Topic: Ground share rears its ugly head again

[fatlip13]

the longer we do nothing the further behind we go. top 4 place is under pressure this year and if man city get to champions league you can only imagine who they will buy. IF WE DON'T IMAGINE WHO WE WILL HAVE TO SELL!
the Italian clubs share but i think the grounds are owned by the city and rented out. this is one of the reasons they want there own ground to increase profit. this also gives them the chance to make it THERE OWN  with signs, statues, etc.
liverpool need a new bigger stadium to compete on the pitch and very soon. it will take 2-3 years to build depending on who you listen to, but that is 2-3 years further behind united and arsenal. a ground share has problems. if we don't do something, new rich owner, we really need to raise our money making schemes. the easy one here is more seats more money.
what if we could build the stadium and rent it to everton? there would be issuesover the naming of stands and gates. would there be an issue over the hillsborough memorial?
going out of Europe might quicken the departure of the yanks but if they don't go you can expect that they will look very closely at a groundshare

[ShanksLegend]

Heard very very very strong storys that Everton are actually going to be getting land at Switch Island in Maghull, heard this off several people people this week.  What makes it more interesting George Howarth the MP is supporting this as he is the MP for the same area and is using this to  revitilise the switch island area which will include a through road onto the Formby bypass.

[Liverbird 2010]

Heard very very very strong storys that Everton are actually going to be getting land at Switch Island in Maghull, heard this off several people people this week.  What makes it more interesting George Howarth the MP is supporting this as he is the MP for the same area and is using this to  revitilise the switch island area which will include a through road onto the Formby bypass.

Lets hope this is true and we re develop Anfield and stay where we are.

[Garstonite]

The traffic to and from Switch Island on a matchday would be a fucking nightmare.

Good stuff.

[JoburgRed]

Groundshare makes little commercial sense.

Ye - the cost of building the stadium can be 'shared' (although rememebr all revenues related to stadium would also need to be shared, and operational costs will be miuch higher due to higher frequencey of games)

However - the lost brand building and platform opportunities (branding in the stadium, naming rights, executive suites etc.) for a club like Liverpool make this a non-starter financially, IMHO

[eitzel]

And continue to watch our team struggle to compete on the field as we dont compete off it.

What, like last year?

Funny, as far as im concerned we are still a top team.

[Higgins79]

ground share would be the worst thing we could ever do. we've already gone further done the 'franchaise' road than we ever should have. a shared stadium would mean no way back. i think it would make us even more unattractive for future investors. people want to buy into liverpool fc, with its traditions and unique qualities which set it apart from everyone else.

also, have you seen the state of goodison? its a shit tip. they cant even look after what they got.

[mikeb58]

The best, the cheapest and probably the quickest way to end all this speculation is to stay put.

Anfield can be expanded, the area has changed a lot since the club said there was no room for expansion.

The club are scared of losing revenue while certain parts of the ground would have to closed while redevelopment went on.

Also of course the club want maximise it's revenue with a big a capacity as possible and all the money making corporate stuff that comes with it.

I understand their stance on that, it once make economical sense, but does it anymore?

I think it's time for the club to compromise, to seriously look at the possibilities of expanding Anfield to beyond the 55,000 that they did agree it could be developed to hold.

Engineering / technology has advanced since Liverpool last looked at extending Anfield, reckon if they considered it again those extra 5,000 plus seats could be possible, making a capacity in the region of 60, 61,000, which personally I've always thought was sufficient anyway.

[shanklyboy]

Wonderful interview with I think Ian Ross from efc.
He said " Our capacity is 40,000 and we average 37,000. The other 3,000 are either seats that are not taken up by season tickets or are restricted views. So in effect we are sold out every week"

I see how it works now!

[Olives]

Groundshare makes little commercial sense.

Ye - the cost of building the stadium can be 'shared' (although rememebr all revenues related to stadium would also need to be shared, and operational costs will be miuch higher due to higher frequencey of games)

your post demonstrates incredible economic illiteracy.

yes, you rightly say that initial capital costs would be shared... but it all goes downhill from there... you seem to think all our revenue would be shared with Everton, but none of the costs?!

Revenues would not be shared, Everton would get the revenue from their matchday tickets etc, we'd get the revenue from our home games.  If the ground was used for concerts/conferences or whatever, I accept that those revenues would be shared.

Operational costs would not be higher, they would be lower as a proportion of income.  i.e. whilst the actual costs may increase, (due to increases in the size of the stadium - we'd need to employ more staff, stewards, more electricity would be used etc) but as a proportion of revenue, they would fall (because we'd be making much more money).  We'd pay our operational costs, Everton would pay their operational costs, there would be no difference to the current situation.

The ongoing fixed costs of a shared new stadium would be pretty much the same as if we had our own new stadium, but we would pay much less, as these costs would be shared.

Variable costs that are incurred on matchdays (such as wages for stewards, bar staff etc) would not increase due to a groundshare, they'd be the same as in our own new stadium.  Liverpool wouldn't have to pay extra costs because Everton have a match day.

Plus, with increasing economies of scale, we could save on the cost of drinks / food etc as we could buy in even greater bulk, as one stadium.

[eitzel]

The best, the cheapest and probably the quickest way to end all this speculation is to stay put.

Anfield can be expanded, the area has changed a lot since the club said there was no room for expansion.

The club are scared of losing revenue while certain parts of the ground would have to closed while redevelopment went on.

Also of course the club want maximise it's revenue with a big a capacity as possible and all the money making corporate stuff that comes with it.

I understand their stance on that, it once make economical sense, but does it anymore?

I think it's time for the club to compromise, to seriously look at the possibilities of expanding Anfield to beyond the 55,000 that they did agree it could be developed to hold.

Engineering / technology has advanced since Liverpool last looked at extending Anfield, reckon if they considered it again those extra 5,000 plus seats could be possible, making a capacity in the region of 60, 61,000, which personally I've always thought was sufficient anyway.

Exactly, and anyone blinded enough by the prospect of a shiny new stadium and all the vulgar things that go with it, would be mental not to reflect on what we are potentially giving up.

[Wezza]

Ground share is in effect anti competitive for us. In one swoop we potentially give Everton the chance to enjoy the same match day revenue that we have.

[Olives]

i think it would make us even more unattractive for future investors.

this is a valid concern.
plus, it would make it harder for us to borrow.

[CraigDS]

Heard very very very strong storys that Everton are actually going to be getting land at Switch Island in Maghull, heard this off several people people this week.  What makes it more interesting George Howarth the MP is supporting this as he is the MP for the same area and is using this to  revitilise the switch island area which will include a through road onto the Formby bypass.

This was always being mooted about prior to them getting the land in Kirby.

[Olives]

Ground share is in effect anti competitive for us. In one swoop we potentially give Everton the chance to enjoy the same match day revenue that we have.

not really, they would not fill the stadium at the same ticket price we could charge
plus, Utd are our biggest rivals, we need to focus on catching them, not on keeping everton down
finally, as their stadium is almost the same size as Anfield, they already have that option anyway.

[Graham Smith]

First thing the Union will need to do is to gauge members' views.

While I suspect the memebrship will be massively against groundshare we need to gauge opinion so we are representing the members and not just making assumptions.

Then when, as I suspect, the members give us a massive refreshed mandate to oppose a groundshare then off we go again with another lie to nail against the owners with their 2007 "No groundshare" if they start to backtrack. We'll be calling for a clear statement from the Club that they refuse to discuss or consider a groundshare.

I think we feel another meeting with Purslow coming on.....

[Olives]

We'll be calling for a clear statement from the Club that they refuse to discuss or consider a groundshare...

... regardless of the potential benefits for the club.

[xerxes1]

Shanklyboy, i have a lot of time for your posts, but the reprint of Rushaians proves the reverse of what you intended.

No-one WANTS groundshare, I am surprised that 19% were for it in 2003. But doesn't it just show how things have changed in six years? £3>350m in debt, 23 rd best supported club in Europe by attendance, 64th largest ground......and still no title for 20 years.

I won't bother to rectify all the glaring misinformation posted about the economics of groundshare, it would take too long already. I do argue passionately for an open, current debate about the best stadium solution for us going forwards.

[Liverbird 2010]

First thing the Union will need to do is to gauge members' views.

While I suspect the memebrship will be massively against groundshare we need to gauge opinion so we are representing the members and not just making assumptions.

Then when, as I suspect, the members give us a massive refreshed mandate to oppose a groundshare then off we go again with another lie to nail against the owners with their 2007 "No groundshare" if they start to backtrack. We'll be calling for a clear statement from the Club that they refuse to discuss or consider a groundshare.

I think we feel another meeting with Purslow coming on.....

Graham have you been intouch with LFC today? I emailed them this morning and got no reply, they need to issue a statement asap, not that i believe anything the liars say.

[Olives]

No-one WANTS groundshare...

I do argue passionately for an open, current debate about the best stadium solution for us going forwards.

exactly

[shanklyboy]

Shanklyboy, i have a lot of time for your posts, but the reprint of Rushaians proves the reverse of what you intended.

No-one WANTS groundshare, I am surprised that 19% were for it in 2003. But doesn't it just show how things have changed in six years? £3>350m in debt, 23 rd best supported club in Europe by attendance, 64th largest ground......and still no title for 20 years.

I won't bother to rectify all the glaring misinformation posted about the economics of groundshare, it would take too long already. I do argue passionately for an open, current debate about the best stadium solution for us going forwards.

I'm not sure what point you thought I was trying to make mate to be fair.
The part I selected covers a great many issues that are still being debated by fans today.
Nothing has really changed regarding the feelings of fans since 2003........nothing will change.

[Graham Smith]

... regardless of the potential benefits for the club.

This is my personal opinion, not the Union's, but I suspect I'm pretty close to what many think:

The groundshare debate has been done and dusted for some years. And the grinding of the Club into the ground by the "owners" is not sufficient reason to change my mind now.

It's about knowing the value of something, not its cost.

I'm not having a pop at you but I think a massive majority of our support (and certainly a massive majority of the match goers) consider the Club's identity, history and pre-American philosophy as more important than the number of trophies. The Club permeates people's lives too much.

At the end of the day we'll still be here even if we're in League 2 and as long as the ethos and identity we all bought into are retained. I don't care if we lose the post Istanbul gang - there are some things not worth selling your SOUL for and a groundshare is exactly that.

If we get the soul and identity of our Club right and get some sensible management model back then as sure as eggs are eggs the trophies will follow. We can't fail too as quite simply we are LFC and when we get it right no one can live with us.

[Graham Smith]

Graham have you been intouch with LFC today? I emailed them this morning and got no reply, they need to issue a statement asap, not that i believe anything the liars say.

Lynds, no. We have a Committee Meeting tonight and I know we are looking to bring our next meeting with Purslow forward.

[xerxes1]

First thing the Union will need to do is to gauge members' views.
While I suspect the memebrship will be massively against groundshare we need to gauge opinion so we are representing the members and not just making assumptions.
Then when, as I suspect, the members give us a massive refreshed mandate to oppose a groundshare then off we go again with another lie to nail against the owners with their 2007 "No groundshare" if they start to backtrack. We'll be calling for a clear statement from the Club that they refuse to discuss or consider a groundshare.
I think we feel another meeting with Purslow coming on.....

Graham, I have a lot of time for you personally, and SOS in general, but that was as depressing a post as I have read since G&H's last press release.

We have let the club get away with murder on the stadium issue because of poor questioning and ill thought out strategies, of which this one is a prime example.

What you should be doing is inviting the club to lay out their analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of:
1. A 70k New Anfield
2.A 60k New Anfield
3. A redeveloped existing Anfield
4. Groundshare

At that point a balanced verdict can be given on the basis of the alternatives. I believe that fans would be horrified to see the financials for a 60k move, and how far away it is, even if funding WERE available. Groundshare may well not be the right answer for financial AND practical reasons. But ruling it out before you know why you are ruling it out is madness.

And if your consultation with members is on the basis "do you want groundshare" then God help us.

[west_london_red]

Groundshare makes sense financially in the short term as it halfs the costs. But assuming that the naming rights are sold and that continues to be the case for the next 50 years or so, it wont make sense in the long run as we'll be sharing that money also.

However, who trusts the owners to think that far ahead?

[Graham Smith]

Graham, I have a lot of time for you personally, and SOS in general, but that was as depressing a post as I have read since G&H's last press release.

Appreciate the constructive criticism

See my post above - I think that is where many fans are at as far as groundshare is concerned but don't confuse this with a move on our own where I think the dynamics shift considerably and where the questioning of the size of a new stadium or a redeveloped Anfield forms a major part of our discussions with the Club (although they are loathe to really engage with us on this point as they block meetings with Paul our Community and Regeneration Rep).

I honestly think that the vast majority of fans don't want a groundshare even if it was supplied free of charge.

[Liverbird 2010]

I honestly think that the vast majority of fans don't want a groundshare even if it was supplied free of charge.

Hear Hear.

[Something Else]

What, like last year?

Funny, as far as im concerned we are still a top team.

Exactly like last year, we played to the top of our ability and in some regards many players over succeeded, we then sold our player of the year, in my eyes, to fund debt.

one swallow does not make a porn star, until last season we have looked off the pace domestically to win the title for how long? and for how long have we been the poorer of the top four, fuck that, for how long have we been the poorer of the top four plus Villa and Spurs, now with City..... and our debt needing repaying....

Heard very very very strong storys that Everton are actually going to be getting land at Switch Island in Maghull, heard this off several people people this week.  What makes it more interesting George Howarth the MP is supporting this as he is the MP for the same area and is using this to  revitilise the switch island area which will include a through road onto the Formby bypass.

Interesing, That through road to the formby bypass has been talked about since i was a young nipper, suprised it has never happened, but that may help the bitters cause

[shanklyboy]

Graham, I have a lot of time for you personally, and SOS in general, but that was as depressing a post as I have read since G&H's last press release.

We have let the club get away with murder on the stadium issue because of poor questioning and ill thought out strategies, of which this one is a prime example.

What you should be doing is inviting the club to lay out their analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of:
1. A 70k New Anfield
2.A 60k New Anfield
3. A redeveloped existing Anfield
4. Groundshare

At that point a balanced verdict can be given on the basis of the alternatives. I believe that fans would be horrified to see the financials for a 60k move, and how far away it is, even if funding WERE available. Groundshare may well not be the right answer for financial AND practical reasons. But ruling it out before you know why you are ruling it out is madness.

And if your consultation with members is on the basis "do you want groundshare" then God help us.

That analysis could be applied to many issues mate.
H & G could be asked to expand on the benefits, positives and negatives of selling Gerrard & Torres and a healthy rational debate may break out.
The underlying groundswell of feeling is that it isn't something that should or will happen. People know why they are ruling it out.
No amount of debate will change it. 

[i_wun_bite]

I honestly think that the vast majority of fans don't want a groundshare even if it was supplied free of charge.

i will take it. our reserves need to have a perm stadium. i think the bitters are worthy by virtue of being our neighbours to set foot on the hallowed grounds played by our reserves.

[Wezza]

They could always share with Tranmere no?

[Olives]

I'm not having a pop at you but I think a massive majority of our support (and certainly a massive majority of the match goers) consider the Club's identity, history and pre-American philosophy as more important than the number of trophies. The Club permeates people's lives too much.

I agree, that is why I don't want to leave Anfield, I'd rather see it redeveloped.  for me, the history, identity etc is tied to Anfield.  but since we are moving to a new stadium anyway, leaving our history behind (or taking it with us depending on your view) I don't see why a groundshare could not be at least on the table as an option, if it could be worked out to save us a lot of money, it is worth doing imho.

[Sir Harvest Fields]

i think its a good idea. i dont see a problem sharing to be honest. it would benefit both clubs and would save both clubs money. i think its time we started getting together and deciding on designs etc. can only be good for both clubs.


Hahaha like fuck. fuck em. id rather stay at Anfield than share with them pack rats. wonder what our two c unts owners are thinking about it.

[xerxes1]

Graham, this is the statement that SOS should put out:

“Liverpool fans lament the inaction and poor decision making over the past 20 years which has resulted in our great club, one of the World’s most famous footballing institutions, finding itself 23rd in the matchday attendance rankings, and 64th in the stadium capacity rankings in Europe.

Our current owners pledged a new stadium to address this. A start and completion forecast, together with the financial rationale for the specific project, has still to be made public. The collapse of Everton’s move to Kirkby has raised the question of Groundshare again, the prospect of which is instinctively resisted by most Liverpool fans.
We call upon the owners to make public the practical, and financial considerations regarding the following:

1.What are the projected current costs for the consented 60,000 scheme, and the anticipated financial benefits.?
2. What are the projected current costs for the proposed 70,000 scheme, and the anticipated financial benefits.?
3. What are the projected costs for, and the details of, a redeveloped existing Anfield, and the anticipated financial benefits?
4.What are the projected costs for, and the details of, a Groundshare stadium with Everton, and the anticipated financial benefits?
5.What is the financial amount that we are losing ground by doing nothing, annually, versus Man utd and Arsenal now, and Tottenham once they move grounds?

With these questions addressed, fans look forwards to uniting behind a strategically well planned proposal for taking the Club’s ground requirements forwards.”

By taking Groundshare off the agenda, we are letting G&H off the hook, they can simply say ,“Its not for us, and we’ll build a new stadium when finances permit” – and laugh their socks off.

[Graham Smith]

I agree, that is why I don't want to leave Anfield, I'd rather see it redeveloped.  for me, the history, identity etc is tied to Anfield.  but since we are moving to a new stadium anyway, leaving our history behind (or taking it with us depending on your view) I don't see why a groundshare could not be at least on the table as an option, if it could be worked out to save us a lot of money, it is worth doing imho.

While respecting your opinion and recognising that there will be some support for it I really see a groundshare as the end for LFC. The Club isn't money or trophies even (although I don't doubt if our philosophy and history were cherished we'd be successful) - it's an identity, genetic almost (it'll be the same for the Blue lot too).

This is not an OOT/OOC debate but to those who live in the area the Club represents us. It's a way of demonstrating our personality, uniqueness, our identity. I honestly think the further from the area you get the less the ground issue has resonance. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't make us better than those OOT or OOC, just more blessed and in the groundshare debate more cursed as we see what we have had all these years threatened.

The moving to New Anfield debate is just as emotive.

[Niru Red4ever]

Forgive me for being naive, but why can't we build the new stadium at Anfield itself? Is it just the space constraint? Because if its so, can't the land be extended by buying the houses?

[LfcMonty]

A ground share my look like an option now, but it would never actually get put into theory! there are too many negative aspects involved with it both physically and also affecting the communities. Dont worry boys neva goin to happen!!

[trigger]

They can't fill the shithole they have and have to hawk half season tickets AND try and entice people in with snazzy radio ads....what the fuck do they need a bigger ground for?

[Olives]

the Club represents us. It's a way of demonstrating our personality, uniqueness, our identity.

yeah, it does and Anfield is a huge huge part of that.  But a brand new stadium is not Anfield, is it?  When Anfield goes, that will be lost.  You can not build or construct personality or identity, these have been formed over many many years with vast traditions and lots of memories.  we bring what we can with us and in time, the new stadium will develop its own character, but would a European night be any different in a stadium that Everton would play in on the saturday?  we would place our own memories on it, it would still be our stadium, with our personality and identity.

I understand the point of wanting our own stadium, in an ideal world, we could build it now, 120,000 seats in stanley park.  but that is not viable or possible at the moment.  we must be realistic.  if the financial saving of a ground share would be significant (say £50 million initial and £5million per year), it would be at least worthy of consideration.  of course, if it'd only save us £10 million, plus £1million a year, it is not worth it.  I am only suggesting that it should be looked at is, and only if, Anfield can't be redeveloped and we are set on leaving anyway.

[Olives]

Forgive me for being naive, but why can't we build the new stadium at Anfield itself? Is it just the space constraint? Because if its so, can't the land be extended by buying the houses?

where would we play for the year or two it takes to build the new stadium?