I know that some clubs share stadiums with other clubs in their city. Lazio and Roma, Juventes and Turino,Milan and Inter and Bayern and 1860 all do this. Their are also clubs in the same city that do not share. Rangers and Celtic, ManU and Man City,Real Madrid and Athletico Madrid are examples of that. None of the major London clubs do either. My question is,is their any determining factor why a club shares or doesn't share with another one ? Is it a money issue,tradition factor,ownership decision or what.
That's mainly because, of the stadium-sharers you mentioned, none of them own their own stadia. They're all city-owned - usually this sort of thing is the result of them being built for an event such as the Olympics in Munich and Rome or Italia '90 in Turin. In the aftermath, the city councils presuade, coerce, or whatever, the clubs in the city to move into the new stadium so that they can get a share of revenues. The only example I can think of for a major stadium construction that didn't result in both the city's major clubs moving into the new venue besides France '98 is Barcelona after the '92 Olympics. RCD Espanyol moved, but Barcelona didn't - which was probably a combination of being too big for the Montjuic and unwillingness to abandon the Nou Camp more than anything else.
History in the UK. For instance, Liverpool and Everton would not share. Just wouldn't. They tried to suggest we should when Everton announced their King's Dock plans, but we said bog off and announced plans for a new stadium of our own on Stanley Park. Same goes for Glasgow - can you really imagine Celtic and Rangers sharing a ground? London doesn't count. None of the clubs are that close to each other. Imagine being a West Ham fan (East End of London) and having to watch your home games in Chelsea (far West End of London).
Granted, I'm in the States, but my understanding was that Fulham and Chelsea were very close to one another; Arsenal and Tottenham are similarly nearby, although like Rangers/Celtic or Liverpool/Everton, both sets of supporters would rather eat broken glass than ground-share.
Then you have a city like Rio de Janeiro. With small stadiums owned by each club used for most games (Gávea for Flamengo, São Januário for Vasco etc.) and the Maracanã built in 1950 for the WC, owned by the city and rented by these clubs for the big games. The small stadiums vary in capacity from 10,000 to 40,000 while the Maracanã seats over 100,000 Robert
Re: Re: Clubs in the same city that share and don't share stadiums It is, but that was only because Wimbledon moved there temporarily until they could build a more suitable ground back in Wimbledon (alas that plan is no more). Their old ground Plough Lane would have only held about 7000 if made all seater. Charlton also shared Selhurst previously but that was a rather long drawn out saga. There are four west london clubs within a couple miles or so, but each are still in quite distinct neighbourhoods. If that sounds odd then try to imagine two sports teams based at either end of central park in New York. I think you'd agree that although they are close, their neighbourhoods would be rather different.
They are on the same street, about 100 yards from the corner of one ground to the other. The only closer grounds I know about are in Budapest where MTK Hungaria are literally across the street from their non-league neighbours.
i believe scottish football has a law banning ground-sharing among premier division teams... however, if scotland/ireland win the right to host euro 2008, dundee is a possible spot for a new scottish stadium, and the rule will be changed.
Incorrect! Actually, a few years back, Spurs were talking with Arse-nal about building a 50k-60k stadium - using the Turin/Milan/Rome ground/revenue sharing examples. The idea fell through because the supporters clubs for both clubs strongly went against the idea. The sad part is this would have strengthened both teams, as both must now build newer and bigger stadiums of their own.
Re: Re: Clubs in the same city that share and don't share stadiums I think this would benefit Sperz more than Arsenal. Keep on wishing mate.
For 2 seasons. And if I'm not too mistaken, I think MK council have ok'd plans for a new stadium there - though people can feel free to correct me on this. So, I think the move is definitely still there.
Fulham is supposed to be at Loftus for 2 years but some local residents near Craven's Cottage are trying to block the rennovation plans so they may be there for longer. The residents want to permanently enjoin the rennovation so Fulham may have to move elsewhere in London. The Chairman of Chelsea mentioned that Fulham could groundshare with them, but Fulham owner Mo al Fayed said in as much words that that's a non-starter and that neither he nor the Fulham fans would ever stand for a grounshare with Chelsea.
Re: Re: Re: Clubs in the same city that share and don't share stadiums Thats what I thought at the time - now it's comeletly a non issue as Arse-nal are starting to build their own, and Spurs are planning for their own.
Well within a hundred yards of each other . If Scotland gets Euro 08 they will be building a new stadium in the city that both clubs will share .
About Dundee and Dundee United I have read that when they play each other, they use their dressing rooms in their own stadium, rather than the visitors dressing room. Is this true?
How far is Loftus Road from Craven Cottage? Since QPR are no longer top-flight calibre, permanently sharing the stadium with Fulham may not be a bad deal for them.
It's not that far, but how would you feel about the US team playing 'home' games in Canada on the grounds that it's not far from the US?
I know that Dundee have done it in the past . I'm not sure United do it . Last time I was in Dundee for a derby was back in 2000 . The United players came out of Dens about an hour after the match . So I would assume they do use the facilities at Dens .
in lima peru the 3 major clubs each have their own stadium but when important matches like copa libertadores matches and derbies come around they all go to the national stadium mainly for security reasons
Point taken. Though, I should remind you that New York Giants and Jets play their home games in East Rutherford, New Jersey, a bus ride under River Hudson and across state lines.
An unwillingness to abandon the Camp Nou is putting it mildly. When a club takes on a project of erecting a stadium the size of the Camp Nou in the 1950s (at a huge and immense cost), I can't imagine that there was even an afterthought of moving to the Montjuic. Forget being too big for the Montjuic. The endeavors by the club in the 1950s to raise the funds for building the Camp Nou are an explanation of why ultimately, Barcelona never got Alfredo di Stefano. The deal by the Spanish FA to compensate Barcelona forgoing their contract claim to di Stefano was taken on by the president of Barcelona at the time because of the costs of building the Camp Nou. I can't imagine there ever being a discussion by the club of moving into the ugly stadium known as the Montjuic. It's football unfriendly, and the Espanyol supporters will testify to that (they were angry in losing that dump of a stadium known as the Saria for Montjuic so imagine the quality of the Montjuic). The Camp Nou is Barcelona. FC Barcelona is Barcelona. If FC Barcelona is unwilling to share its 'blaugrana' shirt with a sponsor, then by hell it will never share a stadium with a club that will always (ALWAYS) be the second club in Barcelona.
Well,I live one hour from Ottawa,so it's fine with me... I think we should play Central American sides in Canada in February (hehehe)