Okay... I guess we can have another run at this thorny topic as it may well have some legs. Let's try to keep it on topic, and not divert back to Kirkby, please!

Short answer: Yes.
We need a new stadium, we or the RS don’t have enough money to build a stadium by themselves and it has never been a impediment to ’healthy’ rivalry between local clubs (the two Milan clubs are the obvious example).

There really is a need to be bold on this. Too many people dismiss it out of hand when sharing the massive amount of expenditure required is actually the most realistic way for us to get ahead financially.

Realistically its up to the club to sit down with the shite and run the numbers. If it stacks up then they should sell it to the fans. If it doesnt, let us know also. If they really haven't given it some serious consideration at Board level then thats a serious dereliction of duty imho.

As long as we get the same rights and treatment as the Shite and as long as it keeps us in Liverpool, where we rightly belong.

Yes, it makes sense - shared expenses and we might even draw in some government and LCC money to help pay for it.

Is the only argument for a groundshare is that ’it’s cheap’?

IMO I think it would need a massive capacity, 80-100,000 to allow both clubs to keep the ticket price down. This could have another effect also by forcing other clubs to compete with our prices, which would certainly be unhelpful to the London clubs. It should be capable of more than just football and the rights equal. It would be the best thing for both clubs and would set us up for the future. COYB

It’s a no-brainer. Of course we should be looking at a shared stadium.

The RS have arguably a debt problem greater than ours. We both need a new stadium; we both should be in the city and with due apologies to the hysterical fanatics of both hues who claim to hate each other, fans of both sides do actually get on well. You only have to look at the "derby" FA Cup Finals to realise that — blues sitting alongside reds.

Last but not least, someone on another thread yesterday mentioned the 2018 World Cup bid. With a brand new stadium we’d be a dead cert location and for that reason alone we might even attract government participation — Peter Mandelson for chairman anyone? At the end of the day we hate each other for 180 minutes a season; what’s to argue about?

It’s a sensible option...

Let them pay for the refurbishment of Goodison and we’ll let them play there.

Not long ago I would have said - no brainer - yes but after reading a point of view on another topic I’m not so sure now.
I forget who posted it but it goes back to James Bowman’s point above about capacity.

The RS could probably fill a stadium of 80,000 capacity but can you imagine an Everton game in that stadium with only 40,000 supporters? Or say even 50,000 for the first few years novelty factor?

Can anyone give a viable reason not to? Please no "We fuckin' hate the R/S".

As for capacity, I’m unclear as to the problem of not filling it? Are we talking atmosphere? if we are, sensible seating would sort that, or am I missing something?

No Brainer, Yep!

Nick’s already said it, but it really is worth emphasizing that Liverpool’s finances are looking pretty wobbly & they’ve already taken a further knock when they dropped out of the Champion’s League this season. If they fail to qualify for next year’s competition, they’ll probably need to start rethinking their business plans. Sharing might soon be the only viable option for them too.

80-100k?

Don’t be silly...As a comprimise it would have to be somewhere between what we want and need and what they want and need, with the added factor of cost driving that decision. I’d say it would be no more than 65k... and if it was designed with a bit of sense, it could have retractable or sliding seats which could fluctuate the number of seats according to the attendance...

Imagination eh!

I wouldn't share a dog shit pie with them horrible cunts... what is it with them throwing coins? And when they are winning?
fucking animals... fuck them.

Yes Ciaran, 60-65,000 would be big enough and on another topic can anyone explain how to pluck out eyes with a cucumber? That must be a hobby which has surfaced on Merseyside since I departed!

Not for me.

Because...

Chances are when we play, acres of empty seats - atmosphere dead.

Supporting a team is about identity and your own ground enhances your own identity.

Some of those teams famous for sharing, are now deciding it doesn’t work and isn’t necessarily financially beneficial.

Good chance it wouldn’t be a ’shared’ - likelihood is they would, in effect, own it (nb: remember, BK would be involved in negotiations).

I wouldn’t share a pile of dog shite....

Those "derby" finals were 20 years ago. I couldn’t see us travelling down to Wembley together again.

No way would I have some spotty kopite arse on my season ticket seat every other week. The groundshare is a non-starter.

I voted NO to Kirby but would reluctantly vote YES to a ground share with LFC.

Economically it makes great sense in the current climate, geographically it keeps us all in the same region and us in the City boundary. My only concern is the representation of EFC in the shape of Bill K and his cronies and wonder if they have the competence to pull this off.

As far as football and reputations go we have, as a city an opportunity to show the rest of the country a lead role in what could be a sensible result - the fans of both clubs need to have some say and no doubt a topic there will be to vote and agree on sections of the stadium for standing supporters.

I’m in.
Nil Satis and all - lets make it as big as is financially possible.
Don’t give me the empty seats argument.
(1) OT Is always full and you hear all the arguments about there being no atmosphere there from the mancs
(2) Goodison as rarely full and the atmosphere is only decent for the big games or when things get a bit feisty on the pitch.
(3) I have never heard an empty seat making more noise than a fan singing.

Like it or not, the two clubs are linked right through history and I quite like the thought that if it went ahead those lot would never have had a ground without EFC’s involvement.

To sum up - can we afford a new one? no. Do we need one? yes. Are they in the same boat? yes.
Get it built in Stanley Park quick sharp.

Cucumber and dogshit pie eh! mmmm.. Its what makes our support so great doesn’t it.. Seemingly the c&d pie brigade don’t want to move from Goodison Park, no problem with that, just with the fact of what part of "we don’t have any money" don’t they understand?!

We need investment, even if the gobshite council give us planning permission to turn Goodison Park around and build whatever we like where we are, we still don’t have any money to do it..

It’s already been mentioned above, but imiginative seating/prices will boost atmosphere and attendance in a shared stadium so in theory we could easily break the 50k barrier every week if you're charging reasonable prices.. therefore if we’re in a 65k seater stadium we’re 3/4 full stadium which won’t dampen the atmosphere as we’ll also be able to sell more tickets to the away fans.

It isn’t ideal but which stadium idea mooted over the past 10-20 years has been? It’s time to think a little more out the box.. and eat some proper food rather than cucumber & dogshit!

It's a yes from me.

Makes perfect sense and it puts Merseyside football back in the limelight as the first Premier League teams to share a stadium proper.

Although I agree we won't fill the seating capacity, the atmosphere issue can be easily solved by clever (yes, I said clever) ticket planning.

Leave the top tiers/seats empty, ensure that season tickets are in concentrated areas and you fill the general sales from bottom up. That way, it will still feel busy at least.

If LCC will help pay for a stadium between us, then so be it. We can share the profit from sponsorships and we can call it the [whatever company] stadium.

For me, if it's possible, then it's a no-brainer — it's a simple solution, it helps both clubs out and it keeps the city ticking over — because, let's face it, Liverpool is no longer a ’big port’ and football helps it appear to be a bigger city than it truly is (my opinion).

It would be fantastic to have a truly World Class stadium... but a sensible plan re the attendances would have to be worked out, as has already been stated a February Wednesday night Everton v Stoke match is unlikely going to fill the stadium.

YES - Both clubs need a new staduim and with the cost of stadiums these days it is certainly worth Everton investing the time to see if this is viable.

If Grounds keeper Willy (Moyes) is happy with it - and being a grounds man he should know. Then why would we object.

Yes.

For the reasons I’ve articulated on 20 or more occasions on TW already.

Charles, you have an almight inferiority complex

GARETH

YOU’RE RIGHT, MIGHT BE COS WE AS A CLUB HAVE BEEN INFERIOR FOR SO LONG.

ALTHOUGH COULD BE I NEED ANOTHER LEMSIP..... BLOODY SWINE FLU/ORDINARY FLU/SLIGHT COLD /SNUFFLY NOSE

I would be willing to share a ground for the future of EFC to progress and keep up with everyone else.

However i went to a meeting last week with Peter Lupson, the writer of the books Thank God for Football and Accross the Park. He has met and spoken to people high up at Everton and Liverpool. One message i seemed to get about the ground share is that Liverpool would have a problem with the naming rights. They would attract a bigger sponsor than Everton and then would be expected to share it with Everton which would be an issue.

I was thinking a sponsor should be happy getting 2 clubs in one and 2 sets of fans which would likley attract more money.

If we could be guaranteed as equal partners (unlike 1860 Munich who had to sell their stake in the Allianz arena to Bayern Munich in 2006) then the option must be seriously discussed. However, even a shared stadium would require serious funds from EFC, something this board clearly doesnt have

Charles. No need to shout. Turn your fucking caps lock off you bell-end.

Sorry ray, just come back in from arranging transport for friends of mine in the little army regiment we have down here near Hereford.

Did’nt realise you were sensitive about ermm .........case sensitivity.
Careful how you go now would’nt like to see a fellow blue get out of his depth.

As much as i hate Liverpool Football Club, and i do, i support the idea of a ground share in principle. I do have one reason however, aside from large sections of the fan base being against it, why i believe it simply won’t happen and also a question, the answer to which may be another reason why it won’t happen.

Firstly, finances. We simply cannot afford anywhere near half of the anticipated cost of a shared stadium, certainly not the one they have already planned. And whilst we would want equal share we simply cannot afford that luxury.

Secondly, the pitch. We stopped reserve team games being played at Goodison to preserve the pitch. If a shared ground were played on for 38 league games in a season, plus all of the domestic cup and Champions League and Europa League games it would be a complete and utter mess.

Is there a risk of us becoming Liverpool FC’s B team if we shared a stadium?

Smaller crowds, fewer trophy’s and less revenue...

Our own stadium would keep our identity would it?

Is there a risk of us becoming Liverpool FC’s B team if we shared a stadium?

Smaller crowds, fewer trophy’s and less revenue...

Our own stadium would keep our identity wouldn’t it?

Chas,

Don’t be such a muppet with your ’mind how you go, 22Sqn, internet warrior tripe’ You’ve been reading too many books - its giving you delusions.

As for the shared stadium, it would need to be done properly, each Club having its own ’end’ They could have their Shankly Gates at their end, we gat the Dixie Statue at ours.

The corners of the ground should echo Prince Rupert’s Tower, and they could have Liver Birds on top (they were our’s first, after all)

Down the Park side of the ground you should have a football Museum (to house the France collection with a Learning and Education Centre and club shops / cafes between the museum and each end.

On the opposite side of the Ground, the bulk of the conferencing facilities.

Oh, and black seats, to save any argument.

Prefer our own ground but groundshare makes sense as a means to allow the club to grow.
Some have posted about empty seats and EFC not being able to fill the ground at this time but surely that is one of the main attractions to groundhsare?
Assuming a 70,000 capacity and assuming that the RS could fill this for big games and we would draw
50, 000+ that allows EFC a greater growth potential than the RS. Its this growth potential that could make the finance viable for EFC. I have psote before that the clubs could set up a holding company with each club holding 50% of the shares. The profits from each clubs match days would be accounted for and assigned to each club and other activities could be split after running costs are accounted for. An example would be stadium tours where it would be a simple matter to sell EFC or LFC tour tickets.
Anything can be made to work if the will is there.

Hiya Gordy or Ray or wtf

"shared stadium, have to be done properly".
You mean as though we’d be negotiating on an equal footing, not desparate, talking from a position of strength ?
That’s the whole point, prick.

As I said above, the large capacity would only work if the ticket prices were right. How many people wanted to visit the Emirates simply for the experience, I’m sure it would be many more if the ticket price was more sensible. What I don’t want is for the stadium to show lack of ambition, as our board do for example. Let the stadium do the talking, be ambitious and make the biggest stadium in England; the history of both clubs deserve it.

50/50 or not at all should be the message the board sends out. As for funding it, I’m sure plenty of investors would want a piece of that pie.

This is a no brainer for me - Yes. Emphatic Yes.

Ever since I have followed Everton the support for boths clubs in Liverpool has appeared to run through the middle of families, half on the blue side, half on the red (if anything, with more on the blue).

Historically the two clubs are linked - forgetting any argument about the fact that EFC was first - build it on the park, call it Stanley Park - preserve the heritage, profit from the money.

Financially it is a no-brainer, halve the costs of the stadium and its running and maintain the income. Larger profile on the world stage, through a bigger and better stadium, through its name being mentioned for both clubs, Champion’s league, UEFA League cups etc. Non football incomes - the list goes on.

The fact that there may be a few more empty seats on an EFC match day than an LFC match day is not relevant - with cheaper seat prices that could change, and with better branding and more money - a better team and more fans.

How this is even a question to which people can answer no is beyond me - sorry to all those who do not want it.

Say we did share a stadium does anyone know what would happen in these uncertain financial times if one or other club went bust?

NO - Ok it makes financial sense on every level and is the most sensible option BUT.

For me, it's just another reason for media to undermine our already underecognised club. I can see the headlines now: "Liverpools new 65,000 home"; "Evertons shared stadium"...

Some might say I'm being sensitive here but I know this would seriously piss me off.

Furthermore, I can imagine the state the red/blue seats would be in after the opposite team had used them for the home fixture...

Just feel we need to further distinguish ourselves from them, not leach off them.

Absotively — should have been done years ago! I love the idea of redeveloping Goodison, but a shared stadium actually makes far more sense.

As for the finances, surely the stadium build & running would have to be managed by a jointly owned company that would negotiate on behalf of both clubs — e.g. naming rights would be for the stadium as used every week, often twice, by 2 top premier league clubs - how many stadia could offer that?

I’d expect each club to keep their own match-day income & for other commercial income to be administered by the stadium management company to cover running costs & generate a shared profit.

It could be made to work if the will is there to agree a fair deal - Liverpool may be the bigger draw at the moment, but our involvement would release additional subsidies apparently & would mean Liverpool gain access to a facility generating a lot more profit whilst making a nine-figure saving on the cost - not too shabby a deal for them really.

Personally I’m against the idea of ground sharing. I know it makes economic sense but I believe both clubs should have their own identity in this footballing hotbed of a city.

Saying that, if it did come off, I would be there. All the above posts seem to embrace it, but I think that's due to the panic of going to Kirkby.

I’m pretty convinced the RS believe they don’t need us anyway as soon as things pick up on the loans front they will build on Stanley park without us.

For me it’s redevelop or rebuild in the city.

If both clubs are doing well in all competitions, how would the pitch cope with 4 games a week?

2 pitches.

Wasn’t King’s Dock going to have a roll out pitch?
A shared stadium could have 2 roll out pitches.

A technically feasible (though costly) solution to the pitch wear and tear is to have two pitches which can be slid in / out as required. The original plans for Kings’ Waterfront had this, to ensure the pitch was given adequate sunlight when not in use, rather than being partially cast in shadows for a proportion of time.

This was also part of the proposal for multi-purpose (Speedway, rock concert etc) though with a shared stadium, and the Arena on the Kings’ site, demand for other use would be lower.

A shared stadium is a no brainer. Two clubs spending £xx Millions on two football stadia in the same City especially when neither club has the money. Lunacy! Only trouble is the cost of the disinfection and cleaning after the RS have used the shared stadium would be astronomic!

As for the two pitches, we wouldnt need them as the one pitch would be perfect with all the manure spread on it every other week!

Can you imagine a businessman comes to Liverpool for the weekend, he asks the local businessman he is here to meet "shall we have a day out at Stanley Park? I’ll get the tickets". He then pays his £500/£1000/whatever for his corporate tickets, sits in his seat then asks the local businessman "now, which team is Liverpool?" to which the local businessman replies "no, it’s Everton today".

We’ve then made money off of the Darkside! ;)

’Furthermore, I can imagine the state the red/blue seats would be in after the opposite team had used them for the home fixture...’
-------------------

Blue seats in the Gwladys St End and red seats in the Kop...

for home games the away fans get those sections... hence, no problem.

Ken Buckley,

As I understand it, On shared premises, neither club would own the stadium per se. They would both have to sign considerable leases and provide surety money upfront to guarantee payment.

If one was to go bust....then the Council would still own the stadium, so the other remaining club would not be impacted too greatly.... (he says!)

I support the shared stadium concept and find the high number of postings in favour encouraging. It requires Kenwright to make a bold approach to both Liverpool FC and the city council.

Last weekend on Sky, when the issue was being discussed, they showed the beautiful Munich stadium which is shared by the city’s two Bundesliga teams, illuminated completely in red or blue — which ever team is playing there. They also said with white seats and aisle lighting and perimeter colouring how the whole stadium can be transformed externally and internally from red to blue and back again.

Time for reality and a fresh look forwards instead of old fashioned prejudices.

"Blue seats in the Gwladys St End and red seats in the Kop...

for home games the away fans get those sections..hence, no problem."

It could work but the away fans will not get an allocation that big, leaving surplus seats, or the threat of vandalism. In saying all this, I don't even think vandalism will be too a big problem once the stadium has been up and running a year or so.

I think there is a lot of logic to sharing and personally have no objection. However, I also think its a non-starter for the following reasons:

Whatever their financial problems might be now, we need them far more than they need us. They have a bigger fanbase, a wider world audience and (if we're honest with ourselves) would be bought out tomorrow if the yanks left. We on the other hand are skint with (according to Bullshit Billy), no money and no-one interested. On this basis, why on earth would they accept us as an equal partner?

With no money to even buy players, where are we going to find circa £200M? Let's be realistic about this — they can borrow that level of money because of their standing, we on the other hand have our heritage and history but that counts for nothing to banks and other financial institutions. We can gloat in their financial difficulties but they will get out of them far easier than us.

There is an arrogance about the RS in terms of their ‘supposed status’, they genuinely believe themselves to be superior and I strongly suspect that runs through to the highest echelons of the club. If true, they would view any partnership not as equals but as master and servant — can we live with that?

One of the main purposes of a new stadium for both clubs is to generate income from the use of conference and other facilities. How could they accept that they only receive 50% of that income when they clearly want/need 100%? How the income generation is split would be enormously problematic.

There are also a number of practical issues which have been ‘solved’ with somewhat simplistic solutions. The second pitch idea means all of one side has very limited access and probably limited income generation capacity. Having one end given over to away fans because of the seat colours would be great for the capacity when Manure come, but what happens when West Ham arrive for either club?

There are always solutions to problems but there has to be a willingness to find the solutions. In the present state of affairs with both clubs there may be a desire from our side but where is there even the slightest sense that they want to play ball? People are running away with an idea that viewed from rose coloured glasses may seem to be logical, but when on earth has football ever been a logical sport?

I feel there’s far to much feeling that seat colour could be a deal-breaker, it’s far too trivial, at some point an Everton fan would have to sit in a Red seat (and vice versa) so neutral colour stops it even being a thought.

Personally I’d go for black, white or purple but it doesn’t really matter my reasons, just as long as people don’t see the seat colour as one of the problems in a groundshare.

It’s absolute common sense, it really is.

The seat colour is a ridiculous argument against (just have chairs with rotating backs where you can spin them round depending on what game it is, and have the actual seat white!).

It’d be massively beneficial for both sides and would make derby games even more relevant as we’re playing for the pride in the city and in the stadium.

As an American Everton fan, I see the groundshare as something that needs to happen. Wishing for an alternative isn’t going to make it happen.

Without a new stadium, Everton is seriously handicapped against other Football League teams with richer owners. Long term, I can see that leading to the team being a relegation candidate year after year.

When and if they go down, I don’t see them coming back. Even a ground in Kirkby is better than oblivion.

I hope the rumours aren't true of a ground share!!! Sharing a stadium would clearly be a loss of identity. Goodison is our home and should be until another satisfactory home is found and nothing less should be accepted!