why judge yourself by the standards of other clubs? we are set apart, we don't need to concern ourselves with what they are doing, we just need to focus on what is best for us. if that is a ground share, then we should do it. if that is building our own stadium, we should do it and not worry about what other clubs are doing. We only need concern ourselves with exceeding them on the pitch.
but since you've raised the point... there is no comparison. Liverpool and Everton are BOTH planning new stadia at the same time. Utd were not moving out of OT when City left Maine Road. Villa and Birmingham are not both planing on building new grounds. Spurs weren't looking for a new stadium when Arsenal started planning the Emirates etc. So there was no real reason for these clubs to consider a ground share.
Birmingham and Villa were both redeveloping their stadia at roughly the same time.Man Utd were doing the same with OT when The City of Manchester stadium plans were being submitted.
The cost of those projects ran into absolute millions, but not once was the subject of sharing a ground ever put forward.
The reasons are economic and based on the needs of each club. Not to mention the unspoken understanding that supporters just wouldn't wear it.
City were getting a brand new ground that they pay rent on. Not paid for by themselves. Maybe if the Commonwealth Games hadn't been taking place they would have done what efc are doing now if they couldn't raise the cash to build their own.
Birmingham and Villa don't need bigger stadiums and if they did they could redevelop their existing grounds to accommodate that as and when.
If both grounds were landlocked or they were in a situation where they were competing at the highest levels in football and therefore needed to increase revenue substantially, it may have become an issue.
Apart from when Peter Robinson suggested the groundshare option years ago........which was kept very quiet at the time.Liverpool Football Club has never once put forward the option of a groundshare.
Liverpool supporters have never entertained the option of a ground share.It has never been discussed.
When efc were confident of moving onto the Kings Dock development, the option of a groundshare was never once considered by them.
When that fell down around their ears it suddenly reared it's ugly head.
When it looked like they would get this latest plan approved and our own stadium plans were halted, they couldn't care less about a groundshare.
When it was first muted that the Kirkby plan wasn't going to be approved it came to the fore again.
Now their latest adventure finally falls by the wayside......it's on the agenda once more,put there by efc, 20 minutes after the announcement to refuse their application was made.
If any of their options had come to fruition and even given our financial plight they wouldn't give a shite about a groundshare.
While all along we have maintained that it isn't an option for us whatever our own situation might be.
'Making financial sense' is a well worn cliche that gets trotted out time after time. There is far more to that short sound bite than meets the eye and the reasons behind it are not all they appear.
It makes 'financial sense' to efc because they won't be able to move without it and improving such a dilapidated stadium on it's current footprint is a financial none starter.
Our needs are greater in terms of capacity driven revenue as we are in a different league to efc. If we weren't we would simply stay at Anfield and improve it.It's as simple as that.
They, as a direct competitor with ourselves, want us to help them to become financially stronger, so they can compete with us!
I don't know of any other business where one competitor will assist another to become financially stronger in order to compete with them.While at the same time not only eroding their own historical identity and corporate pulling power. Not to mention potentially alienating a great proportion of their loyal customer base.
