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

Ostrich mentality

Comments (37)

Am I the only one angry at the stance taken by both Everton and Liverpool over the fresh proposals for all parties to seriously consider a joint stadium?

Given that both clubs are struggling to afford a stadium on their own it seems complete madness to me that both sides have come out in the last 24 hours and poured cold water on the idea yet again.

The posturing appears to pander to the view that the "fans" of both clubs would be dead against it. How do they know? It seems that as usual a vociferous minority hold sway. If we can have a ballot for Kirkby, why not have one to gauge the reality of feelings about this proposal?

For what it's worth, I would rather share a world class venue and stay in the City than move to Kirkby.
Steve Guy, Harrogate     Posted 06/06/2008 at 14:10:50

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

Joe McMahon
1   Posted 06/06/2008 at 16:25:32

Report abuse

I hear what you are saying, but personally i’d rather play in Kirby than share with those American owned, cheatin Chav wankers!

I want to move to Kirby anyway, what does the city of Liverpool do for Everton, apart from ignore us.
Dan McKie
2   Posted 06/06/2008 at 16:25:54

Report abuse

Even if they did agree Steve, could both teams afford it even then? Talks were of the RS building a £400 million pound effort which would suggest £200 million each (barring any unnamed backers). Where would Everton find that kind of cash?
Ste Boileau
3   Posted 06/06/2008 at 16:27:46

Report abuse

To be honest Steve I cannot disagree with you. My only issue with it would be that it would have to be done on an even footing. I wouldnt want the RS throwing their weight around demanding more say in design/ fit out than we had. With these clowns in charge of us, they’d probably let them have the seats red and call it Anfield.
Andy Callan
4   Posted 06/06/2008 at 16:36:25

Report abuse

Don’t be so silly.

We are trying to make a break from that shower of shite.

Sharing a stadium would be a financially viable option, but alas it simply won’t wash will it?!?!?!?
Chris Gallagher
5   Posted 06/06/2008 at 16:17:06

Report abuse

The more and more I hear about the new stadium, the less I like it. I wasn?t eligible to vote so it doesn?t matter either way, but given the choice, I would have voted yes then but not now.

I?d agree, I?d prefer to (equally) share a landmark stadium with Liverpool rather than move to the Lego stadium.

Someone asked me how it compared with the Kings Dock stadium. Looking back at the stadium design back then and comparing to the Kirkby proposal... they?re leagues apart.

Let?s just have one, equally shared, world-class, landmark stadium in Stanley Park.

Liverpool are struggling to build one, we?re struggling to build one. Let?s not cut off our noses to spite our faces.
Tom Dooley
6   Posted 06/06/2008 at 16:32:01

Report abuse

As long as the ownership was equal and the gound was state of the art and well positioned, giving the potential for non-footballing events I would be in favour. The biggest Italian clubs do it so it?s by no means impossible to implement and could provide extra revenue for both clubs with reduced costs, but are we and the RS just too stubborn?
Gavin Ramejkis
7   Posted 06/06/2008 at 16:46:22

Report abuse

Tom more importantly as the first to speak out so quickly against it was KW I doubt there would be another bonus in it for him or his stadium development company
Alan Rodgers
8   Posted 06/06/2008 at 16:43:37

Report abuse

Financially it makes sense to have a shared stadium but do the RS need us and can we even afford to get in on the act ?
For the Walton and Anfield districts it would have huge benefits. For the fans of both sides it might be hard to even consider but for us Blues it’s a million times better than Kirkby.
Alan Clarke
9   Posted 06/06/2008 at 16:55:00

Report abuse

Absolutely nothing makes sense about a shared stadium. It makes me more angry to think some Evertonians think this is a good idea. I’ve not met one single RS that thinks it’s a good idea.

We would be bankrupting ourselves to afford it whilst allowing them more resources to plough into their team.
Tony Williams
10   Posted 06/06/2008 at 17:22:19

Report abuse

Time for that slimely councilor Bradley to earn his pennies and finally prove he loves the club and wants what’s best.

Let’s build a super stadium to share and the Council footing 50% of the costs and We and the Redshite put in the other 50%, poss £100m each.

I have a slight inkiling though that Bradley would shot a brick if that was suggested to him and would be in a spin frenzy saying why it wasn’t viable, fair etc etc etc
Tony Waring
11   Posted 06/06/2008 at 17:54:52

Report abuse

A shared stadium is the obvious way forward if the financial implications can be sorted out. All this talk of hatred between two sets of fans is baloney. There may be some idiots - red and blue - who can’t cope with the idea but deep down who would’nt prefer a world class shared stadium in Stanley Park with all sorts of spinoffs for local inhabitants (and anyone else for that matter) to a chicken coop in Kirkby ? You could’nt find more diametrically opposed sets of fans than in Milan and Rome but they manage to share facilities and to suggest the people of Merseyside cannot do likewise is insulting to the intelligence of any real football fan. I also question the enormous costs being bandied about. Portugal, one of the poorest countries in Europe, built numerous first class stadia for the 2004 European championships. They certainly did’nt have the unlimited funds at their disposal. Maybe we should ask the opinion of Porto, Benfica and Sporting ? The council and both boards of directors should be put in a room and the door locked until they can achieve a suitable compromise - and the sooner the better.
Paul Ramsey
12   Posted 06/06/2008 at 17:49:28

Report abuse

I agree with steve...better to share a world class stadium and maintain our status as one of the worlds great football teams that to build a second class stadium and become a second class team!

Why cant people see moving to Kirkby will be the death of Everton!!!

Its those in favour of Kirkby that are biting off there nose to spite their face.

and why?

because they see it as getting back at liverpool city councils ineptitude.

how stupid. the councils ineptitude is motivated by a hatred of Everton but by greed, lack of brains, and general politcal ranglings.

Liverpool coucil is one of the worst run in the world, never mind Briton.
Rupert Sullivan
13   Posted 06/06/2008 at 18:00:22

Report abuse

I have always believed that a shared stadium would be the best option. The clubs are linked historically, geographically and let’s face it - Liverpool families are often split down the middle in terms of blues and reds. It makes no sense at all to have two stadia when a superb, truly world class one can be built and enjoyed by both. The clubs and the city would profit from this.
Karl Masters
14   Posted 06/06/2008 at 18:00:39

Report abuse

A shared stadium is the best long term solution for both clubs financially if they are ever to compete with Manure, Chelsea,Arsenal, Man City etc in the transfer market.

Redeveloping Goodison would make sense as well ( that’s why virtually everybody else has already done it ) and would pay off in the medium term.

Kirkby is a quick fix, but definitely a long term loss. The mediocrity of its location and design would slowly suck the life out of the club. Everton is special now. Go to Kirkby and that will slowly change us into an average club.
David Oliver
15   Posted 06/06/2008 at 18:42:08

Report abuse

Any replacement for the grand old lady (warts and all) is never in a million years going to replicate her history, atmosphere and heritage. (I am pretty sure reds would feel the same about anfield.)
A shared stadium of world class quality, funded and ran on an equal footing, would ensure the rich footballing heritage of both teams, but more importantly our beloved blues for the next 120 years. We go to kirkby and the club dies, slowly and painfully. Its as simple as that.
Dave Wilson
16   Posted 06/06/2008 at 19:02:54

Report abuse

Guys its not going to happen

Bully says today" we have a service of criteria which any prospective stadium must meet and a shared stadium does not meet that criteria"
he also says " I can catergorically state, a shared stadium is NOT on the agenda of either club"
the door hasnt just been closed, its been bricked up

Howard Don
17   Posted 06/06/2008 at 19:36:28

Report abuse

You’re right of course it is the common sense option. Both clubs even wealthier Liverpool are struggling to stay in touch with the top three and no sane companies in the business world could even dream of turning up their noses at the cost savings and level of synergy a joint stadium would represent. When it boils down to it the only reasons for not doing it are bigotry and sentiment. Well fine if that’s what turns you on but sentiment will win you nothing.

There is another factor and that is the economy of the Anfield/Everton area and the benefits to it of keeping both clubs in the area. In addition to that, the benefits in terms of spin off business that a world class stadium could generate copuld be incalculable to the City. Surely even the most die hard amongst both sets of fans can see that.
Will Bruce
18   Posted 06/06/2008 at 19:53:01

Report abuse

Now, Gentelmen, let us all breath deeply. There is not a fucking cat in hells chance that we will EVER share a stadium with Liverpool. I am not entirely sure what drugs some of the posters on here are on, suggesting that we do!. This is Everton, we are not managed by a fat waiter, we do not have moaning arseholes like Gerrard in our team, this is Everton, now please, can all future posters PLEASE respect this. For Gods sake, all talk of sharing a ground with Liverpool must be ended today, once and for all.
Gavin Ramejkis
19   Posted 06/06/2008 at 20:03:18

Report abuse

Maybe lard arse can publish his criteria of mediocrity so we can all know just what he finds acceptable but I won’t be holding my breath.
Mike Hughes
20   Posted 06/06/2008 at 21:10:37

Report abuse

No way do I want a shared stadium. It won’t be an equal footing (they’ll play more games with Europe etc), possibly throw their weight around and I basically don’t want to share with that (and I quote from an excellent phrase from a previous post) "shower of shite". I don’t want sodding Kirkby either and am getting increasingly wound-up by the fact that our blue leaders have lead us down a blind alley with no Plan B. Wyness should take his fat arse back to Scotland where they might have a soft spot for the greedy, lard-arsed, lying, "39th game is a good idea" prick. Tw@t. G0bsh1te. R-sole.
Karl Jones
21   Posted 06/06/2008 at 21:31:44

Report abuse

One major practical reason why a shared stadium would not work is the degradation of the pitch if it was used every week. Even if it was just the league games, this would take a massive toll. Liverpool would be playing Champions league, and hopefully we would be in europe also. As well as National cup ties and the occasional International and other local use, we would have to get used to playing on mud, especially in the winter months. It would never work in football at this level.
Chris Brown
22   Posted 06/06/2008 at 21:32:31

Report abuse

Will Bruce - strong comments. I disagree entirely, but for some of the same reasons. It is hard to deny that the common sense approach is to share. Issues of Pride and Identity keep many from acknowledging it as even an option though.

Our identity as blues does not come from the old lady (though she helps) it comes from the skipper and the players on the field. the way they all associated with the crest (fans included) conduct themselves.

You are EXACTLY RIGHT. We are not managed by the fat waiter and don’t have moaner’s like Gerrard on the team. The closer we come (in standings and even in the stadium if it were to happen) the more natural the comparisons between the red and blue would be, AND the more obvious it would become how GREAT Moyes is, and what a great group of guys we have on the pitch.

I’d love to see us share a world class stadium. In no time the world would see us as equals with the Red Shite and all it would take is one more season to finish above them for them to start having a serious inferiority complex about us...
Karl Masters
23   Posted 06/06/2008 at 21:48:17

Report abuse

Slide out pitch, Karl Jones, just like in Gelsenkirchen - Schalke 04 in Germany.

Pitches go bad through lack of light, poor ventilation and poor drainage. All can be solved that way. Also, what about those massive lamps that Newcastle and Chelsea used on their pitches last Winter. Even In February there was lusg green grass.

The answers are out there. Somebody tell our Board!!
Marc Williams
24   Posted 06/06/2008 at 22:02:29

Report abuse

I just think we need to be open minded & objective about this. There are lots of things that would potentially make this an attractive option and I think elements of both the city council & North West Development agency can see this. Just look around some of the areas around the grounds they are crying out for investment & a joint world class stadium /venue could attract all kinds onf monies & grants from local, central & European government.
I’m not saying yes we should definitely do it but the option needs to be properly evaluated, once & for all asap.
In the past I would have been dead against this but the whole Kirkby thing has made me consider it.
I do have some deep seated greivances with the redshite ( the kind of things that cannot be spoken about in polite company ) but if the Italian ’Ultras’ can cope with sharing I reckon I probably could.
In fact I reckon I’m going to have a lok on some of their sites & see how this works.
Anyone speak Italian ?
Colin Fitzpatrick
25   Posted 07/06/2008 at 00:23:19

Report abuse

Essentially all the technical and financial issues could be solved through technology, design and innovation. Many, although admittedly not all fans, red and blue, would be persuaded once they understood that a concept involving the country?s finest 80,000-seater stadium that addressed the separate identities and cultural differences of Everton and Liverpool supporters through massive themed external Everton and Liverpool villages containing bars, restaurants, museums and shopping facilities on one massive site that could be constructed with little additional debt to both clubs due to the simple fact that neither would need to own it.

Sounds incredible? No, perhaps it?s already being looked at, the problem for the fans surrounds the suitability of the Stanley Park site, it simply isn?t big enough nor could it support the transport infrastructure required or attract suitable enablers to take advantage of what would be the highest footfall in the premiership, but Stanley Park is talked about as it would be a catalyst for regeneration of Anfield and Walton, which at the end of the day shouldn?t be the responsibility of the football clubs, it?s the responsibility of local and national government. It?s a highly politically sensitive issue but a lack of vision is holding back potentially the best move for both football clubs.

Now if a large enough site could be identified that could take advantage of an existing transport infrastructure, that would attract both enabling investment and grants then things would start to move. So, if it exists at all, where could that site possibly be?

Steve Mink
26   Posted 07/06/2008 at 01:11:36

Report abuse

Absolutely right Steve. The fact that the diehard Reds-haters would be against it is nether here not there. This is about the long-term survival of our club in the City.
Paul Kish
27   Posted 07/06/2008 at 01:31:10

Report abuse

In response to Karl Jones comment about the pitch..if it would tear up so badly, how come Bayern and 1860Munich can manage it ok and Inter and AC Milan?

Don’t think Roma and Lazio have any problems at the Stadio Olympico, either.

Yes, the San Siro has had problems with the surface but that was largely caused by the installation of the roof for Italia 90.

I think both clubs are crazy not to consider it. It would have to be done on an equal footing.
We could have an Everton end and a Liverpool end, like they do in Munich with the away fans using the "opposite" end for non derby games.

Imagine how good it would look if we could build an iconic, world class stadium in the city that both fans and clubs could be proud of like the Allianz Arena or Beijing’s "birdnest" stadium!

I can’t for the life of me understand why it isn’t seriously discussed.

Gavin Ramejkis
28   Posted 07/06/2008 at 08:28:04

Report abuse

Paul the answer why it isn’t being considered is that Gilette, Hicks and Wyness are selfish arseholes, Walter Mitty Kenshite has gone missing again, the RS owners have made the statement foe their club but BK is hiding yet again, why doesn’t he make a statement? Would it yet again show his true colours?
Karl Jones
29   Posted 07/06/2008 at 09:05:36

Report abuse

Paul K, There are serious issues with the San siro in Milan. In fact theres talk of putting an artificial pitch down. That's in a country with a much drier climate than ours. Imagine two weeks of torrential rain/flooding which is becoming more common these days. Postponements would become a common thing and how would you find the space to restage these games?...

Karl M., A slide-out pitch is fine to stage events on a concrete surface (such as concerts, where it is stored on rails outside the stadium), but you would need two seperate pitches. How could you move one out and one in and where would you store the one not being used? Presumably the ground would need to have access all around for safety/entrance reasons during matchdays.

Mike Dunne
30   Posted 07/06/2008 at 09:48:17

Report abuse

There is not a cat in Hell’s chance of Liverpool agreeing to share with Everton. Currently in those stakes they own all the cards.

I feel it is quite pathetic that Wyness jumps like a little pip-squeek proclaiming " we have a service of criteria which any prospective stadium must meet and a shared stadium does not meet that criteria".

That’s nonsense and spin bullshit which means Everton have got NO bargaining position on this subject just like no plan B for Kirkby. The Board and chief executive of Everton FC are not fit for purpose.

Steve Guy
31   Posted 07/06/2008 at 10:46:22

Report abuse

Thanks to all for their replies to my original post.

As a vox pop it’s interesting that so many are in favour of a ground share (at least in principle). Those who are not seem to fall into two camps. The first camp is one actually not against the idea, but saying that the idea is technically or financially unfeasible; to which I reply, ’How do you know ?’.

The second camp are the ones the respective Boards / Owners are relying on and reckon speak for the majority of fans; namely those who have a wholly negative view of Liverpool supporters (and no doubt from the other side a similar feeling for Evertonians. There is no logic just a blind fanaticism (and from some of the comments above and on other threads, a hatred); it’s this group who no doubt sing the crap (again from both sides) on Derby days that has dragged the event down in recent years.

I think Bradley and the rest of the City council have done a very poor job in recent years and I said so last season in an article (which I presume is now in the TW archives). Possibly this is more chest beating to stir up the pot and cover their backsides again. Regardless of that, I would like both Clubs to enter into an independent feasibility study and for the outcome (should it favour a joint stadium) to be completely transparent and put to a proper ballot of supporters.

Ron Leith
32   Posted 07/06/2008 at 11:01:33

Report abuse

A shared stadium makes so much sense but alas it will never happen. Also KEIOC would have to change their name to KEIOCASS.

The planning gains would be there for all those putative planning experts who have emerged from nowhere to pick holes in the Kirby scheme. A great design (URGH) instead of the boring 4 sided stadium at Kirby (oh I thought a pitch had 4 sides). The board clearly would not have another vote because if they did they would be accused of lying and treachery and murder and the rest. Wyness would let Parry take all the flak for a change and surprise surprise nobody will be any happier as usual. The saga will continue until god intervenes and like magic Goodison is turned like water into wine into a super stadium for free.
Alan Willo
33   Posted 07/06/2008 at 13:00:34

Report abuse

Why waste time on this it will never happen. LFC & EFC are both companies who have different paths in the coming years and a shared stadium doesnt fill the blue print of both parties so the debate is finished before its started. LCC only suggested it because it would cost then nothing to keep EFC in the city. I dont think the fans are connected like the 80’s, we have a under cuurent of hatred for each other and I have to admit I too feel the same every time a see a red top! I call my RS mates murderers on a regular basis and would love nothing better than them going out of business. I agree what i’m saying is not very mature but I cant help it i do hate that club and evertthing it stands for, sorry but would rather rot in Kirkby anyday than share with that crowd!! COYB
Brian Denton
34   Posted 07/06/2008 at 14:34:33

Report abuse

I don’t want a vote on this issue particularly. If both sets of fans had a vote (and they would both have to if a vote were to have any meaning at all) I suspect the result would be a small majority in favour by Everton fans, and a MASSIVE No from RS fans. We would look like beggars, and I don’t want it.
Paul Kish
35   Posted 07/06/2008 at 16:42:14

Report abuse

Karl J, I realise there are problems with the pitch at the San Siro, but they are caused by the roof, not the amount of football being played on it, or the climate.

Before Italia 90 and the roof being put on it, the pitch was fine. But since, not enough sun, nor wind gets to the grass to help it dry out.

I’m sure that’s an issue that any decent architect, combined with input from a smart hortculturalist, could overcome.

Both Lazio and Roma and Inter/AC Milan have been in Europe before without any ground sharing/scheduling issues.

If they can make it work, so can we.
Mark Pendleton
36   Posted 07/06/2008 at 20:51:46

Report abuse

I think the pitch would end up in a right state if we shared a stadium. For this reason alone i don’t think it’s viable rather than getting into the other arguments.
Jim Lloyd
37   Posted 07/06/2008 at 21:40:21

Report abuse

A good post. A shared stadium would make a lot of sense. It would be the finest stadium in the country after Wembley. It would provide a realistic opportunity for both clubs and city council, to regenerate the areas surrounding Stanley Park. It would also keep Everton where we belong. We played in Stanley Park in the beginning, it would be great to see us back there in a world class stadium. It would also mean that Everton Football Club would not have made the worst decision in its history and moved to Kirkby!

However, I can?t see it happening, which is a bloody disaster for us. If there were any real chance of us sharing, it would mean that our board would have no excuse to go ahead with their disastrous plans to site the stadium in Kirkby.

But I can?t see Liverpool wanting to share a stadium. Why should they. They?ve been given a fantastic site, a stone?s throw from Anfield, they have been given the prime site in the city for a football ground and they will have no desire to see there rivals share it. That?s my view anyway. I hope I?m wrong but I can see us being sidelined outside of Liverpool in a mediocre site and a mediocre stadium.

© 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.