Stadium sharing. Yea or Nay?

[n00bie deluxe]

Good idea or bad one?

Good - Teams can save money, buy better players, make tickets more affordable

Bad - May mean sharing it with a hated local rival, detracts from the sense that your home stadium really is your team's "home."

[G Enriquez]

I don't like ground shares because, The wear and tear on the field, the loss of idenity of a team,the over saturation of soccer in a particular area.

[copaantl98]

Originally posted by G Enriquez
I don't like ground shares because, The wear and tear on the field, the loss of idenity of a team,the over saturation of soccer in a particular area.

Giants Stadium is an example.

[soccernutter]

It is conditional. Teams link Liverpool and Everton have shown they don't need ground sharing, though Everton would certianly benefit more. On the other hand, Spurs and Arse-nal proposed a 60k-70k (I believe) seat stadium a few years back. That would benefit both clubs, specially for the north London clash. Sure they would lose some unique identity, but having the (hypothetical) Spurs/Arse-nal stadium in north London would cause less identity loss than when Arse-nal played their home Champoin's League matches at Wembley.

[RichardL]

Originally posted by soccernutter
It is conditional. Teams link Liverpool and Everton have shown they don't need ground sharing, though Everton would certianly benefit more. On the other hand, Spurs and Arse-nal proposed a 60k-70k (I believe) seat stadium a few years back. That would benefit both clubs, specially for the north London clash. Sure they would lose some unique identity, but having the (hypothetical) Spurs/Arse-nal stadium in north London would cause less identity loss than when Arse-nal played their home Champoin's League matches at Wembley.

Unlikely to happen now that Arsenal are building their own stadium. Spurs would not want to move in with them and Arsenal wouldn't want them. Any team who moves in with another will always suffer as they'll never be able to call another team's stadium 'home'. The only way it can work is if there's a neutral site for the two to share.

I think Everton and Liverpool are both looking to build new grounds rather than share one.

[The Double]

Originally posted by RichardL
Unlikely to happen now that Arsenal are building their own stadium. Spurs would not want to move in with them and Arsenal wouldn't want them. Any team who moves in with another will always suffer as they'll never be able to call another team's stadium 'home'. The only way it can work is if there's a neutral site for the two to share.

I think Everton and Liverpool are both looking to build new grounds rather than share one.


Arsenal are building at Ashburton Grove or something like that, and Tottenham say that they want to rennovate, because The Lane is one of the hardest stadiums to get to in London.

Everton are looking to move to King's Dock, and i don't know the current Stadium situation at Liverpool.

[RichardL]

Originally posted by The Double
Tottenham say that they want to rennovate, because The Lane is one of the hardest stadiums to get to in London.


I can't see why Spurs are making such a fuss about the public transport not being able to cope if Spurs were to make white hart land hold 50000. It didn't seem to be a problem when it held 48,500 in the late 80s, or 60,000 ten years earlier. I get the feeling they want to move out and rent because that's a cheaper option than rebuilding. Don't the people who own Spurs also have interests in other clubs, one of which is Slavia Prague? They moved that team out of their home ground and into the Strahov, and their real home ground is now a weed infested ruin.