Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In Sign Up
Text:  A  A  A

Plan C: Time to Share?

By Trevor  Skempton :  28/02/2008 :  Comments (85) :
Everton?s moves towards a medium-range stadium in Kirkby have attracted wide-spread opposition within the supporters of a club that professes that ?nothing but the best is good enough?. In the meantime, Liverpool?s more ambitious proposals for a ?New Anfield? are running into difficulties in the face of the club?s mounting debts.

It has been suggested that it is now time for Everton and Liverpool to give serious consideration to sharing a new stadium, to ensure a fitting home for the two clubs and sufficient revenue to allow them to compete at the highest level of World Football. Paul Lally?s excellent article on Toffeeweb, ?St. Domingo FC? last week provoked a generally positive response.

David Backhouse is an architect and a life-long Liverpool supporter, who believes that it is a dreadful waste of resources for the two clubs to be considering building two separate new stadia. He has challenged me, as a life-long Blue and also an architect, to help bring forward details that might make a shared stadium acceptable.

Although cautious, I agreed because it could provide an alternative to the nightmare of the proposed move out-of-town. The following is the conclusion of the last few weeks? discussions. For me, Plan A is still the expansion of Goodison Park and Plan B is the Loop site on Scotland Road, but I do believe that the idea of sharing Stanley Park deserves further thought. To Plan B, some kept shouting ?where?s the money?? Well, for Plan C, a three-way share between the clubs and the public sector could be an answer. 

Trouble Ahead

The objections to sharing are understandable. Each club has a precious identity and fabulous history, forged through a deep rivalry. In business terms, each club relies on careful product differentiation and unique selling points.

Elsewhere, successful ground-sharing is rarer than is often supposed. Internationale and AC Milan are often quoted. Munich also. But divorce is in the air in Turin and Rome, and closer to home, Charlton couldn?t wait to get back to their own ground. Nor Fulham. Sharing wouldn?t work in Glasgow or Manchester, but could we be a special case?

In financial terms, the arguments for sharing are compelling. A truly world-class stadium, financed a third by each club and a third by outside bodies, need not eat into precious resources required for immediate team-building. But the challenge is to create a proposal that would not only safeguard, but actually strengthen, each club?s independent character.

It could be a condition of the public-funding element that both clubs commit themselves long-term to playing all their home matches in the stadium, thus preventing any future franchising proposals that might take either club away from the City of Liverpool.

Alternative Proposals

These thumbnail sketch-plans show the two clubs as near neighbours in North Liverpool.

On the left is the present arrangement, with the two grounds locked into their respective communities of tight streets, separated only by Stanley Park. The outline of the proposed New Anfield is superimposed on the east side of the park.

The central sketch shows the possibility of expanding each ground to seat 60,000, each club developing two new stands and making modest changes to their stadium footprint. Shared underground parking is constructed beneath a new all-weather playing surface, containing four full-size football pitches, in the centre of Stanley Park. A reconstructed sports centre provides facilities for major events within the park. 

The right-hand sketch plan shows a single Stanley Park stadium, eventually seating 80,000. The present sites are used to expand the green space into Walton and Anfield, as well as providing for surrounding hotels, flats and commercial development.

Separate ?Pavilions?

There would be separate ?pavilions? in opposite corners. Each pavilion would contain both home and away dressing rooms and would be the freehold property of the club.

The north corner would contain the Everton FC Pavilion, incorporating the David France Collection and ?1878 Hotel?, with access from Priory Road. A landmark Conical Tower would also be visible inside the stadium, above a video screen, pavilion window and players? tunnel. Over the outside door would be the words ?Nil Satis Nisi Optimum?.

The south corner would contain the Liverpool FC Pavilion, together with the Club Museum and the ?Kop Hotel?, with access from Anfield Road. A landmark Liver Bird would also be visible from inside the stadium above a video screen, pavilion window and players? tunnel. Over the outside door would be the words ?You?ll Never Walk Alone?.

A first impression of how the stadium might fit into the middle of Stanley Park, well away from residential areas and without disturbing the historic structures and lakes. A new open landscape would be created on the East side of the park. Car parking would be provided within the stadium structure, and new public transport arrangements would be to the benefit of both clubs. The existing grounds would become extensions to the park, new hotels and flats helping to form the enclosures. The historic pitches and the original Archibald Leitch stands at Goodison would be retained and adapted for community use.

Different Stands

The two large L-shaped stands would be to contrasting designs, not specific to either club, but having echoes of the historic structures. Seats could multi-coloured to disguise any unoccupied areas, or they could be white to take on the colour of alternative blue and red lights. The west stand would seat 40,000 in a single sweeping tier, with a translucent roof to minimise overshadowing of the pitch. The east stand would also seat 40,000, but in three overlapping tiers. The top tier, of 14,000 seats, would be constructed as a later phase, space being left beneath the roof, giving an initial capacity of 66,000.

The objective would be to create, quite simply, the finest football stadium in the world, one that is unique to the City of Liverpool and its two famous clubs. By sharing, such an objective could be affordable. Although not necessary at the outset [at least, from a football point of view], the design could allow for the future fitting of a retractable roof and pitch to cater for a range of secondary events and activities.

Final Comments

David Backhouse says:

?My mother was born in Skerries Road and her ashes are scattered in the park. Stanley Park played a major part in our upbringing. We have a wonderful opportunity to improve the park and make it even more relevant to future generations in both Anfield and Walton. Also, it seems an obscenity in this day and age to consider building two virtually identical new stadia in this city.?

Trevor Skempton says:

?Given the inadequacy of the Kirkby proposal, the financial questions over the ?New Anfield?, and the future possibility that either club might take the ?global-franchise? hype seriously and move away, Cunard-like, from its roots in the City of Liverpool? locking us both into a shared world-class stadium could be an idea whose time has come.?


Postscript:  Five Questions Answered


  1. Would each club be risking the loss of its individual identity?

    This is a risk, which concerns us both, and it must be addressed by making the separate identities a key feature of the design. We have proposed two ?pavilions? in opposite corners, each the freehold property of the respective clubs, each containing home and away dressing rooms, and each containing the club?s own museum and hospitality areas.

    The rest of the stadium, including all 80,000 seats, would be owned and operated by a joint stadium company, with the public sector having a third share. Much of the extra capacity would be aimed at cheaper seats, especially for younger supporters.

    Both clubs would be locked into robust 50-year agreements that would prevent them playing any ?home? matches elsewhere. Other agreements would ensure ?equality? of the clubs in terms of stadium access and usage, while recognising the need for both clubs, as separate ?businesses?, to develop ?product differentiation? and ?unique selling points?.

  2. Is Stanley Park the only option for a shared stadium?

    Stanley Park has been at the centre of the history of both football clubs. The possibility of extending the two present historic grounds and building a massive underground car park in Stanley Park, with all-weather pitches on the surface, suitable for major events, is an attractive one, and it?s one of the options we have considered.

    Other potential locations for a shared stadium include the former Clarence Dock Power station site in the Central Docks and the Tunnel Loop site in Scotland Road. The owners of the docks, Peel Holdings, seem reluctant to consider a stadium, but the owners of the ?Loop? site, Bestway, have indicated that they would be very interested in the idea.

  3. Where is the money coming from?

    Both clubs have current stadium proposals. We believe that Everton?s proposals for a 51,000-seat stadium in Kirkby are inadequate for the club, as well as being in the wrong place. Liverpool?s 72,000-seat proposals for the ?New Anfield? are more ambitious, but seem to be too expensive for the club to afford.

    The new 80,000-seat stadium would be expensive, but the cost would be split three ways, the revenue to each club would be larger, and the public sector would also have an involvement, especially in terms of managing ?enabling? development around the new periphery of the park, providing appropriate transport arrangements [including a new Merseyrail station] and ensuring that the local communities of Anfield and Walton benefited from the development.

  4. Would the proposal to build in the middle of Stanley Park ruin the park forever?

    Liverpool have already received planning permission to build a ?New Anfield? in the East of the Park. They have had second thoughts about their design and are intending to submit a second planning application. This proposal moves the new stadium to the open ground in the centre of the park, well away from any houses, leaving the East side for new playing pitches and restoring the historic structures and lakes on the West side.

    Most importantly, we advocate extending the park to include both the Anfield and Goodison pitches and the two historic Archibald Leitch stands at Goodison. New commercial and residential buildings would be built to provide a satisfactory enclosure to these new parts of the park. We think that this is a great opportunity to provide a park that is fit for the twenty-first century, whilst restoring the historic links into the communities of Anfield and Walton.

  5. The stadium looks quite conventional. Couldn?t you be more adventurous?

    Yes, we could be more adventurous, but decided that the important thing at this stage is to get the basic idea across, without the distraction of grand architectural gestures. Our suggestion is that five different design teams would be brought in to develop the concept.

    The first team would deal with the overall landscape and masterplan, ensuring proper coordination and delivery. The second would deal with the multi-tiered East Stand, the third would dead with the single-tiered West Stand. These three teams would work for the joint stadium company. The fourth and fifth design teams would deal with the two ?pavilions?, and would be answerable directly to the two clubs. These design teams should include some of the best and most imaginative people available.

Reader 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

Michael McNamara
1   Posted 28/02/2008 at 07:41:50

Report abuse

This is the way forward. Surely both teams and sets of supporters can retain their individuality in an harmonious and fiscally responsibly manner. Proximity has never been a problem with the teams as attendance at derbies has shown. It would make Liverpool, the city, a leading progressive light in terms of UK sport development
Julian Evitts
2   Posted 28/02/2008 at 08:03:21

Report abuse

I read this yesterday, and it looks like a very good idea, better for both clubs than their current proposals.

I’ve always thought that you could build a shared stadium with two identities. Our dressing rooms, directors box, dugouts, fumction rooms, club shop etc all over one side, theirs on the other.

You could have our "home" end behind one goal, theirs behind the other. You could even have two TV gantries so that TV games would be shown from opposite sides of the pitch for each team, making the stadium look like a different stadium for each team even on TV.

You could have Dixie Dean’s statue at one corner and the Shankley Gates on the opposite one.

I think the lighting the seats blue or pink is a genius idea. Possibly the mixed colours to hide areas without fans might be better though if we had an 80,000 seat stadium!

Personally I’ve never had a problem with the idea of a shared stadium but I apppreciate that very many Evertonians would object.

I wonder what most would prefer (or see as the lesser of two evils)? A shared stadium in Stanley Park or our own stadioum in Kirkby?
Michael Brien
3   Posted 28/02/2008 at 07:41:51

Report abuse

Personally, I think that it is a great idea; a joint stadium situated in the area between both current stadia. I know many people would disagree and would site the possible loss of identity etc. However, I believe that you have presented a very strong case and one that is certainly deserving of consideration.
I would love to see us redevelop Goodison, but it looks as if that would prove to be a very expensive option. The cost to a club of building a new staidum has escalated quite dramatically in recent years. Look at the example of Arsenal and how the cost of their stadium went well over the original budget.
During the building of the Emirates Stadium, Arsenal were not able to compete in the transfer market as they had done previously. If we do "go it alone" then we have to accept the fact that our ability to compete in the transfer market would be affected.
A great article, very thought provoking. I hope Evertonians don?t dismiss it out of hand. To create such a stadium would be an important first for our great city.
Charlie Dimmock
4   Posted 28/02/2008 at 08:14:36

Report abuse

Once the decision to groundshare has been made then does that not open up a whole new paradigm?

The combined financial clout would surely allow for hitherto unthought options to be made available.

Could anyone, Blue or Red, seriously object to a stadium located on the river?

What is so attractive about using Stanley Park anyway?

Kirkby, I agree, is a massive no no but a location within the city that would be made affordable by a joint effort is worthy of consideration.
Nick Cullen
5   Posted 28/02/2008 at 08:50:12

Report abuse

I’ve been suggesting a shared stadium to anyone who will listen for a long time. In terms of the costs of building and infrastructure it makes perfect sense and it also means the local community get a facility which all sides can be justifiably proud of.

I know it isn’t the ’easy’ solution but the best ones never are, and with some hard work, genuine imagination and will on both sides this could be the answer we have all been looking for
Mark Greenhouse
6   Posted 28/02/2008 at 08:39:07

Report abuse

I know that this isn?t too everyone's taste, a ground share, but it is good to see the debate being raised again.
I?d always thought that the waste of resources, CASH, concrete, steel, copper, plastic etc that would go into two clubs, a mile apart, building separate stadia and stretching themselves, so as to be potentially unable to compete on the field (the important part) wasn?t the greatest business plans I?d ever seen.
What a great set of ideas, having seen the outside of the new stadium in Munich, have a look at this website for a raft of pictures,, I have often wondered how you could make it work for the two clubs ? I like the proposal and thanks for provoking the debate.
Mike Byrne
7   Posted 28/02/2008 at 09:38:45

Report abuse

I couldn’t agree more with this article exceot for one point - the Liver bird doesn’t belong to Liverpool Football Club but to the City and people of Liverpool and as such it should not even hypothetically be linked to the dark-side.

Indeed there is evidence that the Liver bird was used in Everton memorablia even before our bastard son existed!!
Markus Steinbauer
8   Posted 28/02/2008 at 09:31:53

Report abuse

You seem to point out Munich as a perfect example for a shared stadium but their are some facts you may have to know:

Its situated outside the city in the North which has been basically a dump until then

1860 Munichs fan already hate the stadium becuase of point one and mostly because they couldnt afford such a big stadium anymore and had to sell their shares to Bayern for a bargain price. Now they basically rent the stadium from their rivals...not a nice situation.
For Bayern it went quite well, but you have to take into consideration that Bayern had no debt before the stadium was built and could put in large chunks of their money without having to go into debt very much.

So a shared stadium for Liverpool? I dont know. The stadium in the picture looks a little like a monster as it tries too much to give the traditions of both clubs room. I would keep it neutral. Allianz Arena is a good example of this. Plain , simple stadium, but setting "highlights".

So i would say:

´1.Goodison ( i like the shared infrastructure idea)

2. Loop

3. Share

4. Kirkby
Chris Roberts
9   Posted 28/02/2008 at 09:48:30

Report abuse

I must admit I thought it was daft for a city the size of Liverpool to have to rebuild two stadia in its environs. However I think it?s a minority view to be in favour of sharing. It?s become more attractive suddenly to a lot of the people who oppose the Kirkby move.

Therein lies the problem though to glibly talk of EFC putting in a third (and presumably Liverpool Council a third?) would be at least £100 which is possibly twice the cost of Kirkby. We simply do not have the money to bring to the project, niether I suspect do the council. A commercial entity might take on a greater share but not sure who that would be. So going it alone or ground sharing from the above article it will cost us more to share, however desirable that might be

Finally I?m not sure Arsenal analogy is that good as for a start I don?t think it did go over budget and secondly it is already paying them back massively.
Jim Danut
10   Posted 28/02/2008 at 10:15:45

Report abuse

I think most Evertonians will prefer our own ground and i’d be surprised if any less than 95% of reds would be against it - I wonder what the reaction to this proposal is on a rs website? Do they even know about it or is this something thats only obsessing the anti-Kirkbyites on Everton sites. This smacks more of desperation by Trevor Skempton when all else has been rejected by the club the authorities - "Bring the rs on board to save us from Kirkby and all will be well". Groundshare as an option just makes Kirkby all the more appealing for me.
Michael Brien
11   Posted 28/02/2008 at 10:18:59

Report abuse

Chris to be fair to Trevor Skempton, I think it was me who referred to the Arsenal example. I think you will find that the final cost was a great deal more than they had originally anticipated. I also believe that had they not had to take into account the financing of their new stadium they may have been able to turn down offers for the likes of Viera and Henry.
Tom Hughes
12   Posted 28/02/2008 at 10:17:09

Report abuse

I agree, I don’t believe it is possible nor desirable to rationalise two identities into one stadium. The two distinct L-shapes will mean that both sets of fans will be forever reminded of their biggest rivals, how enjoyable can that be? On the otherhand a neutral/generic featureless stadium format to numb our senses and focus only on the field of play, with perhaps token club badges projected onto the roof for some sense of ownership, knowing only too well that the following week this strucure will be representing/hosting our biggest rivals. How can you fall in love with something that so blatently twotimes you. No Love, no ownership, no sense of belonging...... no identity. Financially, while this may add up nicely for LFC who will get an even bigger stadium for less than their proposed one, it does very little for EFC. 20-30k empty seats which we will have helped pay for, when we only really need another 5-15,000 more than we have now for the time being. I accept that for several reasons this would seem viable, particularly in this city, but think the frequently used financial utopia/shared economies of scale argument is fundamentally flawed in this case.
Lee Rogers
13   Posted 28/02/2008 at 10:30:38

Report abuse

I think the idea is good but we wouldn?t get enough revenue as we would from Kirkby.
Chris Roberts
14   Posted 28/02/2008 at 10:45:57

Report abuse


Yeah should have made that clear but when I checked the costs of the ground was on budget at £390 million and the extra costs related to general developments in the area not the ground itself. It stuck in my mind because it was always held up as a contrast to the Wembley fiasco. Of course it affected Arsenal?s finances in the short term but from Trevor?s article our finances would be worse off if we shared compared to Kirkby.
Derek Turnbull
15   Posted 28/02/2008 at 10:47:55

Report abuse

So when you sit in the Everton End you will be sitting looking at Liverpool’s identity and stadium?

We’re just being skinflints by sharing, and I don’t think that using Torino as our role model is the way forward even if it does save the shareholders a few quid!
Trevor Skempton
16   Posted 28/02/2008 at 11:26:56

Report abuse

Mike Byrne’s post about the Liver bird is well understood. The Liver Bird overlooking the pitch should NOT be red and the conical tower should NOT be blue, in recognition of the shared history [personally, I agree with those Blues who would like to reclaim the Liver Bird for EFC].

On a general note, I don’t know who said it first, but I was always advised: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer!"

Jim Danut
17   Posted 28/02/2008 at 11:37:13

Report abuse

Exactly Derek, no coincidence whatsoever that the only people who are pushing this are anti-Kirkby supporters and ONE token red. I’ve just had a peek at the leading rs forum (which you dont have to register for) and no one but no one is pushing it there - not even Mr.Backhouse because he would be laughed off the board. Yet it is a goer for us? This is a desperate proposal.
James Connolly
18   Posted 28/02/2008 at 11:20:46

Report abuse

Both clubs are built on history and identity and there is no doubt a shared stadium would dilute this.

I think you can compare it to sharing your wife with another man: it’s somehting you wouldn’t want to do unless you are perverted.
For me and the huge majority of Evertonians, this will never happen no matter how much money you tell me it will save.
The cheaper option isn’t always the best and I think in the long run there will be a high price to pay if this ever came to fruition.
Rupert Sullivan
19   Posted 28/02/2008 at 11:26:04

Report abuse

As a proponent of the groundshare move I am glad to see this topic raised again. It has always struck me as odd that LCC approved planning permission for a new stadium for just one of the two major clubs in Liverpool and that they think that two stadia is a good idea - the clubs could better profit from halving their outgoings and this would allow both clubs to provide first class facilities for a lot less money.

Beyond this however, I agree with the posts here indicating the difficulty of a ground with two identities; the nuetral approach strikes me as far better and an idea which would not preclude the two ’pavilion’ approach in its entirity; the ’home’ end for each respective club would be the away spot for the other club and would house the musuems and trophy rooms etc.

The question for me however is not whether or not it is a good idea, but how to raise this to BK and KW? I would also be interested to the reaction to this on an LFC forum....
Michael Brien
20   Posted 28/02/2008 at 11:44:57

Report abuse

Chris - I take your point re Arsenal, but I think it may have a long term bad effect on their finances. I am an exiled Blue - living near Lincoln - I have a mate at work who is a Gooner. He tells me that there is some regret at Arsenal that there is no room for any expansion and that there is something like a 10,000 waiting list for season tickets.
I understand that groundshares are not always the answer e.g. Bayern Munich and Munich 1860.But there is quite a difference between those two clubs and Everton and Liverpool e.g. I don’t think Munich 1860 have ever won the Bundesliga.
In some cases e.g. Inter Milan and A.C. Milan a groundshare can work. I just think that it is something that we should not dismiss out of hand. I don’t think Liverpool have found it as aesy as they thought to build their "New Anfield", especially as their American owners do not appear to have a bottomless pit of cash.
David Kiely
21   Posted 28/02/2008 at 12:09:34

Report abuse

Everton FC made their first tentative footsteps into the world on Stanley Park and the club have played on the periphery of that park ever since. Notwithstanding those seeking to redevelop Goodison, any supporter arguing we need our own stadium in order to retain our identity can?t see the wood for the trees if that independence involves us moving away from the cradle of football in the City of Liverpool.
Ravo Stanley
22   Posted 28/02/2008 at 11:54:55

Report abuse

Initially I started reading and thinking no to a shared stadium on Stanley Park as rather than using it as a stick to beat LFC with, I honestly believe that no-one should be building on our city parks. However, the graphic that gives the ’old’ grounds over to parkland is ideal. Maybe in exchange for the plot in Stanley Park both clubs could hand Goodison and Anfield over to the Council with cast iron covenants attached (they won’t be this gang of Lib-Dem con-men forever!). This would be a change in the existing arrangement I believe as although they are turning Anfield into Anfield Plaza I think(?) its still in the hands of the club!
Nick Entwistle
23   Posted 28/02/2008 at 12:32:38

Report abuse

Not sure why a team who in massive debt and facing no future in European competition should be aided by us to safe guard their futue...
Steve Jones
24   Posted 28/02/2008 at 12:41:22

Report abuse

Dont know if this point has been raised here....a quick scan seems to suggest not....but there are some real operational issues with groundshare when you consider that bothe EFC and LFC are going to be teams, going forward, with a LOT of fixtures to cram into the season.

The best example of a ’shared stadia’ for two teams that regularly play an extensive season of European, League and cup matches are Inter and AC Milan at the San Sero. The scheduling for both has proven difficult with both teams being ’away’ last week and both needing to be at home next time round.

Then you have the issue of pitch quality. 38 home league matches, plus european matches and the home legs of the two Cup competetions is going to see, quite feasibly, 60-70 matches a season on the pitch and no time whatsoever for the pitch to recover from one game to the next. This is also a familiar problem to the staff in the San Sero!.

Might sound like a great way to save money, but, personally I think the Milan experience shows that groundshare is a long way from a perfect solution.
Tom Davies
25   Posted 28/02/2008 at 13:27:34

Report abuse

Personally I have always been against a ground share BUT this looks like a better way forward, certainly better than going to kirkby anyway! And with the way Liverpool are going with there plans they may have to share.

The only problem is it may take up too much green space, which was the excuse the council gave us for not allowing 2 teams to build on the park.
Rob McFawn
26   Posted 28/02/2008 at 13:49:45

Report abuse

Oh for heavans sake, can we put this idea to bed please? Whatever next? Muslims & Christians sharing a "Chosque"?

The shared stadium idea is one which on paper seems logical from a business perspective but in reality it is just not practical.

Combine stadium and you may as well combine teams.

People seem to forget how cruical a part a club?s "headquarters" play in their identity and how important they are to the clubs supporters.
Davey Miletwitch
27   Posted 28/02/2008 at 14:54:41

Report abuse

For the very first time in my life, a ground share does not seem to be such a terrible idea. This well thought out article may dent a few peoples ego’s, but thinking about it and the proposals it seems a genuinely good idea, and a progressive one.
Lets face it, Kirkby or bust is not exactly uniting the fans. Just imagine-we can have a NEW stadium, LARGER capacity, CENTRAL location, NEAR to our heritage, and the overwhelming one, FOR LESS.
Never mind the fancy decoration of the place, Goodison aint no oil painting, neither is Anfield. Let the Architects fight over that. Right now the football fans in Liverpool have an excellent opportunity to see their respective team develop healthily without the black cloud of massive debt repayments over them.
I think it is a very, very good idea.
Just needs to be dressed up a little more and I think if we got talking, it would be Plan A.
Michael Brien
28   Posted 28/02/2008 at 15:18:53

Report abuse

Steve - A.C. Milan and Inter have shared for well over half a century so I think it fair to say that it has seemed to work okay !! Also I gather that originally it was the home of A.C. Milan and Inter became onboard a couple of years or so later - so any ground share of the type suggested by Trevor would start off at a stronger basis as it would be an equal partnership - neither ourselves or Liverpool would be tenants of the other.
Rob - I think an open mind is called for on this one.I recall in the aftermath of theHillsborough disaster one or other of the local authorities was strongly in favour of a 67,000 capacity joint stadium for Everton and Liverpool. The football author Simon Inglis - an authority on football stadia referred to the dismissal of the idea as perhaps something to filed away under the title " missed oportunity".Given the spiralling cost of stadia construction maybe he was right ?
Duncan McLachlan
29   Posted 28/02/2008 at 16:54:04

Report abuse

This has got to be the way forward, Brilliant Idea.

Has anyone asked the REDS?
Stuart Downey
30   Posted 28/02/2008 at 17:02:14

Report abuse

Some questions that come from answers:

1 - Could it really actually happen?
2 - Isn’t it too far along the timescale?
3 - Would the clubs agree?
4 - Would the fans agree?

This idea has come up before, and its (in my opinion the best way forward) but the problem is, we should have begun this idea 10 years ago. Two clubs wanting to move into a new ground on opposite sides of Stanley Park? Its obvious what should happen isnt it? The Council don’t really help, the clubs dont really agree like they used to - the gulf is narrowing though. And the fans grumble.

I’d love it to happen, but theres a lot of obstacles.
Charlie Dimmock
31   Posted 28/02/2008 at 17:07:55

Report abuse

While it is far too early to dwell on the minutiae of posssible repercussions of a shared ground could we please understand why the pitch at the San Siro is often poor.

Take a look , via Google or Microsoft Virtual Earth, at the stadium. You cannot help but notice that not much light gets onto the playing surface. This I suspect is due to the expansion of the ground prior to Italia 90.

Pitches can be, and often are, relaid during the season. The cost to us would be half as much as to anybody else.

This is a tough and emotive issue however we are where we are and not where we would like to be.

Is there anybody on this site who is a shareholder who can ask what the club?s thoughts on this are?

Ben Jackson
32   Posted 28/02/2008 at 17:46:40

Report abuse

I have always been against this idea but this report and images have really made me think it could really work. My only issue is, I don’t want us playing in a half empty stadium every week. We need to be realistic. When KW turned round and said the kirby stadium could eventually hold 70,000 or something like that, i don’t remember anyone saying it was a great idea. I know a shared ground would have to have a large capacity but we have to face the fact that Liverpool may fill the ground, but I think we’ll struggle.

Any thoughts?
Neil McKinney
33   Posted 28/02/2008 at 17:31:57

Report abuse

Well put together and raises some interesting topics for debate.

I would like to repeat something I posted in response to a similar article some time ago. In respect of persistently throwing in AC & Inter as an example of rival teams successfully sharing a stadium you may want to consider the following point.

The San Siro or Stadio Giuseppe Meazza, was opened in 1926. Originally owned by AC with Inter as tenants. AC were formed in 1899 (I think) and Inter in 1908, so they have spent most of their history sharing. Their rivalry has developed whilst sharing as opposed to the EFC/LFC rivalry which has two very individual identities. I feel that this has a large bearing on whether the clubs/fans would accept this idea and do not think that the san siro is an exact comparison of how it might work for our two clubs.

With that said, there are a lot of logical reasons why it would be a good idea, but since when has football been logical? If it was, it would be boring as fuck!!

I agree with Chris Roberts as well when he states that "It?s become more attractive suddenly to a lot of the people who oppose the Kirkby move". I am confident that a lot of fans who oppose Kirkby wouldn’t consider this idea if GP could be developed or a better site could be found in Liverpool for EFC.

Some food for thought.

John Talbot
34   Posted 28/02/2008 at 18:48:45

Report abuse

I cannot believe it has taken so long for so many positive comments about ground share it is the only real way ahead for both clubs. just so long as I dont have to sit on a red seat. Cant wear red burns my skin.....

Chad Schofield
35   Posted 28/02/2008 at 18:10:37

Report abuse

Fantastically thought out and explained option. In fact the only one so far that really has been.

I agree about the point raised about removing parks from the city... but if RS are going to get to do this I would far rather go with this proposal. It could truly be a fantastic national stadium rather than us having a chav Tesco Value race track with TGI Fridays et al out of town (that’s not to say that the residents of Kirkby are all chavs!!).
Eamonn Byrne
36   Posted 28/02/2008 at 19:42:22

Report abuse

My biggest concern is that if this did go ahead the people who run our club could not ensure we get a 50/50 deal.

The last thing we need is a long term financial wedge between us and Liverpool FC.
Simon Schmegel
37   Posted 28/02/2008 at 19:09:23

Report abuse

This is an absolutely disastrous proposal. A stadium share would seriously undermine Everton?s identity and very existence as an independent entity.

Why not go the whole hog and merge the two clubs? The new club would probably be called Liverpool United, and would play in a red kit with blue socks, or something.

The fact that most Everton fans seem to support this idea while most Liverpool fans are opposed to it is a symptom of a desperate (and misplaced) inferiority complex on the part of Evertonians.

?Nil Satis Nisi Optimum?? Only the best is good enough; and so if you turn out not to be the best you should abruptly extinguish your own existence?

Drastic and desperate.
Matt Carnegie
38   Posted 28/02/2008 at 20:01:53

Report abuse

I know Liverpool is not a City on the scale of Rio, but the Maracana is used by ALL of the local teams. I think it still seats INRO 120k, and is the finest football stadium in I?ve ever sat in.

A stadium is just a place to play football after all, is it not?
Mike Kennedy
39   Posted 28/02/2008 at 20:02:59

Report abuse

Post your article on a Liverpool website and compare the comments. They don?t want us and they don?t need us. We do not have a shared history our origins were completely opposite. The good reverend started St Domingo?s for altruistic reasons he was philantropic. Mr Houlding tried to exploit his sucess for greed a later day Mr Scudamore of Prem League. He split Everton.

Everton have nothing in common with Liverpool. They are our Cuckoo. It has laid its egg in our nest and our chicks are being kicked out of the City.
David O'Brien
40   Posted 28/02/2008 at 20:14:17

Report abuse

It?s a good idea, just get rid of the Liver bird and the kop hotel!
Eric Turner
41   Posted 28/02/2008 at 20:32:34

Report abuse

Imagine a new stadium with 100,000 seats, Imagine a hundred corporate boxes - all sold. Imagine all the people, I wonder if you can, blue and red, sharing the best stadium in Europe, the city’s glory, the envy of all. Not fashionable ?state-of-the-art?, but good solid logical stadium design, easy access, easy in and out, with lifts and escalators, good food and drink bars, adequate lavatories and wide concourses. Imagine underpitch heating, decent touchline gaps, no drip lines and a roof which can open and close, and from every seat you can see the players? names. Imagine the other great European events. You may say that I?m a dreamer, but I?m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll join us.
Eric Holland
42   Posted 28/02/2008 at 21:42:02

Report abuse

I would rather go to watch Everton play abroad than share a stadium with the RS.
Ed Fitzgerald
43   Posted 28/02/2008 at 21:28:21

Report abuse

It is logical, forward thinking, innovative and a suitable development for football fans in the 21st Century. In this City therefore it has no chance of success due to a combination of an ineffective council and a tribal attitude from the clubs and fans alike. Trevor and your red mate I admire your tenacity and intelligence, what a shame our chairman, the council and local and national business people do have the same foresight.
Will Leaf
44   Posted 28/02/2008 at 21:28:16

Report abuse

I see an absolute WORLD CLASS stadium the envy of other clubs...

I see a bold statement of fraternity between two sets of seems only recently the waters have poisoned a little between the Blues and Reds...

I see the scarves that linked Goodison and Anfield after Hillsborough, and the shared stadium as a symbolic, beautiful monument to that horror

I see the again the glory days of the 80s when Merseyside shared the League Championship between themselves.

I have always been somewhat of a Romantic... but no-one should just dismiss this idea out of hand
dennis stevens
45   Posted 28/02/2008 at 21:52:32

Report abuse

i think the ground-share idea makes sense, but can’t see liverpool going for it. the obvious solution for everton is the phased redevelopment of goodison park at a pace dictated by affordability & demand.
Graham Jones
46   Posted 28/02/2008 at 22:13:33

Report abuse

If the Everton Pavilion is at the north side of the stadium, wouldnt there be a lack of natural daylight on that side of the site, ours would be dark and gloomy but the south facing side for liverpool would be well lit and bright!?
Karl Masters
47   Posted 28/02/2008 at 22:12:41

Report abuse

This ticks just about all the boxes for me.

As for the pitch, it?s time people got up to date. Yes, there would be a lot of games, but aren?t you curious why our pitch this season is rubbish whilst at Chelsea, Boro and Newcastle they have been playing on lush green carpets with no bare patches recently? The answer is the huge lights they are placing over the pitch that fools the grass into thinking it?s the growing season. It works and there?s no reason why a shared stadium could not have what will son be standard kit for Premiership clubs (even if the leccy bill has gone sky high! ).

Just for once some of our fans and those of LFC need to take their heads out of their arses and wake up to the future. It?s time we blazed a trail and were not playing catch up all the time.
Rob McFawn
48   Posted 28/02/2008 at 22:23:19

Report abuse

Genuinely astounded by some of the comments on here.

Part of the intense rivalry between Everton and Liverpool is borne from the fact that we have our own ?territory?. We have our own image. We have our own history. We have our own identity. We?re a different breed from Liverpool.

Stop and ask yourself; don?t you love the fact that we have a rich tradition and history that stretches further back than theirs? Granted, Liverpool are the most successful club on these shores but as any football-man worth his salt will tell you, Everton have been THE team on Merseyside since we first spawned that shower of shite. See the all-time top flight league table for confirmation of Everton?s superb and unparalleled acheivements in football.

Don?t you love the fact that our stadium, despite all its failings, is increasingly acknowledged as one of the world?s truly wonderful football stadiums. One that oozes character and wreaks of history when you walk in.

It is something that we as Evertonians are all rightly proud of. It is the glorious list of great players past and present, the stadium, the supporters, all of them together which make Everton what it is; all of them combine to give us our identity and how Everton are not only viewed by the ?outside world? but also also how we differentiate between ourselves and Liverpool. It is what we have to ourselves, that gives us our Evertonian pride.

I wonder how people would feel if the Club announced that they had to change our club colours in order to secure a sponsorship agreement that made ?sound business sense?? Or if the Club announced that we had to wear the same white kit as Liverpool as part of a sponsorship deal that was going to net us millions of pound more than if we continued to play in blue?

Sharing a stadium makes sound business sense, but so do lots of things, that does not make them right, and even in this day and age, some things MUST be kept sacred.

It?s us and them, not just ?us?.
Rob Hollis
49   Posted 28/02/2008 at 22:45:32

Report abuse

Great, and how do we think there will be enough underground paring for 80,000? How do we expect to move 80,000 people for a Derby on a wet Wednesday night?
What would the construction costs really be and who would maintain the current stands at Everton?

I am no architect but this sounds the least deliverable project anybody has suggested. It would be very good but is it the wishes of a fan or a building professional? Would you advise any other business to undertake a project of this scale with current resources of either club. The truth is that neither club has any real resource, just possible debt or a joint effort with Tesco. Public funding would have to make up a lot more than a third I would suspect.

Yes, my workmates thin I am miserable as well!
Kevin Mitchell
50   Posted 28/02/2008 at 22:31:26

Report abuse

Dennis Stevens your spot on. Yes it would make good buisness sense, but lets face it both clubs supporters don’t want each other, me included.
I applaud Trevor for delivering this article which puts another angle on the whole debate, but for me the only appeal of it is that it is another alternative (made by the fans again) to a surefire disaster of moving to a small town outside the hot bed of football. A phased redevelopment of Goodison is the obvious way forward.
Chris Bailey
51   Posted 29/02/2008 at 03:21:13

Report abuse

For me this is a no brainer. What would you rather have
1) a tin pot, half baked stadium in Kirkby with transportation problems, commercial revenue limitations, and Tesco on your doorstep, or
2) A world class stadium that still preserves your identity, and enables you to benefit from the commercial possibilities of the location, shared maintenance costs etc.

I would love for us to redevelop Goodison but that is just not practical. Lets be realistic on this, can you imagine the gulf in revenue between our two clubs over the next 10 years if we let them go ahead solo in this location, surrender the city, whilst we are stuck out in kirkby? I know revenue is no guarantee of success (and Moyes has done miracles with what he has had), but it certainly helps. THERE MAY BE NO WAY BACK.
Michael Brien
52   Posted 29/02/2008 at 07:08:35

Report abuse

Rob - as an Evertonian since the age of 7 and I am now 50 - I certainly do value and cherish our history and tradition and the fact that we are very different from Liverpool. Ask the average 25 year old Kopite to name their 1965 F.A. Cup winning team and I think most would struggle - ask an Evertonian of the same age to name our Cup Winning team of 1966 and I bet they would be able to name most of the team.Their lack of a sense of history is just one difference.
However, I don’t think the notion of a shared stadium is the "no brianer" that you and some others suggest. I have mentioned the example of A.C. Milan and Inter as I think it is the best example of a shared stadium situaton that has seemed to work well.
Both of these clubs have very proud traditions and they have managed to maintain their very separate identities. I think that A.C. Milan have over the last 20 years been the more successful of the two.However Inter have not been swamped by their great rivals - they have maintained their own very proud tradition and identity and place as one of the top clubs in Italy.
Building a new ground is the biggest outlay that any club can make and these days the costs can be astronomical for any club that "goes it alone".In my heart of hearts I would love to see Goodison redeveloped.I think we are seeing the results of the neglect of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s now.Compare how Goodison’s development was largely neglected whilst not too far away at Old Trafford, Manchester United started on a programme of redevelopment (starting I think in 1992) which has seen Old Trafford become the stadium that it is today.
I think that ground sharing is an option that shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand that’s all I am asking. Yes I hate Liverpool - but I hope our rivalry with Liverpool is not and never becomes a Celtic - Rangers type of rivalry.I remember one of our songs from the 1960’s - "Oh we hate Bill Shankly and we hate St John - But most of all we hate big Ron - And we’ll hang the Kopites one by one - on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey". We all laughed as we sang that one - but I don’t think anyone ever thought the last verse was serious. We are rivals but we are not at war with Liverpool.I recall as a student back in 1977 the infamous remarks of Emlyn Hughes - " Let’s all sing Liverpool are magic Everton are tragic" he suggested to the crowds outside St George’s Hall. The next day several of my mates who were Liverpool fans apologised to me, one of them said " Yeah Liverpool are magic but so are Everton". I not suggesting any "touchy feely huggy sentimentality" here - just a reminder that we aren’t at war with them okay!!
Paul Johnson
53   Posted 29/02/2008 at 07:39:17

Report abuse

Anything but Tesco Town.

Even sharing with "the unmentionables" is preferable.

Markus Steinbauer
54   Posted 29/02/2008 at 09:35:42

Report abuse

Michael Brian:

Actually 1860 have won the Bundesliga in 1966 and were the bigger club in Munich before Beckenbauer, Müller and Maier turned this around. They also are the older club (actually not much because until 1899 they only were anathletic club..).
So you could compare the situation. Of course Everton is much bigger than 1860 now and not so much in dire straits, but not long ago it was. Also Liverpool is in massive debt and sold out while Bayern has lots of money is independent (apart from some adidas involvement) and one if not the most financially solid run clubs in the world.
Question is: Would Everton be really selling out a huge stadium with very little appeal to the rich history of the club every time?
Michael Brien
55   Posted 29/02/2008 at 10:06:04

Report abuse

Markus - Humble apologies, I did say " I don’t think 1860 have ever won the Bundesliga" - but I stand corrected.My homework this weekend is to do more research into T.S.V. Munich 1860, which I believe is the full title of the club.
I recall one of my mates telling me that 1860 are the team from the more working class area of the city and that it was as you say only in the 1970’s that Bayern became prominant.
My main worry for Everton to go it alone as it were in building a new stadium is the cost.I worry that it would be crippling. Ideally i would love to see us redevelop Goodison.
Regarding filling the stadium, I think people might be surpised Everton have been one of the best supported teams in England.Even in seasons were we have struggled against relegation our average attendance has been in the top 8.So given a decent season, I think we would get very good attendances.
Steve Jones
56   Posted 29/02/2008 at 10:36:22

Report abuse

Michael - its accepted that the Milan teams have shared for a very long time...long enough for it to become the ’accepted norm’...that does nothing to dilute the problems that the sharing has though and those problems are evident right now in the need to play home CL matches for both teams at the San Sero at the same time.

I also agree that modern groundskeeping techniques can do wonders in promoting the best playing surface possible, BUT, as any professional will tell you the one thing a pitch needs to recover is TIME. The grounds staff at the San Sero are hardly nickel and dime part timers and their pitch has been described as attrocious with grim regularity.

There may be good financial reasons for ground sharing, but, the promotion of first class playing facilities would not be a factor in the decision.
Michael Brien
57   Posted 29/02/2008 at 11:14:53

Report abuse

Steve - I take your point re the pitch - but maybe our neighbours will not always be in the CL !!!!!!
Derek Turnbull
58   Posted 29/02/2008 at 11:20:23

Report abuse

I want us to be better than Liverpool at everything, and that includes having a better stadium than them. How can it be better if it’s the same?
Steve Jones
59   Posted 29/02/2008 at 11:53:59

Report abuse


A very good point and one that makes me grin sufficient to shame the average cheshire cat!.

It is a good point though. By going into a groundshare deal with the dark side at a time when they appear to be in financial and political chaos do we risk getting caught in the backlash of their psychosis?.

The problems of having our ground associated with their fans and the reputation they bring throughout europe is bad enough, but, if their regular rounds of managerial/directorial lynchings impact their finances and, thusly, their ability to pay their share of the ground costs it would be far too much for us to be expected to subsidise them!.

Question is can the bailiffs repossess half a stadium???
Paul Joy
60   Posted 29/02/2008 at 11:51:18

Report abuse

Everton moving to Kirkby and a new anfield is a bad move for both clubs in the long term. A shared stadium development makes too much sense for both sets of fans to ignore - blue and red are both opposed to sharing for the wrong reasons. Hopefully even Liverpool City Council would want this - instead of effectively kicking Everton out of the city (over to you Brad!!!!). Would love to see this happen but I fear not in my lifetime.
Derek Turnbull
61   Posted 29/02/2008 at 12:07:26

Report abuse

Just say in 15 years time, we discover that we don’t like sharing. Would it be us moving out of the stadium, or would it be them, (or both?)?

How would we afford to then leave that stadium? Sell it back to Liverpool? They may not want to buy. We could be trapped there.
Michael Brien
62   Posted 29/02/2008 at 12:19:45

Report abuse

Steve - rather than have bailiffs repossess their half of the stadium - we could take over all of it and hire out our training ground for them to play their home matches on !!!

Seriously my big worry about "going it alone" is the astronomical cost. Liverpool have found that out for themselves.What a great pity that we didn’t do something in the late 1980’s - early 1990’s about redeveloping Goodison.The original plans for the Park End Stand I believe were for a two tier stand.Given the lack of housing at the rear of the Park End,I have always thought we could have looked at creating a stand similar to the Holt End at Villa.

One of the big points in favour of Trevor’s plan is the location, after all we were at Anfield before Liverpool and we also played at Stanley Park.So the location is traditional" Everton country"
Derek Turnbull
63   Posted 29/02/2008 at 12:35:21

Report abuse

Just a thought. If people are prepared to share then would they be happy to move into the current Anfield, when Liverpool leave?
Michael Brien
64   Posted 29/02/2008 at 12:51:47

Report abuse

Our reserves could play there.
Geoff Whitlow
65   Posted 29/02/2008 at 15:33:07

Report abuse

Looks magnificent and in a sensible world where people could see beyond petty rivalries, work for the good of the city and recognise the shared history of two great football clubs it might happen. But sadly we?re in an era where Liverpool FC would happily see Everton disappear off the face of the Earth, never mind the face of the city, whilst too many supporters of both clubs view the other with a hostility bordering on hatred.
Colin Laphan
66   Posted 29/02/2008 at 15:25:52

Report abuse

Strange that all these wonderful ideas never ever address the fundamental issue of how to pay for it....

David, like any other world class architect doesn?t do freebies nor would the builders, and there isn?t any scope here for sufficient enablers to make a difference.

Let?s say this ?world-class? stadium costs a hypothetical £400 million.

For both teams to be equal partners they would both have to co-fund 50%.

So that would be a nice discount in terms of LFC but an incredible hike for EFC from £10million to find an extra £190million????

How would EFC finance the debt? Present turnover couldn?t touch it.

Methinks that this is really just another attempt at ?spoiling? the Kirkby project. Wasn?t Trevor the man on a devout and pious mission to rebuild Goodison? How do this suddenly equivocate to sharing with the enemy?? All those amazing and now hypocritical ideas about how we must keep the famous GP atmosphere seem to have evaporated... how convenient.

Dave must be laughing his socks off, as devout a red as there ever was from when I first knew him 30 odd years ago... and now he has the pleasure of trying to destabilise EFC.... you couldn?t write the script.
Michael Brien
67   Posted 29/02/2008 at 16:13:20

Report abuse

Colin - You seem to be suggesting something of a conspiracy theory here, which I think is a bit "heavy". Perhaps you are uncomfortable with discussion and exchange of views - can I therefore suggest that you watch the BBC Election Night Special on the forthcoming Russian Elections.I think it’s on Sunday - I think you will find very little discussion or debate there.
Alan Clarke
68   Posted 29/02/2008 at 18:50:50

Report abuse

Most of the comments here seem to be all for this ridiculous idea. Does anyone think that Everton and Liverpool would go into this on an equal footing? All we’d be doing by groundsharing is helping them out. How would we pay for our half of this stadium? At present, because of Tescos involvement, we’re being told that Kirkby would cost us £10 - £15 million (whether this is true or not?). I reckon to build a stadium with Liverpool, we’d need probably £100 million pay for our half. If we could come up with that amount of money why not just redevelop Goodison?

It would take all of our resources to pay for our half leaving us with no money for investment elsewhere. Whereas, for them it would be giving them a cheaper option that what they have on the table right now. This means they’d have more money available for their squad.

This idea would be handing Liverpool FC the initiative far more than us leaving to Kirkby. I hope this idea of sharing with them is pie in the sky thinking and doesn’t go any further than this page.
Trevor Skempton
69   Posted 29/02/2008 at 19:11:30

Report abuse

Colin - I plead guilty as charged to wanting to challenge what I regard as the disastrous Kirkby project; I also still regard an incremental expansion of Goodison as Plan A, but have never subscribed to the view that ?there is no alternative?. Hence I have collaborated in this Plan C.

David Backhouse has said that he thinks that one club grabbing the park is indefensible (even his beloved Reds), as is the duplicating of resources, financial and ecological, inherent in building two large new stadia.

Alan - the financial differentials between the clubs are not as great as is often supposed. And LFC are in a period of shocking uncertainty, while EFC are more stable. Sharing could bring the potential of third-party public sector involvement in the financing and management of the complex, leaving both clubs to devote more time and resources to team-building.

Michael - I will be watching the Russian elections, following an emphatic victory against Portsmouth. COYB
Tom Hughes
70   Posted 29/02/2008 at 20:02:21

Report abuse

Colin Laphan says Kirkby will cost the club £10m. Keep up Colin, even Wyness dropped that charade months ago, conveniently straight after the vote. Within a few weeks even the club announced that the cost to the club will be £80m+. It was fed to us incrementally via various announcements to soften the blow and muddy the waters. It has grown further since then. Then of course we had the assessment of Goodison’s redevelopment carried out by the people charged with delivering Kirkby, noticeably also dated several months after the vote (The club stated that they had exhausted all the options pre-vote), and with various glaring omissions and hopelessly restrictive design brief. Then there was the disaster of a transport plan, leaked then revised before being sheepishly revealed. Where was your critical assessment then? Why are you so worried about concerned Evertonians highlighting ALL the possibilities? How can the stability of the Kirkby proposal, backed by a commercial giant ever feel threatened if it truly is the best option, "the deal of the century"? Fact is, those headline assertions were fanciful in the extreme. Everton FC will be paying for the equivalent of 2-3 of the 4 stands at Kirkby. The same investment at Goodison would completely transform the stadium, and avert the logistical disaster that is illustrated in the stadium transport plan....... and that’s before you consider the identity/heritage issues.
Robert Treacy
71   Posted 29/02/2008 at 20:29:14

Report abuse

A brilliant article

First of all I am from Dublin so naturally I should be red as I have to fly to home games. However, a mate of mine who is a utd fan went over for the utd game on a sunday but had saturday spare and decided to catch the efc game on the saturday. He came back full of praise and how he was thinking of switching to be blue (now naturally I told him we didn't want any rejects ? we allready have one as our captain). He loved the atmosphere the crowd the build up outside the stadium everything about GOODISON PARK.

We should 1 redevelop 2 build in the loop or 3 share as a last resort.

ps: if we dont beat the poofs that wear purple on Thursday we should be made share with the RS!
robert carney
72   Posted 29/02/2008 at 21:58:42

Report abuse

Congratulations, an open, honest debate without too much emotional claptrap.

I never thought I would ever advocate sharing with Liverpool anything other than a football game twice a season.
This one has me thinking(dangerous).

This proposal offers so much more than just a groundsharing opportunity. The bigger picture for both communities and the wider Liverpool costituency is groundbreaking ( sorry about the pun). Two separate identities, a beutiful surrounding, equal footing,the oppurtunities are endless. But alas we are run and controlled by two people, Kenwright and Leahy.
Our neighbors are run for the shorterm by two people who have already fell out.

Is it really deliverable?
Matt Dee
73   Posted 29/02/2008 at 23:40:16

Report abuse

If some reports in the media are correct, LFC could be owned by the Dubai emirate within weeks.
I’d doubt they’ll be interested in negotiating.
Davie Robbo
74   Posted 01/03/2008 at 01:08:05

Report abuse

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no and no. I feel I’ve made my point. Nothing against the reds (I married one) just no, I think I mentioned that earlier. If it was about saving pennies we’d be happy going to Kirkwood or where ever it is.
Michael Brien
75   Posted 01/03/2008 at 08:00:09

Report abuse

Trevor - a very good article which has provoked much debate. Personally I am very saddened at the missed opportunities we have had to redevelop Goodison in the past. I know that it is fashionable with some to lay the blame at Bill Kenwright,however it was not BK who was chairman in the late 1980’s - early 1990’s when we should have been upgrading our beloved Goodison.
I am annoyed at the attitude of some who appear to dismiss the article, in some cases virtually saying that because of the vote for Kirkby ALL debate should end.I always thought we lived in a democracy, where free speech and debate were encouraged. Indeed debate and voicing your opinion are part and parcel of our wonderful game.
It may be 30 years ago but will the debate ever end on the Bryan Hamilton goal in the semi final at Maine Road ? I was there, but I am sure that in 50 years time Evertonians will still discuss "that" goal.That is just one example, but of course there are many others.
Well done Trevor, for producing a very informative article and perhaps making us take a hard look at some taboo subjects and prejudices.As I said prevously - we are rivals to Liverpool but we are not at war with them.I want a rivalry with the reds - but not like Celtic and Rangers please- where even today so called Rangers supporters will not go back to Ibrox because they signed Mo Johnston a Catholic ex Celtic player, back in the late 80’s early 90’s.That’s not rivalry that’s bigotry - and we certainly don’t want any of that.
Colin Grierson
76   Posted 01/03/2008 at 06:41:38

Report abuse

Its a rock and a hard place scenario essentially.
We all know what we want and what we don’t want. I think it is time for us to consider what we will accept and wont accept.
Ideally I would love us to stay at GP along with everyone else I suspect. The loop proposal (if viable) would probably be most people’s second choice. Leaving the city boundaries is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE and would, I believe, be the beginning of the end for this great club.
A ground share? An interesting proposal and a thouught provoking presentation. I commend Trevor for his proposals and can see the rewards of such a scenario. I used to take alternative routes when drivin in the Anfield area so I didn’t have to go past the RS ground. The passion we have for our clubs is not decided by common sense. I dont own any red clothes and wouldnt wear a red top as it would be wrong to do so. Am I autistic or just a passionate supporter. Of course we all want the best for our club. The thing is we have differing ideas of what that best is. Vive la difference!

What I cant see is the consent of any of the proposed parties regardless of what is common sense or not. I’m not dismissing it out of hand but as a realist I really cant see it ever happening
So its between redeveloping GP or making the loop happen. In my book there is only one choice GP.
Robert Carney
77   Posted 01/03/2008 at 12:15:26

Report abuse

Colin, red is a colour not a commitment. If it bothers you that much start with underpants You can always shit on the bastards then.
My blood is more red in colour than blue, the soul and passion that comes from the brain is blue through and through.
Chris Brown
78   Posted 01/03/2008 at 12:29:48

Report abuse

I love the idea. Groundshare is the only sensible solution.

I wonder if naming rights could be sold for the stadium? I imagine many companies would pay handsomely to have their name associated with a beautiful, economically and environmentally responsible stadium... a stadium guaranteed at least one match every week of the season, and shared by two of the best clubs in europe.

It is intriguing. As a yank, my vote doesn’t count, but I can also say, when I cross the atlantic for a game, I’d much rather watch it in a world-class stadium in liverpool (Stanley Park is prefered) than heading to kirkby to a stadium devoid of any of the history and identity of the club.
Tom Davies
79   Posted 01/03/2008 at 19:54:46

Report abuse

I remember Hicks and Gillet mentioning a groundshare when they first arrived across the park only to be quickly dismissed by Parry.
I think they would definately be open to that idea.

I do not know wether or not Bill Kenwright would be up for it, especially since him and Wyness seem far too interested in a deal with tesco to even listen to the idea or read this fantastic and invitable report.

I’d still rather have our own stadium, but a stadium share with Liverpool on stanley park sounds 1000 times better than a stadium in Kirby!
John Taylor
80   Posted 01/03/2008 at 19:24:33

Report abuse

Robert Carney
Posted 01/03/2008 at 12:15:26
Colin, red is a colour not a commitment. If it bothers you that much start with underpants You can always shit on the bastards then.
My blood is more red in colour than blue, the soul and passion that comes from the brain is blue through and through.

Is Blood not a deep shade of purple/blue until it leaves the body and oxidise’s?
Robert Carney
81   Posted 02/03/2008 at 11:10:40

Report abuse

John, good point, I stand corected.

On the lighter side it was a tongue in cheek reply to Colin.
Colin Laphan
82   Posted 02/03/2008 at 12:33:24

Report abuse

Trevor and Tom et al, debate is to be encouraged wholeheartedly.... what I am suggesting is making it real from the outset.

Lets debate the finances that can make a reality?

The rest are pipe dreams but nothing more.

At no time whatsoever has the club has the club indicated or said that we need to find more that the £10 million potential liability ( although it may have to be revised to £20M now to cover 'contingent liabilities?.) The directors confirmation of Tesco?s commitment at the AGM have been taken out of context and developed into mis-information. The bricks and mortar will be built in its entirety by the developers at no cost to us. We only have to fund the fit-out with the naming rights and proceeds from GP/Bellefield.

I still think the loop would be the perfect location but that is a dream without any financial reality behind it. So I will take reality now over a pipe dream that is unattainable.

If the political process halts the Kirkby project then effort and ideas need to be harnessed into creating a financial reality that can support the loop. Let?s see if a second deal of the century can be created by the politicians... the ones that have gone strangely quiet.
Tom Hughes
83   Posted 02/03/2008 at 13:37:00

Report abuse

You say you want reality, yet promote the same misinformation of pre-vote despite the club dropping it as soon as the vote was over. Everton have stated revised costs on several occasions since the vote, and £10m comes nowhere near the latest. I agree the figures have been whooly and open to misinterpretation, but even the most basic analysis, and the club’s own post-vote admissions make the initial £10m figures now totally irrelevant if not scandalous given the context of their original intent. What about the reality of completely contravening Knowsley’s UDP, and the inevitable objections by ALL surrounding councils? What about the woeful transport provision falling way short of the "most accessible stadium" assertion? I worked in the construction industry for several years, often on much bigger projects than the proposed Kirkby one. The whole process by which we have arrived at this point bares little resemblance to normal Construction/Design industry practice. Normal practice would have been to have interested parties tender for all manner of options....... Redevelopment of GP or new site. It has been shown by the club themselves that this was never carried out pre-vote. Therefore the vote, the no plan B has always been a charade. There was never any process of elimination, just one objective, even..... Kirkby. As far as politicians going quiet, they don’t really have to say anything given the number of councils already stacked against the proposals, and even then what’s the point pestering those who have no intention of listening. Anyway, can’t stop. We’ve all got somewhere to be this afternoon!
Neil Adderley
84   Posted 02/03/2008 at 14:18:51

Report abuse

Colin Laphan - After all this time you still haven?t pinned those numbers down. In fact, according to you ?the cost to the club? has gone up 100% within the space of two days!

As a self-proclaimed member of the Goodison "inner-circle" is it possible you could clarify a point or two?

* To use one of Keith Wyness? favourite analogies - "pulling rabbits out of hats" - when exactly were the proceeds of the sale of Bellefield ringed fenced for Kirkby?

I don?t recall any mention of it pre or during the ballot.

* Excluding the £20M for "contingent liabilities," what is the total projected estimate for naming rights, the sale of Goodison Park (with planning permission) and the sale of Bellefield (with planning permission)?

* As you intimate above - if there is a probability of a ?political process halting the Kirkby Project,? what is the logical reasoning behind the steadfast and continued refusal by Kenwright and Wyness to even open dialogue with Malcolm Carter/Bestway/LCC?

After all, shouldn?t the custodians of EFC do everything in their power to ?enable? the ?perfect location??

Jem Birdleas
85   Posted 02/03/2008 at 19:19:50

Report abuse

Yes of course of makes sense for us to share.
It makes business sense as we?d be eligible for more grant aid if we shared.
Members of my family are RS - it?s a 60-40 split (in EFC favor), and I shared a house with them for 18 years without too much trouble.....

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to Column articles, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.

© ToffeeWeb

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.