Everton-Liverpool ground share?

Discussion in 'Premier League: News and Analysis' started by blueedge, Sep 18, 2003.

  1. blueedge

    blueedge New Member

    May 6, 2003
    S.C.
    Today there was talk of Everton and Liverpool being urged to look at sharing a stadium.

    I personally think its a tough one, one second I think no way, share a stadium with those horrible reds? No chance! I want us to have our own home.

    But then, I think hmmm, it would be good for the city, a world class venue to put Merseyside on the map, if its good enough for Milan and Inter....

    Then I go back to my original thought again.

    what are your thoughts?
     
  2. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    As long as we both have our "home" ends where we can display our trophies and you lot can ritually abuse ethnic minorities, it would be OK.
     
  3. kopiteinkc

    kopiteinkc Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 1, 2000
    Shawnee
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
  4. Alan_V

    Alan_V Member

    Apr 22, 2003
    Anaheim, CA via NJ
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's only a horrible idea if you look at it from a fans emotional standpoint. If you look at it from pounds and pence, how much better a stadium could you get, and still pay less than going it on your own.

    How many more world class players could your afford to buy/keep. What happens next year to Everton if they don't make it to Europe and Rooney leaves? Or Liverpool lose Gerrard and/or Owen as has been rumored?

    Don't get me wrong, I understand the pride of playing in your own park. I grew up in the New York area sd we've had several 'opportunities' for groundshare. Mostly due to renovation of one place or the other. It works financially, and with many clubs having financial uncertainty, sharing the expense of a place to play is fiscally sound.

    Check your egos at the door and say yes!
     
  5. kopiteinkc

    kopiteinkc Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 1, 2000
    Shawnee
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    How else am I supposed to look at it? I am a fan and I am emotional about it.

    Read this thread/article and refute anything that is said there: http://195.8.171.36/forums/showthread.php?threadid=11332

    Thanks to Matt who posted this in the Liverpool forum.
     
  6. JJ Mindset

    JJ Mindset Member

    Dec 7, 2000
    Emotions aren't the only reasons to oppose a ground share. The state of the playing pitch and O & O's are major issues when considering one. In today's economics, clubs try to pad their incomes by hosting events other than the real football at their respective venues. How would these be done at a shared venue? Would there be enough space to build a stadium AND a movable surface in Merseyside? More importantly, WHO will pay for WHAT at this supposed stadium?


    Right now, EFC is in a tight spot, financially. They missed their chance to have their own superground at King's Dock. There are questions as to whether they would be able to finance even a half-share of this supposed fancy superstadium. Also, I have my doubts as to whether the city of Liverpool would spend ANY public funds on a stadium. It's not been traditional for public entities to fund stadia in Britain. Those have been the clubs' concern, traditionally. The new Wembley is being financed by proceeds from the lottery, with the belief that it'll be the new national stadium and that no club would "own and/or operate" the stadium, i.e. no Arsenal/Tottenham ground share. Even in a football-mad nation, there are some constraints as to how much support to sport the gov't can give. Imagine if the government there started publically financing stadia all over. Then all the other football clubs would demand one as well. There are 92 in the Nationwide and Premiership total, plus hundreds in the non-league. The British gov't doesn't subsidize sport nearly as much as that in China or even some industrialized nations like Germany and the U.S..


    Finally, you can't completely dismiss the perception of the clubs in the city or risk being played like a fool. LFC, like it or not, is the glamour club of Merseyside. Any new ground there would be regarded as the "Reds' New Ground", ground share or not, unless it's built only for Everton. Likewise, in Munich, ask any person outside Germany about the city and Bundesliga, the first name that pops up in their minds is "Bayern" and NOT "1860". That's despite the fact that the new stadium is being built by a company co-owned by both clubs, thereby having equal ownership stakes in the venue. Unless you're a Bundesliga fan or spend a lot of time following the sport outside your country, you'd do the same thing. As to the cities of Rome, Milan and Turin, the only city that you could say that the two clubs are indentified equally is Rome and that's because both SS Lazio and AS Roma have about the same number of league titles. Clearly, fans outside Italy who don't have Italian ancestry associate "Turin" with "Juventus" and "Milano" with "Milan AC" or rossoneri. Also, the stadia are owned by public entities in the cities I mentioned, although the clubs there are trying to change that fact.

    As one who favors Man City, the real Mancunian club, I could understand not being the club first mentioned from the city of the same name. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page