It'll never happen! The fans just won't allow it and clubs wudnt risk their fan base being disillusioned.
Plus it looks likely that Anfield will be redeveloped
Oh and I don't want to either!!
I'm a bit ambivalent re the new ground idea really as I love Anfield and the history etc but my head says a new ground in the long run wud be beneficial after the build costs have been paid off
Plus it looks likely that Anfield will be redeveloped
====
if for arguements sake that fell through and the only option was to share a ground would you do it?
Who cares about the Milan clubs?
Just cause they do it doesn't make it right
A shared stadium makes perfect sense in these days of austerity.
By pooling the resources of both clubs, we could build a stadium that would help secure the position of both clubs financially for the foreseeable future.
Who cares about the Milan clubs?
Just cause they do it doesn't make it right
=======
well it obviously is right for them coz it seems to work. the question i was asking do you think it would/could work for our two clubs and would you be in favour of it?
just like it seems to be right for roma/lazio and the munich clubs
I think I'd rather stay at Anfield and keep it the way it is today.
It works in Italy but the San Siro never feels like the spiritual home of either Inter or AC and I wouldn't want Liverpool's stadium feeling the same way after so many years of being synonymous with Anfield.
I have always been in favour of a shared ground. Half the cost.....would be mad not to be up for it.
Its only bitter keyboard warriors who will feel this way...im a blue in a house of reds and they are not against it.
If Everton pay for it then give us 50% then yes.
'If Everton pay for it then give us 50% then yes.'
Thanks for that valuable contribution to the conversation...
I don't think it'd work for either club, both need their own home & a shared stadium would cost both their identity.
The reds have already decided to re-bulid Anfield anyway (well they've kicked Stanley Park into touch & kicked the can down the road)
We've got Kenwright & will therefore not have enough cash for a tent in the car park, let alone a shiny new stadium.
What will the Anfield redevelopment encompass?
Ah back to Kenwright...but won't a be ground give him the payoff he craves?
^ it won't give him anything, as he'll never be able to fund it, as he proved with Kings Dock. He's also hooked on the idea that a new stadium could only happen if it was strapped onto a retail development. We'll never see a solution under Kenwright.
But we have got financial stability. BK knows his limitations, and I think he'll stick around to make sure the club ends up in the right hands.
^ He'll stick around until he gets a price that him & his fellow directors considers to be at the right level. He won't give a stuff who writes the cheque imo.
Financially it would be the best solution for both clubs.As far as a minority of supporters go they'd sooner see both clubs continue to struggle to gain champions league spots rather than share a stadium.That's how tribal some of our supporters are
Also I can't see Liverpools owners going for the stadium share option as it may affect the clubs resale value if they decided to sell
The only way a newly built stadium would be financially viable would be if both clubs went in for it..
This is evidenced on an article called something like: liverpool and financial fair play. It was on the tomkins times last week and while going through the accounts of the biggest earning clubs in the league it illustrated how the emirates has made arsenal next to no money, and the increased capacity will be worth approx 4 per cent of their turnover this year (falling further as commercial revenue and tv deals increase)
It would only be financially viable for both clubs to invest together for a new stadium, both selling off the old land would go a way towards financing it.. Re applying for the government loans H+G got will also help.. But there would be too many problems (and I a reds fan am actually up for the idea of a bigger shared stadium)
1 problem would be size, I don't intend to set off a RS/BS argument but everton probably won't fill a stadium as large as that which liverpool could.. So size would be an issue, really we would want 60-70k minimum, with infrastructure for future expansions. (Old toilet is 75k?) Everton may not want a stadium that large..
The other issue is future expansions, say we build it for 60k capacity and liverpool easily fill it, but everton average crowds of 45k, are they going to want to dip their hands into their pockets to help fund an expansion they won't use? Or will they just hold liverpool back by refusing the plans?
Personally love anfield, but an increased capacity crowd would attract better match day sponsership annd naming rights, possible 1million a match day more in income, plus further opportunities for people to go watch the match!! But I can't see it happening.
Really it would be excellent for everton as they could also piggyback on the increased income that liverpool would generate through naming rights and stadium sponsership!!
Big Nev: You sound like several other posters on here and various other sites, spouting clichéd rhetoric and unfounded rumours of financial impropriety by the board and BK. In fact he has (with DM) turned the club around from the shambles we were in under Johnson. Like I said, he knows his limits, and I believe he'll find the right buyer, not the 'right now' buyer.
Financially it would be the best solution for both clubs.
-------------
No it wouldn't.
FSG have stated they don't want a ground share. They understand the importance of team identity and culture as do a lot of Liverpool fans who are against it. It would mean a loss of identity for Everton too. Also how could Everton afford their share?
comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461)
I see you chose to ignore what I went on to say.
comment by phil neville has three left feet (U13806)
posted 15 minutes ago
Also I can't see Liverpools owners going for the stadium share option as it may affect the clubs resale value if they decided to sell
----------------------------------------
Your owners will make sure they don't dilute the resale value of your club if they decided to sell,that would mean owning outright the ground
^ I've not spouted any rhetoric or made any unfounded accusations of financial impropriety, so don't put words in my mouth, thanks.
Bill had been trying to sell the club for years (source: himself) & yet he's drawn a blank, forgive my assumption that maybe the asking price might be playing a part in the lack of a result there. If you want to believe that the real reason is that he's still searching for the chosen one, then so be it, we'll agree to disagree.
I have nothing against Bill, he's a true Blue & all that, but he's potless in PL terms & he's holding the club back by holding on to it.
Moyes has turned our fortunes around not Kenwright, he's ridden on the shirt tails of hiring a fantastic manager, make no mistake.
Ok Big Nev, I appreciate what you say.
Answer me this; would you rather the club was sold to some chancer like the people who have destroyed Pompey, or even H&G who almost destroyed LFC, or to see the club tread water in a stable financial state until someone is found who can continue the work BK has done and make the investment we need without dumping the debt on the club?
Sign in if you want to comment
ground share
Page 1 of 5
posted on 2/10/12
It'll never happen! The fans just won't allow it and clubs wudnt risk their fan base being disillusioned.
Plus it looks likely that Anfield will be redeveloped
posted on 2/10/12
Oh and I don't want to either!!
I'm a bit ambivalent re the new ground idea really as I love Anfield and the history etc but my head says a new ground in the long run wud be beneficial after the build costs have been paid off
posted on 2/10/12
Plus it looks likely that Anfield will be redeveloped
====
if for arguements sake that fell through and the only option was to share a ground would you do it?
posted on 2/10/12
Who cares about the Milan clubs?
Just cause they do it doesn't make it right
posted on 2/10/12
A shared stadium makes perfect sense in these days of austerity.
By pooling the resources of both clubs, we could build a stadium that would help secure the position of both clubs financially for the foreseeable future.
posted on 2/10/12
Who cares about the Milan clubs?
Just cause they do it doesn't make it right
=======
well it obviously is right for them coz it seems to work. the question i was asking do you think it would/could work for our two clubs and would you be in favour of it?
posted on 2/10/12
just like it seems to be right for roma/lazio and the munich clubs
posted on 2/10/12
I think I'd rather stay at Anfield and keep it the way it is today.
It works in Italy but the San Siro never feels like the spiritual home of either Inter or AC and I wouldn't want Liverpool's stadium feeling the same way after so many years of being synonymous with Anfield.
posted on 2/10/12
I have always been in favour of a shared ground. Half the cost.....would be mad not to be up for it.
Its only bitter keyboard warriors who will feel this way...im a blue in a house of reds and they are not against it.
posted on 2/10/12
If Everton pay for it then give us 50% then yes.
posted on 2/10/12
'If Everton pay for it then give us 50% then yes.'
Thanks for that valuable contribution to the conversation...
posted on 2/10/12
I don't think it'd work for either club, both need their own home & a shared stadium would cost both their identity.
The reds have already decided to re-bulid Anfield anyway (well they've kicked Stanley Park into touch & kicked the can down the road)
We've got Kenwright & will therefore not have enough cash for a tent in the car park, let alone a shiny new stadium.
posted on 2/10/12
What will the Anfield redevelopment encompass?
posted on 2/10/12
Ah back to Kenwright...but won't a be ground give him the payoff he craves?
posted on 2/10/12
^ it won't give him anything, as he'll never be able to fund it, as he proved with Kings Dock. He's also hooked on the idea that a new stadium could only happen if it was strapped onto a retail development. We'll never see a solution under Kenwright.
posted on 2/10/12
But we have got financial stability. BK knows his limitations, and I think he'll stick around to make sure the club ends up in the right hands.
posted on 2/10/12
^ He'll stick around until he gets a price that him & his fellow directors considers to be at the right level. He won't give a stuff who writes the cheque imo.
posted on 2/10/12
Financially it would be the best solution for both clubs.As far as a minority of supporters go they'd sooner see both clubs continue to struggle to gain champions league spots rather than share a stadium.That's how tribal some of our supporters are
posted on 2/10/12
Also I can't see Liverpools owners going for the stadium share option as it may affect the clubs resale value if they decided to sell
posted on 2/10/12
The only way a newly built stadium would be financially viable would be if both clubs went in for it..
This is evidenced on an article called something like: liverpool and financial fair play. It was on the tomkins times last week and while going through the accounts of the biggest earning clubs in the league it illustrated how the emirates has made arsenal next to no money, and the increased capacity will be worth approx 4 per cent of their turnover this year (falling further as commercial revenue and tv deals increase)
It would only be financially viable for both clubs to invest together for a new stadium, both selling off the old land would go a way towards financing it.. Re applying for the government loans H+G got will also help.. But there would be too many problems (and I a reds fan am actually up for the idea of a bigger shared stadium)
1 problem would be size, I don't intend to set off a RS/BS argument but everton probably won't fill a stadium as large as that which liverpool could.. So size would be an issue, really we would want 60-70k minimum, with infrastructure for future expansions. (Old toilet is 75k?) Everton may not want a stadium that large..
The other issue is future expansions, say we build it for 60k capacity and liverpool easily fill it, but everton average crowds of 45k, are they going to want to dip their hands into their pockets to help fund an expansion they won't use? Or will they just hold liverpool back by refusing the plans?
Personally love anfield, but an increased capacity crowd would attract better match day sponsership annd naming rights, possible 1million a match day more in income, plus further opportunities for people to go watch the match!! But I can't see it happening.
Really it would be excellent for everton as they could also piggyback on the increased income that liverpool would generate through naming rights and stadium sponsership!!
posted on 2/10/12
Big Nev: You sound like several other posters on here and various other sites, spouting clichéd rhetoric and unfounded rumours of financial impropriety by the board and BK. In fact he has (with DM) turned the club around from the shambles we were in under Johnson. Like I said, he knows his limits, and I believe he'll find the right buyer, not the 'right now' buyer.
posted on 2/10/12
Financially it would be the best solution for both clubs.
-------------
No it wouldn't.
FSG have stated they don't want a ground share. They understand the importance of team identity and culture as do a lot of Liverpool fans who are against it. It would mean a loss of identity for Everton too. Also how could Everton afford their share?
posted on 2/10/12
comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461)
I see you chose to ignore what I went on to say.
comment by phil neville has three left feet (U13806)
posted 15 minutes ago
Also I can't see Liverpools owners going for the stadium share option as it may affect the clubs resale value if they decided to sell
----------------------------------------
Your owners will make sure they don't dilute the resale value of your club if they decided to sell,that would mean owning outright the ground
posted on 2/10/12
^ I've not spouted any rhetoric or made any unfounded accusations of financial impropriety, so don't put words in my mouth, thanks.
Bill had been trying to sell the club for years (source: himself) & yet he's drawn a blank, forgive my assumption that maybe the asking price might be playing a part in the lack of a result there. If you want to believe that the real reason is that he's still searching for the chosen one, then so be it, we'll agree to disagree.
I have nothing against Bill, he's a true Blue & all that, but he's potless in PL terms & he's holding the club back by holding on to it.
Moyes has turned our fortunes around not Kenwright, he's ridden on the shirt tails of hiring a fantastic manager, make no mistake.
posted on 2/10/12
Ok Big Nev, I appreciate what you say.
Answer me this; would you rather the club was sold to some chancer like the people who have destroyed Pompey, or even H&G who almost destroyed LFC, or to see the club tread water in a stable financial state until someone is found who can continue the work BK has done and make the investment we need without dumping the debt on the club?
Page 1 of 5