 |
ESPNsoccernet: England |
 |
Thursday, December 9, 2004
Share and share alike?
Alex Sharratt
Though you won't find many in agreement on Mersyside, a groundshare between Liverpool and Everton would be a great move for both clubs. In fact, they might not have any other option.
 |
| Anfield: Liverpool's new Stanley Park stadium will cost £110m. (MatthewAshton/GettyImages) |
|
Everton chairman Bill Kenwright and Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry have set themselves a deadline of the end of the year to decide whether a new 60,000-seater stadium in Stanley Park can home both famous old clubs.
But, despite pressure from Sports Minister Richard Caborn, the North-west Development Agency and Liverpool City Council, chances of a groundshare agreement look slim.
Liverpool already have planning permission for the Stanley Park stadium, but costs have recently risen from an estimated £80m to £110m, alarming the Anfield money-men.
The Reds have applied for a NWDA grant to help cover the costs, though the agency have made clear their preference of the idea of a shared stadium to benefit the whole community.
The unlikelihood of receiving a regional or government grant has seemingly left Liverpool with only two options; to invite city rivals Everton to share the stadium, or to abandon plans completely and stay at Anfield.
Everton, meanwhile, are keen to move from the antiquated Goodison Park, but with debts of their own totalling £42m, their own choices seem limited.
The summer sale of Wayne Rooney marginally eased their financial concerns, but the club still doesn't have the resources to either redevelop their historic old ground or revive last year's plans to move to a new stadium at King's Dock.
All this would appear to point the way to a pioneering groundshare, the first of its kind between two major British clubs: so what's the problem?
Essentially, the chairmen and fans are putting pride before the best interests of their beloved clubs; after all, the economic case for a shared stadium is overwhelming.
Both teams would be playing football in a world-class facility, sharing costs and overheads, guaranteeing lower ticket prices and higher attendances - and therefore generating more revenue.
And if either club has serious intentions of reclaiming their place among the elite of English football, they need to start on a firm financial footing.
 |
| Rooney: An Everton asset cashed in. (MikeHewitt/GettyImages) |
|
Neither have a Roman Abramovich-style sugar daddy behind them, and the capital needed for new stadiums would severely deplete the sums either could spend on regenerating their playing squads.
But, despite the obvious financial benefits - and the repeated claim that they are the closest, friendliest neighbours in British football - it seems the thought of sharing a stadium is simply too much to stomach for fans on Mersyside.
Rightly emotive about the issue, they say their club will lose its identity, that in an instant a century of history and tradition will be forgotten.
'We'd rather die than sit and watch Liverpool on blue seats,' the Everton fans cry, and vice versa the Liverpool faithful. 'This is about more than money.'
Of course, these are the same Everton fans criticising their club for selling prize asset Wayne Rooney, and the same Liverpool fans demanding their manager be given the resources to build a squad capable of challenging for the title.
Unfortunately, the fans can't have it both ways - and the price they could pay for keeping a traditional, history-laden ground might be 10 years of mediocrity.
So they have a choice: to swallow their pride, share a stadium with their city rivals and save £60m; or to stay true to admirable principals, remain loyal to their current homes and accept another decade in the doldrums.
I know what I'd choose.
Liverpool fan's view - Nick Pasmore
The groundshare between the two giants of Merseyside is an issue of great controversy. Is it a good idea for Liverpool and Everton to share the same
location, home section and pitch? Of course it isn't, and here's why.
Maybe it will be better for the clubs financially; both are currently experiencing fiscal difficulties. But, in my opinion, that is the ONLY reason to justify the groundshare.
Firstly, they are both steeped in great tradition at their current individual homes. Liverpool, in fact, took Anfield from their neighbours after a dispute over rent. Both giants of English football are synonymous with their current homes, especially Liverpool and the infamous Spion Kop. If they were to share the same stadium, would Reds fans be happy congregating for a game at an end other than their beloved Kop? Conversely, would Everton fans want to spend 25 games or more per season in the Kop End? I don't think so.
Secondly, when was the last time you saw a decent pitch in a stadium housing two teams? Never. Sure, groundsmen nowadays work wonders in our cruel winters, but the possibility of three games in seven days for most of the year will be a nightmare. Look at the San Siro as an example: magnificent stadium, potato-patch pitch.
Linked with this is the fact that most players do not want to play for a team involved in a groundshare. Xabi Alonso has already come out to say this, and it has only so far been mentioned as a possibility. Do you think Stevie Gerrard would want to play on a pitch where even a hybrid of Zidane-Maradona-Cruyff-Pele would have difficulty to maintain a good touch at all times? Again, no is the answer.
And Everton, rebuilding with the Rooney money, may struggle to encourage the quality of player they need to make their way to the club.
Finally, the local residents may have something to say about a groundshare. Whilst Liverpool have got their planning permission for the new stadium in Stanley Park, the residents will not be too excited at the prospect of 40,000 + invading their area every weekend.
So is it actually that viable an option? I think not.
Everton fan's view - Steven Braithwaite
Blues and reds supporters have traditionally lived side by side - and in many cases in the same house as each other: a groundshare wouldn't cause problems between the two sides. After all, it's the "friendliest" derby in the Premiership, maybe in England.
 |
| Goodison Park: Antiquated and housing a club £42m in debt. (MatthewAshton/Empics) |
|
However, I would certainly be worried about the number of games played on the pitch. The sheer quantity would surely have an effect on the quality of the surface.
It would obviously be a massive boost to both clubs, with increased capacity and much better amenities, which could also create revenue through hotels, shopping centres, restaurants and exhibition areas.
But a major part of any club is it's ground, especially with Everton being a club of great history and being one of the founder members of the League. I would be worried Everton would lose a large part of it's identity - and I guess this would also be true of Liverpool.
Who would be recognised as the owners of the ground? Liverpool, I believe, are in a better financial position so would they own more of the ground and therefore make more of the decisions on the running of the stadium? That wouldn't please us Everton fans.
Despite the financial benefits, I think Everton can do without sharing a ground. I want to have a ground that we can call our own - which I think every club has the right and need to do rather than borrowing a pitch while the other team isn't using it.
Email newsdesk@soccernet.com with your thoughts.