BBC BLOGS - Phil McNulty
« Previous | Main | Next »

Why Mersey share should happen - but won't

Post categories:

Phil McNulty | 10:03 UK time, Wednesday, 29 September 2010

When Kenny Dalglish suddenly offered guarded support for a groundshare between Liverpool and Everton, it was regarded by some as a subtle shift in position from inside Anfield's corridors of power.

Dalglish, a figure arguably more woven into the fabric of Liverpool Football Club than anyone apart from Bill Shankly, suggested there could be growing sympathy for a notion previously regarded as unthinkable in the red half of Merseyside.

Everton chairman Bill Kenwright admitted he was "intrigued" by Dalglish's comments and indicated a willingness to discuss groundsharing.

Was Dalglish testing the water on behalf of Liverpool's hierarchy? Was the greatest player in the club's history being used to prepare the ground for a seismic move away from the absolute refusal to even consider sharing a home with Everton?

The truth of the matter is that Dalglish was not acting as messenger for higher powers at Liverpool. He was expressing a personal - and in my view eminently sensible - opinion.

After all, a swift examination of the facts supports the logic. Everton and Liverpool are both in desperate need of a new home but do not currently have the cash to build them. Surely discussing shared accommodation is at least a starting point?

Dalglish admitted it was not the ideal solution to what currently seems an insurmountable problem but he deserves credit for putting his head above the parapet and at least airing an idea that has been regarded as unthinkable at Liverpool.

In reality, however, the groundshare is as far distant a prospect as ever and never the twain shall meet when it comes to Merseyside's two great football institutions living side-by-side on the same property.

Kenwright's swift embrace for Dalglish's theory is no surprise. Unlike Liverpool, Everton have never ruled out a groundshare. From former chief executive Rick Parry through to Tom Hicks and George Gillett, the response from Anfield has always been of an "over our dead bodies" variety.

And the position is still as firmly entrenched inside Anfield, despite Stanley Park still looking very much like Stanley Park, not Liverpool's prospective new home.

Anfield as seen from Stanley Park

Anfield's neighbouring Stanley Park is still awaiting any development

Liverpool, I am told, remain totally committed to building their own home - groundsharing is not an on any agenda - and believe that, once their search for new owners is successfully concluded, the new stadium will start to rise in Stanley Park.

Of course, this all hinges on the not inconsiderable matter of finding new owners to fund the project but, for now, I believe there has not been any alteration in Liverpool's policy.

Liverpool also believe different business needs dictate that sharing a stadium with Everton is a non-starter.They have fixed the capacity of the proposed new stadium at 60,000 - a figure they believe they can reach comfortably if the right owners are found and the club can finally start to fulfil its potential again.

This may seem a trifle fanciful in the context of only 22,577 attending the Carling Cup defeat against Northampton Town and 25,605 pitching up for the Europa League win against Steaua Bucharest.

It underscores the urgency with which chairman Martin Broughton needs to find new owners. The chain is obvious - new owners will presumably fund a new stadium and fund Roy Hodgson to buy the sort of players Liverpool will require to fill that stadium.

The recent decline has delivered the message that Liverpool's supporters will not turn up at Anfield out of blind faith alone.

Everton's failed stadium plan in Kirkby was expected to have a capacity of 50,000. Would they want to share a 60,000-seater ground with the prospect of having around 20,000 empty places on a regular basis?

It seems they are prepared to take that chance but Liverpool have no intention of taking it with them.

Liverpool have also ploughed an estimated £35m into infrastructure and early regeneration work in Stanley Park, another factor that makes them unwilling to back away from the proposal.

Everton's approach has been clear from the start. They would willingly meet their Liverpool counterparts and any other parties to discuss a groundshare.

The view inside Goodison Park, however, is that such a prospect remains a non-starter, no matter how often the idea is floated.

Everton's plans to move to Kirkby as part of a stadium and retail development with Tesco were rejected by the Government in November amid concerns about the possible harmful effects on the "vitality and viability" of local communities.

They now have three options.

A new stadium within the Liverpool city boundary - regarded as essential by Kenwright after criticism that the Kirkby development lay outside the city - alongside a retail partner on a similar model to Tesco is the preferred option.

The second possibility is the redevelopment of Goodison Park, which is regarded as almost impossible given the footprint of a ground effectively penned in on three sides by terraced housing and a school.

Thirdly, there is the shared stadium.

If two and three can be more or less ruled out, a new stadium within the city boundary is not likely to arrive imminently either.

When Everton recently announced plans for a new £9m retail and office complex at Goodison Park, shareholders were told this effectively meant the club would be staying for the short to mid-term - which I understand means between five and 10 years.

So we are left with the following scenarios:

Liverpool are all set to go on a new stadium in Stanley Park, with the minor hitch of not having any money to pay for it until Hicks and Gillett are removed from power.

Everton, having seen Kirkby fail, appear resigned to staying at Goodison for the next decade unless Liverpool City Council, or some other party, comes up with an alternative site and other partners can be tempted on board to help Kenwright fund the project.

Kenwright revealed this week that he is talking to "three parties" about investing in Everton but there is no suggestion a deal is in sight. It would also appear his first priority, not unreasonably, is to fund manager David Moyes rather than a new stadium.

It all places Dalglish's comments in context and gives them a complete air of common sense.

A groundshare has always been the most logical solution to the clubs' search for a new home but it was appears one has gone too far forward and the other too far back for this to be realistic.

If Dalglish has been the catalyst for even the slightest piece of revised thinking on this thorny subject, then his work is done.

Everton and Liverpool fans, who do not enjoy as close a relationship as many would have you believe, have their hackles raised by the often-stated claim that if something is good enough for AC Milan and Inter Milan then it is good enough for them.

They should also know that pride comes before a fall. If someone of Dalglish's stature can see the benefits shaped by the financial reality facing Everton and Liverpool, then surely others can do the same.

You can follow me at and join me on Facebook.


Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Seems a perfectly sensible solution/ suggestion / thought to me. Here in Brasil, it happens all the time, with no loss of atmosphere or rivalry.

  • Comment number 2.

    There's enough trouble keeping pitches decent with one team's home games there, with two it'll be replaced more often than Wembley's.

  • Comment number 3.

    good idea...should be considered. we r lucky we have the emirates

  • Comment number 4.

    With both Bristol clubs' redevelopment plans on the verge of collapse this seems to be the obvious contingency plan in Bristol as well. I don't really understand the reluctance in Bristol or Liverpool.

  • Comment number 5.

    No, no, no, no, nope, never!

    *insert Picard facepalm pic here*

  • Comment number 6.

    Good blog as always, an interesting debate. Sounds sensible, but the stumbling block is the £35mil Liverpool have ploughed into Stanley Park, and both clubs supporters would consider a ground share derogatory.

    Here's an idea though:

    Neither club has the money to do what they want on their own, so the proposed groundshare goes ahead. After a few years of larger attendances, hopefully better performances in league and cups, and outside investment for both clubs, Liverpool continue their work on Stanley Park, complete it, sell their half of the shared ground to Everton, hey presto both teams now have a 60,000+ ground each, with room for expansion if ever needed be.

    Is that just totally ridiculous or is it too sensible for the politics of football?

  • Comment number 7.

    At last someone credible whom the red side of the city will stand up and listen too. The world has changed and these two great clubs need to change with it. Apart from pride I can not understand why the two sides are not talking. History will not win you trophies!

  • Comment number 8.

    Phil, I think your comments regarding the recent attendances at Anfield are un-needed. The attendances at those games reflected the quality of the opposition, the fact that fans arent happy with the way we are being run, and the current financial climate (it was £20 per ticket). I am not condoning the fact that we had so few there, but I think other factors came into it.

    Putting this into context, the mood of the fans would surely change if the club were to be taken over and a new stadium was to be built. We would see some much needed desire and ambition at the helm of the club, which would have a positive effect on the fans' attitude.

    Although it works in Milan, I really don't think a ground share would be a good idea. Liverpool and Everton have their own history, their own fans and their own unique rivalry and I for one don't want that to change.

    RIP Bill Shankly 29 years today.

  • Comment number 9.


  • Comment number 10.

    Here in Milan, Inter share with AC Milan with no problems. Same arrangement in Turin, Genoa and Rome. Of course, fixtures are arranged to avoid clashes. Always a great atmosphere even at derbies, where the home side's fans outnumber the away fans by 8 to 1. Happens all over the place, so why not in the UK?

  • Comment number 11.

    Oh for goodness sake. As I can't see any change in the status quo any time soon that would benefit these two clubs, would they please just take their heads out of the sand and groundshare.

    The alternative may not be something that either would countenance!

  • Comment number 12.

    The only problem I see is the stubborn and tribal nature of a vocal minority of football fans. I would suggest this is in the best interests of both football clubs and the city itself.

  • Comment number 13.

    How many matches a week would be played at the stadium, especially if both clubs managed to make European competition? There could be 4 matches within 8 days if both clubs were drawn at home in the league cup. In other weeks there may be at least 3 every 8 days. Doesn't bode well for a nice surface come Jan/Feb/March.

  • Comment number 14.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 15.

    Using Northhampton Town and Steau Bucharest - meedweek games in sub par competitions - to try and reinforce a point on attendances and suport your argument is pretty weak I have to say.

    Liverpool will always have a large support base so picking two of the least glamorous fixtures on the calendar doesnt really prove anything. Moving stadiums is a long term process with long term benefits as thus must be viewed in that context. Choosing Liverpools worst ever start to a season and their fixtures against Northhampton and Steau to suggest otherwise is frankly bemusing.

  • Comment number 16.

    3 or 4 games some weeks on the pitch? League, Cup, Europe? Bring your wellies!

  • Comment number 17.

    As much dislike the prospect, it does make commercial sense, especially as going off both teams' current, they may be stuck in the lower half of the table this year with a real danger of being drawn into a relegation battle.

  • Comment number 18.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 19.

    I repeat .. HISTORY DOES NOT WIN YOU TROPHIES .. wake up and smell the coffee. Football is a business, the teams have to evolve and supporters do to !!

  • Comment number 20.

    Both clubs have a small but vocal minority giving it the 'over my writhing corpse' approach.

    However, from the neutrals point of view it is blindingly obvious that it would be the favoured option.

    Playing surface worries notwithstanding, if this doesnt happen, Everton will always remain a small to medium size club, punching above their weight at the moment, and Liverpool may possibly be dragged further down the drain by their greedy and stupid owners.

  • Comment number 21.

    #6 Imps Promotion 2012

    Only problem with that is would Everton want a 60,000 stadium?

  • Comment number 22.

    Teams play on the pitch and as long as it's a good one I doubt the cosmopolitan players of today really care either way, but the stands are the fans' domain and territory - any shared stadium would have to reflect all their hopes and traditions without leaving them feeling short. A cleverly designed stadium in Stanley Park with the new Liverpool 'Kop' end built nearest side to 'old' Anfield and the Toffees end nearest Goodison would work. Surely some kind of sliding roof could be employed halfway down the seating area on either side could swing out reducing capacity for any given game whilst maintaining the atmosphere and keeping the noise in during low attendance could be truely groundbreaking stuff?

    When finances improve one or the other can buy themselves out and build their own ground then. By the way Phil, several fans on your last blog pointed out the low Anfield attendances were due to fans' boycotts.

  • Comment number 23.

    Another point is that the stadium (Stadio Meazza at San Siro) is owned by the city and the clubs pay rent to use the ground. This frees up capital to fund the playing and backroom staff and the commercial activities whilst maintaining a steady revenue from ticket sales. A capacity of over 80,000 means that big matches, which play to full capacity, earn an enormous amount. A big, community owned stadium means season ticket prices can be kept much lower than in the UK, encouraging sales. Finally, Berlusconi and Moratti have huge amounts of cash on hand before the season even starts, for funding transfers or simply providing the club with financial stability.

  • Comment number 24.

    Do you think football is all about money?
    It's much more important than that.

  • Comment number 25.

    JoC's idea of an Everton end and a Liverpool end is good - again, it works in Milan. By the way, the suggestion by an earlier poster that the Liverpool clubs have too much tradition to share is nonsense - both AC and Inter Milan have over 100 years of tradition of their own and there's a fierce rivalry, totally undiminished by ground sharing.

  • Comment number 26.

    As a Liverpool supporter for 30 years, I have been dead against a groundshare up until relatively recently.

    However, even the most blinkered Red needs to open his/her eyes and smell the coffee. The days of billionaire philanthropists pouring money into hard-luck clubs looks to be at and end for the foreseeable - and even if it weren't then it's patently obvious that none of them are interested in Liverpool, otherwise we'd have been picked up long before the Chelseas and Citys.

    Why that never happened, I really don't know. Perhaps it's the militancy of the local support? It's the only reason I can think of as, compared to those two, Liverpool FC is a truly massive name around the world.

    Be that as it may, the two Merseyside clubs find themselves in the mire - one through no fault of its own (the Blue one). It is the only viable option for both clubs, if you assume that LFC's dream of getting a benefactor to pour half a billion all over Stanley Park is just that - a dream.

    The only problems I can see with groundshare, apart from the rather pathetic one of simple prejudice, are a) How Everton could possibly afford such a project (unless the ownership is left to LFC and a rental agreement on the part of EFC is agreed) and the appalling amount of empty seats visible on home Everton match days.

    Other than that, to not consider what is a fantastic opportunity for both clubs and the city itself is criminal.

  • Comment number 27.

    The Milan clubs won't be sharing a stadium for much longer. Inter are going to build a new stadium, supposedly it will be ready by 2014.

  • Comment number 28.

    Without wishing to over-generalise too much, the problem for this gorund share, as hinted at by Phil, comes from blinkered Liverpool fans who wrongly beleive that Everton are happy to share with them because they are a smaller club and they do not want to entertain the idea of this. They are far to big and full of heritage for that. Of course, it's difficult to argue that Liverpool are not a bigger club than Everton but the fact remains that Everton have one iof the richest heritages in world football and the reason Everton fans are willing to consider sharing with their neighbours is down to common sense - certainly not a sense of inferiority.
    As Phil says, pride can often come before a fall and everyone at Liverpool should be putting common sense ahead of anything else at the moment.
    Of course they are still living in Everton's former home anyway!

  • Comment number 29.

    I believe that the future is a ground share for these two teams. Why cant the stadium be built in such a way as to accommodate museums,corporate stuff etc in a mirrored way so both get the same space. As for the crying about the probable state of the pitch, what about a look at the Japanese (saporodome?) with their sliding pitch ideas! The tech is there, have two pitches and rotate them. It can't be that hard to sort out. The money to do it is there between the clubs! Get the Japanese to build it though or it might end up costing more than Wembley!

  • Comment number 30.

    The 'over my dead body' mentality within Liverpool perhaps has its roots in a time when Liverpool were the football 'aristocrats' in the City (even though in truth pre 1963 they were not much more than a footballing footnote and very much Evertons rather glum looking neighbour). Post 1990, theyve edged their way back to that status almost.

    Now the Clubs are at the same level, reality raises its head via Dalglish. Lets face it, they are so close together in the locality, they might as well share if for no other reason.

    At this rate, ground sharing might be the only way to keep top flight football in Liverpool. I wonder if local pride will get in the way of sound wisdom though.

    Liverpools trouble is that they still look back to their great days and think the last two decades are just an aberration. Their history suggests that the present freefall is irreversible, thus calling for an urgent new Shankly to arrest it in a Sport that has long since stopped producing such men.

  • Comment number 31.

    This would seem the logical option, to ground share. But since when has logic ever come into the thought pattern.

    As an Evertonian I find the idea quite wrong. Yes Inter and AC Milan manage it but so what? Liverpool FC may never have existed if Everton had not left Anfield and they say you should never go back.

    As a football supporter you need a spiritual home, how do you have that when you share the ground with another club and that club is your biggest rival??

  • Comment number 32.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 33.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 34.

    @"football fan" #15

    Big words?

    Redevelopment and Northampton are quite big do you have trouble with those?

    Can you provide Mr McNulty with some guidance on the the words football fans and foreigners can understand?

  • Comment number 35.

    Remind me, wasn't Everton's home ground Anfield before they moved to Goodison Park in the 1890's? Groundsharing at a New Anfield (Stanley Park) would have a certain poetry to it...

  • Comment number 36.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 37.

    8. At 5:13pm on 29 Sep 2010, Weekesy

    Leeds United last night vs Preston was 25 quid. So the result might have been 4-6, but the point stands. 20 quid is nothing, especially prem level

  • Comment number 38.

    As a united fan I'm extremely pleased that liverpool continue to cut their noses off to spite their faces, a ground share would obviously allow liverpool the financial freedom to compete on a level playing field with barca, united and the rest and would also give moyes the money his talent deserves. I hope their pride continues to hinder their progress indefinitely.

  • Comment number 39.

    #34 sorry should have been comment #14

  • Comment number 40.

    To Manos_de_Piedra and point about low attendances is to illustrate the fact that even supporters as loyal as Liverpool will not simply turn up to watch a product they are unhappy with. This means that lots of factors must come together for Liverpool in terms of finding a new owner/owners, who will not just build a ground, but build a team fit to fill it.

    Do you think Liverpool fans will still turn up to fill a 60,000-seater stadium if they team is not doing well? I don't. I agree Liverpool will sell-out 60,000 on a regular basis if they are playing well, but nothing can be taken for granted.

    I have been a firm advocate for a shared stadium. The clubs could have separate favoured "ends" in the ground and surely discussions between them can result in them both having a separate identity, even within a shared home.

    There has to be a will, however, and my understanding is that Liverpool in particular have no wish whatsoever to share.

    Are the clubs right to dismiss the prospect? Are the fans being too proud, and as a consequence failing to deal with reality?

    And Everton fans, if you shared a 60,000-seater stadium, how often do you think you could fill it? Would it be a major disadvantage if you couldn't?

    Kenny Dalglish is right. It is at least worth exploring.

    Let me know your thoughts, because there is a real debate to be had here.

  • Comment number 41.

    I'm not so certain why Mr McNulty finds a Liverpool-Everton groundshare to be such a logical position.

    As many have mentioned, is it so feasible to have league and cup home games being played on the same pitch every single week?

    Also, Anfield and Goodison - as was the case with Highbury and still is with White Hart Lane - have become a part of the clubs identity. Arsenal fans begrudgingly accepted that a move was required to something "bigger and better".

    Would they have accepted moving from the iconic Highbury to a groundshare stadium with Spurs? I think not.

    Also, it seems abundantly clear that no one will attempt to buy the club until RBS make their decision next month. It would appear that investors would prefer RBS to call in the debt meaning the mighty LFC would be available for as little as 280 million pounds.

    Such a low price will leave the new owners with more than enough to start work on a stadium that already has planning permission and at least two sets of blueprints.

    Jumping into a groundshare before we sort out the ownership would be extremely shortsighted and premature. After new owners have come in and presumably provided financial security, the groundshare argument will be reduced to a mere "Why not?" rather than a logical solution to a matter of urgency.

  • Comment number 42.

    This all stems from Merseyside left-wing bolshiness.

    They all voted for essentially the Tories in more expensive suits (aka New Labour) for 13 years - they'll come round eventually, when they realise the club in its present form is dead in the water.

    Again, from a proud Liverpool fan.

  • Comment number 43.

    as for the empty seats at Liverpool in recent weeks. there has been a mass campaign on the Internet, asking for supporters to boycott matches.

    this is purely aimed at the current owners, and is intended to hurt them financially and make financial institutions less willing to lend them more money.

  • Comment number 44.

    This is a very poor article, as it completely skirts around the over riding factor against a ground share. By Liverpool agreeing to a ground share, they give Everton the financial muscle to take on Liverpool against a target audience they are both competing for and surrounded by.

  • Comment number 45.

    I note you've still decided to skip past the fact the pitch would be a quagmire by Christmas.

  • Comment number 46.

    Sorry Phil but "Kenny Dalglish is right. It is at least worth exploring" is incorrect. One of, if not THE most famous ground shares in world football 'Inter and AC' is under intense pressure as both club have held formal talks with the city officals to go their seperate ways and build modern SEPERATE super stadiums.

    Now if two of the worlds richest, most powerful and well know clubs can't get along while seeing superior financial oppertunity it going it alone despite being shackled to each other for over 60 years, what earth makes you think it would be a good idea today in the city of Liverpool in 2010??

  • Comment number 47.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 48.

    As a now ex season ticket holder on the Kop i can tell you my head has changed from what i thought should be the right reason - no ground share - to well, we have to take a look at sharing...
    In my local there are lads that still go onto the game and if you ask them its 8/10 No Way... 1 maybe willing and the other saying yeah, lets do it...
    From how i see it the fans that go on a regular basis now what the Kop, Anfield is about, and like wise at Goodison, but its very hard to change what you see every home game to what you now see from afar like me on tv only... I see it both ways now and im leaning more to an open discussion of whta we can acheive as a shared stadium against a NO WAY OVER MY DEAD BODY attitude. The Evertonians that also comne into my local are the same.. The saty away fans that watch on tv think its a great idea... I dont see many agreeing to it who actually go...

    This discussion will never go away whichever way or side you sit... Shame. But its got to be done for the right reasons with both clubs having to stick there necks out and agree to it... Im afraid the fans wont like it at the start, but eventually they will go to watch there respevtive team... AFTER ALL ITS IN OUR HEARTS, AND IN OUR SOULS...

    We may walk together soon...

  • Comment number 49.

    Let Liverpool build their new stadium. Then Everton will be able to move in to Anfield at a knock-down price.

  • Comment number 50.


    I didn't think either team played football on the ground any more.....

  • Comment number 51.

    40. At 6:32pm on 29 Sep 2010, philmcnultybbcsport wrote:
    To Manos_de_Piedra and point about low attendances is to illustrate the fact that even supporters as loyal as Liverpool will not simply turn up to watch a product they are unhappy with. This means that lots of factors must come together for Liverpool in terms of finding a new owner/owners, who will not just build a ground, but build a team fit to fill it.

    Do you think Liverpool fans will still turn up to fill a 60,000-seater stadium if they team is not doing well? I don't. I agree Liverpool will sell-out 60,000 on a regular basis if they are playing well, but nothing can be taken for granted.


    This is ridiclous. You have chosen the two most unheralded fixtures that Liverpool have played. Midweek League Cup and Europa Cup games.

    To illustrate my point, even in this economic climate with all the turmoil at the club, Liverpool still basically had full houses in all their home premier league fixtures. 40,000 plus attendances in a ground that holds 44,000 odd. Liverpools support will always be good even if the club sinks to mid table level in recent years.

    Secondly, and this is obvious really, when you are building a new stadium you generally do so with the maximum potential in mind, not on the assumption that your team might fade. Liverpool will always have a strong support base and large potential so barring some kind of relegation, I would think that they would plan a new stadium based on the clubs large fanbase and potential and not on the short term problems affecting the club. Why bother moving at all otherwise?

    Using League Cup and Europa League fixtures against minnows as examples is just inconsistent and doesnt reflect the reality. For instance do you think the attendance would have been 25,000 against a premiership opponent in the League Cup or a Champions League game?

  • Comment number 52.

    Why do you open these particular stories up for discussion by people who haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about.

    What a disservice.

  • Comment number 53.

    As ever great blog Phil. Having written for our local press in the past you will know as well as most, that "never the twain" shall meet in this city. The thing that is so anoying is that years ago Everton aproached the City Council over building on Stanley Park only to be told "when hell freezes over!" Liverpool come along and are welcomed with open arms. It sticks in the throat but it is true, the Red noses do bring in a lot of revenue for the City, but at the end of the day the council have to remember that there are two teams in this city.

  • Comment number 54.


    Liverpool FC cannot afford its own stadium and won't be able to for years to come, especially if, as seems likely, we'll either continue to be carpetbagged by Americans or sold to some comedy Asian concern.

  • Comment number 55.

    Personally I would have thought the concept of ground-sharing would be far less appealing to Evertonians than Liverpool. I have the utmost respect for Everton F.C., but there's no denying that they are very much the city's second club and a ground share with their much more richly decorated neighbour would threaten a large part of their identity. The Milan situation is different - those are two superpower clubs with similar reputation and media clout.

    On the other hand, it is a matter of some embarrassment that Liverpool F.C., England's "most successful club" as their fans and the media like to remind us, can't drum up the means to construct a new home for themselves.

  • Comment number 56.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 57.

    54. At 7:08pm on 29 Sep 2010, CoalitionOfTheWilting wrote:

    Im not arguing whether they can/could/should share or build a new stadium, I am merely stating that using attendance figures from games against minnows in competitions like the League Cup or Europa League as evidence that Liverpool doesnt have the ability to fill a stadium is a poor example.

    Liverpool have basically had full attendances in their League games and thats even with a mediocre team, unpopular owners and tight economic times. The potential to fill out a new stadium is clearly there and it would be silly to go to the trouble of moving house on the basis of attendances against Northhampton or the unpopularity of the current owners who wont be around for ever. It has to be done with optimistic long term thinking on the back of the potential of the club.

    I mean does Phil McNulty really think Old Trafford or the Emirates would be sold out on a miserable Tuesday evening against League Two opposition?

  • Comment number 58.

    This is an excellent idea. To take this further, there are a number of clubs which should do the same. The Sheffield clubs, Forest/County, Bristol's for example.. I am sure there are a few London clubs which could do the same too.

  • Comment number 59.

    Some people take football too seriously (comment 18, extreme). A local rivalry blown out of all proportion by a section of fans should not be the prime justification for inertia when there are many practical reasons why a groundshare would be mutually beneficial.

    Neither should delusions of grandeur on the part of Liverpool management types who believe that they will be able to go it alone once some sugar-daddy oil tycoon or Chinese industrialist gets them out of their current predicament. No-one is going to pay what Hicks and Gillett want, and even if they do, are they then going to want to finance a whole new stadium as well as whatever Hodgson needs in the way of transfer fees. RBS taking control in the near future should hopefully provide a much needed moment of clarity.

    A state of the art ground, in Liverpool, done in such a way that both teams retain their identity (e.g. like the Allianz Arena where the outer lighting reflects the home team), with a larger capacity, what's the downside?

    Oh, harming the 'pride' of those 'die-hard', 'true' fans.

    The stereotypical Liverpool fan with his false sense of superiority, lording it over Everton fans due to the club's domination of English football that ended at least 20 years ago but assures everyone 'our time will come again' and that 'Manchester United is our biggest derby', and the archetypal 'bitter blue' with a chip on his shoulder due to the fact that the neighbours happen to be more successful and that, despite whatever Everton manage to achieve, they seemingly always remain penniless.

    This isn't Rangers/Celtic. Football isn't being used as a proxy for something altogether more unsavoury, it's the 'Friendly Derby', people from the the same city with no doubt many things in common apart from being 'Red' or 'Blue'.

    If there was cooperation in the city of Liverpool, then both teams could generate more income, invest in the teams while remaining solvent and maybe become more successful as a city. In your face Manchester!

  • Comment number 60.

    Highbury and WHL were only about 4 miles apart. It's a bit more now we have the (wonderful) Emirates Stadium. As a Gooner, would I want to see a ground share with spurs at any time in the future? Not a chance.

    Your ground is uniquely your ground. That is immediately diluted, if you share, so I can fully understand the reluctance in Liverpool.

    It might work in Italy but that doesn't necessarily make it a blueprint for any other city in Europe, with 2 clubs.

  • Comment number 61.

    I think there is an element of pride at work here. Sometimes pride and partisanship needs to be put on one side in the cause of common sense, and I think this is a prime example.

    I do have to say, however, that having taken soundings at both clubs in the last 24 hours, I do not see any serious movement towards sharing, which I think is a shame.

    It is so logical it should have happened years ago.

    To make a fair point and I accept it, but am I also right in thinking tickets were still on sale, as advertised by Liverpool, for the Sunderland game towards the end of last week? This is a little unusual I am sure you will agree.

    Liverpool fans - have you detected an increase in sympathy towards a ground share? And Everton fans, do you share the club's view that a ground share should never be ruled out?

    Or is it, as I have stated, a case of "never the twain shall meet"?

  • Comment number 62.

    As a Liverpool fan, I would certainly be against the sharing of a ground. The main reason would be the sheer num
    ber of games that the pitch would have to endure. Many people comment on the Milan giants groundshare and how that works well. However, the pitch, from my memory has never been as good as it would be if it had half the number of games played on it. My vote would always be against groundshare.

  • Comment number 63.

    61. At 7:29pm on 29 Sep 2010, philmcnultybbcsport wrote:

    I would still expect Liverpool to have 90%+ full attendances for all home games to be honest Phil even with all the on and off field problems.

    But ultimately you have to work on the basis of the clubs potential. They may go through a rough couple of seasons until they can sort out their problems but I just ant see the point of making such a large decision with the clubs lowest possible potential in mind.

    I expect Liverpool to sink to mid table/top half sort of level for a season or two but you cant deny the potential for more is there if the club can sort out its curent problems. Even at mid table Liverpool will have a high attendence and as soon as the current owners go it will only get higher.

    The real argument is whether Liverpool should even be considering such a big proposal at a time like this instead of focusing on more pressing matters.

  • Comment number 64.

    Im a ld fan and i think it would be a good idea to build a new LFC stadium and let EFC be a tennant for like 10yr in which they help to pay for the stadium and have time to sort their own stadium situation out.

    I dont see EFC filling a sixty thou stadium either... On the other hand why only 60 tho lfc? IF you wanna grow really grow and a stadium is supposed to last for many years... If it would be a an 80tho seater it could become a multi purpose stadium and be used to host concerts too

  • Comment number 65.

    No way, I agree Dalglish's standing within LFC, but ground sharing with Everton is not an option. No disrespect to Everton, each club should have their own home ground just because ACMilan & Inter milan are doing it is not a reason for LFC and EFC to do it.We have fallen into this situation purely because of previous owner chose to sell the shares to these Americans. A club with LFC's stature and history of winning in my mind should share a ground i.e without disrespecting Everton.

  • Comment number 66.

    "It is so logical it should have happened years ago."

    Again, this point is reiterated with no wider consideration beyond the financial aspect of a groundshare.

    Is it logical in a country where grounds have come to hold such meaning and form a key part in a club's identity that teams would be willing to to suddenly start sharing grounds?

    McNulty dismisses this as pride with all its pejorative meaning.

    But why is putting this point forward seen as the antithesis of logic?

    Sure, I can recognise the financial benefit.

    I'm not sold, however, on the "cultural" benefit for the individual teams. I know it is hard to believe at the moment, but our club - just as any other - is more than a bank balance.

    I'm also not convinced that the pitch will hold up to 38 league games plus a possible 15-odd cup games in a single season.

    So it's not just a question of overcoming pride and seeing logic, it's also a question of technical and cultural logic.

  • Comment number 67.

    In a wider context, what is Liverpool's priority now? Is it finding owners who will fund the team so they can challenge for the title? Is the new stadium secondary or just as important as it was before?

    And Everton fans...same question. Is the stadium second behind finding money for manager David Moyes to strengthen his squad? How many more times can he keep Everton in the upper reaches of the Premier League without serious financial muscle? Are you not in danger of being left behind?

    In recent seasons, the transfer fund has come from the sale of players like Andrew Johnson, James McFadden and of course, the £24m received from Manchester City for Joleon Lescott?

    Money for stadia or money for players? Let me know what you would prefer? Both would be ideal, but which would be your priority?

  • Comment number 68.

    "Money for stadia or money for players? Let me know what you would prefer?"

    Phil - you are obsessed with money! Liverpool football club is about more than just money.

    Sharing a stadium might earn us a few bob in the short term. But at what cost?

    The cost is something you cannot put a price on.

    Is there no part of you that understands what it is to love a football team, it's home and its history?

    Liverpool needs to restore its dignity.

    Selling our heart for short-term financial gain will NOT restore our dignity.

  • Comment number 69.

    You can't ignore the role of money in the current game. If you don't spend money on players but on a stadium instead, you will end up with the best stadium in the second division, rather like Chelsea about forty years ago when they were relegated after spending big on Stamford Bridge.

    Fortunes come and go and the rankings of the two teams could be inverted so there's no place for superiority complexes.

    Just down the road in Saint Helens, the team have been a top side for years but had to continue in a shed of a place, and will have to share until their new ground is finished in 2012. Hasten slowly.

    As to ground size, it is possible to build in modular fashion, starting with a ground capacity of twenty or forty thousand, which can be added to by higher tiers to go up to sixty or seventy thousand. One step at a time, people. You can't have a superdrome by next year.

  • Comment number 70.

    To be honest Phil, there are some strange generalisations here. Most Liverpool fans have long accepted the need to share a ground. It is only those (from both clubs) who lack intelligence who are against it.

  • Comment number 71.

    Don't the logistics prevent the idea anyway?
    No corporate branding is possible, the seats would have to be a neutral colour.
    All the sponsors boards would have to be changed every game.
    There would presumably have to be 2 sets of office accomodation, two boardrooms, two trophy rooms (one much bigger than the other naturally), 2 shops, two legends lounges. All extra unnecessary expense.
    Would Everton fans want to walk through the Shankly or Paisley gates to get into 'their' stadium? Or Liverpool fans through the Dixie Dean gates?

  • Comment number 72.

    I see no problem with a groundshare in Liverpool. Although Phil is right about the everton support, I see no reason why they shouldn't fill the ground in the big league games but during the less important games there will be a problem. there are however tactics that can be used - promotions, kid friendly schemes, parts of the ground that could be blocked, so no I don't think that will be a problem, they will certainly make enough money from the bigger fixtures to make it worth their while.

    People talking about the state of the pitch shouldn't compare all new grounds with wembley - something dodgy went on there and it was poorly planned and managed from start to finish. There are different types of grass that you can use depending on the situation that it needs to be used for - as long as you do you homework this should not be a problem.

    the opposition to this in liverpool will probably mean it won't happen, but if they can do it all over south america, and in Rome and Milan (they may be changing it in milan but they've done it for years in a city with two bigger clubs with more of an underlying hatred for each other).

  • Comment number 73.

    There is a MUCH better option for the club and the fans - stay at and redevelop Anfield as circumstances and time allows. Less money into the pockets of investors,more money for the team and less expensive tickets for the fans.

  • Comment number 74.

    Post # 44 :

    " This is a very poor article, as it completely skirts around the over riding factor against a ground share. By Liverpool agreeing to a ground share, they give Everton the financial muscle to take on Liverpool against a target audience they are both competing for and surrounded by."

    Please explain, I don' t understand. a ) Why does a ground share give financial muscle to Everton b ) What target audience ? And target for what, exactly ?

  • Comment number 75.

    It does make sense in practical and financial terms. There is even a natural neutral area - Stanley. The city used to be at the heart of outward looking innovation though seems to be too introspective even now.

    That said my own club could never share with either of our near and dear neighbours as Villa Park can be expanded readily enough if there is the demand (not currently likely) for an increase in capacity.

    Just to put everything into context. Football is a microism of everything wrong in the country.
    Over valued assets paid for at hugely inflated prices with money borrowed at high interest rate secured against the original asset with future earnings.

    To the Gunners fan - you have had the fortune to have the best run club in England for the best part of a century hence the foresight of the move from Highbury to Emirates and without necessity to share. Not to say you won't be plundered into debt anytime soon.

  • Comment number 76.

    Also, we should not forget that Liverpool was chosen as a host City for 2018 World Cup with a new stadium the forefront of it.
    I bet the 2018 World Cup Team are kicking themselves to choose a City who havent even tried to build a new one.
    I agree with Phil, a shared Stadium should be the top option and the two Clubs should look at instead, some of the arrogant fans on here seem divided while some fans agree that it must be done.
    Liverpool should start getting a new stadium bid, if they dont, a new city should be chosen for the 2018 World Cup Bid instead.
    Its obvious that if Milan can do it, Munich can do it and Rome and sometimes Turin, why not Liverpool?
    The Reason : The Fans, some of which are arrogant and not blindly obvious to the fact that a new stadium doesnt come from thin air!

  • Comment number 77.

    It may sound like a no-brainer, but why don't the clubs just merge??? The city is too small for 2 clubs in the current climate. Just sit and watch mufc slowly fold now that mcfc have the muscle.

  • Comment number 78.

    How much profit is there really with a new ground you can't fill?
    The increased staff and upkeep costs all for a few extra fans that can't afford £45 twice a week? The population of Liverpool isn't growing that quickly.
    The real growth is overseas television audiences. Winning another league title with big name players and doing another tour of a random far east country - that's where the new money is.
    And that's what Hicks and razor blade came chasing. But they forgot the first 2 points. I imagine what Liverpool really want is to negotiate their own tv deals and watch the dollars flood in.

    The new stadium route has been tried and proved flawed. What was wrong with the dell? Where did Robert Chase's money go? Why is the riverside empty?
    Stadiums are not trophies and in modern football where none of the players in the generation after Neville and carragher come from within 40 miles of the ground, they are not fortresses to be feared either.

  • Comment number 79.

    For those who say everton couldn't fill out a 60K stadium haven't been to goodison. There is one clear reason for this and that is 2,000 people wouldn't see the game because a pole is in the way, would you pay £35 for a restricted view?

    One massive reason why Everton need to move as soon as possible, even if it is a shared stadium

    Still can't understand why Everton were told they couldn't build on stanley park because it "historical" but as soon as liverpool wanna build they say "go right ahead"

  • Comment number 80.

    If Liverpool FC continue to struggle this year, and I can't see anything other than a season of decline ahead of them, then they are likely to miss out on Champions League cash. That would start a spiral of decline that Liverpool FC, particularly in their precarious financial state, may not recover from for a generation. Any chance of their own new stadium will then have gone. They would be stuck in a decrepit Anfield with an equally decrepit Goodison just across the park.

    As Sheffield Wednesday face yet another winding up order and the two Bristol clubs continue their perpetual fights for survival, it’s worth noting that both of those cities have been unable to support a single top flight club for generations, let alone two as Liverpool have managed.
    It’s stating the obvious, but football has changed and power within the game has become and is becoming ever more so, centralised in the hands of the clubs with financial clout. A fall from that top table now, as Liverpool FC are precariously close to doing, could be terminal.

    Emotionally the fans may not want to share but financially it’s a no brainer. They have to share or both clubs may end up with nothing.

  • Comment number 81.

    Liverpool should never have been given Stanley Park.

    Everton inquired about it some years ago and were informed by the council that there was a covenant protecting the site. Lo and behold when they start exploring other alternatives, Liverpool are given Stanley Park almost immediately.

    Either we share a stadium on Stanley Park, or nobody builds on it.

  • Comment number 82.

    As a Man U supporter, I should be laughing, but....

    Right, Goodison is somewhat hemmed in by housing, but has a bit of redevelopement potential.

    Anfield is completely hemmed in by it & has very little such potential.

    Both grounds are old-fashioned with crowd close to pitch-this is great for home wins if you've got a decent team. As shown on Saturday, Arsenal at the Emirates haven't got that intimacy left, although their team is light years ahead of either Everton or Liverpool.

    So, who needs to move out of youse? Remember, Sunderland, Man City, Arsenal & Newcastle all sold their old grounds for housing to finance bigger capacity new stadiums. Any reason why either or both of you can't do the same?

    Why does a new stadium need to be in the city boundaries? Liverpool will be no more able than anyone else to throw ratepayer's money at a new stadium or two in the current climate-if I'm right, Liverpool, like everywhere else, has about 10-15% of its' ratepayers interested enough in football to support council assistance-the rest will vote any such council out!

    I suggest you do the logical thing-identify TWO sites around 1/4 mile apart outside the City boundaries both on good bus & train routes,BOTH sell your present grounds & relocate there to separate NEW stadiums.

  • Comment number 83.

    From a financial and economic view, it would make sense. Both Milan clubs share the San Siro. So there is no reason why both Merseyside clubs can agree to share a new stadium, and possible stadium size of 70,000??

    If both Everton and Liverpool do not agree to build a new stadium, it will be very unlikely both Everton and Liverpool will build a new stadium in the very near future. They should just try an expand both stadiums with their current stadium to around 50,000 each

  • Comment number 84.

    Comparisons to City/United Arsenal/Spurs are pointless. The Merseyside Derby is totally unique. It's not uncommon to find families with two children, one parent and one child supporting each team. It's standard to see Blues in the Kop and Reds on the Gwladys come derby day. Everyone knows that. A shared stadium would be totally workable, any fan who actually lives in the city can see that.

  • Comment number 85.

    1. Tell me why is it that Liverpool are in "sub-par competition"? Ans because they were crap last season. Why because their players werent up to the job. Why? Lack of investment. Liverpool will not make the champions league next season and the problems will be exacerbated.

    2. Why is it clubs all throughout Europe can manage to keep pitches it good position and ground share but we dont think Everton/Liverpool can. With twice as much money to spend on ground staff etc there should be no excuse.

    3. The suggestion made by commenter number 6 sounds like a reasonable and functional solution.

  • Comment number 86.

    Good idea, I'd go for it. Works for Inter and AC Milan, and no offence to either Everton or Liverpool but the two Milan teams seem to have a much fiercer rivalry.

  • Comment number 87.

    Phil, As an Evertonian of course you support a ground share, as you realise it is the only viable way the Blues will get a decent ground.
    As for you Reds what do you think Shanks would say?
    R I P Bill

  • Comment number 88.

    Can't help but feel that Kenny was testing the waters here, with a view to encouraging any potential buyer.

    Anyway, any ground share would require a change to the Premier League rules. I'm not sure how easy that would be.

    "No Club shall have or enter into a ground-sharing agreement unless the agreement contains a legally enforceable provision to the effect that the playing of the Club’s League Matches shall always take precedence over the activities of the other party to the agreement."

  • Comment number 89.

    Using the Emirates stadium as a blueprint for a 60,000 seater stadium with good corporate facilities we can come up with the following figures:

    Stadium construction costs (including infrastructure) come to around £400million.

    Sell naming rights for £100million and that's down to £300million. Halve that for an outright cost of £150million each.

    Property developments in the location of the old stadia can reduce that to under £100million for each club (maybe a lot less depending on the potential of such developments).

    For under £100million both clubs would have access to a 60,000 seater stadium with top notch corporate facilities. They would both keep the profits from their own home games and share profits from any events held there.

    Seeing as Arsenal's matchday income has trebled since the move to the Emirates I would suggest that Liverpool would at the very least see a doubling of such income. Everton could achieve such increases too depending on attendances.

    And for under £100million I expect the stadium would pay for itself within 5-10 years depending on yields from the property developments.

    Unless you get a perfect owner scenario this is the only way for both clubs to take the step up that they need without an excessively straining transition period.

  • Comment number 90.

    It should be said--probably already has--that from a financial position it looks like it is an absolutely solid idea to groundshare with everton, BUT liverpool CAN fill a 60-70k ( we have just about 55,000 fans on the season ticket waiting list )stadium, everton cannot and i dont mean that to have a go at the blues. From a red perspective we CAN probably go on our own--with proper investment--and retain all the profit from said venture. Man utd have massive support/merchandising and as such can produce large revenues, we are not far behind united in this sense and the additional monies generated by an extra 20,000 fans every other week will have a massive impact on how we operate as a club. I have absolutely no problem with everton--lots of my mates are blues--but liverpool do not need this as much as everton and as such i just dont think it will happen.

  • Comment number 91.

    The comments on this blog have been among the most interesting I have read for a while.

    Ground sharing works in a number of cities, an a number of sports, so I see no reaso why it could / should not here. Inter & AC Milan are not the only teams sharing a stadium.

    It seems to me that it makes financial sense, and would benefit BOTH clubs.

    One point I found interesting, not knowing what goes on in the City of Liverpool, is the statement that Liverpool Council turned down Everton's wish t develop a new stadium on Stanley Park, and then turned around an gave permission to Liverpool FC. That seems very biased to me, an I can understand verton FC fans being rather irked by it. I shall have to do some research on the topic, as my interest has been raised by this.

    @ #6 You suggest " Liverpool continue work on Stanley Park, complete it, sell their half of shared ground to Everton ..."

    Is the share ground not likely TO BE Stanley Park? It appears that other suitable areas within the city limits are not exactly readily available. Also, if Liverpool can not afford to develop Stanley Park alone, would they be able to affor to do so when they have the added cost of sharing development costs on another stadium as well?

    @ #8 "Although it works in Milan, I really don't think a ground share would be a good idea. Liverpool and Everton have their own history, their own fans and their own unique rivalry, an I for one don't want that to change."

    Are you saying that the Milan clubs have no history or rivalry and share fans? I think that the supporters of Liverpool FC need to get over the idea that they are the only club in the world with a history, and stop taking themselves far too seriously.

    @ #24 You say "Do you think football is all about money? It is far mor important than that."

    Wake up and smell the coffee. The modern game is a business, and is dominated by money. Successful clubs make money, and if managed correctly they keep generating money and remain successful. How many clubs are going to the wall? How long can Liverpool FC maintain their delusion of being the biggest club in England if they do not have money to invest in their team? They missed out on Champions League money this season, and are likely to again next season. Even with money, unless we are talking the kind of "Sugar Daddy silly money" we see at City, and at Chelsea in years gone by, will top players be willing to play or them when they are not in the Champions League? An for how long?

    @ #26 I thought your post was pretty good .... until your natural Liverpool FC feeling of superiority (delusions of grandeur?) came out and you began putting down Everton FC.

    As mentioned by # 28, there is no denyng that Liverpool are a "bigger" club than Everton, a "more successful" club ..... the number of suporters and the trophies tell a story ....

    However, Everton are the older club, (does that mean more "history") and were the first club to play at Anfield. In fact, Liverpool FC was only formed in 1892 because Everton, who had playd there since 1884, moved to Goodison Park after refusing to pay the increased rentals demanded by the owner of the ground. The owner had a footbll ground which was not being utilised, so decided to form a football club to make use of it.

    The question could be asked ... If Everton had come to an agreement on the rental, and not moved, would Liverpool FC even exist today?

    Maybe Liverpool supporters need to thank their Everton counterparts for their very existence?

    A lot has been said about the pitch standing up to all the games which would need to be played on it. Not being a groundskeeper, or knowing too much about botany, I would see this as the major drawback.

    #29 mooted the idea of looking at the "sliding pitch" idea of the Sapporo Dome, in Japan. This is the kind of thinking which could overcome the problem of pitch deterioration ... if indeed this is a problem that can't be overcome by the botany boffs.

    There are a few stadiums that emply this concept .... Sapporo Dome, GelReDome in Holland, Veltins-Arena in Germany, Univrsity of Phoenix Stadium, etc. The big difference is that all these stadia have only one grass field, while the other is AstroTurf or some other surface. In he case of the Veltins-Arena, the movable pitch is probably actually required to keep it in good condition, as it is moved out of the arena to let it grow in natural conditions. The roof design of the stadium has a severe impact on air circulations and light, which would possibly impact negatively on the conition of the turf were it not regularly moved "outdoors". I two grass pitches were moved in this way, it would require a larger stadium footprint, and increase costs, but it could probably be done.

    The point is that should the botany boffs and groundskeepers be unable to come up with a grass tough enough to withstand the number of games, there are other technologies which could be investigated to solve this issue.

    So, the only remaining issue is one of "pride" and "pih-headedness", ad that is likely to be the biggest stumblig block.

    It is certainly a proposition which seems to make financial sense, and have long term benefits for BOTH clubs.

    Being a supporter of neither of these clubs, and living in South Africa rather than England (ok ..... that is the cue for you to all start shouting me down) it really makes no difference to me, anyhow. I just find the debate, and most of the viewpoints, to be very interesting :)

  • Comment number 92.

    Liverpool fans fo not want to groundsheet because they believe they are so superior to everyone that they should not have to share a stadium, that their own identity of a stadium is too important to share.

    it's part of the average liverpools fans mindset that their club is one of the best in the world and deserves to be wining the prem and champs league season after season. this is our year and all that.

    but the realism is that Liverpool have fallen someway over the decades, bar a small temporary resurgence at the turn of the century.

    a combination of the previous owners just sitting back abd lettin the brand of Liverpool sell itself rather than exploiting it ( unlike their other rivals man u, Chelsea, arsenal) a manager who squandered the resources given to him and the distraction of current fans bs owners problem now the club is probably going to struggle to get anywhere near where they were a few years ago. oh and add to that a manager who's skills are limited to consolidating a struggling team into a midtable team.

    phil there is no doubt if liverpo ol don't get top four and even miss out on Europa league then they will not fill their current stadium week in week out so a new stadium now would be a very foolish move. if they manage to get back to where they were then perhaps but building a stadium and not having the turnout to pay the mortgage will send the club under

  • Comment number 93.

    I keep hearing people say things like "it's sensible idea" or "it's the logical thing to do" when talking about groundsharing. But football, and most sports, are about far more than the sensible and logical. The idea that 2 teams kicking a ball around and trying to get it in the others net can bring tens of thousands of people together every week, in every major city, generate billions in revenue and make people feel such string emotions defies all sense and logic.

    Speaking for most Liverpool fans, we love anfield and all the memories it holds for us. We reluctantly accept that for the good of the club, we must lose that and move on. We know that it has held us back when Old trafford was extended and the Emirates was built and it will hold us back in the future.

    We accept this on the basis that we will have a new home to call our own and create new memories. Sharing with one of our arch rivals is simply unthinkable to the majority of us and no amount of cold business logic will change that. Pretty much every Everton fan I know who regularly goes the game feels the same.

    A groundshare would show that the club doesn't care about the fans. It will be another nail in the coffin for all that was good about football.

  • Comment number 94.

    Even if we are looking at it purely from a business perspective a groundshare is a very short sighted view, from Liverpool's perspective at least. Sure, we might have a new ground quicker, but what about in 50 years? or even 100 years?

    Liverpool football club has a massive brand potential and Anfield is a key part of that. By groundsharing we are simply watering that brand down. What marketing potential is there in the "Gwladys Street/spion kop stand"? Naming rights have become big business. I'm sure we'd be able to get more money money on our own than sharing with Everton.

    There is far more to this than it being a simple case of sharing the costs making it easier to build.

  • Comment number 95.

    Great point by FoxesofNuneaton...Liverpool has been chosen as a proposed host city for the 2018 World Cup - so someone had better build a stadium or this would be a huge embarrassment for a city that prides itself on being at the heart of the game in this country.

    How could Liverpool, the city that is, make any sort of boast on that level if if cannot produce a stadium fit to host World Cup matches?

    What are your thoughts on that?

    And setting partisanship to one side, if this is possible, give me your realistic views on how you see this problem being solved by both sides.

    The floor is yours...and feel free to inject aspects of the debate we haven't yet touched on.

  • Comment number 96.

    The major concern seems to be the state of the pitch if both teams were playing in Europe, League and Cup games. Possibly 4 matches in 8 days.

    Surely, with 2 clubs sharing they can afford more than just a run of the mill stadium. A retractable roof for instance so it doesn't become a boggy mess in winter. Also, I reemeber seeing a ground where the playing surface could be wheeled out of the stadium, I think this was to get more sunlight on it. Why not have multiple playing surfaces and rotate them? With the digital billboards, all the advertising can change for whichever team is playing at home.

    Everton or Liverpool fans, where would you rather be in 5 years time, supporting your team at a 60,000 capacity, one of a kind stadium, OR, still bickering about finnces, planning permissions, the historical rivalry etc???

  • Comment number 97.

    1. At 08:24am on 30 Sep 2010, HotdogSalesman wrote:
    One point I found interesting, not knowing what goes on in the City of Liverpool, is the statement that Liverpool Council turned down Everton's wish t develop a new stadium on Stanley Park, and then turned around an gave permission to Liverpool FC. That seems very biased to me, an I can understand verton FC fans being rather irked by it. I shall have to do some research on the topic, as my interest has been raised by this.

    They were two very different planning applications. Liverpools approved plans are at the end of the park, right next to where Anfield currently is. The majority of the new stadium would be built on what is currently a car park. Evertons proposal was at "their" end of the park and would be built mainly on park land.

    There are probably many other differences in the two applications. I know that part of the Liverpool one was to also re-develop parts of the park itself. I don't know enough about the Everton one to say that they didn't include this, but Liverpool's plans are quite comprehensive.


    Are you saying that the Milan clubs have no history or rivalry and share fans? I think that the supporters of Liverpool FC need to get over the idea that they are the only club in the world with a history, and stop taking themselves far too seriously.

    Of course the Milan clubs have history, but they have shared their ground since the 1940s. The majority of the history of the two clubs, the great european nights and league titles won, occured for both clubs while they shared the ground. It's completely different to putting two clubs with 100 years worth of rivalry in teh same stdium.

    Oh, and ask people from Milan if they like sharing stadiums with each other.

  • Comment number 98.

    Maybe the City of Liverpool should take the view that, since Liverpool FC are doing nothing with the development of Stanley Park they are going to develop it themselves for the World Cup, and then rent it out to the two clubs? Maybe they can find some way to coerce the two clubs to share. Possibly offering it to Everton (who are more likely to agree to a sharing deal) would give Liverpool FC the "push" they need to make them reconsider?

    Alternatively, build it elsewhere, and offer Everton the rental rights on the stadium. Then, in another 20 years if they can afford it (and still need it) Liverpool can proceed with their proposed development of Stanley Park. In the meantime Everton would get the benefits which would accrue from such a deal, which may also serve to give Liverpool FC the "push" they need to get themselves moving if they can.

    A lot depends on what happens in the December vote ... if England not given 2018 it becomes a moot point, does it not? Other than "pride", of course, which is the biggest problem we are seeing here.

    From a Liverpool perspective, a lot depends on who buys the club from RBS in a few weeks. They will save a couple hundred Mil on the purchase price, so if the "right" buyer is found it may help with freeing up funds to put into the new stadium. The big question is whether RBS will care too much who they sell it too, and whether the new owners will be willing to invest in the stadium in the short term, even should they be able to afford it.

  • Comment number 99.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 100.

    They could build a similar stadium to that in Munich. It changes colour depending on which team is playing at home. Blue for 1860 Munich (or Everton), Red for FC Bayern (or Liverpool), and White for international games.

    Unfortunately both clubs cannot afford to build half a stadium either so it is a shame it will not happen.


Page 1 of 2

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.