierpool as a business, theyll put money in and get it back, if it was a groundshare they'd be helping Everton too, i don't think they would do that Quote
KillaGTiR Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 well i have seen in japan land and housing in sky high and the family and kids never more out they stay in the same house and then the dad and mum pass away the kids take over and it keeps going on like that... i think it would be a good thing would cut cost right down meaning more money for the club and dm Quote
EFCfanatic Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 (edited) The very thought that a redshite had been sitting in my seat the week before makes me go right off it. Kirkby sounds good. Edited December 31, 2006 by EFCfanatic Quote
BLUE-TAC Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 i reckon the politics behind a shared stadium would just make the whole preocess a ballache and drag on forever: Colours, stadium sponsers, corporate hospitality, stadium name. If and only if it could be done prperly would I be up 4 it. To be honest i think it's a non-starter. I was GUTTED that the king's dock failed and now anything else just seems 'not bad'! Quote
Louis Posted December 31, 2006 Author Report Posted December 31, 2006 I think those are the easiest parts of the shared stadium. Seat colours: White Stadium Name would be sold to highest bidder and amount shared between partners, fans still refer to it by it's previous name, i.e. man city call their stadium Eastlands after the derelict land it was built on. Stadium sponsors change every game at San Siro and Allianz Stadium I think. The hardest part is selling the idea to fans who have their own stadium Quote
StevO Posted January 1, 2007 Report Posted January 1, 2007 one side stand could be red, one side stand be blue, and have white ends. the stadium could just simpley be called Stanley Park it would benefit financially, but how many people have been saying we would lose our identity if we moved to kirkby, would we not lose our identity if we moved in with the RS??? it would have to be somethin really special for me Quote
Romey 1878 Posted January 1, 2007 Report Posted January 1, 2007 I know it would be finacially sound for us but I just cant stand the thought of those Kopites sharing a stadium with us, it may be a 'friendly' rivalry but I hate them Quote
CraccerC Posted January 1, 2007 Report Posted January 1, 2007 wont happen.... because of their investment... if it were to happen they would be investing in us aswell and well were not exactly an attractive business ... wouldnt happen Quote
Heather_6 Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 No fookin way! what colour would the seats be and every time you go you no that a red shite has sat in your seat.. Quote
CraccerC Posted January 3, 2007 Report Posted January 3, 2007 ^ way to recycle previosu posts lol am only kiddin i used to be for it...because of the san siro but its just that i think bk is too stubborn...and theres no way liverpool would do anythign with us because of finances. if we were to share it would probably appear that were leeching off of liverpool. we have pride in our ground and i think that we should continue that elsewhere Quote
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.