The new Liverpool owner, John W Henry, is looking into groundsharing with EFC. Henry is not the free spending billionaire that Liverpool would have liked, but the pragmatic businessman who did not build a new stadium when he bought the Red Sox. He is counting his pennies after spending a few hundred million and does not like the idea of doubling that outlay by building a new home for the Reds. Refurbishing Anfield would be his first choice, but that has proven to be a tricky situation, or it would have happened by now.
The second option is to build a new stadium with his neighbours, ours truly, Everton FC. We have been through all this before and most fans of both persuasions abhor the very idea of sharing anything with each other. But there are few options and this one is looking more and more a possibility.
Are we ready to share a home with them? How could it work? What do you think about it?
Henry is a pragmatist. How pragmatic are we?
Albert Perkins, Posted 04/11/2010 at 04:11:43
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
1 Posted 04/11/2010 at 04:47:06
Done badly, it could be a kitsch, shambolic farce of the highest order and lead to one or both organizations becoming disillusioned.
We would have to be fully equal partners in all ways, which could lead to stalemate non-decision making.
I used to think it made sense to ground share, but it seems a bit like living with your ex-wife to save on your bills and share the mortgage. How would that work out for you?
2 Posted 04/11/2010 at 05:17:49
I also caught an Inter Milan home match at the San Siro:
- Inter are a great club, with great history
- They drew a big crowd who gave great support
- There were Inter banners everywhere
- The San Siro is a great stadium
Despite all that, I didn?t feel like I was really stepping onto Inter?s home turf. It felt like I could have been watching Inter at any of the other big stadiums around the World.
The difference for me was when stepping into English stadiums you really feel like your at the core of the club. Goodison is at the heart of Everton.
The ground share may work well at some stage but, even if it's pulled off well, a part of the club?s identity will be lost. On top of all that, we still have no money to finance a 50% share.
3 Posted 04/11/2010 at 08:55:56
4 Posted 04/11/2010 at 08:51:14
I believe we would get a much better staduim than we could afford on our own and I couldn't care less about sharing with the shite as they won't be there when we are apart from at derby days and their always going to be special.
I love going to Goodison, but think it's more about the team and the fans who create the atmosphere.
5 Posted 04/11/2010 at 08:47:26
And it's not just Evertonians who relish the Goodison experience: many notables, players, managers, pundits and supporters in the game have commented on the unique atmosphere generated in the ground.
I for one hope investment can be found to redevelop the Old Lady, to hold onto a unique experience.
6 Posted 04/11/2010 at 09:21:03
7 Posted 04/11/2010 at 09:43:23
Thinking back to King's Dock, they were going to have a removeable pitch so the venue could be used for concerts etc.
So if we ended up with a groundshare, could there not be a replica of the Goodison and Anfield pitches shipped in on match days. Maybe it's an expensive symbolic gesture, but if fans/players felt they were playing on "their" own pitch it may be one way of us all buying into the idea.
8 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:00:47
Ok, given the choice, I choose stay at Goodison (forever!) or build a new ground in Walton/Everton or on The banks of...etc.
NB: That's given the choice.
However if (as seems likely) none of those things are options, I'm not as bothered by the thought of sharing with them as...well, as I thought I might be.
In fact my only real concern is us playing in a stadium that is a third empty and looking like (and feeling like) Boro or Blackburn.
Maybe I'll feel differently if it looks like it might happen.
And I should add that deep, DEEP within me, there is also a staggeringly irrational bit that says "If at any stage it looks like they need us, we should say we're not interested"
(I know pathetic, at 51 I should know better etc blah - just being honest)
9 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:05:58
10 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:03:24
Logistically could never work. Even though pitches these days do have a certain artificial flavour to them, both pitches would still need a certain amount of natural light and would need to be maintained daily. Presumably your idea would require two sets of groundsmen also, which couldn?t possibly work.
I think a shared stadium would probably need to be owned and maintained by an independent organisation with input from both clubs, but all areas of the ground including the pitch would need to be shared across both clubs.
11 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:17:50
- The EU Objective One (was a big proportion of our Kings Waterfront costs) ship has long sailed
- The UK public sector is reigning in spending
Never mind, no doubt we have the money ring fenced, etc. Or Bill's Hollywood mates have some grand additional revenue plans.
12 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:22:20
13 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:19:05
With the board Everton have at the moment I cannot see us finding the money to have a part share in a Liverpool City stadium. That could change if the board sell up to an investor who can finance the project, but in my opinion we would always be the poor tenants of a shared stadium, attendance wise, success wise and revenue wise.
14 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:31:39
Money will, as ever, be the issue.
If the money could be produced, and it was to happen on an equal footing, then we just have to suck it up and go for it.
There isn't a very long list of choices.
15 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:36:24
BUT ? there should be economies of scale ? do you share these, or apportion based on gate receipts?
AND ? secondary non-football revenue (assuming LCC would permit, given the investment in the Arena). Same question.
It'd be a minefield. Like some have alluded to above, forget who was first etc. we would always be treated like the pikey squatter. Sadly I think our current custodians would accept that if it meant they could be like the Star Trek enemy and Klingon...
16 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:33:54
And you wonder why everybody hates scousers... get a fucking life, go and follow Tranmere if you want to support a small club.
On another note, I would hate it to be some hideous mixture of both club's icons and colours, the only way this should be done is as a completely neutral ground with, say, green seats. I don't want to hear any embarrassing bickering about there being one two many Liverpool crests on the bloody wallpaper or something. The fella who complained about the San-Siro not "feeling like Inter's home ground" is outta his mind, would anyone here seriously not swap Goodison for the San-Siro?
17 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:46:41
Sadly, Jimmy, yes there are.
18 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:44:30
19 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:50:45
20 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:48:42
Unfortunately it fails to reflect the peculiar nature of football and its club supporters. Business models do not work well in football primarily because hardcore football club support is as emotionally based as it is cerebral, perhaps more so. I just wouldn't feel comfortable sharing our 'home' with another club.
If that sounds juvenile it probably is... but I can't help it!
21 Posted 04/11/2010 at 10:42:25
Both Anfield and Goodison can be renovated to form the best stadium face-off in world footy, and it really needn't cost more than sharing, and even if it did, the outcome would be inordinately more valuable in real terms.
I personally don't believe you can rationalise both identities into one stadium (and that's not just a reference to colour of seats). In simplest terms for me, LFC means Anfield, red and white, the kop, and dark gloomy basic stands, where Daglish et al played etc. Everton means Goodison Park, the first true purpose built footy stadium in the world; Blue and white with tall multi-tiered grandstands; Archie Leitch criss cross balconies..... where Dixie and the Golden Vision played, where Pele and Eusebio played and so much more.
How much easier might it have been for kids of the 70s and early 80s to have deserted EFC for the darkside if our identity had not been so strongly defined and established, i.e. if we then shared? The Munich analogy should ring alarm bells for us all... not to mention the fact that, in practically every shared arrangement that is cited when sharing is ever mentioned, both clubs are either actively seeking or have already found their own stadia due to this precise reason.
Sharing also requires complete parity.... (which we haven't got) and, in any case, where is the sense in that in any competitive relationship? It is a complete contradiction!
22 Posted 04/11/2010 at 11:41:58
They're making enough problems for themselves, so it's probably best to steer clear of anything red and/or shite.
23 Posted 04/11/2010 at 11:58:06
24 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:03:19
Ok some of them aren't as close as us together but they are still the main rivals in terms of geographical distance (I think).
25 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:17:14
26 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:07:55
What if the stadium was built and financed by outside investors? With extra revenue for rent generated from corporate hospitalty, extra gate revenue and concerts etc.
Just take an extra £8k per match @ £30 per ticket, plus corporate revenue, food, merchandise, you could generate approx £600k per month on top of Goodison figures. Enough for half the rent on a £400M stadium ?
27 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:11:22
None of those clubs will probably ever share a ground, but that doesn't mean that not sharing is the right or wrong thing to do.
A big wonderful new stadium at a discounted cost is absolutely vital if Everton, nine-times champions, are ever ever EVER going to compete again. If you'd rather stay in Goodison and come 7th every season that's fine, but I don't find that acceptable. This is literally make or break time. In 30 years time we could very very easily be a Burnley or a West Brom, just another medium-sized club floating about, with old codgers boring kids by banging on about how "I remember when Everton were Champions! Them were t'days."
And for the record (I've been accused of being a Kenwright-ite before) I thoroughly despised the Kirkby idea.
28 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:26:41
What colour would the seats be? Do we have both club badges on the front?
On derby day how will they feel going to the home ground and going in the away dug out, us as fans in the away end at our own ground!
Not for me ta, I'll pass I like my blue seat and trimmings!!
29 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:30:19
If a shared stadium with the Redshite guarantees us Silverware as you are implying lets do it.
If it doesnt make any difference then the shit is going to hit the fan. Id rather stay in a decaying main stand than sitting where red shites sit every other week to watch their horible HORRIBLE team
30 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:32:31
Did they want a groundshare when we were in shit? NO!
We should tell them to Fuck Off and put Goodison on Stanley Park where it BELONGS!!!
31 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:31:00
The only progress I can forsee is that a future Board may start the long overdue process of a phased redevelopment of Goodison Park. This would require less money to be invested up front & could be progressed at a rate determined by affordability & demand. This process should have been part of the long-term management of the club over the last four decades & then the whole groundshare suggestion would be moot.
I have no interest in RS but suspect that further redevelopment of Anfield is the most likely way forward for them too.
32 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:48:00
Goodison Park is our home and the greatest players in the history of English football have graced it in the blue of Everton. We should aspire to this again. One good generation of players could make this happen.
33 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:48:33
I can understand the whole stadium fatigue element amongst Evertonians too..... but as ever the fans need to fully assess the options as, as with DK, KD and the general lack of effective stadium policy before now, we may still need to question the decisions and not be fobbed off with false nirvanna's!
34 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:47:29
Most of us have special memories there like the boys pen, Golden Vision, Ball harvey and Kendal, the 66 world cup, the Bayern Munich night all of which should be cannonised in a GP museum of EFC history.
However on a purely financial note I could see the council developing a superstadium with the 2018 world cup in mind and having a 3 way share with EFC and the RS.
Subsidising the development costs could be all sorts of commercial activities like multistorey parking, Sports bars, hotel and restaurant facilities, concerts and also council sponsored youth development activities.
For those who say we cannort afford to do anything the simple answer is we cannort afford to do nothing.
How many people now own their own homes having started out with nothing?
Where there is a will there is a way.
Unfortunately this board does not have the sane enlightenment.
35 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:57:38
And if England win the World Cup bid for 2018, is there any possibility of the government coming on board to build a mega stadium for the World Cup??? Just asking!!!
36 Posted 04/11/2010 at 13:17:42
"In 30 years time we could very very easily be a Burnley or a West Brom"
True, but we could also be a Boro or a Coventry or a Hull.
I'm not saying you're wrong (and I'm probably more for than against) but remember, nobody is GIVING us a ground.
Whatever grants come along, It'll still cost us money we (apparently) don't have.
37 Posted 04/11/2010 at 13:28:13
My main concern is what happend with the Allianz area. 50-50 joint partners then 1860 had to sell their half for fiancial reasons. Now they are in Bayern's pocket, whats to say this could not happen here?
Also why is Anfield redevolpment such a problem? Unlike us they have forced local residents out of the homes. Two entire streets next to it are vacant. We can not expand because all the houses next to Goodison are occupied. I suppose after all we are the peoples club.
38 Posted 04/11/2010 at 13:53:15
Leeds/ Bradford share an airport though.
One advantage of a shared stadium could be the extra matchday revenue from your average (Norwegian) red nose fan who has got the wrong week. They don't know any of the players anyway so will probably happily sit through our match convinced they cheered 'their' team on.
39 Posted 04/11/2010 at 12:11:22
None of those clubs will probably ever share a ground, but that doesn't mean that not sharing is the right or wrong thing to do.
A big wonderful new stadium at a discounted cost is absolutely vital if Everton, nine-times champions, are ever ever EVER going to compete again. If you'd rather stay in goodison and come 7th every season that's fine, but I don't find that acceptable. This is literally make or break time. in 30 years time we could very very easily be a Burnley or a West Brom, just another medium-sized club floating about, with old codgers boring kids by banging on about how "I remember when Everton were champions! them were t'days."
And for the record (I've been accused of being a Kenwright-ite before) I thoroughly despised the Kirkby idea.
40 Posted 04/11/2010 at 13:49:02
I believe that it would certainly be possible for Everton and Liverpool to have seperate changing rooms and each have our own dugout. I do like the Allianz Arena, couldn't we have something similar that flashes blue when we are at home and red when they are - or something equally original?
As for other comparisons with the Munich situation, I guess we need expert financial advice - if Hicks and Gillette (legends) were still in charge who's to say they wouldn't have been paying us rent in a few years?
I believe a groundshare is the best option, we haven't the fan base of Man Utd or the billions of City and is this offers a substantial saving and allows us an extra quality signing a year then it could be well worth it.
Anything less than equal partners then Goodison it is!
41 Posted 04/11/2010 at 14:10:11
42 Posted 04/11/2010 at 14:03:30
Skip forward 24 hrs, Everton v Hartlepool in the League Cup, 15,000 spread themselves around the vast arena as Z-Cars echoes round the ground, ticket costs of minimum £50/seat slashed by half price to try and fill the empty spaces...
The above may semm like a harsh indictment of a ground share idea, but this is what happened to Munich 1860, relegated to German 2nd Div with average attendance standing at 28,000, while Bayern broke the record for consecutive sell out games and have an almost 69,000 average attendance. 1860 were on the verge of bankruptcy when Bayern saved them by buying out their 50% share in the Allianz Arena.
Do you think the current set up at Everton warrants a new ground opportunity? Does the board have a plan?
43 Posted 04/11/2010 at 14:40:02
Everton are closer to the top four as we speak. If a new ground is built with manageable debt, this will make EFC more attractive to purchase than most Premier League teams. Liverpool fans are just coming round to the idea that the glory days are long gone at Anfield. They have got Roy Hodgson as their manager, FFS!!!!
44 Posted 04/11/2010 at 14:46:11
Groundsharing: a sensible idea doomed to fail ? at least from the Everton perspective... or is that us being unnaturally and unjustifiably negative again???
ps: Jimmy... do want me to cut your post (#39)? I couldn't see anything wrong with it though...
ps: James McGrady ? we are no longer "The People's Club". That term has been dropped and I for one am glad. It just sounded so smalltime ? and in any event was certainly far from the truth in terms of ownerwship.
45 Posted 04/11/2010 at 14:37:57
You stole my thunder mate. The press would be calling it the new Anfield, the smug bastards would want a new Kop and we would be associated with a club that has one of the worst reputations for whinging in the world.
Their fans get on my tits big time, having CL rules changed, getting the rest of the English clubs banned from Europe (it wasn't their fault though). Their own fans robbing each other in the CL final and then having the cheek to blame the Greek authorities for not running it properly.
They are abhorent, arrogant, self-righteous arseholes and I want nothing to do with anything they are involved with.
They will, with their arrogant stance and attitude look upon us as tennants and anyway I wouldn't trust Billy Bullshit to broker a deal with a Bombay carpet seller, nevermind that lot.
46 Posted 04/11/2010 at 14:59:12
Unless someone has a spare £100 million+ then we're thankfully staying where we are.
47 Posted 04/11/2010 at 15:04:42
Hopefully Elstone knew the Shite were gonna fold and has an application ready to hand in... Imagine the look on all those red faces if we put Goodison on Stanley Park where it belongs. That'd be better than winning the league!
48 Posted 04/11/2010 at 15:15:21
Surely everyone knows this?
49 Posted 04/11/2010 at 15:16:17
A hell of a lot goes on behind the scenes.
I know we have no money in transfers etc, but we do have money which we don't know about; we have enough for a stadium, we could do it if we really wanted.
50 Posted 04/11/2010 at 15:21:11
51 Posted 04/11/2010 at 15:27:16
If not, some basic history:
1) Kings Dock failed for lack of £30M which was (or so we all were assured) "ringfenced". It wasn't.
2) Kirkby, initially "free", would have cost Everton £78M... that's £78M Everton did not and do not have.
"We do have money which we don't know about; we have enough for a stadium, we could do it if we really wanted." ? What are you on about???
52 Posted 04/11/2010 at 15:32:56
53 Posted 04/11/2010 at 15:34:25
54 Posted 04/11/2010 at 15:46:25
What a contradictory load of bollox.
"We do have money we don't know about".
You obviously know about it then, so spill the beans. Or have you missed a dose of your medication.
55 Posted 04/11/2010 at 15:54:52
56 Posted 04/11/2010 at 16:31:00
57 Posted 04/11/2010 at 16:33:32
Liverpool are branded everywhere, the stadium will subsequently be associated with them, with us seen as the cheap meffs who play at THEIR ground.
Visually it could look embarrassing too. They have a larger fanbase and so would have larger attendances while we're all sitting mute in a half empty stadium.
58 Posted 04/11/2010 at 16:42:47
We have, without doubt, been hamstrung over the years by the actions of other clubs, but Mr Moyes has several times put this club on the very brink of fame and success and never been supported to the extent of a Redknapp or even a Hodgson.
The reason why investors were queueing up to take on a £240m debt with Liverpool was because they know they can make a killing, we have Everton currently who are a less attractive proposition than Blackburn !
I always looked at Spurs as a team who were very similar to Everton, fantastic history, but fallen on unsuccessful times, but look at the ground they had similar to Goodison and the improvements they made, the way they fund every manager and they have picked up trophies over the years.
Yes, I know, they are a London team, blah, blah, but there are several London teams and they, over the next few seasons will move to the forefront with Arsenal
They have a visionary board, they have plans, achievable plans, unfortunately we have no plans, not even a plan B.
They played Inter and battered them, European champions, but couldnt batter us, we have the basics, but we dont have the leaders to take us forward.
59 Posted 04/11/2010 at 17:17:11
Anyway, now my is rant over, I?ll be a bit more constructive! (and use the stadiums that people have used in the past to justify a ground share, to, hopefully, blow their argument out of the water).
San Siro ? Inter for the past few years have been drawing up plans to build their own stadium, because a shared stadium isn?t working for them.
Delle Alpie ? Juventus have already built, and are now playing in, a new stadium of their own, because a shared stadium wasn?t working for them.
Allianz Arena ? Munich 1860 went to the wall and where forced into selling their stake to Bayern and they are still in shit street, so a shared stadium hasn?t worked for them.
Put simply, a shared Everton/Liverpool stadium (or rather Liverpool/Everton stadium as the whole world would put it) in the long term, will not work.
60 Posted 04/11/2010 at 17:32:41
61 Posted 04/11/2010 at 17:32:41
62 Posted 04/11/2010 at 17:23:30
63 Posted 04/11/2010 at 17:25:58
64 Posted 04/11/2010 at 17:26:33
The upside to us is what?
We've dealt with hardship and survived.
We should've died a death living in the shade of their period of dominance, but we did'nt.
We're far from the finished article but we still have the strength of our identity, Goodison Park is our castle it's historic walls have been a sanctuary when any news of the city of liverpool meant a mention of the name Anfield.
Restore the old lady, her magic will always remain.
65 Posted 04/11/2010 at 17:42:37
The stadium cost 340m euros. The two teams invested 11m euros each.
The Allianz company paid for it as they were a Munich firm promoting the City.
TSV were always in financial stress, failing the leagues means test to compete and being relegated to division 3 in the 90's.
This was like Bolton sharing with Man Utd.
Footballing terms right now, we are on a par with the RS.
In a 70,000 stadium, what would our turnout be with great views of the pitch?
50,000 perhaps generating £300,000 extra ticket revenue on a current matchday. Add the hospitality boxes and other income and it's another 100k per game.
So £400k extra on each game. £15m extra cash minimum a season.
Yes, it means also them lot get extra cash via the same reasoning.
Why fear them getting further ahead, not exactly spent wisely in the past have they.
Would the Government fund this scheme? or is the Runcorn bridge the end of regenerating this part of the country?
The main concern it seems to the fans is what colour will the seats be.
Who cares, as long they ain't red.
if we stay at Goodison then we stand still, at best, in the league.
No money for a new ground so it's ground share for us to move forward.
I'll take my chances going toe to toe with them lot and Moyes having £20 -£30m a season to spend with Hodgson wasting double that.
66 Posted 04/11/2010 at 18:29:25
67 Posted 04/11/2010 at 18:20:15
68 Posted 04/11/2010 at 18:29:38
I dont want this club to stand still, that is what they have been doing since the Top Balcony was built. somebody on the board needs to step up and say enough is enough, we need to do something.
The greatest opportunity for any club anywhere in the world was the Kings Dock, an iconic stadium in an iconic city in probably the best possible location, these fucking arseholes blew it.
Stop crawling to every yank that appears across the park at Anfield Road and come up with a plan that hits the mark with all Evertonians and then, only then, you will see attendances back to levels they were in the 50s and 60s.
As far as I can see we are in a different league to Liverpool, not literally, while we have the current incumbents making the decisions.
69 Posted 04/11/2010 at 19:00:00
As a big round ball-park figure, £40m could be raised in promisory notes from participating fans against which the club could borrow to begin the redevelopment of Goodison. Board members would be expected in return to make their own sizeable investment and a supporters group could be elected and invited to help oversee the redevelopment process. (And to make sure we're not shafted)
Another system would have to be deployed for non season ticket holders but I am sure one could be devised.
There....sorted! When do we start.
70 Posted 04/11/2010 at 19:28:09
As for their " worldwide appeal," watch their fanbase dwindle, they only got twenty -odd thousand when they got knocked out of the C.C.
All these glory hunters are exactly what it says on the tin. If they aint winning trophies, they support some fucker who is. Coffee smelt !
71 Posted 04/11/2010 at 19:34:35
Where's the advantage?
On your figures they sell out 70k per home match we sell 50k, why not sort Goodison to 50k capacity and we have all the benefits without looking like the poor relations every week.
Not with you at all on this one.
72 Posted 04/11/2010 at 19:51:48
73 Posted 04/11/2010 at 20:39:28
74 Posted 04/11/2010 at 19:59:52
Seats (who really gives a shit when you save £200m but anyway):
Yellow or White and both teams choose a yellow/white 2nd kit as they have in previous years.
You put a small section of red seats in one end and a small section of blue seats in the other and the red seats form part of the away allocation on Everton match days and vice versa.
Insignia/Livery on the Stadium front.
Assuming it's to be built in Stanley Park, you have two entrances to the stadium or it's envelope, one to the north with Everton insignia, and one to the south with a big turd.. Sorry... Liverpool insignia. The two entrances would be completely out of view of one another so on match days, as an Evertonian you would be completely oblivious to the other end of the ground because you would have no business being there and it would be used by away supporters to enter the ground.
(Napoli 1-0 up get in!!)
As for those who say we will be the poor cousins and bang on about Liverpool's world wide appeal.. As things stand we have got absolutely no future apart from mediocrity (that's a word that get's bandied around on here a lot) with our financial constraints. Let's take the opportunity to get on a level footing with our misfiring cousins.
Let's show that with a level playing field (no pun intended) that, no, we won't have a half full stadium for league cup games, we'll back our manager with additional finances and we'll get maximum return on our investment, going from strength to strength as a club in the ascendancy .. Also, what makes you think that RS won't continue to fail to fulfil the potential that all their advantages afford them? They've had every opportunity over the last 15 years with additional CL money to spend compared to us and every other team outside the "big four" and look at them - it's pathetic frankly.
Do you honestly think that with the same advantages (a world class stadium) Everton wouldn't make more use of it than the shite? Even if Liverpool sold it out every other week that would just mean that we would have room to grow in to it as others sought to take part locally at more affordable rates. Our fanbase would grow, revenues would increase? Fuck, it?s all positive, stop fixating on the negative and take the bull by the horns Everton!!
75 Posted 04/11/2010 at 20:53:04
76 Posted 04/11/2010 at 21:08:41
Interesting, Henry's comments. He's expecting the same response from RS supporters as the majority have posted here:
a. Maybe, but how do you make that work, given the animosity?
b. Fuck em
Henry's group did some version of this tap dance in Boston after taking over the U.S. RS. His group received some concessions from the municipality in Boston, then turned the worst dump in American sport into the cash cow it remains.
Don't be surprised he's just politicking and doesn't really want to share anything with his team's #1 rival (In the EPL Derby-sense, we don't have that over here). And speaking practically, he's better off renovating a current structure than investing in a "may be, might be"
I haven't had the opportunity to get to Goodison yet (I will). I say give the Old Girl a needed face lift and let's see which team puts the more attractive side on the pitch.
77 Posted 04/11/2010 at 21:59:00
It appears you spoke too soon about LFC. I'd suggest you've done similarly regarding sharing. I realise going the match is probably different for everyone, and I suppose some can divorce themselves from their surroundings and just watch a game of footy, with little or no regard for the backdrop. For me it is the whole package, and I don't believe that can be simulated by a token representative sculpture behind one corner.
Liverpool's turnover (in a stadium only slightly larger than ours) dwarfs ours already. The disparity is vast. There is nothing to suggest that we can hope to fill the size of stadium they need. Therefore we will be expected to half fund the building and maintenance costs of capacity and corporate facilities we may never need. Meanwhile, we could probably add 10-15K nett new seats at GP in manageable phases for far less, preserving that imponderable yet invaluable asset Identity, and at the same time forcing LFC to pay for ALL their new seats.
78 Posted 04/11/2010 at 22:40:26
79 Posted 05/11/2010 at 00:43:20
Having read all the posts, I'm now convinced we should have no part in a shared ground with them.
My mistake was listening to the little rational voice in my head, instead of the little irrational voice that has served me so well over the years.
It won't happen again.
80 Posted 05/11/2010 at 01:24:05
81 Posted 05/11/2010 at 07:04:37
From our point of view;
1) How much will we have to find up front.
2) Can we actually come up with it.
3) If yes, why should we pull them out of the shit, yes a bit petty I know and it is 'in theory' a sensible idea.
Use the cash, if it ever gets out of the ringfence, to do up Goodison one or two steps at a time.
Make a virtue out of necessity. More Archie Lietch-esque.
The Old Lady must be near listed building status now. Accentuate the positives.
'All' that is required is men of vision a la 1892... we're fucked then.
Point: as to toilets, the last major upgrade was, I think, when the around the time of the main stand/top balcony. What was our capacity then? 55k.
Were the planning regs different then i.e. toilets per 100 punters or whatever. So why are we 'short'? Why can't they seem to cope? Or are we just pigs full of beer?
If the toilets per 100 is adequate, is it just a matter of more china, stainless steel and tiles... oh yes, thats 'front of house' orginisation and acumen, so again we revert to a) men of vision, b) we're fucked.
82 Posted 05/11/2010 at 09:40:39
I believe we are punching above our weight at the moment financially and I would hate to see us slowly demise, with our limited budget streams. I'm not saying sharing guarantees more money or a better squad but it would certainly be a postive step, one which we would be used to keep hold of or attract players.
One major flaw people are quite rightly pointing out is the comparative current financial situations of both clubs. Our squad is very decent at the moment, with some big players; I'm pretty sure once it was confirmed we were getting a groundshare by a certain date, we would immediately attract investors. We would come a lot cheaper than Liverpool, have a better squad and all we would need was much much better world branding!
Great site, lads, haha.
83 Posted 05/11/2010 at 09:54:53
As for Derek #80, if we really could persuade government that GP should be a listed building maybe we could get some cash towards refurbishment ? bit tongue-in-cheek but stranger things happen!
84 Posted 05/11/2010 at 09:48:01
For those of you not familiar with this ballpark, Fenway is an ancient structure with many similarities to our older stands. It is considered real "old school", and is one of only a few remaining traditional baseball stadia that bucked the trend on several occasions, and remained in its original location, and greatly unchanged, right amongst the communities that have always filled its stands.
The place is now revered in the US because of its intimacy and atmosphere (all sound familiar?), and is considered a role model for the new retro ballparks. This is in the home of some of the world's most advanced stadia..... yet somehow, despite the antiquated facilities and obstructed views, they still managed to beat the rest to the honours recently (proving brand new doesn't necessarily mean success, no more than old should mean mediocrity or failure). GP, being four-sided can literally have history and modernity combined in a way that no other footy stadium in the world can..... Our individual identity and history would be enhanced, not lost nor diluted.
Of course we could just go for what could be a relatively clinical, featureless new arena that we'll never be able to put our name to with any conviction or warmth. Then there are the other issues connected with trying to rationalise two identities, and two sets of requirements into one stadium. For instance, viewing distances for a 70-75k seater will be far greater than that of a 50-55k one, with reduced intimacy for our smaller crowds.
While GP does have a ridiculous number of obstructions (many can be readily erradicated), it does at least bring everyone very close to the action. Even the top Balcony for all its height is nowhere near as far from the action as say Old Trafford's upper tier, and an unobstructed seat in the upper Bullens is as good a vantage point as anything you'll find at the Emirates.
Therefore, I'd suggest being pragmatic in terms of LFC's perceived requirements, may be far from pragmatic and even potentially seriously detrimental to ours, as I don't believe they equate or align in any way... At the same time, I believe we already have the foundations of something that could be far more exclusive and beneficial. Something that will shout "Everton" from every brick.
85 Posted 05/11/2010 at 13:10:57
This would only become feasible for Everton with a new owner capable of underwriting the debt. So, unless the 24/ 7 search uncovers someone soon, don't hold your breath and be prepared for an embarrassing U-Turn from Kenwright when the RS call his bluff.
86 Posted 05/11/2010 at 15:11:59
87 Posted 05/11/2010 at 17:57:54
I assume you mean standing terraces?
Not allowed I'm afraid....not since the Hillsborough recommendations were implemented following the inquiry.
Standing could be made safe with a bit of imaginative engineering but I think that boat has long since left the dock as an option.
88 Posted 05/11/2010 at 21:22:54
I told him about the new development proposed for the car park at the Park End; he said that sounds great, but why not build it on the back of the Park End stand? That way we could go back to a table at half-time.
If a 9-year-old boy can see the sense in altering the Park End stand, by building it on to the existing structure, why cant the board?
Instead of a free-standing building, attach it and take the roof off and run the seats further back, increasing capacity, then fit a new roof.
The new development is apparently costing £10 million, how much more to fit a new roof and say bang in 3000 more seats? This needs to be challenged and looked at now, before our shortsighted board fuck things up again!
89 Posted 05/11/2010 at 21:47:10
Thanks Tom, keep up the good work!
90 Posted 05/11/2010 at 23:07:38
I remember not being against Kirby at one point (I can't believe it myself); now, I never, ever want to leave Goodison, and simply don't believe it can't be redeveloped. I'm no architect or engineer or anything, but I'm convinced it can be done. (I also happen to have been to Fenway, and it was good even before it was done up, it felt like a proper old school baseball stadium.
I went to Enron Field in Houston, and that was proper weird, like a massive mall/aircraft hanger with some astroturf in it.
91 Posted 06/11/2010 at 03:43:18
Goodison doesn't have to, or should, go. Facelift in order, no doubt. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not with the "Share" group at all. No need.
Would't be surprised Henry floated that in the press just to get RS minions used to the idea they're staying in the same stadium. Can't blame him and think EFC should reject the notion also.
92 Posted 07/11/2010 at 13:16:24
As far as Liverpool are concerned, they would be in a win-win situation. No gamble for them, they've enough Scandanavians to fill the ground twice over. If we go down the pan, just like Munich 1860 did, we would probably sell our share to them. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by ground share.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.