Liverpool Unites stadium

[marekb]

I'd dearly love to stay at GP, it may be run down and looking its age but nothing that cant be fixed bit by bit if we really wanted it enough.

Saying that 1 stadium, red at one end, blue at the other, purple in the middle, including all the history/museums/shops all that, that has been mentioned previously of both clubs would set such a standard of unity and togetherness which would be great asset to the city and country, and dare I say, it would be unrivaled anywhere in the UK.

 

[nesky]

the rest of the world would see it as us in their stadium, most would think that anyway.

This is something that we Evertonians need to grasp. It doesn't matter if we share a stadium with them or not; the rest of the world will always see us as the lesser club until such times as we match or surpass their achievements. So the focus shouldn't be on the fear of our identity being submerged in a red glow - that's already happened. It should instead be on us making our own world-renowned history.

 

[Gazdalf]

We'd still want to raise money from the naming rights but something like The Sony Stanley Park Stadium wouldn't be too bad.

That thread Danny Vermin linked showed more of the RS were in favour of looking at the numbers than you'd think.

Just Stanley park, and a conglomerate of mixed Merseyside companies can foot the Bill.

 

[Neiler]

The shared option would be way down my list of options to be honest, partly because to be honest i hate the thought of sharing with them added to the fact all the corporate - during the week stuff - thats a real money spinner would be split two ways. Apart from the fact that neither club could afford to build a world class stadium by themselves, they and we would be mad to split possible non match day revenue.

I couldnt imagine that lot wanting anything with unite(d) in the name or relishing having Utd fans in their home end for our games against them!

I would only consider it if as things currently stand - Goodison will be in the shadow of thier planed ground!

*remembers thunderous Kirkby applause.

 

[Robert Jarvis]

What if it was the RS side that arranged the non football revenue, I take it you would not want to split it.

What if the RS regularly put 20,000 more fans in for each of their home games you do not want to share revenues equally.

Should think before you post.

 

[Neiler]

What if it was the RS side that arranged the non football revenue, I take it you would not want to split it.

What if the RS regularly put 20,000 more fans in for each of their home games you do not want to share revenues equally.

Should think before you post.

Eh yeah i would want a whole of something rather then half yes!

I can think of nothing better then an 80.000 seater stadium that the redshite top us by 20.000 every second week.

Good advice me thinks.

 

[gordonjblair]

The shared option would be way down my list of options to be honest, partly because to be honest i hate the thought of sharing with them added to the fact all the corporate - during the week stuff - thats a real money spinner would be split two ways. Apart from the fact that neither club could afford to build a world class stadium by themselves, they and we would be mad to split possible non match day revenue.

We'd be sharing it with them either way, as we'd be competing for the same revenue, the advantage of a shared ground would be that the facilities would be greater, of better quality, the overheads would be shared and we wouldn't have to price so 'competitively' to ensure market share... sometimes it's better to have a share of a BIGGER pie.

 

[Neiler]

We'd be sharing it with them either way, as we'd be competing for the same revenue, the advantage of a shared ground would be that the facilities would be greater, of better quality, the overheads would be shared and we wouldn't have to price so 'competitively' to ensure market share... sometimes it's better to have a share of a BIGGER pie.

All good points mate and i would agree on a match day, yet many stadia - i visited make more during the week then they do on match days in terms of events, confrences and hospitality. Grounds like St James Park (52.000) seater coin it in and surely a stadium say on the docklands with similar facilities would be more attractive then in the park for corprate events in terms of market share.

Back to the financialy viable thing again.

 

[fozzy]

What if it was the RS side that arranged the non football revenue, I take it you would not want to split it.

What if the RS regularly put 20,000 more fans in for each of their home games you do not want to share revenues equally.

Should think before you post.

your first point! it would be 50/50 unless its an official club event! which both clubs are only aloud so meny!

and youre 2nd point we both keep all are home gate revenue! if they get more then good luck to them!

only thing i can see is the ticket allocation on derby day could be a prob! ie where do they sit?

and if the ground is going to be one half red and one half blue yes it would look great but whos gonna sit in the red half against bolton???

or will we just gonna fill that side up with away fans? and have 50/50 support all our home games!

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

I'd prefer to see goodison redeveleoped gradually but I wouldn't mind the ground-share if done properly. I'd have thought the 2 clubs would be equal partners in a stadium company that would run the stadium & give each club a share of the profits on top of their own match-day revenue. I think most supporters could live with the idea if it was a fair arrangement for both clubs & a real asset for the city.
The identity thing is a bit of a red herring - quite simply, the way to be better known is to be more successful. However, it may mean that all those people who have no idea where Everton are from might find out once we're sharing "Liverpool's stadium". No doubt the naming rights would be sold off to subsidise the cost of the build & it should fetch a good price, with twice the exposure of any other stadium.
If they have their Kop end in red that would have to be our away end - whilst they would no doubt put their visitors on the blue seats. The two sides could be suitably neutral as both sets of supporters would occupy them.
I actually think Liverpool is one of the only places in the UK where such an idea could work & hope that if it becomes a real possibility we don't experience a third stadium disappointment.

 

[best little spaniard]

I'd quite like to see us have a look at here

People are talking about regeneration of North Liverpool. Why not be part of it on the Mersey.

Second bite of the apple?

 

[toffeebhoy]

i think if it were done fairly and equal as in the revenue etc id be willin to bit my tongue and share a ground

 

[Neiler]

Whats the motivation for the other lot to have a shared stadium? I know there skintsih by there standerds - but their investors would never dillute their shareholding or price there of by not owning a ground solely.

 

[fozzy]

Whats the motivation for the other lot to have a shared stadium? I know there skintsih by there standerds - but their investors would never dillute their shareholding or price there of by not owning a ground solely.

they might not have a choice if they dont get in the top 4 this year! and i think they could be realy struggling if they do it 2 years on the bounce!!

and with the trouble in dubai ie money its looking more likly that there aint gonna be that meny people to get them out of that [Poor language removed]!

ok i know someone will but i can dream!

 

[gordonjblair]

Whats the motivation for the other lot to have a shared stadium? I know there skintsih by there standerds - but their investors would never dillute their shareholding or price there of by not owning a ground solely.

It's not just on the initial costings that the thing makes financial sense, the running of a Stadium is an expensive business, if you can halve your overhead costs, then that's a strong incentive. The bigger, better Stadium would be a more powerful revenue generator than they could afford on their own, couple that with reduced running costs, and you have more money for squad building, more money to feed back to the shareholders.

Let's not forget that the Stadium's worth is only what it provides by way of revenue streams, even if it costs £400m to build, it's not 'worth' much more than the land it's sat on, as there aren't too many football clubs out there in the market for a 70,000 seater stadium in Walton. Ground ownership is a bit of a red herring, REVENUE ownership is the key, and this could be split equitably and to both club's satisfaction.