Good idea there, bro! But if LFC aren't interested...

And where's the TV debate????

David, in any sane industry the joint stadium would happen. It makes economic sense in so many ways, not only in the shared cost of the project, which could bring a far better product than either club (well certainly EFC) currently envisage, but also in the synergy and shared running costs for many years to come.

As you rightly point out, if done properly, it would also be something of which the City could be immensley proud and put us firmly on the football map. Positioning the new stadium on the Stanley Park site would also be SO right as the area is the spiritual home of both clubs.

What stops this stunningly obvious solution to the clubs joint problem from going ahead?

1) They’re both skint. But counter to this, they both HAVE to do something if they have a hope of staying competitive with the other big clubs. Also it’s been made clear for several years that development funding (NWDA and possibly EU) could be made available if they’d both see common sense.

2) Sentiment. Well ok let’s stick to the "we’ll never share with "them" attitude and, in both cases, end up second rate and having to cripple ourselves to build and maintain separate stadiums. Sentiment is fine, but it wins you nothing.

A TV debate would be a great idea David, but I can’t see it happening. Years ago it would have been something Granada would have done, the arch Manc. the late Tony Wilson would have had the imagination to run it (and probably enjoyed rubbing salt in scouse wounds). Nowadays I doubt it would get off the ground.

As a non-shareholder, I don’t really care if it’s cheap to share. So can you explain why I would want to share please? It seems that is the only thing people throw into the debate is it makes economic sense. Secondly, I’ve yet to see the figures that you wish to sell out for.

It does make sense at the end of the day. If we could stay in the area rather than move then it would make my year. I’m sure more funding would be available especially from the EU.

Unfortunately the pig-headeness of the Americans means it stands no chance until they fail to pay back a loan and somebody new takes over. They have been so adamant about not sharing, I can’t see them doing a U-turn.

You can just imagine what could be achieved together, the stature of the stadium, the money to be saved in the long run. How much would that help us? Forget about how much it would help them, this stadium move (whatever happens) is going to have a huge bearing on our future. To me it just doesn’t make any sense to not keep pushing for this. We would still have our history and tradditions. They would not have to be compromised. I just believe that a joint stadium, with all the benefits, would certainly make us a force to be truly reckoned with.

The reason why we have to share is because Bill Kenwright is our owner. He doesnt want to sell but doesn't have enough money to build a new stadium so has had to ask Tesco to help him out in return for moving the club to the middle of nowhere.

I reckon we have a choice of sharing a ground for a relatively short period whilst we get our debts in order then buggering off, or we move out of town thus making it harder for a our core support to get to the match and losing money in the long run.

Sharing a stadium is the last resort for me, but we are in such a bad state we will have to bite the bullet. There is reason why Inter Milan want to move out of the San Siro, partly its down to money but I think a lot of it is due to them wanting to make sure their identity is not morphed into AC Milan's. When you think of the San Siro most people will then think AC not Inter. Even after winning 9 league titles our club struggles to keep its identity with a very successful neighbour so moving into the same ground as them is not something we should do lightly.

This old can of worms, eh?

This is all hypothetical, of course, but personally, I’d be fine with it on a few conditions:

- The seats would be interchangable (i.e. blue one week, red the next)

Security would have to be tightened. I could just see a minority of bellends thinking "This is a redshite’s chair" or vice versa and intentionally damaging the stadium.

It would have to be economically feasible, with a reasonable share of income. For example, if we share on a rent basis (and the ground is owned by the council) and Liverpool demand more of the income due to being a "bigger" club, (which they invariably will) they should pay more rent than we do. That, I feel is the sticking point — reaching an agreement between both clubs on how the income of the stadium will be shared.

There would have to be a way to satisfy those fans who don’t want a shared stadium because they feel it will affect the "image" of either club. A Liverpool fan once spoke to me regarding the sharing and said he’d be willing to do it, except "for the Mancs". Obviously having a ground as large or as grandiose as Old Trafford would not be acceptable if they have to share it.

I think at this point, anybody related to Everton is becoming more and more disheartened with Destination Kirkby (as if they were interested in the first place) but realistically speaking, until this world economy lark sorts itself out, there isn’t really any point in talking about any stadium at all. Both teams are skint.

"The seats would be interchangable (i.e. blue one week, red the next)."

My god, why not just make the seats green or another neutral colour?

I could be persuaded to share, especially if it stops Tesco's tin shed being erected. Also, I would like to know why Inter Milan are thinking of leaving the San Siro. Have they encountered a problem that could happen to us?

Yeah, Colin, they can't handle the red seats.

Apart from LFC not being interested (although the fact that they have no money now might change that), I thought the main stumbling block from our side would be lack of funds to pay our share. The last figures that I saw put the cost at £360M - £400M. Presumably we’d have to stump up £200M; I cannot see where we would get that sort of money from.

I think it would be great to have a shared stadium, how good would it be?
If the two Milans can do it, why can't we? We all have friends that support the dark side, some of us have family that support the dark side... so what's the problem?

We are not Manchester or Glasgow, we hopefully don't hate each other so to save money and to have a great stadium like the San Siro why not?

Since Kings Dock went belly up (it still causes me pain to see the Echo Arena there), a shared stadium has always seemed to logical choice — a way to stay close to Goodison, keep costs down, and have a top-class stadium for Merseyside. Plus I’m sure their might be EU funding and other streams with the World Cup bid on the horizon.

Would EFC/LFC fans refuse to sit in a "shared" stadium. Personally I doubt it — when push comes to shove, not more than a few dozen would refuse to attend matches.

Will it happen?... well it looks unlikely unless LFC come round to the idea (I suspect if they did then EFC would be receptive).

It makes perfect economic sense, but, BUT... Looking at the Allianz Arena in Munich, shared by Bayern and TSV 1860. From the outset it was seen as the home of the more illustrious side (Bayern) and that 1860 were just playing at Bayern’s ground when Bayern weren’t at home, even though at the beginning both clubs were equal partners. Now of course, thanks to 1860’s financial problems, the ground belong 100% to Bayern.

But I digress; the point is, the world and his dog will see it as LFC’s stadium which is not something Evertonians would be comfortable with, given our already well lamented identity issues in relation to the relocation to Kirkby and the omission of the city’s name from our club’s name.

As for the seat colour, at Allianz they use a neutral white, it being common to both clubs.

Couldn’t the joint stadium be funded by the FA as part of the World Cup bid? Kit it out in neutral colours. Both clubs pay the same rental fee. Simples.

Rather this than Kirkby, any day.

Commercially it all makes sense, but in reality football and sense rarely go together.

Of the shared stadiums around Europe I read an article the other day that Inter Milan are looking at moving out of the San Siro into their own 60,000 seater stadium so that can generate extra income!!!

(http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/inter-milan-consider-new-stadium-1783057.html)

Unless there is a 50/50 split in ownership and the council have no share in it (even though they will be putting up some of the money), and the clubs and their fans come around to the idea, then it should be shelved for good.

Just like to echo Jay Woods’ point about Bayern and 1860. The attention that Liverpool get is phenomenal, it will be classed as their stadium by the public, and we could well be in danger of losing our identity.

It does seem very sad, as a non-scouser, that Liverpool, the only English City able to boast continuous top flight football, may well not be a host city should the World Cup return to England. Had the two clubs sorted this issue years ago that would not have been the case.

I doubt there would be any great savings on the constructions costs for Everton as it would be a bigger & better stadium than currently envisaged at DK, although there would be additional funding for a shared stadium currently not available for separate grounds, apparently. After any subsidies & sponsorships (also probably more substantial for a joint ground) the clubs should split the costs & revenue 50:50, probably via a jointly owned stadium management company charged with the upkeep, administration & profit-maximisation of the stadium — whilst the 2 clubs focus on their own businesses with a nice financial boost from the stadium profits.

The ground would probably be called Anfield, which I’m not arsed about as it was ours before it was theirs & will be buried beneath a sponsors name anyway. They’d have a Kop in red which would be our away end, of course — and vice versa. The seats in the side stands would probably be best if purple, which I believe is a traditional civic colour for the city, or else just a random arrangement of a multi-coloured selection of seats. The stadium would be thought of all over the world as the home of LFC & the only way to change that perception would be on the field of play.

It could work, but I doubt it’ll ever happen, sadly.

Sorry, did you say it would be "really visionary for the future"?

But.........I don’t care about the future.

Seriously, not interested.

Believe me - there’s NOTHING for us in the future.

Just more Kenwright bollocks, a shit-hole in Kirkby, constantly being skint, can’t-compete-with-billionaires, never going to win the league again, desperate loan deals, last day of the transfer-window embarrassment.

The past however is a different story.

The past is where it’s....’at’

Of course I know that sounds a little daft, but past present or future, it’s all just a state of mind.

Just think of it.

In the past, Kenwright is...in Corry!!

In the past, WE win stuff, World Cup games are played at Goodison and you can pay on the gate at away games ("Credit card!? Who d’ you think I am laaar, David fuckin’ Niven?")

Sure there’s a bit of hoolie action, which I don’t condone, but (and I know I shouldn’t say this) we are having a lot of strikes, power-cuts and stuff and it’s kind of exciting going to Ipswich and frightening the locals.

In the past there’s loads of original stuff too!

Flares for the first time, original Ben Shermans, Harringtons, Comos, baseball boots, skins, crombies (nb: there’s nothing odd about a 12 year old wearing a man’s overcoat and monkey boots - it’s these kids now in their baggy kecks that look soft!)

Hey, last night on ESPN ’classic’ we beat Leeds 3-2 in 1974!

Latchford, Dobson, Hurst, Kenyon..great result.

(although Latchford had to go off injured - I’m a bit worried he won’t be available for Bristol away..35 back from now).

We all sang ’We’re going to win the league’ in a non-ironic way (try doing THAT in the present or future!)

What was that line in the theme tune to Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads?

’The only thing to look forward to is the past’.

Quite!

As an outsider from Australia, I don't have the local knowledge to call upon when writing about the feeling of the locals in Liverpool. However, I do see a lot of funding coming from the FA and the British government for a shared stadium with the upcoming bid for the 2018 World Cup. THis would be all wasted I feel as in a shared stadium Liverpool would lose their identity. As we are going to be the stronger club over the next decade, the red portion of the city would go bananas.

However, all the World Cup funding would be unnecessary as Australia will take home the bid.

I on a personal front do not mind the idea of a shared stadium. It would create more revenue due to more concerts and the like. I like the idea to have one end blue and one red to recreate the Kop and Gwladys St end. The rest of the seats could be neutral. I also can see one side of the stadium being Everton dominated and the other side Liverpool dominated with only that team merchandise and statues on one side.

However, there is one big problem: we are both skint and have crap chairmen who, in Kenwright's case, has given all he can and for the sake of the club should sell on. This would be much easier if we built a stadium the the supporters like, and place it in the city.

EJ — depressingly funny!

Why are we saying LFC aren't interested, did I miss something?

I know thye have dismissed the idea in the past, but times have changed, they are losing ground too, are they really not interested now? I thought it was us who where wrapped up in an exclusivity agreement...

Kirkby, please NO!

Liverpool’s chairman has come out recently and said they can fund the ground on their own as soon as the markets have stabilised. They do not need us in order to build a stadium.

Even if they did, the costs would have to be shared equally, meaning we would have to stump up around £200 million. No amount of debate is going to change the fact that we cannot afford it.

I would rather go to a cowshed in Kirkby than share with a neighbour from hell.

Why the hell would we want to share when approval for a purpose built stadium is only a few weeks away? It takes me about 15 minutes to drive from Goodison to a parking area in Kirkby — about as long as it takes to get a pint in the Winslow on matchdays!

Enough of this sharing nonsense — we’ll beat the dark side to a new home by years.

Richard,
What about the hour's walk from the car park because sufficient park and ride buses have been shown to not exist? Or the gridlock on one of the very few (already busy) routes back into Liverpool when so many more fans have to rely on cars because the public transport capacity for Kirkby is a fraction of that of Walton? Perhaps you missed those tiny details!

Here in the New York City area, the American Football Jets and Giants are putting the finishing touches on a joint share stadium that will cost over $1.5 billion. They are replacing a stadium that is 34 years old. The cost to the season ticket holders has been astronomically high, and the Giants who had a 10-year waiting list for season tickets have gone all the way through the list and STILL have seats available for next year.

I think in this economic downturn, the chance for either team to build a new stadium in Liverpool has been lost. The time to do it was when the Arse where making plans for theirs... right around Kings Dock.

This should be the only game in town. It isn’t only about economics, but anyone who dismisses economics has lost the plot anyway.

It’s about common sense, deliverability, desirability, prestige for both clubs and for the city. It’s about avoiding waste, about avoiding two "almost but not quite" stadia in favour of one outstanding stadium.

It’s about world cups, European finals, massive concerts, it’s about the fact that there’s more that unites us than divides us. And anybody who doubts that needs only to revisit footage from Anfield after little Reece Jones’ death. Hearing Z-Cars there reduces me to blubber.

In the end, it’s about doing something amazing, defining, world class, befitting a city of world cultural & sporting renown. It’s about building a monument to over a century of achievement by two clubs and one city. It’s about initiating a project that is so fucking blindingly obvious that it would attract support from local, regional & national government, and the EC.

It would be second only to Wembley in this country and we would get to play in it every fortnight. Then again, we could always have our own Reebok stadium in the back of beyond. I mean, there wouldn;t be a Kopite within miles, but it would be ours.

I’m still waiting to hear one single cohesive argument against a Merseyside stadium. Just one...

Dont think you’ll get one from Leahy, Kenright, Earl or Green

In fact you wont even get a response

Alan,


"I’m still waiting to hear one single cohesive argument against a Merseyside stadium. Just one..."

Perhaps you might start with.... The same cohesive arguments that see so many of the world’s remaining sharing clubs so passionately striving for stadium independence despite its obvious and massive expense.....? I’m a bit wary of those spouting the purple-seated nirvanna as the only way forward (I remember a whole thread on the seat colour alone indicating some people’s ignorance of the main issues with the sharing strategy). There is almost nothing I would like more than for us to play at a truly state of the art stadium, but not sure I’d want it at any cost, and ultimately with the inevitable loss of big proportion of our identity. The 2 clubs are completely separate entities, and make no mistake they have thrived on their separate and strong identities too, it’s not something in the small print or a mere minor detail of the relationship we have with our club, however imponderable it’s as real as the blue shirt on the player’s backs..... this IMO cannot by definition be rationalised into one stadium although it’s open to debate. I’m also sure people here have been going the match over a wide range of periods, and therefore their feelings for GP may also vary from quite indifferent to complete reverence. But please remember "Sharing" has NEVER worked anywhere in this country. For it even to be theoretically viable on a basic business level alone it requires complete parity, neither club should be seen as the other’s superior otherwise the other will eventually be seen as the poor lodger who never fills the place (as we surely would be in a superstadia designed to meet LFC’s greater capacity needs), but how can long term parity be guaranteed, and how do you maintain that, and why would anyone want to? By the nature of competition we aspire to be better than the other, meaning the equilibrium that supports the whole relationship is false and cannot and should not be sustained! Can anyone really argue that we’d enter this alliance on anything like an equal basis? In practical and strategic terms even if funding brings down our contribution to a manageable level (which is highly debateable alone) who will have benefitted most.... LFC getting a stadium they couldn’t afford otherwise that allows them to average 30-40k more than us and leave us forever in their wake, or Everton who get a stadium they can rarely fill, but who may be left with equal running costs when in actual fact they probably only needed a few thousand more seats and boxes in the first place?

I started going the match regularly in the 70’s, LFC were winning everything in sight, the only thing that reaffirmed my dad’s assertions that we were a great club was the single biggest and permanent representation of our identity, and that was our home. For me it has always been a major chunk of the whole match-going experience. During those years of low achievement, set against their unprecedented and overwhelming success god knows how many of the floating vote of my generation defected to the other side. How many more might have found it so much easier to attend on the alternate weekend when the red shirted successful ones ran out on our "common ground" if we had shared then. Would we still be getting 30 odd thousand every week now? Diluting our identity in this way could be irreversible, and the ensuing loss of identity (that real and valuable asset) can only be detrimental, there have been times in our history when that has been all we could hang on to, so we should n’t be so dismissive, nor keen to surrender it. Alternately, you could argue that this could be the only way to one day grow into a superstadium, but my feelings are that LFC would probably be out of sight by then.

People often refer to Milan as the bench mark. Personally I find it hard to discern between the milan clubs, they blend together in my eyes the backdrop, magnificent as it is fading, not strengthening their distinct identities. They have also had 50 years to get used to the arrangement and yet still both clubs and fans yearn for their own stadia, and you don’t have to look too far to see abject failure, and even complete collapse with similar Italian co-existance. Juventus/Torino have jumped at the opportunity to separate regardless of cost, even to the extent that Juve are going to build a new smaller stadium and demolish the comparatively new stadio del alpi, regarded as one of the best stadiums in the world at Italia 90. While Torino have gratefully occupied the aging communale. Similarly with the Rome pair. Maybe our city can redefine the shared stadium strategy?

Therefore, IMO you can ready yourselves for choruses of "bring back my Goodison to me a la Charlton" as soon as the novelty as worn off, or even worse the fate that befell Wimbledon who saw the obvious economic benefits of renting as too attractive to resist. Similarly for us, there may be no going back!!!

Emotional? Subjective? Maybe!

But please consider your stance on this carefully, and if you’re ever lucky enough to have an anfield derby ticket, take a good look around their place next time pre KO and tell me your stomach isn’t churning at the dark and slightly unfamiliar surroundings, try explaining to yourself that it’s only valueless emotions causing your unease, then for a moment close your eyes and try to imagine you’re in GP, I am sure then you’ll instantly live that old adage....... there’s no place like home (warts and all)

Tom Hughes, can I take this opportunity to pick your brains for a moment please?

I’ve noticed that the Kirkby stadium has not been designed to hold additional tiers as part of a future expansion plan (like Old Trafford was designed), and I’ve heard, don’t know if true though, that the Park End was also not designed to simply hold an extra tier.

So my question is, what kind of difference in cost are we talking about to design a stand to hold an extra tier? I know some money is saved in the way that the original stand is smaller and shallower to cater for the potential future addition, but I don’t know the extra cost difference for foundations.

Are there any factors other than cost and space that would lead Everton to continue to be so unambitious and short sighted in their design?

Tom, I can’t disagree with the way you feel - there’s really no right or wrong with emotions, they just are, perhaps the strength of feeling may vary from one person to another though. However, you say "please remember "Sharing" has NEVER worked anywhere in this country" & I must confess I fail to remember a single instance of it being tried.

There have, of course, been a few instances of one club hosting another in a landlor-tennant relationship but the difference between renting & sharing is very significant. Obviously, if you rent another club’s stadiumyou will have far less, if any, opportunities to generate additional revenue from their facility & when you do they will demand a slice too. That is certainly not a model that would work for Everton, possibly even worse than Kirkby (& I didn’t think there could be anything worse!).

If the job is done correctly I don’t see that either club should lose their identity, although I understand the concern. It’s not my first choice, I’d prefer to see a phased redevelopment of Goodison Park, but if it could work anywhere then I suspect the City of Liverpool may well be the place. Anyway, it’s all hypothetical — I just can’t see it coming off.

If a joint stadium was built then Liverpool would want a capacity of 80,000. They would fill it, no problem. We would half fill it, big problem. Anybody here fancy sitting in a half-full stadium with no atmosphere? Not me... and that's the reason I am against it.

Hmmm... So we could attract 50,000 to a deeply unpopular cowshed that's nigh on impossible to get to in the sticks, but we could only attract 40,000 to a state-of-the-art stadium a few yards from were we currently play?

David Shaw,

The KIrkby design is an off-the shelf job. The rear rows of the upper tier are already at or near max. rake/viewing-distances meaning, anything above may not be able to meet minimum sight-line criteria. The corners were left empty because they are more expensive to build, and these will then form the potential space for further expansion. However, It should be noted that Knowsley haven’t sanctioned such an expansion in any case and have purposely held it to just over 50k, and even added clauses that could cap the capacity at just 40,000 because they know the transport strategy has contuinually failed to show viability, and they need to cover their arses.

Perching a tier on top of the existing Parkend wont necessarily impact on existing foundations since the upper tier can be independantly supported. Because the Parkend is fairly steep, this might limit the depth and therefore capacity of that new tier if it indeed overlaps the current stand. The general problem with building a second tier above an existing stand is as you say costs can escalate due to the volume of structure required to get people up to the new tier. If that stand is already quite high this could become prohibitive. Similarly, the Park end can be extended as a single tier following the existing profile to form a massive end terrace stand. I have modelled this and given the current geometry and space, the largest end stand in the country can fit and work there, and still leave space for a multi-story car park and an enabling development behind.

Hi Tom, if Everton designed Kirkby shallower and with the treads more compact so that the rear most seats in the stand were not near the maximum rake or viewing distance, then Everton could add another tier in the future by having it independantly supported?

By doing this now it would actually save money in the original build as the cost of adding a tier would be met in the future wouldn’t it?

So if that was done would the only obstacle be the planning permission from Knowsley? Would planning permission for expansion just be a future obstacle so Everton would just request permission in say 20 years time?

As each additional tier would be less than 10,000 Everton could argue for now that they are keeping to the 60,000 max as advertised but are just keeping their options open on how they expand. But in 20 years Everton could just bump it above 60,000 as it’s a fresh planning application?

Could Everton do all that? So build for vast expansion and save money for now. Or is there something I’m missing?


By the way, hope you get a chance to see this and reply as this thread has long dropped off the page somewhat, but I’ll keep checking back on here