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

Thinking out loud...

Comments (35)

With all the sqabbling with Waldorf and Statler and Benitez, the cost of the Liverpool stadium going up daily, and with us moving out of the city, which most Evertonians don't want... Could a shared stadium be back on the agenda?

Call me paranoid but i think their has been a hidden agenda from day one. If someone asked me twelve months ago, would I go for a shared stadium, it would have been a no no. If asked now, it would be a case of staying in the city or go to Kirkby, I would stay in the city. We know that there would be a massive grant from the council or Europe if the shared stadium was to go ahead.

So if it did go ahead, we'd be staying in the city and the Spanish waiter would get the money he is asking for for players. Just thinking out loud...
Colin Malone, Wirral     Posted 25/11/2007 at 09:46:44

back Return to the Mail Bag


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

Ian Tunny
1   Posted 25/11/2007 at 15:17:38

Report abuse

I really do wish some people could see the end of their noeses and see the bigger picture. They need to forget this bitterness towards the red half. If we could share a stadium it would cut out so many problems. We would be on an even keel them. We need to stop squabling amongst ourselves and realise that outside of this city teams like Man Utd, Chesea and Arsenal are going to leave us further behind. I'd rather bring back the glory days and be competing for the title and cups with Liverpool than fighting for the crumbs with Man City and Portsmouth.
Brian Noble
2   Posted 25/11/2007 at 15:33:03

Report abuse

Never thought I’d say it but given a choice between Kirkby and a shared stadium in Stanley Park,the latter option wins hands down.Then bragging rights would be all down to who had the better team which is as it should be.Wouldn’t even mind if it was called ’New Anfield’-after all,we were there first!
Glen Strachan
3   Posted 25/11/2007 at 15:52:55

Report abuse

Said it before...........again and again and again............


Even if Tesco can get its permissions for the proposed site...........Everton will never play there.

The whole idea was always little more than stupid , stupid , stupid.

I live on the other side of the world and frankly all of Everton?s games ....for me , anyway ...... are played on a big box in my living room in Mexico.

That being the case , I have no claim to any say in the ?stadium debate? but it has been remarkable to read so many postings from people who clearly know nothing about the mechanics of a new stadium build but seem to quote figures out of nowhere !

It is a very safe bet that BK and his staff have absolutely no idea how much a newbuild would cost even with their access to ?expert information? but to read the words of the ?so called experts? who pretend to ?know all about it? often beggars description.

The cornflake kids across the way have been involved in stadium building for years and even they had no idea what the ?frolic in the Park? would cost for the Reds.

How the hell do so many of our posters get these detailed figures that they present ?

I have been watching the Blues now for over 50 years and I never believed that we would leave Goodison but there again I never believed that so many Evertonians would refer to this season as a good one , simply because (in 9th place) we would be obviously far away from relegation.

Damn it all.........WE USED TO WIN THINGS AT THIS CLUB !

Now we are passing the ball rather than smashing it 60 yards downfield , great show yesterday !

Much more of the same please , Mr Moyes.

A very good day spoiled by concern over the great Dave Hickson.............lovely bloke , great Evertonian !

All the very Best , Davie !
Brian Mooney
4   Posted 25/11/2007 at 16:09:29

Report abuse

Stay in the city, as Labone said: Everton are the biggest and the best.
Albert Velthuijsen
5   Posted 25/11/2007 at 16:13:37

Report abuse

Let us have Stanley Park and let them f.o to Kirkby. I?d rather die than share a stadium with our bastard child.
Alan Rodgers
6   Posted 25/11/2007 at 16:15:45

Report abuse

I posted a comment about 6 weeks ago saying a shared stadium was still a possibility and got little response. I would jump at the chance . It’s better than Kirkby and it would really piss off the RS !!!
Chris Jones (Wakefield)
7   Posted 25/11/2007 at 16:39:15

Report abuse

Given the shared heritage and history of the two clubs, and not forgetting how many families (like my own) are split down the middle, it has always seemed blindingly obvious to me that the two clubs could and perhaps should share a combined super-stadium.

When my late dad (Blue through and through) was a lad his pop, a Red, would take him to games. LFC one week, EFC t’other. When LFC won their first European Championship my dad put us all in the car and we drove over (from Manchester) to his native Liverpool to stand on Queen’s Drive and applaud their homecoming - as did thousands and thousands of other Blues.

If a shared ground will benefit both clubs, and make them better able to compete with the likes of Manyoo, Chelski and the Arse, then why doesn’t it happen?

(Er, that’s a rhetorical question btw, no need to bombard me with replies!)
Ed Fitzgerald
8   Posted 25/11/2007 at 16:36:09

Report abuse

A shared stadium makes good sense, it always has done. I have no problem sharing a stadium with the red necks, just the same as I have no problem sharing a workplace, a school, a playground ,a pint and a joke with the rabble from Anfield.

Yes I hate the plastic hangers on that follow them (as they do) and I love seeing them get beat. But people who just direct venom towards their fans miss a key point most of us are from the same city, live in mixed communities and can show a decent degree of respect for each other in appropriate circumstances (e.g. Rhys Jones and Hillsborough) and in fact most of the time (Derby days are the exception)

It would be a logical move and good for the City, it therefore has no chance of happening! sadly
Harry Meek
9   Posted 25/11/2007 at 16:41:32

Report abuse

I’d love to think that a shared stadium was back on the agenda and i suspect Blue Bill would too.If the recent poll had been along the lines of ’Which option would you prefer-a stadium of our own at Kirkby or one shared with Liverpool in Stanley Park?’,I suspect the latter option would have won by a distance.The trouble would be gaining the agreement of our ’friends’ in red!
Tony Horne
10   Posted 25/11/2007 at 16:55:05

Report abuse

As I understand it, whilst the usage of any new stadium might be shared our lack of finances mean that the ownership most certainly would not be. Why is that such a good option?
Lyndon Lloyd
Editorial Team
11   Posted 25/11/2007 at 16:55:40

Report abuse

Harry, the results of our stadium survey suggest otherwise (see Q14) with people voting 6 to 4 for Kirkby over ground-sharing. That might have shifted a little with the release of the latest round of images but it shows that most Blues would rather take a less palatable option out of the City than share with Liverpool, presumably on the assumption that any ground-sharing proposal would be far from equitable.
David Hall
12   Posted 25/11/2007 at 16:50:39

Report abuse

Given that choice,Harry,I certainly would have voted to share.Unfortunately,I suspect the Reds’supporters would have none of it and how the hell would the Everton Board find a way to go half wacks in £500M?Oh,I forgot-they lease everything,don’t they-perhaps paying rent to Liverpool is not such a good idea, after all!
Neil Pearse
13   Posted 25/11/2007 at 17:03:04

Report abuse

From an economic point of view, of course this is a no-brainer. Build TWO expensive new stadiums at the same time on Merseyside? It’s nonsense.

Emotionally, of course it’s a different matter. Share with the Reds? Oh my God!

However, as some have said, it could be done. And there is the example of Milan (fierce rivals, same stadium).

David makes a good point on the rent issue. But here’s a possibility. On our current ownership, we cannot possibly afford to go half whack. Indeed, for all those who are not still in deep denial, we cannot afford to do anything much except share with Tescos in Kirkby.

But this might just be the enticement to get the rich new owner that we need. Sharing half of the risks and the rewards of a highly prestigious major new stadium in the North West. Sure beats the current alternatives.
Harry Meek
14   Posted 25/11/2007 at 17:13:41

Report abuse

Sorry,Lyndon,I had quite forgotten that ’we have been here before’.I do take David’s point that the idea has always been a no-goer with the other side and I don’t think Hicks’little spat with Benitez will alter that. Given my own experience in Worcester with Tesco trying to buy up a whole suberb-and failing-I don’t think Kirkby will ever happen and I suspect the result will be that our present and sacred home will get re-developed after all.I’m sure Wyness will find a sponsor to buy ’New Goodison’for naming rights so we can lease it back at no ’apparent’cost!
Alan Clarke
15   Posted 25/11/2007 at 18:15:24

Report abuse

Perhaps we should have done with it and have a shared team too? This would cut out all the need for any rivalry and bitterness especially in those families split down the middle. Think of the harmony within the city. We could play in blue and red chequered shirts. It makes perfect sense - all the city’s money could be poured in to just one team and then we’d compete with the teams outside the city and not get left behind.

We should not share anything with those bastards. Lets keep our identity seperate from them.
Jimmy Fearns
16   Posted 25/11/2007 at 18:46:40

Report abuse

Where do you suggest we get the 250 million quid from to pay for our half - or do you suggest we rent?
Gavin Harris
17   Posted 25/11/2007 at 19:57:26

Report abuse

Its a non-starter, WE HAVE NOT GOT THE MONEY to share a stadium. Liverpool have already and will request a bigger share of the ownership and therefore its a non-starter.
Dave O'Brien
18   Posted 25/11/2007 at 20:23:31

Report abuse

Buy the Anfield site - knock the ground down and build our new ground there. Solves all problems, just need the funds.
Rob Jones
19   Posted 25/11/2007 at 20:03:30

Report abuse

While i couldn?t imagine sharing with the RS because of my basic principles and the fact that i would have, given the choice, voted yes in the poll, we should take a close look at two world class sides in a world class stadium in milan, AC and Inter both have huge histories as do we and they probably wouldn?t have anywhere near as much money as they do if they had to pay for seperate stadiums, just imagine a merseyside derby, both teams playing at home in front of a packed 75000 seater stadium, just imagine the atmosphere, although I would rather move to Kirkby I think that ground sharing should be considered if we can find an investor and the RS fans accept the move.
Stevie Saye
20   Posted 25/11/2007 at 21:44:22

Report abuse

Have most blues here gone mad !!!, share with the rs no chance lets do something on the pitch and get new investment in
Nick Veitch
21   Posted 25/11/2007 at 21:44:35

Report abuse

I agree that a shared stadium would be our best Option B. I’ve been to Allianz Arena in Munich where the stadium is shared between Bayern Munich and second division side TSV 1860. When Bayern is playing, the exterior of the stadium glows red, and when TSV is playing the stadium glows blue. I really think this is way to go. Even on merseyside derbys it would glow the colour of the ’home’ team. I’ve always said i like this idea. It would keep us a stones throw away from Goodison, and would financially be a pretty darn good option i would have thought.

Anyway, here are some pictures of Allianz for those that do not know the stadium:
Jason Kells
22   Posted 25/11/2007 at 21:47:49

Report abuse

The yanks have shit themselves over spiralling costs; Kenwright can save face, make no mistake lads the ground share is back on
Joe Green
23   Posted 25/11/2007 at 23:55:50

Report abuse


While I agree that a shared stadium is an option ... please forget the sentimental rubbish about Everton and Liverpool getting together to face the challenges of Man U, Arsenal, etc..

The fact is that Liverpool are Everton’s biggest rivals OFF THE FIELD as well as on. Think about it. It’s a multi-million dollar business these days and we compete for exactly the same market and with essentially the same differentiators. Say what you will about the RS, but it’s been a well run club; I think they figured out a long time ago that the best result for them would be if EFC became a 2nd division club. If we work on a shared stadium we should be extremely cautious in dealing with RS ... even more so than if we dealt with ManU or Arse in my opinion.

BTW, the one good thing about Ceetah getting (dubious) cash is that it presents a door-step challenge to ManU, which can only weaken ManU.

And final point in this rant ... I"m not critical of Bill K for not seling out to the LBO merchants that have taken over the RS, ManU and Villa. Those clubs will be run for owner profits, pure and simple, and have been leveraged to do so ... there is trouble ahead for all those clubs unless they are continuously succesful. If they are not, expect their Yank owners to lobby for changes to the structure of the Prem ... but that’s another story.
Ian Tunny
24   Posted 26/11/2007 at 00:39:28

Report abuse

When ever I've argued with Reds, I've always felt they are the arragant bitter ones. Some come accross as sad and pathetic and I've always thought I would never stoop to their level.

Last season, watching the Blues on a small corner TV in the pub, Liverpool were on the big screen behind and had the sound and commentry on their game. I excepted this and quietly got on with it and just watched Everton. Then unbelievably two grown men beside me watching the blues leapt into the air to celebrate Everton conceding, i thought that was the ultimate. Reds would rather watch Everton lose than watch their own team win on the big screen behind them.

But I'm sad to see how bitter some of the fans on this site are. Fans that are so bitter, they?d rather Everton lose or they would rather ?die? than share a stadium with them, Perhaps that is precisely the reason you don't want to share with them, but as said ?We are Everton? so lets be grown up about this and not get held back by your hatred ? to me, it's more of a red trait.

Dave Southword
25   Posted 26/11/2007 at 01:25:10

Report abuse

Perhaps we should not share. Liverpool, assuming no current debt will take on Waldorf and Stadler’s 300m borrowings next year that they used to buy the club. Add on 400m (Ish) for their new stadium and they will be a staggering 700m in debt! That’s 42m in interest payments alone each year.

Perhaps we should knock an extra tier on the Park End and wait for Liverpool to go bust, then buy their stadium for buttons - after all, we would be the only buyer who would have a use for it.
Derek Thomas
26   Posted 26/11/2007 at 04:26:55

Report abuse

It is said that the prospect of being hanged tends to concentrate the mind wonderfully. So, it seems, does the sinking in of the move to Kirkby.

I wonder how many of the above are Yeses (actual voters or not ) that have had 2nd thoughts.

I didn’t have a vote but am a NO and remember the plans in the 60’s to jointly redevelop Aintree when Mrs Topham was a bit skint. We had both recently played Inter and were well up with the shared stadium concept.

Even with the firey passions of youth the prospect seemed quite sensible. My mind has been concentrated and the shared stadium is the lesser of two evils.

It would be a marriage of convenience and it is manners in these things to wait to be asked. If as is suggested that the Redshite are struggling for cash (shame) then the longer it takes them to ask then the better deal we will be able to broker.
Tony Waring
27   Posted 26/11/2007 at 09:33:33

Report abuse

Yes. I’ve always maintained a shared stadium would be the obvious solution for both teams. Think of the money saved, think what could be achieved with a pooling of resources and the seats could always be blue and red alternating! Such a stadium would be world class and suitable for major world events as well. Last but not least we would remain in the city
Emil Mathias
28   Posted 26/11/2007 at 09:44:54

Report abuse

given the massive difference in funds between us and them (at the moment) any shared stadium, would not be shared. We?d be bloody tenents not shared owners.

So its not Kirby vs shared stadium (which if it was REALLY shared would be a good option). its Kirby (with our own stadium) or paying rent to the RS to stay in Liverpool. Thats not anything we should ever consider, surely? Its admitting defeat, helping them get richer, just to stay in the city?

Off, nose, cutting, spite, to, face.
Dave Griffin
29   Posted 26/11/2007 at 10:52:19

Report abuse

I wouldn’t share a f**ing Kit Kat with those bastards across the park never mind a stadium.
Ed MacDonald
30   Posted 26/11/2007 at 11:50:36

Report abuse

We can’t afford to pay for half of that stadium!

It would be at least £150m. . .

And who would fancy sitting in the ’New Kop’?
James Elworthy
31   Posted 26/11/2007 at 12:23:44

Report abuse

If the RS fill the stadium every week and we dont which I am sure we wont it looks bad on us as the junior partner.
Alan Williams
32   Posted 26/11/2007 at 12:32:04

Report abuse

I have been to Milan and the stadium is poor no life at all. They pipe in music to keep the crowd going and the seats have no backs just sadles in the cement. When you walk up half the shops have shutters up and the stadium is a dull grey. How can any fan wish to share than go to Kirkby, your all mad. EFC would just be the poor relation with no identity at all. Kirkby is only 3 miles away its not such a problem. How funny is it that No voters would move to LFC and lose all other than moving to a bespoke site with EFC all over it!! Your as silly as that stupid plane, we shall not moved, well I guess you can all stay in the Wilmslow Am off to Kirkby, LFC going bust god life is great!!
Neil McKinney
33   Posted 26/11/2007 at 12:59:51

Report abuse

Still not too keen on the sharing idea, mainly as I don’t think we’d ever really be sharing it. We’d be more like unwanted guests.

People keep harping on about Inter and AC, but the San Siro or Stadio Giuseppe Meazza was built in 1925. AC were only formed in 1899 and Inter not until 1908, so the rivalvry (whilst still there) had not even had that long to develop. Inter were originally tenants in AC’s stadium but as far as I know it now belongs to the city. These two teams have shared a stadium for almost there entire history, so of course it works! It’s hardly a solid comparison.

I don’t know if a shared stadium would work, maybe it would. However, it proves one thing, a lot of Evertonians must really dispise the thought of Kirkby if they’re considering the ground share again.

Steve Syder
34   Posted 26/11/2007 at 13:51:02

Report abuse

I voted Yes to Kirkby for two reasons:

1. I believe that, financially, it is a no-brainer.

2. To make it concentrate minds as Derek Thomas suggests.

If that puts a ground share back on the agenda I welcome it.

However, I’d prefer Kirkby to being tenants and I doubt we could afford to do anything else, given the projected costs.

Still, we could be about to witness some big changes, given the apparent chaos over the park. Would be nice to see it all tumbling down as the Yanks bicker and Beneathus departs wouldn’t it!
Alan Clarke
35   Posted 26/11/2007 at 18:59:37

Report abuse

All this pooling of resources is nonsense. What is wrong with you lot? As I said before, why don’t we pool everything if you love the thought of sharing with them and just share the team and create one big Merseyside superteam? In fact Prenton Park’s a hole and Chester must have a few fans that are sick of watching League 2 crap - lets invite them in too.

Bloody hell, sharing with them because they are struggling for cash would therefore save them cash and strengthen their position. They’d then have more money for players and staff. In an industry dominated by money, their stock would grow, our position would only be weakened. Think about it properly. We don’t have the money to go halves with them and if we did it would drain every last penny from us leaving no money for anything else. We would be so much worse off and have to bring domestos to every game to wash their stench from the seats.

© 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.