Author Topic: Ground share rears its ugly head again (Read 66582 times)

CHOPPER · « **Reply #200 on:** November 30, 2009, 05:17:33 am »

The sock robbing cuckoo's can fuck right off.

Xabier Alonso Olano · « **Reply #201 on:** November 30, 2009, 07:44:01 pm »

These sorts of comments arent needed and add nothing to the actual debate.

It fucks me off how people just immediately argue "Dont wanna share with the Blueshite/Scum/Bitters" or whatever.

What needs to be asked is whether a new stadium WILL get built within the next ten years. Is the groundshare idea more viable than staying at Anfield for those ten years?

In terms of tradition and uniqueness, I truly believe that the grounshare would not drastically water-down are heritage. We wouls still be able to have our statues, museums, signs and all, as would they. I dont see how that becomes a problem in real terms... Or at least a problem that cannot be easily solved.

My main problem with the groundshare is financial. What would happen with the costs? What would happen with the income of the stadium (naming rights?)? What would become of Goodison and Anfield? What about the much needed regeneration of those areas? Who would own the stadium? What license would the new stadium get from the council? Will other revenue be made from the stadium? If so, who would benefit?

But that said, what becomes of Stanley park and Kirby if the current situation remains the same? THAT for me is the only reason the groundshare can even be mentioned, obviously NO-ONE could honestly want to share a stadium by their own choice, but we dont live in a perfect world and without a groundshare being discussed, it could be "as you were" for a very long time.

Billy1561 · « **Reply #202 on:** December 1, 2009, 12:08:58 pm »

Sorry if this has already been aired. C.H.A.N.G = Cant Have A New Ground.

pad-dock · « **Reply #203 on:** December 1, 2009, 01:59:41 pm »

I think Liverpool FC must be warming to the idea of sharing.........went past the Kop a couple of night back and the Xmas tree has got BLUE lights on it !!...............

Kopout · « **Reply #204 on:** December 1, 2009, 02:29:25 pm »

Not sure if its posted yet.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/stadium/new-stadium

at the very bottom.

Reds recommit to new stadium
Despite Everton's setback over their new stadium plans, the Reds insist groundsharing is not on their agenda

Liverbird 2010 · « **Reply #205 on:** December 2, 2009, 11:05:30 am »

Quote from: Kopout on December 1, 2009, 02:29:25 pm

Reds recommit to new stadium
Despite Everton's setback over their new stadium plans, the Reds insist groundsharing is not on their agenda

Thank fuck for that, but we wont be getting a new stadium either.

Kopout · « **Reply #206 on:** December 2, 2009, 11:53:14 am »

http://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/everton-forum/24319-liverpool-unites-stadium.html

According them couple of fans opinion equal to whole liverpool supporters. seems like blueshitte have changed there tune on groundshare now they are very open to it. which part of 'fuck off' they didn't get?

CraigDS · « **Reply #207 on:** December 2, 2009, 12:30:43 pm »

My God they are actually more deluded on there than some on here.

Why would things be split 50/50 when we bring in both more commercially and more through match day ticket sales.

One guy on there even suggests we'd happily bring in an extra 20k a game than Everton and allow them to have half of that income!!!

John C · « **Reply #208 on:** December 3, 2009, 06:27:37 pm »

Now that its being encouraged at a high level I think its essential that both clubs give it serious consideration.
The region needs a project like this which will deliver fresh inward investment and much needed employment opportunities.

Everton are sensibly in favour of it but I'm not sure if Tranmere can afford their half of the costs.

Billy1561 · « **Reply #209 on:** December 3, 2009, 09:01:17 pm »

Quote from: John C on December 3, 2009, 06:27:37 pm

Now that its being encouraged at a high level I think its essential that both clubs give it serious consideration.
The region needs a project like this which will deliver fresh inward investment and much needed employment opportunities.

Everton are sensibly in favour of it but I'm not sure if Tranmere can afford their half of the costs.

Was just about to flame you there John lol. Good one mate.

redprodigal · « **Reply #210 on:** December 4, 2009, 10:28:36 pm »

Quote from: John C on December 3, 2009, 06:27:37 pm

Now that its being encouraged at a high level I think its essential that both clubs give it serious consideration.
The region needs a project like this which will deliver fresh inward investment and much needed employment opportunities.

Everton are sensibly in favour of it but I'm not sure if Tranmere can afford their half of the costs.

Nice one

John C · « **Reply #211 on:** December 4, 2009, 11:18:26 pm »

Quote from: Billy1561 on December 3, 2009, 09:01:17 pm

Was just about to flame you there John lol. Good one mate.

Urgh, you mean you have a big long red hot lance that you actually attack people with or is it a Bunsen burner!

redrockydennis · « **Reply #212 on:** December 6, 2009, 03:42:08 pm »

moyes has just been on sky sports saying he would be for a groundshare...

shanklyboy · « **Reply #213 on:** December 7, 2009, 02:43:34 am »

Quote from: redrockydennis on December 6, 2009, 03:42:08 pm

moyes has just been on sky sports saying he would be for a groundshare...

Have Marine responded?

ConorYNWA · « **Reply #214 on:** December 7, 2009, 02:47:31 pm »

Quote from: redrockydennis on December 6, 2009, 03:42:08 pm

moyes has just been on sky sports saying he would be for a groundshare...

I saw that aswell, he was quite honest which was a surprise. Saying that they needed us more than we needed them.

Terry de Niro · « **Reply #215 on:** December 7, 2009, 04:18:17 pm »

Quote from: shanklyboy on December 7, 2009, 02:43:34 am

Have Marine responded?

No, but Poulton Vics have said they may discuss at their Christmas piss up..

shanklyboy · « **Reply #216 on:** December 8, 2009, 10:53:38 am »

Quote from: Terry De Niro on December 7, 2009, 04:18:17 pm

No, but Poulton Vics have said they may discuss at their Christmas piss up..

Can't see that Terry......far too big a ground!

vicgill · « **Reply #217 on:** December 8, 2009, 04:24:34 pm »

Quote from: shanklyboy on December 7, 2009, 02:43:34 am

Have Marine responded?

Quote from: Terry De Niro on December 7, 2009, 04:18:17 pm

No, but Poulton Vics have said they may discuss at their Christmas piss up..

Quote from: shanklyboy on December 8, 2009, 10:53:38 am

Can't see that Terry......far too big a ground!

alex. · « **Reply #218 on:** December 8, 2009, 05:16:12 pm »

Quote from: shanklyboy on December 7, 2009, 02:43:34 am

Have Marine responded?

Hahaha

redprodigal · « **Reply #219 on:** December 11, 2009, 11:58:18 pm »

Quote from: shanklyboy on December 7, 2009, 02:43:34 am

Have Marine responded?

The Marine chairman has just been on SSN agreeing with Moyes when he said that they need Marine more than Marine need them.

decisivemoment · « **Reply #220 on:** December 13, 2009, 10:21:05 pm »

I am in favour of a groundshare assuming that the financials make more sense -- but with one key caveat; Gillett and Hicks should not be the owners to make this happen. Their management of the club has been approximately in the league of Countrywide or Citibank, Northern Rock or RBS. In other words, completely reckless and if it isn't against the law, it should be. Assuming that a sharing arrangement would make more sense than sole ownership from a cash flow standpoint, I do not want the cash to be flowing into the trouser pockets of those two. I want them to take a loss on their "investment."

In this case it really should be about the money. If Inter and AC Milan can share without killing each other, then so can we and Everton. We'd probably have to go with neutral coloured seats like in Milan or Munich, but if that's the price way have to pay for having a title-winning team, it's worth it.

smicer07 · « **Reply #221 on:** December 13, 2009, 10:23:02 pm »

Quote from: decisivemoment on December 13, 2009, 10:21:05 pm

I am in favour of a groundshare assuming that the financials make more sense -- but with one key caveat; Gillett and Hicks should not be the owners to make this happen. Their management of the club has been approximately in the league of Countrywide or Citibank, Northern Rock or RBS. In other words, completely reckless and if it isn't against the law, it should be. Assuming that a sharing arrangement would make more sense than sole ownership from a cash flow standpoint, I do not want the cash to be flowing into the trouser pockets of those two. I want them to take a loss on their "investment."

In this case it really should be about the money. If Inter and AC Milan can share without killing each other, then so can we and Everton. We'd probably have to go with neutral coloured seats like in Milan or Munich, but if that's the price way have to pay for having a title-winning team, it's worth it.

No offence meant by this, but I assume you're not from Liverpool or the surrounding area? I've yet to meet any local fans who agree with the groundshare full stop.

decisivemoment · « **Reply #222 on:** December 13, 2009, 10:23:57 pm »

Quote from: CraigDS on December 2, 2009, 12:30:43 pm

My God they are actually more deluded on there than some on here.

Why would things be split 50/50 when we bring in both more commercially and more through match day ticket sales.

One guy on there even suggests we'd happily bring in an extra 20k a game than Everton and allow them to have half of that income!!!

In that case, groundshare probably wouldn't make sense for Liverpool. To each his own on the commercial and ticket revenue; the idea of a groundshare is to avoid tying up capital in duplicated grounds. You could call it a bail out for both teams. But a bail out for just one, especially if it's Everton, is not going to happen.

decisivemoment · « **Reply #223 on:** December 13, 2009, 10:29:16 pm »

Quote from: smicer07 on December 13, 2009, 10:23:02 pm

No offence meant by this, but I assume you're not from Liverpool or the surrounding area? I've yet to meet any local fans who agree with the groundshare full stop.

I used to be from not too far away -- let's just say what's "officially" left of Lancashire -- and I fully understand the politics of the situation. But I think I'm being driven a little bit to my current opinion by pessimism; I really think there's a serious danger of Liverpool falling into the kind of funk they did in the 1950s. Maybe not relegation again but damned close to it. And I'm inclined to think that separate stadiums is going to mean worse teams and higher ticket prices for both clubs. I'm not expecting to go back to £2 to stand on the Kop, but bear in mind we were there just 20 years ago. But if separate stadiums means mid-table nobodies on the field and £60 tickets a la Emirates in the stands, where is the next generation of fans going to come from? Where it's frustrating is that we wouldn't even be fretting over this if David Moores had decided to do good for the team rather than his bank account by either cooperating with other shareholders or finding responsible owners.

Promised to never post on RAWK again · « **Reply #224 on:** December 14, 2009, 01:56:55 am »

Quote from: decisivemoment on December 13, 2009, 10:21:05 pm

I am in favour of a groundshare assuming that the financials make more sense

Financially, it makes all the sense in the World, but as I have said on another thread, I respect the feelings of our local supporters.

CraigDS · « **Reply #225 on:** December 14, 2009, 11:43:49 am »

Quote from: Ливерпул on December 14, 2009, 01:56:55 am

Financially, it makes all the sense in the World, but as I have said on another thread, I respect the feelings of our local supporters.

if you're talking about the financials of building the stadium then yes.

The facts about how the financials would work once it was built (i.e. sponsorship, ticket sales, etc) are unknown as yet - and hazard a guess we'd be worse off than if we had our own stadium.

The Manhattan Project · « **Reply #226 on:** December 14, 2009, 02:27:04 pm »

Hey, Sky have already decided a few weeks back

The New Liverpool stadium should be shared. It will light up red when LFC play, and blue when EFC play, like the Allianz Arena

Oh, and it will have white seats

And Richard Keys must never be doubted after all.

Promised to never post on RAWK again · « **Reply #227 on:** December 14, 2009, 03:00:03 pm »

Quote from: CraigDS on December 14, 2009, 11:43:49 am

if you're talking about the financials of building the stadium then yes.

The facts about how the financials would work once it was built (i.e. sponsorship, ticket sales, etc) are unknown as yet - and hazard a guess we'd be worse off than if we had our own stadium.

I really don't want to get involved in this debate, as I am aware of the general feelings of our local supporters. However, in the case of a stadium shared between LFC and EFC, the bitters will be the ones in trouble. Usually, when you have a case of a shared stadium, the costs (of building and maintenance) are split at 50%, and we will definitely generate much more revenue from the new ground, considering our average ticket sales and our ST waiting list.

CraigDS · « **Reply #228 on:** December 14, 2009, 04:29:47 pm »

Quote from: Ливерпул on December 14, 2009, 03:00:03 pm

I really don't want to get involved in this debate, as I am aware of the general feelings of our local supporters. However, in the case of a stadium shared between LFC and EFC, the bitters will be the ones in trouble. Usually, when you have a case of a shared stadium, the costs (of building and maintenance) are split at 50%, and we will definitely generate much more revenue from the new ground, considering our average ticket sales and our ST waiting list.

Where are these examples of 'usually 50/50 split'? to be honest the only one I looked in to is the Munich one and at the time where it was shared construction it wasnt a 50/50 split in costs. Fact is they wouldnt a massive 70k seater (christ they wouldnt even want a 60k seater) so are hardly going to agree to a 50/50 split in costs for something they have no use for.

And you're ignoring the other income from a stadium other than just ticket sales - sponsorship being a massive one. We'd miss out on a huge amount in a shared stadium over that of our own.

Promised to never post on RAWK again · « **Reply #229 on:** December 14, 2009, 11:20:05 pm »

Quote from: CraigDS on December 14, 2009, 04:29:47 pm

And you're ignoring the other income from a stadium other than just ticket sales - sponsorship being a massive one. We'd miss out on a huge amount in a shared stadium over that of our own.

Why are you wasting your energy over something that is not going to happen in the near future ? What type of huge sponsorships you are talking about, when our owners are not capable of servicing their existing debts, without taking away Rafa's transfer budget ? We are not going to build the stadium under G&H. I thought at least that much was clear by now.

CraigDS · « **Reply #230 on:** December 15, 2009, 01:16:27 pm »

Quote from: Ливерпул on December 14, 2009, 11:20:05 pm

Why are you wasting your energy over something that is not going to happen in the near future ? What type of huge sponsorships you are talking about, when our owners are not capable of servicing their existing debts, without taking away Rafa's transfer budget ? We are not going to build the stadium under G&H. I thought at least that much was clear by now.

If we cant afford our own stadium then we cant afford a joint one. If we can find £150m for our share of a joint one then we could find £300m for our own.

And a stadium isnt a short term thing, Id rather stay at Anfield for the next 20yrs then move rather than move to a shared stadium. This is the next 100yrs of the club we are talking about, not the short term gain and savings a shared stadium would give us.

decisivemoment · « **Reply #231 on:** December 19, 2009, 07:40:50 pm »

Quote from: Ливерпул on December 14, 2009, 01:56:55 am

Financially, it makes all the sense in the World, but as I have said on another thread, I respect the feelings of our local supporters.

I think it's a bit offensive to suggest I don't. But I guess when the chips are down fans start turning on each other instead of turning their ire where it belongs, on the two major shareholders. Sad.

paul j · « **Reply #232 on:** December 24, 2009, 03:09:07 pm »

Quote from: The Manhattan Project on December 14, 2009, 02:27:04 pm

Hey, Sky have already decided a few weeks back

The New Liverpool stadium should be shared. It will light up red when LFC play, and blue when EFC play, like the Allianz Arena

Oh, and it will have white seats

And the hairy-handed halfwit must never be doubted after all.

what sky failed to point out there, is that the allianz is now 100% bayern munichs ground.1860 sold there share to bayern because of the cost of running the ground,and now they are having trouble paying rent to bayern so want to go back to there spiritual home.

Curva Nord '77 · « **Reply #233 on:** January 4, 2010, 10:13:35 pm »

Quote from: Ливерпул on December 14, 2009, 01:56:55 am

Financially, it makes all the sense in the World, but as I have said on another thread, I respect the feelings of our local supporters.

Pisses me off that people still trot out the same old "makes financial sense shite".

The business model for all football clubs these days is to maximise the income / useage of the stadium - and a lot of that is dependant on people wanting to be associated with the IDENTITY of the club. Could we agree that LFC would sell out more exec boxes than everton? Would attract greater revenue from naming rights than everton?

How does a pitch stand up to two premiership teams possibly playing in Europe plus FA cup and Carling cup games?

Advertisers will spend more to be associated with LFC than everton.

To maximise stadium revenue the IDENTITY of the club needs to be strong within it.

The blueshite wouldn't even sell "Cheese n' Owen" crisps a few years ago because MO was still playing for us - the only reason they want a groundshare is because they would get access to a much better stadium than they could build themselves.

If the blueshite could fill a 70,000 seater stadium every week I'll show my arse off the Liver Building.

Would the bitters like to be rattling around a half-empty stadium every other week?

If anything a half empty stadium and a mid-table side would drive even more of the fuckers away from attending.

alex. · « **Reply #234 on:** January 4, 2010, 11:04:11 pm »

Quote from: Curva Nord '77 on January 4, 2010, 10:13:35 pm

The blueshite wouldn't even sell "Cheese n' Owen" crisps a few years ago because MO was still playing for us - the only reason they want a groundshare is because they would get access to a much better stadium than they could build themselves.

Haha, is that true?

zabadoh · « **Reply #235 on:** February 1, 2010, 05:37:14 am »

Well if this groundshare thing comes to pass and we wind up renting a wholly owned new stadium to them, it would be like things coming full circle historically...

Chivasino · « **Reply #236 on:** February 1, 2010, 09:23:01 am »

Bound to rear it's ugly head this week with it being Derby week.

Fuck off with the groundshare.

davenorthwales · « **Reply #237 on:** June 14, 2010, 04:26:01 pm »

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

doubt if it's worth opening a new thread for covering old ground.
what makes me cringe is when some ex players come out of the woodwork bigging it up. last time it was on tv, paul ince was on.. 'still can't believe the hoax from last month tho

TLT · « **Reply #238 on:** September 29, 2010, 07:59:45 pm »

After Kenny's comment on the matter, as well as Kenwright getting in on the act, seems the BBC bloggers have been busy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/philmcnulty/2010/09/forget_merseyside_groundshare.html

Joe Rogans Chin · « **Reply #239 on:** September 29, 2010, 08:03:24 pm »

Thing that has always annoyed me about the idea, is the blue shite saying, as "long as it done properly and as long as it half ours" well stump up half the money then.