Everton may ground-share

flahavaj

flahavaj wrote: »

Lock thread so, mods.:rolleyes:

Who said lock the thread?

This is a discussion on an Everton groundshare right?

Liverpool are not interested so it seems?

It's a hypothetical arguement.

x in the city

fkt wrote: »

What do you want? Are the Evertonians relisihing the thought of sharing a stadium with one of the biggest football clubs in the world? Being able to say "Barcelona, Madrid and the Milan teams have played here". Would be big for you wouldn't it?

lolz

Liverpool, a club basking in major honours for the last..oh wait.

Remove your rose tinted glasses and open your eyes a bit.

I did not say I want a ground share, its pretty obvious both clubs are in dire straits right now.

but eh, good luck with Liverpool FC and their new super duper 60,000 stadium in stanley park.*








*which has as much chance of happening as liverpool have of winning a title.

The Volt

Warper wrote: »

No I don't, every fan cares about how their club is being run. The fact is football is now business and big business. All of the top English clubs are now owned by foreign wealthy business-men. They put their money up and they now own the club. If something makes economic sense, they have every right to do what they want. I doubt they would have many sleepless nights over in America at the thought of disappointing the fans. There might be disapproval for a couple of weeks but that would all subside in time, like it has done during the takeovers at both Liverpool and Utd..

Someone who buys a football club should, with respect, know that it is more than a business to thousands of people. Hence the likes of Mike Ashley are public hate figures

flahavaj

rarnes1 wrote: »

Who said lock the thread?

This is a discussion on an Everton groundshare right?

Liverpool are not interested so it seems?

It's a hypothetical arguement.

The penny drops. You're basically arguing with yourself here.

x in the city

x in the city wrote: »

This topic is a serious matter (too serious for some of the people on here) and my opinion is that the people on here are too immature and naive to give it proper thought.

x in the city wrote: »

but eh, good luck with Liverpool FC and their new super duper 60,000 stadium in stanley park.*

*which has as much chance of happening as liverpool have of winning a title.

.

kippy

Voltwad wrote: »

Someone who buys a football club should, with respect, know that it is more than a business to thousands of people. Hence the likes of Mike Ashley are public hate figures

They dont really care in general......the bottom line is usually money with these people and so long as the majority of fans dont stop supporting the club they bought, the are happy enough to annoy them from time to time as they know it will usually be forgotton.

I do agree, football is much more than a business to fans, but its long since been business, and some of the biggest business in the world with some of THE most brand loyal customers.

Warper

Voltwad wrote: »

Someone who buys a football club should, with respect, know that it is more than a business to thousands of people. Hence the likes of Mike Ashley are public hate figures

I agree

Mr Alan

cheers kippy.

it definately wasnt me who sent ya those links.

the enabling works mentioned in the article amount to little more than pulling down a couple of trees & putting up some hoarding.

the latest of the stadium is that the company contracted to do it have told their staff that its cancelled afaik.

kippy

kippy wrote: »

They dont really care in general......the bottom line is usually money with these people and so long as the majority of fans dont stop supporting the club they bought, the are happy enough to annoy them from time to time as they know it will usually be forgotton.

I do agree, football is much more than a business to fans, but its long since been business, and some of the biggest business in the world with some of THE most brand loyal customers.

But do you really think G&H are there long-term or there for a quick buck?

kippy

rarnes1 wrote: »

But do you really think G&H are there long-term or there for a quick buck?

I initially thought they were there for the quick buck, but that seems to have backfired dramaticilly on them.
I do believe they attempted to get the stadium started, in an effort to make potential buyers believe they were buying a club with a bigger stadium on the way. This now being stopped has scuppered their plans. Falling out of the CL even moreso and a fall from the top 4 would be even worse. The could probably still sell the club but for nowhere near what they want.

I dont think they ever had the resources to be in there long term. Long term usualy means proper investment in players and the club and I havent seen that happen.
The issue now, if they do stay at the helm is that they will have even less resources and will to get the club to the place the fans want it.

I dont know though, it really is a strange one to me but one thing I do know, they arent good for the club, but I think thats fairly obvious.

kippy

Mr Alan wrote: »

cheers kippy.

it definately wasnt me who sent ya those links.

the enabling works mentioned in the article amount to little more than pulling down a couple of trees & putting up some hoarding.

the latest of the stadium is that the company contracted to do it have told their staff that its cancelled afaik.

Yeah, sorry, couldnt remember who posted it.
As I said I was under the impression the ground was still going ahead as was as the last I heard of it was that first link from last year which to me was a report outlining the start of the building phase, which as I mentioned in last post and in hindsight could have been a potential carrot to any investors or buyers.

Mr Alan

falling out of the CL has had no affect on Liverpool this season financially. They do not budget to get out of the group stages.

kippy

Mr Alan wrote: »

falling out of the CL has had no affect on Liverpool this season financially. They do not budget to get out of the group stages.

Whether they budget for it or not is irrelevant.
They are down prize money, matchday revenue, TV revenue and potential sponsorship revenue.
This would effect their bottom line this year.

To be fair, the effect is small in relative terms, depending on how well they do in the Europa league.

What do you reckon on the ground issues and G&H issues yourself Alan?
Are you in any way worried about the direction of the club?

kippy

kippy wrote: »

I initially thought they were there for the quick buck, but that seems to have backfired dramaticilly on them.
I do believe they attempted to get the stadium started, in an effort to make potential buyers believe they were buying a club with a bigger stadium on the way. This now being stopped has scuppered their plans. Falling out of the CL even moreso and a fall from the top 4 would be even worse. The could probably still sell the club but for nowhere near what they want.

I dont think they ever had the resources to be in there long term. Long term usualy means proper investment in players and the club and I havent seen that happen.
The issue now, if they do stay at the helm is that they will have even less resources and will to get the club to the place the fans want it.

I dont know though, it really is a strange one to me but one thing I do know, they arent good for the club, but I think thats fairly obvious.

I agree with most of that.

I have my doubts about their original stadium plans tbh.

I think they will be off the first decent offer they get. A lot depends of course on where we finish in the league as we'll obviously be worth a lot less should we not qualify for CL next year.

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

falling out of the CL has had no affect on Liverpool this season financially. They do not budget to get out of the group stages.

A bai the spin-doctor.:pac:

But the millions their long runs in Europe was a more than welcome bonus in years gone by. They need every penny they get in their perilous financial state. Also attracting new investors is a much more diffficult task when you're not in the shop window of the Champions League. Thursday night football is a far less attractive prospect to a rich Arab with little or no knowledge of football.

Bandit12

x in the city wrote: »

lolz

Liverpool, a club basking in major honours for the last..oh wait.

Remove your rose tinted glasses and open your eyes a bit.

I did not say I want a ground share, its pretty obvious both clubs are in dire straits right now.

but eh, good luck with Liverpool FC and their new super duper 60,000 stadium in stanley park.*








*which has as much chance of happening as liverpool have of winning a title.

Bitter much?

x in the city

Bandit12 wrote: »

Bitter much?

what would I be bitter over exactly.

leninbenjamin

Mr Alan wrote: »

falling out of the CL has had no affect on Liverpool this season financially.

That is utter bollix and you know it. Most clubs are seen not to actively budget for it alright, but what the amounts to is largely a back up plan and measure of saving face in the eye's of their creditors should things go awry.

Liverpool will be badly affected by this, at least €20m I'd say lost. Not only in terms of the immediate match-day revenue and TV, but also future sponsorship and overseas merchandise sales could take a noticeable hit. Not to mention they'll probably have to trim down on capital expenditure a bit, potentially the youth setup could be hit badly by this as there'll be less in the pot for player contracts.

x in the city

leninbenjamin wrote: »

That is utter bollix and you know it. Most clubs are seen not to actively budget for it alright, but what the amounts to is largely a back up plan and measure of saving face in the eye's of their creditors should things go awry.

Liverpool will be badly affected by this, at least €20m I'd say lost. Not only in terms of the immediate match-day revenue and TV, but also future sponsorship and overseas merchandise sales could take a noticeable hit. Not to mention they'll probably have to trim down on capital expenditure a bit, potentially the youth setup could be hit badly by this as there'll be less in the pot for player contracts.

90% of the stuff he says......

leninbenjamin

leninbenjamin wrote: »

That is utter bollix and you know it. Most clubs are seen not to actively budget for it alright, but what the amounts to is largely a back up plan and measure of saving face in the eye's of their creditors should things go awry.

Liverpool will be badly affected by this, at least €20m I'd say lost. Not only in terms of the immediate match-day revenue and TV, but also future sponsorship and overseas merchandise sales could take a noticeable hit. Not to mention they'll probably have to trim down on capital expenditure a bit, potentially the youth setup could be hit badly by this as there'll be less in the pot for player contracts.

They only budgeted for the group stages. Anything beyond that is lunacy aka Leeds.

Where you pulling €20m from?

kippy

leninbenjamin wrote: »

That is utter bollix and you know it. Most clubs are seen not to actively budget for it alright, but what the amounts to is largely a back up plan and measure of saving face in the eye's of their creditors should things go awry.

Liverpool will be badly affected by this, at least €20m I'd say lost. Not only in terms of the immediate match-day revenue and TV, but also future sponsorship and overseas merchandise sales could take a noticeable hit. Not to mention they'll probably have to trim down on capital expenditure a bit, potentially the youth setup could be hit badly by this as there'll be less in the pot for player contracts.

I amn't a Liverpool fan, as most would know but that figure is well off........
The difference between Liverpool not getting out of the group versus Liverpool getting out of the group and losing in the first knockout round is a lot less than 20m.
ten million pounds is the figure mentioned here:
http://www.tribalfootball.com/benitez-meets-liverpool-bosses-over-financial-implications-cl-failure-428641
and 7 to 10 here:
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=250356.0
Even with reduced attendances.
Neither figure takes account of the actual income from the europa league so to be fair about it the loss from not getting out of the group in the CL versus losing in the first round isnt as big as many would suggest.

Not getting into it next year would mean another 10 million off the bottom line, but being honest and fair about it, 1 year missing out on the CL isnt critical to the bottom line but could mean them having less money too keep and add to the squad, making it harder to get in next season and subsequently. See Leeds, although almost all their financial planning was based on getting to the quarters every year and once that stopped happening it was curtains for them.

Things are precarious at LFC but not that bad yet.


Now back to the grounds options. I do think G and H had planned to build by getting more loans however this coincided with the credit crunch and rightly screwed them over.

Where do Liverpool fans see their new stadium come from?

Third_Echelon

Everton fan here...

Thank god the Kirkby plan is in the bin where it belongs. It was never good enough for a club of Everton's history and size. The King's Dock plans from early 2000's was the boat we should have been on, but Kenwright fecked that up. Perfect location and it was going to be a lovely looking stadium, 5 minutes walk from the city centre..... oh well. The last time I was over for a game, the bus passed by the new Echo Arena that was built in its place (similar to the O2/point type size). If you could see the look on every Evertonian's face as we passed it by... :mad:

The best option for both clubs is to have their own ground. I would love to see Goodison redeveloped, but realistically we cannot afford this with Kenwright in charge. He just cannot attract the invesetment that we need for players, never mind 200-odd million for a new stadium/redevelopment...

Liverpool are in the same boat, but not as bad as Everton. Liverpool do have the cash for players if they need it. They can go out every season and buy a 20 million pound player if they need to. Not sure if they can sustain that going forward though...

Liverpool cannot finance their new stadium by themselves either in the current financial situation that they find themselves in.

In financial terms, the joint stadium makes sense.

The fans of both teams have to weigh-up what they will lose by ground-sharing and what they will gain from it...

Gains are obvious... Increased match day revenue from ticket sales, merchandise etc. Man United clear 1 million pounds per home game from what I remember... I don't think there are many clubs in the world raking that in on match day. Arsenal bring in more cash from their premium level alone in the emirates than they did from the entire gate at Highbury.

I reckon 60,000 would be the best capacity for both clubs.

Obviously the match day experience in terms of facilities for the fans will be a lot better. Having been to both current stadiums, the facilities leave a lot to be desired.

I suppose the thing that fans will complain about most is the loss of identity.. The kop, shankly gates, Gwladys Street end, dixie dean statue etc.

I'm sure any new joint stadium would have to have some of these fan favourites built into the design. A new kop, trophy rooms, club shops etc...

But will it be enough to get past that in-built knee-jerk reaction to such a proposal?

I seriously doubt it.

Dub13

Brilliant Article this, Tony on the Press Box on the LFC propaganda channel,last night saying a watered down version of this, excellent read

Timesonline

Tony Barrett

At 8pm on Wednesday night a ground share was not on the agenda for anyone on Merseyside. By 8am the following morning - it was the only talking point in town.

How did that happen? It’s not as if Anfield and Goodison had been razed to the ground by fans angry at the way their teams are letting them down.

The only thing that changed the agenda was someone at Everton had “indicated” to someone at Sky Sports News that they would now be willing to consider moving into a stadium with Liverpool.

Why ever would anyone have done that? Could it be, and forgive by cynicism, that the Everton hierarchy knew they were in for an absolute and richly deserved kicking for their second failed stadium project in less than a decade and decided to pull a flanker?

On the day the city of Liverpool’s World Cup bid was sent to London – possibly the most embarrassing thing to travel on a train between the two cities since Jimmy Tarbuck was drawn to the capital by the bright lights of the Palladium – how better to divert attention from your own failings than to let it be known to the media that there could be a radical solution to the ongoing problems of both clubs and the city itself, one which is absolutely guaranteed to steal headlines?

The day after Everton’s latest stadium dreams went belly up should have been a day for recriminations. It should have been the day when Bill Kenwright, the Everton owner and chairman, had to answer searching questions about the future of his club having said on so many previous occasions that only a move to a hideous soulless bowl built outside the boundaries of a city which they should never even have considered leaving would give them any hope of recapturing past glories.

It should have been a day when searching questions were asked about what this setback means to David Moyes, who has performed near miracles in defying the kind of lack of finance which would have crippled lesser managers to produce the only team in the Premier League which regularly out performs its wage bill, but who is now faced with the realisation that there is no immediate prospect of Everton having the kind of stadium which would produce revenue in keeping with his ambition.

It should have been a day when Everton’s board had to answer searching questions about why it sanctioned the spending of millions of pounds pressing ahead with proposals that appeared to be clearly in contravention of planning policy, as consistently argued by the Keep Everton In Our City campaign group which did such magnificent work on behalf of the tens of thousands of fans who were quite rightly opposed to the idea of Everton quitting the city in which they belong.

But we got none of this. Instead, someone says the magic words “ground share” and hey presto, the media dances to a different tune and the Everton hierarchy is off the hook.

Now, had the renewed possibility of a shared stadium been discussed with anyone at Liverpool or the city council before Sky were briefed about it and before Robert Elstone, the Everton chief executive, gave an interview about it on the platform of Lime Street Station, the latest talk of two of sports biggest rivals moving in together would have much more credibility.

Not that it deserves any, though. Liverpool and Everton Football Clubs deserve stadia of their own. They deserve it to enrich their separate identities. They deserve it for their sense of individuality. They deserve it for their size and stature in the game. And, most of all they deserve it for their fans.

Both clubs have consistently tried and failed to build much needed new stadia over the last ten years but this does not equate to a justification for ground sharing. Rather, it is a condemnation of a chronic lack of leadership and vision in the boardrooms of Everton and Liverpool and at a city council which has floundered around while others, for example Manchester with the City of Manchester Stadium, have delivered. Not being able to build a ground in one of the world’s most football mad cities is only one step away from being unable to organise a piss up in a brewery.

It is this which rankles most when fans of both clubs are told, usually by people who have never in their lives paid to sit, never mind stand, in either the Gwladys Street or the Kop, that a ground share is the only thing that can save their clubs. What they really should be asking is when will these great clubs and this great city be given the leadership they need to come up with a plan and the accompanying finance to build stadiums of their own?

It is well known that Liverpool’s supporters are being let down by their owners. There is no longer even any debate about the fact, for that is exactly what it is, that the ongoing reign of Tom Hicks and George Gillett has been an absolute disaster for the club, on and off the pitch. But they were also let down in the past and you would have to go back to the days of John Smith and Peter Robinson to find the last time when Liverpool were led with the kind of vision that facilitates regular success and genuine stability.

And yet their fans are consistently told that a shared stadium with their biggest rivals which will be the panacea to all their ills. If only the wider football world were as concerned with the imposters in the Anfield boardroom as they are with their zealous desire to see Liverpool and Everton subjected to the kind of experiment which no other leading clubs in the country are ever asked to perform.

If Liverpool and Everton ever bought in to the shared stadium dream of others they would put the full stop on an entire generation which has been characterised by a lack of ambition and foresight. The message that they would send out would be that while both Manchester clubs, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Aston Villa, Birmingham City, Newcastle United, Sunderland, Celtic and Rangers can have their own stadia, the Merseyside clubs can’t.

The argument that keeps getting shoved down the throats of fans on Merseyside is that if it’s good enough for the people of Milan then it is good enough for them. Besides the fact that anyone who has ever been to the San Siro will have been confronted by a pitch as patchy as Gavin McCann’s head, the more important thing to bear in mind is that Inter Milan are now working towards moving out and building a ground of their own. Why? Simply because the shared arrangements at the San Siro do not allow them to maximise their commercial revenue from corporate facilities.

Juventus have already given up on sharing with Torino and are in the process of building a new stadium of their own on the sight of the much maligned Stadio Delli Alpi. Torino, meanwhile, have already moved permanently to the Stadio Olimpico.

If the great municipal shared stadium experiment that began in Italy around the time of the World Cup in 1990 is being held up as an example it should be to warn clubs not to follow their lead.

This is without even getting into the fact that Everton and Liverpool currently have totally different needs. That’s a debate that should be left for another day, one which will hopefully never come when those who preach that sharing is the only way two of Europe’s greatest clubs can survive are holding away.

Sacrificing heritage, individuality and identity at the altar of finance should not even be an option. Liverpool and Everton are unique sporting institutions and they deserve to be treated as such, not shunted together without any consideration for their past.

It is men with vision that both sets of supporters need and deserve, not a stadium which neither of them could claim as their own. If that day ever comes then it would be one of the saddest days in the history of football in England and on Merseyside in particular.

^
Great article. It blows a lot of peoples arguements out of the water regarding the Italian model for groundshare.

x in the city

good read A+

What people have to understand is that Merseyside, and the L4 region cannot sustain 2 large, 50,000 seater arenas.

end of.

In fact I would be amazed if LFC can buuld that mammoth new stadium in stanley park at all.

Its the same as with Highbury, Arsenal had to move to the emirates, Highbury was pretty much identical to Goodison, with zero opportunity to redevelop.


I believe all new avenues have been looked at for a ground in or around the L4 region for Everton. but it does seem quite incredible that neither club can build a stadium in this day and age.

I think its all down to bad forward planning, very poor decision making, and not hiring the best engineers out there.

As for me, well I want EFC to develop goodison into a 45,000 all seater, with the possibility to upgrade.

3 stands will have to be demolished and the costs would be huge, but it would be a true home and not a plastic stadium out of bounds and out of touch with EFC and its people.

bluejay14

I don't think it will ever happen or should happen.Neither sets of fans wold ever be totally satisfied if it did happen.

You could never have both teams playing a 3 o clock kick-off for example at home on the same day.I know that would n't be hard to work around but I don't like the idea of them ground-sharing.It would ruin the atmosphere of derby days becaus eit wouldn't truly feel like a derby because both teams would be techincally at home.

And what colour would the seats be?Red or blue?:D

Guy:Incognito

bluejaymraz wrote: »

I don't think it will ever happen or should happen.Neither sets of fans wold ever be totally satisfied if it did happen.

You could never have both teams playing a 3 o clock kick-off for example at home on the same day.I know that would n't be hard to work around but I don't like the idea of them ground-sharing.It would ruin the atmosphere of derby days becaus eit wouldn't truly feel like a derby because both teams would be techincally at home.

And what colour would the seats be?Red or blue?:D

Not that I'm for it anyway but as it is both teams dont play at home on the same weekend anyway afaik, nevermind the same day.

bluejay14

Stekelly wrote: »

Not that I'm for it anyway but as it is both teams dont play at home on the same weekend anyway afaik, nevermind the same day.

Yeah I probably should have thought that out logically before I posted it.

everdead.ie

bluejaymraz wrote: »

I don't think it will ever happen or should happen.Neither sets of fans wold ever be totally satisfied if it did happen.

You could never have both teams playing a 3 o clock kick-off for example at home on the same day.I know that would n't be hard to work around but I don't like the idea of them ground-sharing.It would ruin the atmosphere of derby days becaus eit wouldn't truly feel like a derby because both teams would be techincally at home.

And what colour would the seats be?Red or blue?:D

I Don't think that the police let them have home matches the same weekend for security reasons. Derby day wise the team who's name is first gets more fans then the other that day, Seats can be changed colour or like the san siro they could have the seats the colour of the English flag instead of club colours

x in the city

everdead.ie wrote: »

I Don't think that the police let them have home matches the same weekend for security reasons. Derby day wise the team who's name is first gets more fans then the other that day, Seats can be changed colour or like the san siro they could have the seats the colour of the English flag instead of club colours

the seat colour would be the least thing to worry about

after reading KEIOC, apparently the newest stand, the park end with its cantilever format could be upgraded into a bad ass borrusia dortmund 'wall' one..

yum


I think the club should go ahead and do this, its strictly a stop gap short term fix ideally, but in the current strife the club are in . it might have to do.

it would bring capacity up to circa 48,000.

The other alternative, knocking goodison is a huge undertaking, and way beyond the finance the club got.

developing the park end is affordable, and should not take too long to complete.