posted Sep 5, 2008

Shared stadium = no ambition.
===============================
44,000 Anfield = No increase in gate revenue = Lack of transfer funds = Mid table team

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

For a city with two teams, combining resources to build a 'super' stadium which neither team could afford on their own is not such a bad idea... Building 2 stadiums next to each other is a bit pig-headed in my mind - its just proving a point that both teams are seperate. but Duh...no kidding...

I can't exactly see myself becoming an Everton fan because every other week they play on the same grass as we do...

A stadium is a tool of the game, its what happens on the pitch that counts! A stadium full of Liverpool fans is a stadium full of Liverpool fans.. I completely get the historic pride of Anfield, but thats going to come to an end either way...

I am saying build a 90 - 100K stadium...It would still become a home ground for Liverpool because we would play the same amount of games a year on it...Its the results and the fans that create history, the grounds are just there to facilitate this.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

How about a shared 85000 seater in Kirkby ?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

great idea mate. only negative i can see is that you wouldnt have to build outside loos as each set of fans would use the other teams ground to deposit their bodily functions.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

How about a shared 85000 seater in Kirkby ?
============================================

It would be a monumental mistake to move the stadia out of Liverpool. Absolutely shocked that Everton are up for this. A shared stadium in Stanley park would be better than the staus quo.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

I've just come over from "The Great Stadium Debate" thred. We have 41 comments - you only have 22.

You are just a small thred.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

I've just come over from "The Great Stadium Debate" thred. We have 41 comments - you only have 22.

You are just a small thred.
===================================

Yes but better quality!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

A Stadium in Stanley Park is limited by the infrastructure. Anyone been to the Emirates ? Anyone tried to get out of the Emirates ?Imagine the Emirates without an underground station nearby.

I can't belive people H&G have been able to passify the fans by letting on they are using the delay to consider a larger stadium. There is no way LCC will grant permission for a stadium that large. Anything above 60000 has to be on the outskirts. That also makes it more viable as a corporate centre.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

Good point about the infrastructure - but remember that there are 2 stadiums in the area at present. Agree an intergrated transport system should be undertaken for a new combined stadium.

Re the American owners I think everyone must now be well p i s s e d off with them now but what can we do other than voice our disapproval at the next match. The sooner these 2 do one the better.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 6, 2008

The main reason for 2 seperate stadiums rather than one shared stadium is the revenue that would be generated in the long term.

Both clubs are looking into the idea of sponsored naming rights for their current plans and I couldn't see a major brand paying almost double just because there were two teams playing there.

I think what has become obvious from these threads is that Bluenoses and Kopites alike are warming (with no other option really) to the idea of sharing with their neighbours and maybe both clubs should discuss the idea.

add comment | complain about this comment