ToffeeWeb - Season 2007-08

The Mail Bag

Wheels within Wheels ? Part 4

WwW Parts 1,2 and 3 supporting the concept of a shared stadium was not well received. The Tesco deal has since been touted as our only option. I wonder if a shared stadium might yet be considered as a second and better option?
Dick Fearon, W Australia ex Dingle Posted 12/09/2007 at 00:37:11

back Return to the Mail Bag

Comments

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

Michael Kenrick

Dog!?

Bone...

GTF and bury the twat in an Opal adit!

murf
1 Posted 12/09/2007 at 08:45:08

I’ll tell you what Dick, stranger things have happened!
What, with the costs of the new analfield worrying the yanks and with the row over our move its not as outrageous an idea as we may think!
Imagine the irony though if, after years of taking the piss about us leaving the city, the redshite hoards found us even closer to them than ever!
And imagine the squirming of the no brigade (and I’m one of them) when we do actualy stay in the city but at the cost of our independent identity!

Oh, the horror!

Murf

Steve Lyth
2 Posted 12/09/2007 at 08:55:57

For world class facilities, I would share a stadium a walk from Town tomorrow.
We should have shared Kings Dock, how great that would have been for the City.

Pat Mustard
3 Posted 12/09/2007 at 08:59:00

Talking of wheels within wheels, in antiquity the Greek philosopher and astronomer Ptolemy built the most woderful clockwork device that described the motion of the heavens. The sun, moon and known planets were precisely engineered using the best mathematics of the day. It was perfect in every respect, except one, it put the earth at the centre of the solar system.

Once Copernicus had put the sun at the centre of the solar system it all made sense and Ptolemy’s work - mathematically brilliant though it was - was comprehensively proven wrong.

It was a classic example of being unable to see the wood for the trees. We have had a mediocre team for so long that we have forgotten why we are blues. It’s not the stadium it’s the team. What we need is a top flight team. David Moyes has been slow but he has got there. If he has to lose investment in the team to pay for an inner city stadium then we will go back to the dark days of scrapping at the bottom with Wimbledon and Coventry.

The Barcelona stadium is called the Nou Camp because in Spanish it means new field (or new ground). It was built on the outskirts of Barcelona - does it matter? It’s sill Barcelona Football Club. Technically the new ground will be about 1 mile outside Liverpool city boundary. What matters is that the team is in the top 6.

One surefire way to condemn the club to obscurity is to commit to a large debt and then watch the economy tumble. Until there is a viable economic alternative the clearest way forward is to dance with the devil - Tesco.

HK
4 Posted 12/09/2007 at 09:49:22

Economically a shared stadium makes so much sense it is astonishing why both clubs weren’t going for it without hesitation (economically, I said). For me, what beggars belief is how LFC are getting public funding to build the bloody thing - that’s my money as well as yours - as well as planning permission to rip up Stanley Park. Perhaps Councillor Bradley should be making more of a song and dance about that instead of chasing shadows with Bestway.

Chris Lawlor
5 Posted 12/09/2007 at 09:55:40

Pat that is the best post i have read on this site for ages. Love the analogy! Btw is your name a reference to Fr Ted by any chance?

Barry Bragg
6 Posted 12/09/2007 at 09:58:57

Seeing as New Anfield is going to cost £400m and Kirkby £100m. Surely it would make even greater economic sense for us to share a stadium in Kirkby.......

Now that would be ironic although I’m not sure everyone would see the funny side.

Erik Dols
7 Posted 12/09/2007 at 11:21:04

Ok, apart from all the sentiments: I believe sharing a stadium is only interesting if it’s really a share, so that we own as much as the RS. This would mean we’d have to cough up £200m or something like that. Even if one way or another we find some commercial partners, I don’t see us putting in the desired amount of money.

If "sharing a stadium" means we rent the stadium one day every two weeks and pay the RS £20m each year or something like that, I actually can’t imagine it being an economically viable option.

Pat Mustard
8 Posted 12/09/2007 at 11:21:18

Chris - both Belfield and GP are on my milk round. I get all the gossip from the canteen ladies. Mrs Doyle told me that David Moyes has ordered several tonnes of corned beef from Argentina for Christmas. Must mean Riquelme is on his way.

Does that answer your Father Ted question?

Gerard Madden
9 Posted 12/09/2007 at 11:17:17

This issue isn’t going to go away for some until the first shovels are being dug into both the Stanley Park and Kirkby sites and even then some will still bring the issue up.

If our club didn’t think it had such a great ’deliverable’ package on the table with partners Tesco/Knowsley then i’m sure they would still be pushing for groundshare behind the scenes, as for LFC I just think their new owners have made it abundantly clear on too many occasions now including the very first press conference that it just wouldn’t happen or be possible to happen, their fans would have their own version of KEIOC but it would be so much bigger say multiply KEIOC by at least one hundred - let’s say it would be called ’Keep Liverpool at Anfield Alone’ to the tune of YNWA - KLAAA. It amazes me though that there’s a sizeable bunch of blues who would support such an option - THE nightmare scenario for blues like me, light years worse than Kirkby as far as i’m concerned and just shows you the desperate lengths some ’blues’ would go to keep us on one side of an invisible line.

Harvey Shearer
10 Posted 12/09/2007 at 12:39:26

It?s Kirkby here we come - like it or lump it.
I work for a brickwork/blockwork company that specialise in stadia work, and today (12/09/07) we recieved a tender for pricing from VB Contracts for and on behalf of Barr Holdings, Scotland for the "Kirby" Stadium (Please note the miss-spelling of Kirkby).
Although planning permission has not yet been granted, they do not envisage any out of the ordinary problems.
I cannot reveal my real name for obvious reasons, for which I apologise, but trust me this is true.

Chris Lawlor
11 Posted 12/09/2007 at 16:38:30

It certainly does Pat. You old slapper!

Dick Fearon
12 Posted 12/09/2007 at 22:59:04

Methinks our Michael is a closet Auzzie. His ’bury the twat in an Opal Adit’ gives the game away. Only an Auzzie would know what an Opal Adit was. For the unknowing, an Adit is a rudimentary mine shaft.