Groundshare talks for all you Merseyside fans

por

According to the BBC they are going to sit down with the UK sports minister and talk about a ground share.

It would be good financially for both clubs (Everton in particular) not sure how the fans would see it though.

Kulgan

Its been updated

Liverpool have moved swiftly to reject any suggestion they would consider sharing their new stadium with Everton.

Rick Parry, the Anfield chief executive, has said his club would pull out of building their new ground if costs spiralled, rather than share with Everton.

jesus_thats_gre

Will never happen!! Sponging bastards.

emertoff

I'm amused by the absence of Liverpool fans on this one although I suppose the silence is deafening. The groundshare is a good idea for both clubs and that is simple economics. LFC have requested the meeting. They could have called it off if they were against it, all they have done is to release a political statement.

When will some people realise that this is the only way for both clubs to progress. I'm an Everton fan, but I would also like to see Liverpool do well. It is plainly obvious that LFC's squad, cursed though it is by injuries, is simply no longer amongst the elite.

I'm sure Rick Parry being the business he is will see things as they are. As I understand things, a groundshare could also pave the way for Steve Morgan's investment, so why the moaning? He merely wants his money to spent on the team I preseume, and not swallowed up by a white elephant.

So, a little less of the superiority complex previously in evidence on some threads please. The stadium will be on equal terms if it proceeds, and this is absolutely necessary for the respect of BOTH clubs. All the talk of Everton renting, leasng or whatever is just borne out of frustration.

irishgeo

Ground sharing is never going to happen period.Its the goverment who want it. Liverpool already have to the go ahead to build the staduim as they have plannned. I.e No groundsharing.

jesus_thats_gre

I would be for it if they were considering building a stadium with a massive capacity, i.e. 70,000 odd...

beer enigma

Nice ideas, but can't see it ever working........

I'm a Gunners man & the thought of sharing with Spurs sends cold shivers down my spine :eek:

KdjaCL

Andip wrote:

Nice ideas, but can't see it ever working........

I'm a Gunners man & the thought of sharing with Spurs sends cold shivers down my spine :eek:

Why?

Assume you live in london would it not be easier to get tickets for an 80,000 stadium than smaller 40k one?

Ground sharing makes perfect sense, it works quite well , each club gets an end of the ground to call their own.
In UK it would work as councils build ground lease it back to clubs for €1 a year os somfin stupid , clubs make mega money in gates everyone happy, cept petty whinging fans.


kdjac

mike65

I dont think it would work for practical reasons, as Benitiez said ground shares elsewhere have lead to bad quality pitches and thats in countries which overall have shorter, drier winters. Also its not like Pool need to share for financial reasons.

Mike.

Third_Echelon

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Will never happen!! Sponging bastards.

The thing is jesus, if there was a ground share it wouldn't be liverpool's stadium, so i dont get where the sponging bastards quote is coming from. All those years ago liverpool were happy to take anfield from our hands when we moved to goodison, so in all reality, Liverpool are playing in a stadium that everton once occupied anyway, so sharing shouldn't frighten you that much...

It would make financial sense on both clubs part. Spend 50m each rather than 100m each for one stadium to lie empty every weekend? Doesn't make too much sense. In this scenario you have potentially the other 50m to spend on players, and in fairness both clubs could do with spending money on players. In Everton's case to strengthen the squad, and in Liverpool's case, to buy a new team or perhaps pay-off benetiz at the end of the season...
All joking aside, liverpool need to buy a whole new defence, and currently a few strikers... Everton need to replace weir and stubbs as they are getting on a bit, and need perhaps a right winger and a couple of stikers... 50m in each clubs case would be a nice transfer kitty to work from...

Being a true blue, in all honesty, the thought of a ground share, let alone the thought of moving from the hallowed turf of goodison park sends a shiver down my spine. In a traditional sense and for the sake of a bit or pride, we both need our own patch to call our home. I would love to see goodison redeveloped. Some studies have shown that because of the houses around it etc, that redevelopment may not be possible. I hope it is looked into further. I just feel that these new 'green field' stadiums that clubs are building today dont have the same atmosphere as the traditional football stadium in the middle of a city, where the fans are....

When there is a merseyside derby for example, as there is in a few weeks, the idea of going to the old foes ground and take a win from them on their own turf is a thing of true greatness to behold. The atmosphere is electric. There may only be a few thousand of you away fans, but you sing as loud as the home crowd, just because in a numbers sense, you are the underdog and outnumbered...

In the groundshare scenario, this type of atmosphere i think may be lost. Perhaps it wont, but it just wont feel the same... What colour would the seats be? Purple? One half blue, one half red? or even worse, a neutral colour? The mind boggles. :eek:

I just think that each club would lose too much by a groundshare. It makes financial sense, but i just dont think it would work... just my 2c

And as a latin dude once said: "Nil Satis Nisi Optimum"

super_furry

The only people who are in anyway for it are Everton supporters, who know that their club do not have the money to bail themselves out of what is fastly becoming the most antiquated ground in the Premiership. I don't seem to remember Everton being so keen on the idea of a shared stadium when their Kings Dock project was still viable.

There are few, if any positives for Liverpool, who would be mortgaging their history if they agreed to the move. What would become of the Kop? The Shankly Gates? The Hillsbrough memorial? Jesus, what colour would the seats be? If Liverpool agreed to the move there would be uproar among supporters the likes of which have never been seen before.

Thankfully, I don't think it will ever happen and after next week's AGM, things should become a lot more clearer.

thejollyrodger

I dont support either team, I think it would be a good idea if it was a 80,000 seater but I dont think either club will be on for it. I might work for a rugby and a soccer team

por

super_furry wrote:

There are few, if any positives for Liverpool, who would be mortgaging their history if they agreed to the move. What would become of the Kop? The Shankly Gates? The Hillsbrough memorial? Jesus, what colour would the seats be? If Liverpool agreed to the move there would be uproar among supporters the likes of which have never been seen before..

Simply split the ground in two, one half blue seats, one half red. Put your Kop, Shankley gates, Hilsbourogh Memorial (which are right beside each other anyway) etc down one end and Everton history the other end ,if the ground is large enough there should be more than enough space for each team for museums etc.

Third_Echelon

super_furry wrote:

The only people who are in anyway for it are Everton supporters,

i think you'll find that the supporters dont want this.. its the board who are pusing the idea..

super_furry wrote:

who know that their club do not have the money to bail themselves out of what is fastly becoming the most antiquated ground in the Premiership.

have you ever been in Goodison Park? Its not all shiney and new, but its far from antiquated. Its not falling apart at the foundation or anything like that. They want to move so they can get a bigger capacity and more revenue..

super_furry wrote:

I don't seem to remember Everton being so keen on the idea of a shared stadium when their Kings Dock project was still viable.

thats because the fans wanted their own home...

super_furry wrote:

There are few, if any positives for Liverpool, who would be mortgaging their history if they agreed to the move. What would become of the Kop? The Shankly Gates? The Hillsbrough memorial? Jesus, what colour would the seats be? If Liverpool agreed to the move there would be uproar among supporters the likes of which have never been seen before.

The same goes for everton as well.. They are giving up a lot of history if they move from Goodison Park.

Liverpool are moving!!! They are going to have to consider the fact that when they move to stanley park, they will lose their gates and memorials as well... no matter if everton and liverpool share a ground or not..

super_furry wrote:

Thankfully, I don't think it will ever happen and after next week's AGM, things should become a lot more clearer.

No it won't happen, which is a good thing for both Everton and Liverpool...

Third_Echelon

Article today on the BBC website:

BBC Sport wrote:

Merseysiders ponder groundshare

Everton and Liverpool will decide on whether to share a new ground by the end of the year after a meeting with Sports Minister Richard Caborn.

Anfield chief executive Rick Parry and Everton chairman Bill Kenwright were at the talks in London.

Liverpool had appeared to rule out a groundshare, but Caborn said: "It was a very interesting meeting.

"A number of things have been explored and it is now down to the clubs to make a decision on what they want to do."

Everton chief executive Keith Wyness, who was at the meeting, told [url]www.evertonfc.com:[/url] "All parties have agreed we will have one last look at the option of a ground share with a view to finalising our thoughts by the end of the year.

"It was an exploratory meeting and the ground share option is one of several under review by the club."

Liverpool have long opposed the share scheme, but agreed to review the position after they became aware of the possibility of urban regeneration funds being made available for the project.

They already have planning permission for a new 60,000-capacity stadium in nearby Stanley Park but are about £30m short of meeting the £110m cost and are due to announce debts of £21m at their AGM on Thursday.

They have applied for a grant from the North-West Development Agency (NWDA) but that is only available for a shared ground.

Caborn has influence with the Regional Development Agency, which could provide some funds and Liverpool City Council is also keen to promote sharing.

Everton previously had plans to build their own new ground at King's Dock but that was shelved due to cost.

NWDA chief Bryan Gray and Liverpool Walton MP Peter Kilfoyle were also involved in the talks.

Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez has insisted a groundshare would be a bad idea.

"Talk of two teams sharing a stadium always causes problems and in my view it would not work," the Spaniard told his club's website.

"It would not be good for the pitch, because obviously there would be double the amount of games played on it, and it would not be good for the supporters of Liverpool or Everton.

"True, Inter and AC share a stadium in Milan, but look at their pitch. It is not good. Also, in terms of atmosphere it is better that a team plays in its own stadium.

"In five years time we hope to be playing good football in our own new stadium," added Benitez.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/4045159.stm

Seems liverpool have some money problems as well!!!

BolBill

It won't happen. Liverpool are a big club, Everton aren't. Don't worry about the current league position, The Red side of Merseyside will finish above the Toffees. It would not make sense sharing with the likes of the Toffee minnows.....

knobbles

...ha :rolleyes:
minnows my arse!
i'd love it if we beat them, love it!!!
2 weeks to go

Third_Echelon

BolBill wrote:

It won't happen. Liverpool are a big club, Everton aren't. Don't worry about the current league position, The Red side of Merseyside will finish above the Toffees. It would not make sense sharing with the likes of the Toffee minnows.....

obvious case of trolling here on BolBill's part :rolleyes:

jesus_thats_gre

It won't happen. Liverpool are a big club, Everton aren't. Don't worry about the current league position, The Red side of Merseyside will finish above the Toffees. It would not make sense sharing with the likes of the Toffee minnows.....

Third_Echelon

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

It won't happen. Liverpool are a big club, Everton aren't. Don't worry about the current league position, The Red side of Merseyside will finish above the Toffees. It would not make sense sharing with the likes of the Toffee minnows.....

more trolling FFS

And i quote

They already have planning permission for a new 60,000-capacity stadium in nearby Stanley Park but are about £30m short of meeting the £110m cost and are due to announce debts of £21m at their AGM on Thursday.

...and yes they are talking about liverpool :rolleyes:

mr_angry

TBH, most of the clubs in Italy groundshare, and the majority of the pitches are of excellent quality. Juventus and Torino share the Stadio Della Alpi - the pitch is fine, and Roma and Lazio share the Olympic Stadium in Rome - the pitch there is superb. People tend to make an example of the San Siro and claim that the ground sharing between Inter and AC Milan is the cause of the problem, when in fact the root cause is the design of the stadium. High walls, no airflow, and a big f00k-off roof to block out sunlight and rainfall.

I'm an Arsenal fan, and I would have absolutely no problem with the club sharing a ground with Spurs, especially if it meant building a sizable stadium that the club could otherwise never afford. I have every confidence that we could lord it over the Spurs fans every season as normal, since we're guaranteed to finish above them in the league every time.

As far as I can see, it seems to be insecurity on the part of both sets of fans, but over what, I don't know. There doesn't seem to be any logical reasoning against a ground share as far as I can see, especially on this thread.

Third_Echelon

mr_angry wrote:

I'm an Arsenal fan, and I would have absolutely no problem with the club sharing a ground with Spurs...

I think you'd be the only arsenal fan who would be in that camp !!!!

mr_angry wrote:

As far as I can see, it seems to be insecurity on the part of both sets of fans, but over what, I don't know. There doesn't seem to be any logical reasoning against a ground share as far as I can see, especially on this thread.

Its like living with your parents... its ok up to a point, but at the end of the day, you need a place you can call your own!!!

mr_angry

Third_Echelon wrote:

Its like living with your parents... its ok up to a point, but at the end of the day, you need a place you can call your own!!!

I just don't buy that at all. I love Highbury, but compared to an 80,000-seater stadium? I'd take the groundshare any day. You wouldn't even see the Spurs fans for 36/38s of the season, and when you do, you'd get to jeer them as your team inevitably demolishes theirs. What could possibly be better?

The whole argument against groundsharing in Liverpool seems to be based on "I wouldn't want to share a stadium with those dirty reds / blues", which defies logic, and is frankly bordering on bigotry.

jesus_thats_gre

Third_Echelon wrote:

And i quote

Quote:

They already have planning permission for a new 60,000-capacity stadium in nearby Stanley Park but are about £30m short of meeting the £110m cost and are due to announce debts of £21m at their AGM on Thursday.

...and yes they are talking about liverpool

Thats a singleblip and can be dismissed by three simple things..

1) just over £10 million to get rid of GH and his backroom staff.
2) nearly £35 million for Cisse,Alonso, Garcia and the Josemi.
3) no champions league

They made just over 15 million from transfers.. So thats 30 million accounted for on changing management and a few transfers..

Don't go thinking that they cannot get 20 million for a long term investment, that would be insane. If they had the quoted financial results without spending 30+ million on transfers for 5 years runnings (ala Everton), then I would be worried..

If the decide to go for the groundshare they would be doing it because it suits them, not because they can't afford to go alone. Other issues that may be a problem:

- what happens to the money and time spent by LFC planning the project
- the stadium is planned to be called Anfield, what happens to that
- no doubt some of the more historical parts of the existing stadium will be moved
- I doubt the Kop end is going to disappear forever and I cant see Everton supporters standing in one

Boils down to more than just money..

The Muppet

There a lot of turmoil behind the scenes at Liverpool that will probably see a change of ownership in the near future . If the American takes over I can't see him let romantic ideas about the Kop etc get in the way of maximising his profit

Third_Echelon

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Thats a singleblip and can be dismissed by three simple things..

1) just over £10 million to get rid of GH and his backroom staff.
2) nearly £35 million for Cisse,Alonso, Garcia and the Josemi.
3) no champions league

They made just over 15 million from transfers.. So thats 30 million accounted for on changing management and a few transfers..

=bad financial management and decision making... this happened to leeds..

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Don't go thinking that they cannot get 20 million for a long term investment, that would be insane. If they had the quoted financial results without spending 30+ million on transfers for 5 years runnings (ala Everton), then I would be worried..

True, they could get this investment, but why bother getting in more debt/diluting of club ownership when they could work with what money they have and invest in a groundshare. As far as i know, some of the grants liverpool were expecting to get were on the pretense of a groundshare.

Everton have spent quite a bit of money in the past 5/6 years. Admitingly, Walter Smith made quite a few dodgy signing. Bad management on his part and the less said about that man, the better:
23 Jul 2004 Tim Cahill Millwall £2M
23 Jun 2004 Marcus Bent Ipswich Town £450k
1 Sep 2003 Kevin Kilbane Sunderland £1M
1 Sep 2003 James McFadden Motherwell £1.25M
31 Aug 2003 Nigel Martyn Leeds United £500k
12 Aug 2003 Li Tie Liaoning Bodao ~£1M
23 May 2003 Joseph Yobo Marseille £4.5M
3 Jan 2003 Iain Turner Stirling Albion $50k?
25 Jul 2002 Richard Wright Arsenal £3.5M
24 Jul 2002 Juliano Rodrigo Botafogo £1.25M
18 Jul 2002 Li Tie Liaoning Bodao £200k
17 Jul 2002 Li Wei Feng Shenzhen Pingan £200k
9 Jul 2002 Joseph Yobo Marseille £1M
8 Feb 2002 Lee Carsley Coventry City £1.95M
31 Jan 2002 Tobias Linderoth Stabaek £2.5M
17 Jul 2001 Tomasz Radzinski RSC Anderlecht £4.5M
17 Oct 2000 Gary Naysmith Hearts £1.75M
17 Oct 2000 Idan Tal Maccabi Tikka Petvah £700k
17 Aug 2000 Duncan Ferguson Newcastle United £3.75M
24 Jul 2000 Thomas Gravesen SV Hamburg £2.5M
18 Jul 2000 Niclas Alexandersson Sheffield Wednesday £2.2M
14 Jul 2000 Alex Nyarko Lens £4.5M
4 Jul 2000 Steve Watson Aston Villa £2.5M
30 Jun 2000 Alessandro Pistone Newcastle £3M
27 Apr 2000 Andrew Pettinger Scunthorpe Utd £45k
7 Mar 2000 Stephen Hughes Arsenal £500k
3 Sep 1999 Abel Xavier PSV Eindhoven £1.5M
5 Aug 1999 Mark Pembridge Benfica £800k
13 Jul 1999 Kevin Campbell Trabsonspor £3M
25 Mar 1999 Scott Gemmill Nottingham Forest £200k
22 Feb 1999 Peter Degn Aarhus £200k
16 Feb 1999 David Weir Heart of Midlothian £200k
12 Oct 1998 Ibrahima Bakayoko Montpellier £4.5M
23 Sep 1998 Steve Simonsen Tranmere Rovers £1.5M
31 Jul 1998 David Unsworth Aston Villa £3M
29 Jul 1998 John Collins AS Monaco £2.5M
27 Jul 1998 Olivier Dacourt RC Strasbourg £4M
15 Jul 1998 Marco Materazzi Perugia £2.5M

Total £71 M

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

If the decide to go for the groundshare they would be doing it because it suits them, not because they can't afford to go alone.

Because it suits them financially. Thats the only reason. Money.

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Other issues that may be a problem:

- what happens to the money and time spent by LFC planning the project
- the stadium is planned to be called Anfield, what happens to that
- no doubt some of the more historical parts of the existing stadium will be moved
- I doubt the Kop end is going to disappear forever and I cant see Everton supporters standing in one

Boils down to more than just money..

- Everton also spent time and money on the Kings Dock project. Liverpool aren't alone here.
- It wouldn't be called anfield, because it would be a shared stadium.
- As would everton's heritage.
- Both teams will have their 'ends'. Away fans will use the other teams end for home games. Everton Vs ManUtd. Utd fans would be in the 'new kop' etc etc...

p.pete

Details from last nights AGM - Looks like the ground share wasn't the biggest issue:

Anfield erupts over ownership dispute Dec 3 2004




By Andy Hunter, Daily Post


LIVERPOOL shareholders were told "the prospects for this year are relatively good" last night as the club confirmed record losses of £21.9million for the last financial year.

But it was the on-going, bitter dispute between Steve Morgan and the current board over his thwarted attempts to invest in Liverpool that dominated the club's 112th AGM.

Chairman David Moores admitted he would consider his own situation after an "unbearable" year,, while Mr Morgan and club director Terry Smith fiercely contested the terms of his £70m investment plan.

The meeting erupted after Mr Morgan's wife Didy unexpectedly took the microphone at the front of the Bill Shankly suite to address the board of directors. Here is an abridged version of the ensuing row ....

DIDY MORGAN: My husband has spent £300,000 in legal fees this year trying to put money into Liverpool Football Club. The response to his offers has just been slow and intolerable. It seems as if a deal would be done with the devil himself rather than with my husband.

Here is a local, successful businessman willing to put millions into this club. He has behaved impeccably and tried his hardest to put his own money into the club yet we are still waiting by the phone and receiving incredibly sluggish responses.

One director made a call last night but that appeared to be a soft sop ahead of this meeting. It is quite tiresome and very weary and I can't understand it. Only tonight we hear there is someone else trying to invest and yet we have someone here in this room who is willing to invest.

DIRECTOR KEITH CLAYTON: I was the director who made that phonecall and it wasn't a sop ahead of tonight. The purpose of the call was to get communication going and to expand on the conversation Mr Morgan had had with Hawkpoint (the financial advisors appointed by Liverpool to handle potential investments) the day before.

DIDY MORGAN: Letters are not responded to, phonecalls are not returned and deadlines are not being met. This is a matter that is not going to go away and my husband won't go away either. I cannot see what the problem is.

KEITH CLAYTON: The board are considering Mr Morgan's offer. The only reason there has been no response is that there has been an approach from a third party. It is a very interesting prospect and the board and the chairman are obliged to consider it. No formal offer has been re-submitted by Mr Morgan (Mr Morgan shakes his head) although it is near.

CHAIRMAN DAVID MOORES: These past 12 months have not been easy. I have got nothing against Mr Morgan personally. We are looking at all roads to get investment into this club and as far as I am concerned I am still considering Mr Morgan's offer. Perhaps it is time now....It has been a difficult year and I have got to consider my options. I love this club dearly but I cannot compete with Mr Morgan's millions.

At the end of the meeting I have got to give it some thought and come to a decision one way or another. It has been unbearable, it is affecting my family and we have all tried to do everything in the best interests of the club.

STEVE MORGAN: (takes microphone) I had no idea my wife was going to get up and speak tonight but I am very proud of her.

You can see on the chair-man's face he has endured a lot of anguish over the last 12 months. I do not like washing our dirty linen in public, it is not good for this football club. I want to draw a line in the sand and move forward.

I can assure the chairman and directors though that they don't need to go to Thailand for new investment, I am only 20 miles down the road.

They can have the money in the bank by Christmas and Rafael can have the money he desperately needs and we can get the stadium on the go. Please accept my offer. (Returns to seat)

DIRECTOR TERRY SMITH: We have received four offers in total from Mr Morgan. All of them have been at different prices.

I don't want people leaving this room tonight believing we have turned down a £70m investment because that is entirely incorrect. We don't have our wives here or hold press conferences but these offers have been very different to what has been presented in public.

The first offer valued the club at a fraction of what it is worth. All of them involved Mr Morgan taking control the next day and that hasn't come out in any press conference. We are bound by confidentiality so cannot go into the full details but I would ask Mr Morgan to nail the myth that £70m is coming into the club.

STEVE MORGAN: (storms back to microphone) I tried to do this the nice way. The reason £70m is not coming into this club is because shareholders don't want £70m coming into the club. They want £35m for the club and £35m for the cost of their shares. My first offer was for £70m, there have been others since.

I am trying to be constructive, I have put various offers forward in various guises, but you are not being constructive at all.

I would never break the confidentiality agreement but we know there is a lot more (to the figures announced) and people would be appalled if they knew the situation.

There are massively escalating costs of the stadium, the figures are nothing like what has been reported. The board should come clean and then people will know why I had to revise my offer.

DAVID MOORES: Gentlemen this is not doing our club any good whatsoever...

STEVE MORGAN: The chairman is quite right. This is not the time or the place. For the sake of our dignity please draw a line under it soon. (Returns to seat again)

jesus_thats_gre

Third_Echelon wrote:

=bad financial management and decision making... this happened to leeds..

True, they could get this investment, but why bother getting in more debt/diluting of club ownership when they could work with what money they have and invest in a groundshare. As far as i know, some of the grants liverpool were expecting to get were on the pretense of a groundshare.

Everton have spent quite a bit of money in the past 5/6 years. Admitingly, Walter Smith made quite a few dodgy signing. Bad management on his part and the less said about that man, the better:
23 Jul 2004 Tim Cahill Millwall £2M
23 Jun 2004 Marcus Bent Ipswich Town £450k
1 Sep 2003 Kevin Kilbane Sunderland £1M
1 Sep 2003 James McFadden Motherwell £1.25M
31 Aug 2003 Nigel Martyn Leeds United £500k
12 Aug 2003 Li Tie Liaoning Bodao ~£1M
23 May 2003 Joseph Yobo Marseille £4.5M
3 Jan 2003 Iain Turner Stirling Albion $50k?
25 Jul 2002 Richard Wright Arsenal £3.5M
24 Jul 2002 Juliano Rodrigo Botafogo £1.25M
18 Jul 2002 Li Tie Liaoning Bodao £200k
17 Jul 2002 Li Wei Feng Shenzhen Pingan £200k
9 Jul 2002 Joseph Yobo Marseille £1M
8 Feb 2002 Lee Carsley Coventry City £1.95M
31 Jan 2002 Tobias Linderoth Stabaek £2.5M
17 Jul 2001 Tomasz Radzinski RSC Anderlecht £4.5M
17 Oct 2000 Gary Naysmith Hearts £1.75M
17 Oct 2000 Idan Tal Maccabi Tikka Petvah £700k
17 Aug 2000 Duncan Ferguson Newcastle United £3.75M
24 Jul 2000 Thomas Gravesen SV Hamburg £2.5M
18 Jul 2000 Niclas Alexandersson Sheffield Wednesday £2.2M
14 Jul 2000 Alex Nyarko Lens £4.5M
4 Jul 2000 Steve Watson Aston Villa £2.5M
30 Jun 2000 Alessandro Pistone Newcastle £3M
27 Apr 2000 Andrew Pettinger Scunthorpe Utd £45k
7 Mar 2000 Stephen Hughes Arsenal £500k
3 Sep 1999 Abel Xavier PSV Eindhoven £1.5M
5 Aug 1999 Mark Pembridge Benfica £800k
13 Jul 1999 Kevin Campbell Trabsonspor £3M
25 Mar 1999 Scott Gemmill Nottingham Forest £200k
22 Feb 1999 Peter Degn Aarhus £200k
16 Feb 1999 David Weir Heart of Midlothian £200k
12 Oct 1998 Ibrahima Bakayoko Montpellier £4.5M
23 Sep 1998 Steve Simonsen Tranmere Rovers £1.5M
31 Jul 1998 David Unsworth Aston Villa £3M
29 Jul 1998 John Collins AS Monaco £2.5M
27 Jul 1998 Olivier Dacourt RC Strasbourg £4M
15 Jul 1998 Marco Materazzi Perugia £2.5M

Total £71 M

I wouldn't exactly call it big bucks compared to what some clubs have spent, e.g. Liverpool. I would suggest you dig out a list..

Third_Echelon wrote:

- Everton also spent time and money on the Kings Dock project. Liverpool aren't alone here.
- It wouldn't be called anfield, because it would be a shared stadium.
- As would everton's heritage.
- Both teams will have their 'ends'. Away fans will use the other teams end for home games. Everton Vs ManUtd. Utd fans would be in the 'new kop' etc etc...

The King's Dock "project" is long dead in the water.. I think you are missing the fact that it is considerably more in Evertons favour to get this ground share considering the state of their King's Dock proposal, i.e. dead in the water. The King's Dock project is actually irrelevent at this stage as it is Everton who want to move to the stadium that Liverpool have planned, designed and even named nearly 2 years ago. As I said, King's Dock has absolutely nothing to do with Liverpool FC and thus the time and effort Everton put into the place was waisted money for Everton.

Issues such as whether LFC will be net half way on the investement LFC have already made and what to call it will no doubt be important. Considering LFC are in a massively stronger position, it wouldn't surprise me if Everton accept Anfield and the Kop End as names..

jesus_thats_gre

Secondly, I can see Morgan finally taking control and this will make our argument irrelevent.

p.pete

Anfied and Goodison as names are basicly just area's of Liverpool where the current stadiums are located - not necessarily linked water-tightly to the club. Everton played at Anfield before Liverpool existed and the new stadium will be on the Anfield rd as far as I know so unless they were to perform some wholesale renaming of areas Anfield makes sense...

por

The majority of Liverpool fans here seem to be hooked up on the whole tradition thing. The last time I checked tradition did not buy players or build a team capable of winning championships. The only way to win the big ones (i.e Premiership and CL) in this day and age is by investment and if the American group (or anyone other than Morgan) take over they won’t give a damn about tradition, all they are interested in is profit.
So if I were you I’d be resigned to the fact that it may be called the ‘Acme Stadium on Anfield Rd’ and one of it’s stands is called the ‘Bovril Kop Stand’ and look at the bigger picture of actually trying to win something meaningful.

mr_angry

Why not just call it 'Stanley Park' or something, and just let it go? I still don't see the logic behind any of this anyway. The LFC argument seems to be "Broke Everton are trying to steal half our stadium", and the EFC counter-argument seems to be "We're not, 'cos we don't want it anyway".

1) If you don't want a 70-80,000-seater stadium for your club, you're insane.
2) No stadium actually exists at the moment. You can't have it 'stolen' off you.

Third_Echelon

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

I wouldn't exactly call it big bucks compared to what some clubs have spent, e.g. Liverpool. I would suggest you dig out a list..

doesn't seem to be one available...

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

The King's Dock "project" is long dead in the water.. I think you are missing the fact that it is considerably more in Evertons favour to get this ground share considering the state of their King's Dock proposal, i.e. dead in the water.

approximately a year ago it was no longer considered an option as the liverpool city council needed a decision on a certain date and the money wasn't available in time to secure the priority as developer of the docklands site..

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

The King's Dock project is actually irrelevent at this stage as it is Everton who want to move to the stadium that Liverpool have planned, designed and even named nearly 2 years ago. As I said, King's Dock has absolutely nothing to do with Liverpool FC and thus the time and effort Everton put into the place was waisted money for Everton.

The point that you were making though was that liverpool were the only ones who had spent money on the planning etc for building a new stadium. I was letting you know that this was not the case at all.

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Issues such as whether LFC will be net half way on the investement LFC have already made and what to call it will no doubt be important. Considering LFC are in a massively stronger position, it wouldn't surprise me if Everton accept Anfield and the Kop End as names..

on the contrary, this article suggests otherwise:

Click Here

Third_Echelon

mr_angry wrote:

Why not just call it 'Stanley Park' or something, and just let it go? I still don't see the logic behind any of this anyway. The LFC argument seems to be "Broke Everton are trying to steal half our stadium", and the EFC counter-argument seems to be "We're not, 'cos we don't want it anyway".

1) If you don't want a 70-80,000-seater stadium for your club, you're insane.
2) No stadium actually exists at the moment. You can't have it 'stolen' off you.

I think it will be called Stanley Park as it will be in Stanley Park.

Points made are very good mr_angry. All are relevant and sane.

Third_Echelon

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Secondly, I can see Morgan finally taking control and this will make our argument irrelevent.

Didn't you read the AGM excerpt above? They are dragging their heels over something...

jesus_thats_gre

Third_Echelon wrote:

Didn't you read the AGM excerpt above? They are dragging their heels over something...

I believe you have dismissed the BBC as being inaccurate before, why not now? In my opinion, the L4 group will likely not take control of the club. They are likely being used to get Morgan to bid higher. That is just my opinion however.



I have already stated that I would have no problem with the idea of a groundshare if they built a "mega stadium". There has been no suggestions that the groundshare idea is going to increase the already decided upon capacity of the new stadium.



If the whole thing was purely about money and the history of the club was not a factor, LFC would just sell out completely and sell the naming rights in the same way Arsenal did. This would easily make up for the short term short fall in cash.

Third_Echelon

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

I believe you have dismissed the BBC as being inaccurate before, why not now? In my opinion, the L4 group will likely not take control of the club. They are likely being used to get Morgan to bid higher. That is just my opinion however.

that agm report wasn't from the BBC. When did I dismiss the BBC?

I believe the discussion you were talking about was in relation to not relying on one media source as fact. BBC are a reputable source of information, but always relying on one source for information isn't a good idea.

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

I have already stated that I would have no problem with the idea of a groundshare if they built a "mega stadium". There has been no suggestions that the groundshare idea is going to increase the already decided upon capacity of the new stadium.

The problem with a stadium with 80,000 capacity for example, would be that it probably wouldn't sell out every week and thats what both clubs would have to do to make money back on the investment.

Both clubs will sell out high profile fixtures such as the derby games, man utd, arsenal, chelsea etc with no problems. The fan-base is there to do that.
The issue with such a large capacity is that for the rest of the fixtures against the lesser teams at the bottom of the league etc if they get 50,000 tickets sold they would be lucky... thats a whole other small stadium worth of seats left unsold!!! thats where they could lose money.

Somewhere between 55,000 -> 60,000 seats would be adequate in my opinion.

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

If the whole thing was purely about money and the history of the club was not a factor, LFC would just sell out completely and sell the naming rights in the same way Arsenal did. This would easily make up for the short term short fall in cash.

I wouldn't rule this possibility out yet.
Liverpool have suggested that a 50/50 split in the money for the stadium would be the only way for the 2 clubs to work on this, which is right. According to the article i linked in an earlier post, they put a figure of £50 M on the table for 50% ownership. The fact that they are suggesting this would make me think that they dont have the money themselves to finance the stadium. If they did have it, this option would not even have been discussed.

jesus_thats_gre

Has it been established that Everton can actually get the money yet?


While I certainly appreciate your point about not being able to fill out 70,00 - 80,000 every week, the capacity should be increased beyond the current target if the groundshare goes through.


I was listening to an interview with Rick Parry earlier and he gave an insight into the reasons for costs increasing:

- The planned exterior of the stadium had to be modified to fit in with its "victorian surroundings"
- Capacity was increased
- **** I can't remember the rest

There was also interviews with 4 Everton and Liverpool fans. The general opinion of Everton fans was that they were up for it with one of them blatantly saying it would suit Everton as there is no hope that they can afford a new stadium.. 1 LFC fan was for it, the others dismissed it!!


Besides the name of the joint venture, what colour would the seats be?

Third_Echelon

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Has it been established that Everton can actually get the money yet?

There is a new sports fund investment company which is accumulating funds which should be pumped into the blues soon. Its somewhere in the 20M -> 30M range, but im sure that they could come up with the 50M through these and other sources based on the fact of the upcoming investment and apparent change in fortunes.

The guy who owns sainsburys i think it is also is being lined up to invest. So perhaps something may come out of that...

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

While I certainly appreciate your point about not being able to fill out 70,00 - 80,000 every week, the capacity should be increased beyond the current target if the groundshare goes through.

At least 60,000 is needed. Its an optimal/efficient capacity. (i apologise, i was brainwashed with these terms when i started work with my current employer....)

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

I was listening to an interview with Rick Parry earlier and he gave an insight into the reasons for costs increasing:

- The planned exterior of the stadium had to be modified to fit in with its "victorian surroundings"
- Capacity was increased
- **** I can't remember the rest

There was also interviews with 4 Everton and Liverpool fans. The general opinion of Everton fans was that they were up for it with one of them blatantly saying it would suit Everton as there is no hope that they can afford a new stadium.. 1 LFC fan was for it, the others dismissed it!!

Besides the name of the joint venture, what colour would the seats be?

I wouldn't say this is the mass opinion of the everton fan base. 2 fans aint really a big sample of opinion in fairness...

Stanley Park is the only name acceptable i think. It has a history and tradition in the area as the terrain between the two stadiums. Its a name that both sets of fans would accept, plus its where the stadium would be!!!

One main stand blue, one main stand red. One blue end, one red end..

Purple just wouldn't work....

jesus_thats_gre

I dont think Blue or Red could be used to be honest.. Would have to be neutral..

Would be handy too if they both had the same sponsors and shirt makers...

The Muppet

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Would be handy too if they both had the same sponsors and shirt makers...

And each could half their squad size . Just imagine it, Everpool could be third in the League.

Third_Echelon

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

I dont think Blue or Red could be used to be honest.. Would have to be neutral..

Would be handy too if they both had the same sponsors and shirt makers...

Na, im afraid the seats would have to be blue, i couldnt have it any other way to be honest.

Well they practically do have the same sponsors. Carlsberg own part of Chang Beer or something like that. They are related somehow anyway.

Thank god we dont have reebok as our kit makers. They've traditionally always made bad shirts.. yuk...
This years liverpool shirt is the first half decent design ive ever seen reebok make.... they should get themselves an adidas, nike, puma or umbro contract... anything would be better than reebok...

Third_Echelon

The Muppet wrote:

And each could half their squad size . Just imagine it, Everpool could be third in the League.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo !!!

I call for a ban for the muppet for that comment