Topic: Ground share rears its ugly head again

[DonkeyWan]

Everton now open to ground share. The fear is the owners, weighed down by debt, may find this an attractive option, particularly with the pressure from the government and council. Conspiracy theorists might even suggest that nixing on Everton's stadium was part of a design to force Liverpool and Everton's hand.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/nov/26/everton-liverpool


Everton to consider ground-share with Liverpool after Kirkby snub

• Everton will consider move if it makes financial sense
• 'We're not scared of those decisions,' says chief executive

    * Buzz up!
    * Digg it

    * guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 November 2009 10.58 GMT
    * Article history

Goodison Park

Everton had hoped to move from their historic home at Goodison Park to Kirkby. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/Guardian

Everton's chief executive Robert Elstone has admitted the club would consider a ground-sharing arrangement with Liverpool after their plans for a move to Kirkby were rejected by the government.

Both clubs have previously been reluctant to go down the route of sharing a stadium, however Elstone has revealed Everton are not against the idea, if it makes financial sense.

"It's certainly one of the options that we will need to cover," he said. "A shared stadium is perhaps an option if it's affordable.

"We have to look at where we can raise money, because potentially Liverpool will have to obviously contribute to that, and Liverpool City Council perhaps might need to find some money.

"Our history is one of creativity and innovation and if we are the first major English club to look at sharing then we're not scared of making those decisions."

Everton had hoped to build a 50,000-seat stadium to be the centrepiece of a retail development park in Kirkby. The scheme was to be driven by the supermarket Tesco. However the government rejected the controversial plan.

[Chivasino]

Well that ugly head can fuck off!

Under no circumstance can this happen. The soul of our club is flagging already, and this will just kill it off.

[Istanbul Therapy Group]

Thats a no from us bob.

[RedMarko]

Is this the first time Everton ahve come out in favour of the idea? I thought they were as against it as us?
 
Worrying if so.
 
End of the day, it's always going to be a big no from us!

[Kopout]

It didn't took long for them to return with their begging bowls? We don't share stadium with small clubs piss off Robert.

[DonkeyWan]

Is this the first time Everton ahve come out in favour of the idea? I thought they were as against it as us?
 
Worrying if so.
 
End of the day, it's always going to be a big no from us!

I think they might have mentioned their interest before, but this is the first time they have said 'aye' during a period of turmoil and financial difficulty for the club.

[Garstonite]

If it rears its ugly head, whac-a-mole the motherfucker.

[Liverbird 2010]

Any Liverpool fan that is in favour of this needs to have a good hard long look at themselves.

[Kopite72]

Share a ground with the shite?

Hmmmm...let me think about that a minute...

(vomits)...............FUCK OFF!

[trigger]

Fuckin pikeys........let em play in sefton park 

[shanklyboy]

I think this all stems from the fact that Rafa didn't play Aqualani on Tuesday.






What?

[PaisleyPrint]

Fuckin pikeys........let em play in sefton park 

Surely Otterspool, as a former landfill site, is a much better option for them.

The mere thought of ground share is enough to make you ill so thanks but no thanks.

[gazzalfc]

You can stick your fucking groundshare up your arse.

Would send a clear message if both sets of fans chant that on sunday

[rafa forever]

Fuck off ye bellends.

[Billy1561]

Any Liverpool fan that is in favour of this needs to have a good hard long look at themselves.

That's a bit harsh. We should let them share it once a year for their cup final. 

[edeyj]

Sooner stay at Anfield than share with them.

[xerxes1]

This should never have been a topic for debate. But it is - because Moores, post Hillsborough, squandered the credits of the glory years leaving us as the 23rd best supported club ( by attendance) and Anfield the 64th largest ground in Europe. Some fans are currently behaving like those who dont open their credit card statements. Moaning that we have gone from a bowl to a spaceship to a toilet is fine- but it doesn't get us anywhere.

The reason why I am happy for the Groundshare debate is it smokes out everything else. What are the financials of a 60/70 New Anfield now?
What are the financials of a redeveloped 55,000 existing Anfield? IF a Groundshare delivered the best financial solution for the medium to long term health of our Club, and an agreement could be reached with Everton,and it delivered a stadium far better than we could muster on our own( which is by no means certain)  then those facts can be balanced against the substantial emotional arguments ( and some practical) against. I suspect that a redeveloped 55,000 seater existing Anfield is the most viable solution- but i dont have the facts to substantiate it.

The current fragile state of our club is no accident.Whilst we have dithered, others by luck (Man City/ Chelsea) and others by good planning ( Arsenal/ Man utd) are moving ahead of us. Domestically Spurs are moving to a new 55,000 seater in the next few years, in Europe Lyons are doing the same, along with others.Our position is not improving it is getting worse.Those that say that they would rather that we were mid table or in the Champ rather than leave Anfield may get their wish.

[DonkeyWan]

I think one aspect of the whole groundshare that is forgotten is the viability of getting it under way. The belief is that halving the cost will make it magically easier to build. Currently that is like two hobos agreeing to club their funds to put a deposit down on a luxury penthouse suite in Mayfair. The truth is despite our travails we are in a far better position to build a stadium on our own rather than go into ground share. Why?

1) we have to go ahead and just require funding
2) we are currently a more attractive brand than Everton and should be able to attract new investment more readily (compared to a  skint toffee in danger of a relegation battle)
3) Groundshare would take us back to the drawing board, set our plans back years and have no guarantee of a positive outcome at the end of the day.
4) whatever investment we have made to day in New Anfield would be spunked away. We can ill afford that either.

Everton may talk groundshare, but jsut as there are many arguments against groundshare from an emotional/financial viewpoint, equally there are more than a few arguments against changing horses midstream to suddenly pursue a pipedream with another broke ass club with no guarantee that the prevailing climate of support for a shared ground at council/government level will still be discernible when it comes time to submit new plans for approval.

[Kite]

A new stadium is just one of the many reasons we want H&G gone.  Lets not start a new battle about the stadium and forget that the priority is H&G removed from our club forever.

[Ice Red]

Fuck. Off.

[mugsy]

Perhaps in the 1960s it might have worked when fans were more friendly to each other but not now and I am speaking from the point of view of growing up in a family were 1/2 family is blue.

Only thing which would change my mind if the stadium to be built was a true landmark for the city surpassing Wembly as interesting as our two cathedrals.  But that ain't going to happen.

Lol next they will be saying for our teams to merge! Imagine the protests from both camps. 

[megabomberman]

Why is this such an "ugly head" and not a good solution to a shared problem for both clubs? You'd swear Evertonians were the Taliban or something, not co workers and friends...

[Gigantic Lamb]

Fuck.Off

[xerxes1]

I think one aspect of the whole groundshare that is forgotten is the viability of getting it under way. The belief is that halving the cost will make it magically easier to build. Currently that is like two hobos agreeing to club their funds to put a deposit down on a luxury penthouse suite in Mayfair. The truth is despite our travails we are in a far better position to build a stadium on our own rather than go into ground share. Why?

1) we have to go ahead and just require funding
2) we are currently a more attractive brand than Everton and should be able to attract new investment more readily (compared to a  skint toffee in danger of a relegation battle)
3) Groundshare would take us back to the drawing board, set our plans back years and have no guarantee of a positive outcome at the end of the day.
4) whatever investment we have made to day in New Anfield would be spunked away. We can ill afford that either.

Everton may talk groundshare, but jsut as there are many arguments against groundshare from an emotional/financial viewpoint, equally there are more than a few arguments against changing horses midstream to suddenly pursue a pipedream with another broke ass club with no guarantee that the prevailing climate of support for a shared ground at council/government level will still be discernible when it comes time to submit new plans for approval.

Donkey, there is much truth in what you say. But I think you are over stating how far advanced we are with New Anfield. The 60k consent does not have a curent costing, nor have the transport and infrastructure improvements been assesssed, agreed, and costed determining what our contribution to those will be, nor has a figure for the value of the existing Anfield site been determined. And that is before the scheme is funded.

One of the problems we face is that the site value for Anfield is not very much ( unlike White Hart lane / Highbury) and a ground that is used for a max 30 home games out of 365 days is not a moneyspinner ( unlike the conference value of The Emirates and the established sporting credentials of a built 76,000 capacity old Trafford).

I also agree that we are in a stronger position entering discussions than Everton, ironically I cannot see them agreeing to terms that would inevitably, and publicly, condemn them to second class status.

[Liverbird 2010]

Why is this such an "ugly head" and not a good solution to a shared problem for both clubs? You'd swear Evertonians were the Taliban or something, not co workers and friends...

You would swear they didnt call us a bunch of merdering gobshites *oh hang on*

[Kopout]

Would everton like to play in half empty stadium though. they will never fill it.

[megabomberman]

Who a small foul section of drunken louts who are an element of every fanbase including our own?

For the most part Everton are an admirable and fine honest club, who are similar to liverpool in terms of a big club who are being left behind by the modern gold rush in football....

I would have no problem sharing with them, olive branches and all that, why not get the clubs relationships back to the strong ties of post Hillsborough, when Everton football club were fantastic to liverpool

[No666]

a ground that is used for a max 30 home games out of 365 days is not a moneyspinner ( unlike the conference value of The Emirates and the established sporting credentials of a built 76,000 capacity old Trafford).

Which is why I wonder whether Hicks and Gillett would find the idea of building and renting to Everton for their home games a financially attractive option? They'd then claim they weren't doing a 'groundshare'.

[Simon C]

Given their situation and ours I don't think a bad solution at all. Look at the clubs in Italy, AC and Inter & Roma and Lazio fans hate each others guts yet they still share a stadium.

The reality is the money talks in football and as xeres1 has said we are getting further and further behind due to our inability to create extra revenue streams.

If an 80,000 seater stadium was built, the naming rights sold we would make a killing. They would never fill it but I'm damn sure we would.

We have to stop being so insular and consider the possibility because I'm sure the owners will.

[Liverbird 2010]

I cant believe ANY fuckin Liverpool fans would be in favour of a groundshare, sort yer heads out FFS.

[lincolnred-dad]

i'd share a ground with them.




they can have the toilets and the burger bars and we'll have the rest.

[eitzel]

Might sound unprogressive, but id be happy as a pig in shit if we fucked off a new stadium and stayed at Anfield for good.

Sick to death of the talk of a new stadium, spend the money on the pitch and keep the ground in good shape....its a fuckin holy church!

[megabomberman]

I cant believe ANY fuckin Liverpool fans would be in favour of a groundshare, sort yer heads out FFS.

I can't see any strong argument for your viewpoint, or the other ones of similar ilk...

I'm not disagreeing or anything, I would just like you to elaborate so I can empathise with your position

[Daranoza]

Why is this such an "ugly head" and not a good solution to a shared problem for both clubs? You'd swear Evertonians were the Taliban or something, not co workers and friends...

I was trying so hard to read sarcasm in this post but I couldn't find any.

It's about tradition. Uniqueness. "Fortress Anfield." There are so many fans who like the idea of a ground holding its own soul, in a sense, holding the very 'heart' of its support.

How can there be a Red Soul in a Red and Blue Ground? How can there be uniqueness? How can there be tradition?

How can there be identity?

[Something Else]

Might sound unprogressive, but id be happy as a pig in shit if we fucked off a new stadium and stayed at Anfield for good.

Sick to death of the talk of a new stadium, spend the money on the pitch and keep the ground in good shape....its a fuckin holy church!

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

[Milly]

Sooner stay at Anfield than share with them.

Your wish is granted.....!

[Simon C]

Might sound unprogressive, but id be happy as a pig in shit if we fucked off a new stadium and stayed at Anfield for good.

Sick to death of the talk of a new stadium, spend the money on the pitch and keep the ground in good shape....its a fuckin holy church!

And it also prevents us from competing with clubs who are generating more money. If we moved to a new stadium would you stop going?

[DonkeyWan]

Donkey, there is much truth in what you say. But I think you are over stating how far advanced we are with New Anfield. The 60k consent does not have a curent costing, nor have the transport and infrastructure improvements been assesssed, agreed, and costed determining what our contribution to those will be, nor has a figure for the value of the existing Anfield site been determined. And that is before the scheme is funded.

One of the problems we face is that the site value for Anfield is not very much ( unlike White Hart lane / Highbury) and a ground that is used for a max 30 home games out of 365 days is not a moneyspinner ( unlike the conference value of The Emirates and the established sporting credentials of a built 76,000 capacity old Trafford).

I also agree that we are in a stronger position entering discussions than Everton, ironically I cannot see them agreeing to terms that would inevitably, and publicly, condemn them to second class status.

Hi Xerxes. Interesting points you make, can you give a bit more detail on this? I was under the impression we had agreed the terms of the plan and were merely waiting on funding to get started. Any other issues pertaining to transport etc. were minor quibbles easily remedied at a later stage, not potential stumbling blocks.

I also think you understate the desperate situation Everton are in. They are broke, desperate (they had hoped to build a new stadium with only 10 million debt. Madness), their stadium is on the point of not being fit for use and they are once again looking like falling into relegation battles. Should they go down (not unfeasible) they will lose a lot of players with little return, but unlike say Newcastle, don't have the infrastructure in place to financially boost their way back up.

In such a scenario they may very well swallow their pride and play second fiddle in the hope that in the long run they can re-establish themselves in the city. However, while groundshare remains a political dish of the day, I have yet to see any concrete suggestions as to where, how, cost share etc. Are they going to just half fund New Anfield? I can't see it.

[DonkeyWan]

Which is why I wonder whether Hicks and Gillett would find the idea of building and renting to Everton for their home games a financially attractive option? They'd then claim they weren't doing a 'groundshare'.

That would make sense for both clubs from our perspective, but I can't see Everton going down that route.

[Olives]

it may not be feasible, it may not work, but it would be petty and stupid not to consider it, we'd be cutting our nose off to spite our face.  if we could save £50 million (plus sharing the fixed running costs) we could afford Kaka.  obviously that is simplistic, but you get the point. 

remember that it is NOT Anfield and just I don't have any special connection to a stadium that has not been built yet.  we are planning to leave Anfield anyway, groundshare has to be an option for consideration.

I'm not enthusiastically pro-groundshare, but I'm open it if it makes financial sense and there is a proper kop, Shankly/Paisley gates, Hillsborough memorial etc.  of course, there are many potential problems such as would Everton be able to fill 65,000/70,000+ against the likes of Stoke or Wigan? could they afford to pay for their half of the capital costs? what would happen if Everton ran into financial problems?  plus us only owning only half of the asset would reduces our potential borrowing ability.  if it turns out that the groundshare is not feasible for these reasons or would only save a small amount, then fine, we'll build our own ground.  but why not consider it and see what happens?