Groundsharing is very sensible, and should happen. Only thing is, there are at least half a dozen cities in the country where it makes more sense than in Liverpool.
Why is it that everyone with an opinion outside of the City thinks ground sharing is a good idea, yet only for Liverpool and Everton?
Liverpool and Everton are the most successful and 4th most successful clubs in this country. We are massive and they are big. If any City should have two grounds for its two clubs it's Liverpool.
Yet you never hear any suggestion of Villa and Birmingham sharing, Forest and County, Spurs and Arsenal, Newcastle and Sunderland or City and United. Even the 'Bristols' are above it, seemingly needing a home each, yet every man and his dog seems to think it is right for Liverpool.
We have more reason not to share than all except, perhaps, the Manchester clubs. We have different needs and wants for our grounds - Everton need a 50k-ish stadium at most. We need a 65k stadium at least. We demand that the most illustrious history in English football is honoured, with a Kop, Shankly/Paisley memorial gates, perhaps in time staues of the likes of Dalglish. They would, quite rightly, countenance no such thing. Even a Hillsborough memorial might seem a little out of place in a council run shared ground.
The comparisons with the Italians is disingenuous - the Roman teams are nothing like as big as Liverpool and, although Milan are in our ball park, I doubt very much whether they would not prefer to have their own ground.
We are, depending on how you look at it, either the biggest or second biggest club in the country. Everton are certainly in the biggest 6 or 8. If, as everyone seems to agree, groundsharing might be an experiment worth undertaking in English football, why on earth should it be us who undertake it?
