SOS says No to a Ground Share!

[Spirit Of Shankly]

http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/No-to-...Share!.html

 

Spirit of Shankly

 

 

FAO Mods - Merge with any other thread if needed, just want people to see SOS' view on it.

[Andy @ Allerton]

Good.

[Red Kent]

Two choices;

 

1 - Groundshare and no G&H

 

or

 

2 - No groundshare, no Rafa and G&H stay

[Andy @ Allerton]

1 Choice.

 

- No Groundshare. Ever.

[Red Kent]

1 Choice.

 

- No Groundshare. Ever.

 

 

Cant understand why you are so against it, you marry a blue, you go to some of their games and you drink in one of their pubs. Yet you are so adamant about this issue. I would of thought that someone in the position you are in would have been more sympathetic to their plight.

[Andy @ Allerton]

Cant understand why you are so against it, you marry a blue, you go to some of their games and you drink in one of their pubs. Yet you are so adamant about this issue. I would of thought that someone in the position you are in would have been more sympathetic to their plight.

 

Would I s****.

[Red Kent]

Would I s****.

 

Fair enough.

[surf]

Two choices;

 

1 - Groundshare and no G&H

 

or

 

2 - No groundshare, no Rafa and G&H stay

 

I dont get those chioces Kev. First of all, we don't get to choose, secondly, i can well see G&H going for the groundshare as they cant seem to afford to build one by themselves. Groundshare will make sense to them.

 

 

I think likelier choices are:

 

1. Get G&H out, new owners come in, hope they have the finances in place to build new stadium

2. Don't get G&H out, groundshare

[Tones]

Two choices;

 

1 - Groundshare and no G&H

 

or

 

2 - No groundshare, no Rafa and G&H stay

 

Why does Rafa have to go and G&H have to stay for there to be no groundshare???

 

A club likes our with our proud history and our famous stadium, should not have to share ground with any other club, especially not them c****.

[RP]

Can't imagine there is any other outcome other than a groundshare, to be honest.

[BG]

Can't imagine there is any other outcome other than a groundshare, to be honest.

 

Neither can I at present - unless the owners can see a sound commercial argument for not doing it...

[meredithmathieson]

Can't imagine there is any other outcome other than a groundshare, to be honest.

 

 

Once you get past the 'half the cost of building the ground' argument, the reason why Liverpool will not groundshare with Everton is the long-term impact on revenue - especially the sharing of corporate revenues.

 

In essence, this is why Inter Milan are getting their own ground and moving out of the San Siro.

 

As we are one of the biggest clubs on the planet, we will in the future be able to get the money for a new ground; Everton, if you recall, could not come up with a paltry £30m that would have got them a 55,000 seater stadium at Kings Dock - a prime city-centre, dockside stadium.

[RP]

Isn't the financial key to have a stadium that is generating £5mil (or whatever the figure is) every single weekend possible?

[Sion]

Isn't the financial key to have a stadium that is generating £5mil (or whatever the figure is) every single weekend possible?

 

One of the key things is the sponsorship package. It would just be a mess. Say a company wants to buy the naming rights, do Everton get 50%? even though we're a much bigger name? It's not going to happen.

[RP]

It's not going to happen.

 

 

I don't agree.

[Sion]

I don't agree.

 

Just because it costs less to make doesn't mean G&H will jump at it if it makes them less revenue. Also, nobody would go. I wouldn't for one.

Would there be a kop? if so won't it be worthless if its got them g*******s on it every other week? Would Everton want a 60-70k stadium? probably not as it'd make their support look even more pathetic.

[RP]

Also, nobody would go.

 

Again,couldn't disagree more - we'd fill it every week.

[Sion]

Again,couldn't disagree more - we'd fill it every week.

 

With the current form of the team we'd struggle to fill a 60-70k stadium as it is as the fair weather fans drop off. But if there were a large amount of fans boycotting? nah, we'd probably sell out at first but if the team wasn't performing (Which is likely) then we'd not sell out for a lot of games.

[Rory Fitzgerald]

G&H come with a promise of a new stadium and deliver a ground-share. Jesus Christ they'd never step foot in it without an entourage that would dwarf Obama's !

[Mr. Biscan]

From their angle it wouldn't, from ours it could potentially, but it would need more structures of ticket prices.

 

As for the whole ground share s****, it's bound to happen.

[Maldini]

Posted this in the Everton thread on the GFF, probably more appropriate here:

 

Just a few of the numerous reasons groundshare is a bad idea:

 

1. They can't afford to build half of a 70k+ stadium and never will.

2. They don't need a 70k+ stadium and never will, so why would they go the extra mile to find financing for it and to secure the planning permission for it?

3. 60k is not enough for us

3. Although it is cheaper in the short term it ends up costing more in the long term because of things like stadium name sponsorship being halved

4. No football pitch can take having games played on it week after week, we've seen the state of the pitches in some of these new stadia, and they only have half the games a shared stadium would have, we'd end up spending millions a year on relaying the pitch and playing on a s**** pitch for large chunks of the season

5. We would be homeless. Our new stadium would just be like a rented home with no identity and no soul. We'd have to consult with those c**** on EVERYTHING to do with the stadium. It's be a nightmare having to deal with them on a regualr basis.

6. What happens if they get into financial trouble and can't afford the repayments? The burden falls on us.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Maldini

[Sion]

Posted this in the Everton thread on the GFF, probably more appropriate here:

 

Just a few of the numerous reasons groundshare is a bad idea:

 

1. They can't afford to build of a 70k+ stadium and never will.

2. They don't need a 70k+ stadium and never will, so why would they go the extra mile to find financing for it and to secure the planning permission for it?

3. 60k is not enough for us

3. Although it is cheaper in the short term it ends up costing more in the long term because of things like stadium name sponsorship being halved

4. No football pitch can take having games played on it week after week, we've seen the state of the pitches in some of these new stadia, and they only have half the games a shared stadium would have, we'd end up spending millions a year on relaying the pitch and playing on a s**** pitch for large chunks of the season

5. We would be homeless. Our new stadium would just be like a rented home with no identity and no soul. We'd have to consult with those c**** on EVERYTHING to do with the stadium. It's be a nightmare having to deal with them on a regualr basis.

6. What happens if they get into financial trouble and can't afford the repayments? The burden falls on us.

 

Basically a structured version what i've been trying to say. Agree 100%. Just hope the powers that be agree.

[Rory Fitzgerald]

Posted this in the Everton thread on the GFF, probably more appropriate here:

 

Just a few of the numerous reasons groundshare is a bad idea:

 

1. They can't afford to build of a 70k+ stadium and never will.

They are not a small club

2. They don't need a 70k+ stadium and never will, so why would they go the extra mile to find financing for it and to secure the planning permission for it?

They are the peoples club

3. 60k is not enough for us

But we are not the peoples club

3. Although it is cheaper in the short term it ends up costing more in the long term because of things like stadium name sponsorship being halved

It can be called Tesco's Bowl (of p!$$) and the other week it can be called Anfield

4. No football pitch can take having games played on it week after week, we've seen the state of the pitches in some of these new stadia, and they only have half the games a shared stadium would have, we'd end up spending millions a year on relaying the pitch and playing on a s**** pitch for large chunks of the season

They dont play football

5. We would be homeless. Our new stadium would just be like a rented home with no identity and no soul. We'd have to consult with those c**** on EVERYTHING to do with the stadium. It's be a nightmare having to deal with them on a regualr basis.

They are just as big as us, if not bigger being the Peoples Club

6. What happens if they get into financial trouble and can't afford the repayments? The burden falls on us.

The 'People' would hold collections outside Tesco stores around the world and tap into their global fan base

 

Answers in bold

[melia]

Two choices;

 

1 - Groundshare and no G&H

 

or

 

2 - No groundshare, no Rafa and G&H stay

 

Are they the only options that you believe are available, or are they the only options you want us to choose from (and why)?

[Red Kent]

Are they the only options that you believe are available, or are they the only options you want us to choose from (and why)?

 

I just want G&H out so badly and was trying to see what lengths fans will go if they knew certain action would accelerate their departure.