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

From tiny acorns, doth...

Comments (11)

As a late and still pretty illiterate arrival to computers in general and websites in particular, The first site I found was TEAMtalk. Then 18mths or so ago I found the real deal, ToffeeWeb, vast improvement.

After more evaluation around the various sites I realise that Teamtalk is only one step below the Official website for toeing the party line. The merest hint of hint of criticism and you don't get posted.

Until now.

The quid pro quo between party and party line toe-er is maybe a two-way street?? Some one has been ' allowed ' to post the question...

"If not Kirkby, would you ground share??"

Radical indeed for Teamtalk

Are the still rabid protestations of the No faction beginning to get through, however faintly, to the Board??... Is Bill having second thoughts about the quality of his so called mandate??

Is the penny starting to drop for Bill??
Derek Thomas, Torbay, New Zealand     Posted 25/05/2008 at 06:49:05

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


Paul O'Hanlon
1   Posted 25/05/2008 at 15:54:19

Report abuse

I doubt TeamTalk has an influence on BK to be honest Derek, although it is clear from recent surveys on this and other sites that the No camp?s growing in numbers, plus the change in attitude from the local media shows there?s more doubters to the move than ever.
Michael Hunt
2   Posted 25/05/2008 at 15:59:38

Report abuse

I doubt there is any collaboration, but if so perhaps common (and financial) sense is coming to the fore at last.
A shared stadium is the BEST solution for BOTH Everton and Liverpool.
Keith Glazzard
3   Posted 25/05/2008 at 16:09:40

Report abuse

If LFC thought that a groundshare would be of any benefit to us, they would never do it. Unless, of course, financial circumstances forced - and I do mean forced - them into it. Unfortunately, I can?t see it.

ps: What would this new stadium be called? The City of Liverpool Stadium???
Will Leaf
4   Posted 25/05/2008 at 19:00:56

Report abuse

Liverton Park.?..Everpool Stadium?...

Stanley Park would probably make the most sense.

The ground share idea probably remains on desperate life support while the Americans are running the asylum. If DIC takes over then no chance. It has never sat comfortably with me, but I have reckoned a ground share is the best way forward...well, since the King?s Dock mirage any road...
Andy Hudson
5   Posted 25/05/2008 at 21:18:23

Report abuse

The groundshare would suit one club and one club only... us. We’ve no money, no likely investment, and sad as I am to say it, if the shites board put the club up for sale someone would snap them up with the resources to build a new stadium. They would never accept having their own state of the art stadium swapped for a ground share with us. Whereas we would pretty much take anything over the crappy current proposal. However our board would never yield now and change their plans... A groundshare will never happen... ever
Ciaran Duff
6   Posted 26/05/2008 at 03:10:45

Report abuse

While on the surface a ground share seems to make a lot of sense, I’m not sure that it would as financially attractive as it seems. The last figure I saw floating around for the proposed RS stadium was over £300m for a 70,000 seater. First off, where would we get £150m? Secondly, do we want a 70,000 seater stadium?
Erik Dols
7   Posted 26/05/2008 at 08:35:27

Report abuse

A shared stadium should be exactly that - shared equally. I don’t see that happening.

BTW, some clubs of which I know that they share their stadium all have some sort of trouble after a certain period.

AC/Inter Milan: AC Milan are looking to options to build their own stadium as San Siro needs to be upgraded to modern times especially in the corporate part and Inter do not have the money or at least are not interested in paying their part.

Bayern/1860 Munich: both paid half the bill for their new shiny Aliianz Arena. 1860 nearly got bankrupt by the spiralling construction costs, sold their share to Bayern just to stay alive and is now struggling mid table in the second division in Germany. This scenario in special is something I fear., although we’re a bigger club than 1860.

Club/Cercle Bruges in Belgium share a stadium. 30000 seats with little coporate facilites. Club want a bigger stadium and are not far away from building a 40000 seater with all facilities. Cercle only sell out the stadium once a year, in the derby against Club. That is why they were not interested in paying their half for expanding/upgrading the stadium.

Sharing a stadium is not as easy as it may seem.
Alan Rodgers
8   Posted 26/05/2008 at 09:11:55

Report abuse

To be frank, I would rather share Anfield than go to Kirkby. It?s that desperate.
Erik Dols
9   Posted 26/05/2008 at 09:28:46

Report abuse

Alan, the big plus of sharing Anfield would be that it would/could be relatively cheap and we only would have to do it for a few years if we upgraded Goodison (at least two or three stands if we do not have the money for the entire stadium) in that period.

But that’s all a bit far-fetched.
Ray Said
10   Posted 26/05/2008 at 12:29:28

Report abuse

Groundshare could still make sense for both teams.

First thing would be to set up a joint holding company in which both clubs, and through the clubs both sets of shareholders, held equal amounts.

Secondly the holding company would go to the financial markets for the funds to build based on the revenue drawn from the ground over a set term of years.

Once the finance repayment is taken out the remaining amounts could be divided on a match per match basis e.g. EFC vs Man Utd 60,000 attendance = ground receipts of £1,200,000.
LFC vs Hull City attendence 30,000 = ground receipts of £600,000. br />
On such an arrangement EFC could afford to pay their half of a ground share stadium.
James Marshall
11   Posted 27/05/2008 at 14:31:30

Report abuse

I?ve always thought a groundshare was the best option, regardless of how much dislike there is of the RS or for them, of us.

I know there's a large amount of people (probably a majority) who would never like the idea but financially it makes sense for both clubs. The Kirkby move was something I was a Yes voter for, but now I?m firmly in the No camp ? a groundshare would be the simplest route.

© ToffeeWeb
Menu
OK

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.