ToffeeWeb - Season 2008-09

The Mail Bag

Stanley Park Stadium

The takeover at Manchester City has thrown up many questions, but the main one that concerns us is: "How can we compete for the all important, money spinning, Champions League places?" This not only concerns us, but also the likes of Villa, Portsmouth, Blackburn and more importantly Liverpool.

Under the ownership of the Americans, Liverpool are going to find it increasingly difficult to fund their on-field activities if they are not in the mix come the end of the season.

With us both struggling to find new investment, do readers feel that now is the time to re-examine the possibility of a shared stadium, where we can share the cost and still be able to concentrate on purchasing new players for our teams?
Richard Clark, cumbria Posted 02/09/2008 at 18:54:14

back Return to the Mail Bag

Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer

Dan Parker
1 Posted 03/09/2008 at 02:41:22

Report abuse

We’ve had two changes and blown them, the first King’s Dock because we couldn’t raise the capital. The second was called in probably due to 50% of the fans being against it.

Me personally, I would have gone for Kirkby to attract the required investment needed to compete although I understand that 50% or so of my fellow Toffees disagreed which probably had a big effect on it being called in. I have to respect their views however and can understand the reasons why people voted against.

At the end of the day, I’d rather have Everton run by a true Evertonian than a corrupt Thai Prime Minister whom I’m staggered as to how the government allows it. Just shows how much money talks.

John Horan
2 Posted 03/09/2008 at 02:32:20

Report abuse

To me its a "no brainer". A shared stadium makes so much sense in so many ways. There are many shared stadiums around the world but, perhaps, the best example is the San Siro in Milan, Italy which is home to both Inter and AC Milan, 2 of Italy’s biggest teams. They are heated rivals but they prosper and are successful sharing the same ground.

Once you get over the emotional part, it makes a lot of sense:

1. Everton and Liverpool never play at home on the same day as it is now with 2 stadiums with individual , double if you like, upkeep, maintenance, ground staff, heat, light costs etc etc.

2.How many days a year are Goodison and Anfield used? 35 at the most, out of 365. How, with this ever increasing focus on the environment, efficient is that?

3. Everton could have their executive and operations offices at one end, Liverpool the other.

4. Both clubs could share all their upkeep, maintenance, groundkeeping staff costs etc.

5. Using their shared financial resources they could built a "state of the art" stadium with all the latest cost saving innovations that would be the envy of the EPL - perhaps with a roof that opens and closes - very common in North America. Weather would not be a problem and the facility could be multi purpose - used for rock concerts and trade shows.

The list could go on and on but I’ll leave it there, hopefully, sparking some intelligent debate on this issue.

Cameron Hamilton
3 Posted 03/09/2008 at 05:33:49

Report abuse

I can only speak from Australian experience where ground sharing happens in almost every football code in all Australian cities - most of which are bigger than Liverpool.

A joint venture company could be set up to manage the stadium with gate takings distributed according to who is hosting the match at the stadium each week.

From a financial perspective It seems a logical step to me. I’m not so naive however to think it will ever eventuate.

Jason Lam
4 Posted 03/09/2008 at 07:28:46

Report abuse

How about a joint stadium at Kirby? It’ll be the deal of the century and virtually free. Bill should sell the idea to those skint yanks.

Sean Hope
5 Posted 03/09/2008 at 08:04:53

Report abuse

I know the shared stadium works well in Italy and other sunnier climates but do you think one pitch will survive an English winter if both clubs are playing premier,european and cup games on it.I have my doubts

Alan Ross
6 Posted 03/09/2008 at 07:48:59

Report abuse

If we were to share the stadium in Stanley Park surely we would have to share the costs which at the last estimate was £400m. Can’t see that happening. More sensible to pump the £78m it would cost us for Kirkby into Goodison. Incidentely, the DTZ financial statement in April concludes that the final cost of the stadium move to Kirkby would be in the region of £130m, of which £30m would be moving costs alone so in actual fact the building costs of the stadium would be £99.9m of which Everton would have to account for £78m. So for the sake of a £22m reduction in the cost of the stadium which is not much more than we outlaid for Fellaini we are expected to move out of the city to a site where Tesco want to build a big shop???

Derek Thomas
7 Posted 03/09/2008 at 08:19:04

Report abuse

Sean Hope;

Two teams on one pitch will be no problem. Grounds keeping is not a new science, in the 60’s two teams used to play on Goodison Everton, Everton Reserves and play in the snow as well. Except for the odd season when we cocked up the drainage with the under wire heating system, the pitch was as good if not better.

So with a modern, (roofed even) shared stadium, augmented by 21st C high tech, yet again Everton and Everton reserves will play week about.

Steve Carter
8 Posted 03/09/2008 at 09:19:48

Report abuse

Yeah, look, if Everton is to stay in Liverpool, it’s a no brainer for all those reasons in these carbon conscious days.

Marc Williams
9 Posted 03/09/2008 at 10:09:37

Report abuse

DIC the other potential investors from this region are still interested in Liverpool, see the interviews with their enabler/go between in the national media. If they go ahead & the Man City takeover makes this more likely, as they are rumoured to wish to rival the other Dubai group, then Liverpool?s Stadium issue will be sorted.

If the takeover doesn?t go ahead then a shared stadium would make sense to both clubs but objective business opinion is that DIC will still buy Liverpool, so a shared stadium deal is very, very unlikely.

The interviews with those involved in the Man city take over are very interesting in that their main motivation was the profile/ platform that owning an EPL side brings.

If we were to pitch a sale of our club / brand to one of the many Indian billionaires, currently building huge conglomerates in the sub continent & far east, I really don?t see our current debt?s / stadium issue being a bar to a sale.

I?m even more convinced after listening to the Man City takeover team that it is Kenwright?s TERMS & CONDITIONs of a sale that are stopping a potential sale of our club.

Erik Dols
10 Posted 03/09/2008 at 10:10:24

Report abuse

Sean Hope: In Italy, AC and Inter Milan share a stadium. AC Milan is looking to build their own stadium and Inter Milan is also starting to move towards a stadium of their own. AC started looking because San Siro is outfashioned and they want a shiny new stadium, but Inter won’t pay their share. Moreover they want a stadium they can take all income from and not be forced to share it with Inter. I admit that both clubs are not far in their stadium plans, but they are there.

Lazio and AS Roma share a stadium. Lazio is in the process of getting contractors etc. to build a new stadium because the shared stadium is a money drain and they exect to get much more money out of a smaller (!) stadium of their own. AS doesn’t have any plans to move, as far as I know.

Juventus and Torino currently share a stadium. They shared Delle Alpi until 2006, then both moved to stadium Olimpico because Delle Alpi is a horrible stadium. Juventus is the owner of Delle Alpi and planning on redeveloping it to a smaller (!) but more profitable stadium. After that is completed, they will move there but Torino will stay in Stadium Olimpico.

So naming Italy as an example for shared grounds is not a good idea as all the examples I can think of are falling apart because at least one of the clubs is convinced it can earn money in a stadium they do not share.

I’m against sharing as I fear we would be treated like the tennant and Liverpool as the sole owner.

Chris Stephenson
11 Posted 03/09/2008 at 11:10:35

Report abuse

Bit specualtive I know but if its true that Goodison's gradual redevelopment could be done for £100 mil or less that's actually less than Man City's new owners are talking of spending on 1 player! With money like that being thrown around maybe the Stadium issue wouldn't be such a barrier to investment from something similar! Who knows!