Martin Samuel's Debate: Should Liverpool and Everton share — and who should pay?

Read the rest of Martin Samuel's column here

On the Continent, there would be a very simple solution to the relocation issues affecting Liverpool and Everton. The local council would build a stadium for them, with public money, and they would share it.

This is what happened in Milan and Rome and even in one-club cities in Europe it is not uncommon for funds for stadium redevelopment to be provided in part by the local taxpayer. Football clubs are seen as standard-bearers for the area and are indulged accordingly.

This fact is overlooked when Michel Platini, the Uefa president, pontificates on debt. English clubs build, maintain and own their grounds, which costs hugely but gives them a land asset. To look at one aspect of the balance sheet without considering the other is obtuse. No doubt the supporters of Liverpool and Everton would rather throw in their lot with Tranmere Rovers than share turf, so groundsharing may be a non-starter.

Local councils in England also fail to acknowledge the good that football clubs do when representing the area and the community (unless there is a trophy to be shown off at the town hall) and this is wrong, too. The city of Liverpool is known throughout the world for two things: the Beatles, and football.

Watching as the directors of Barcelona held their mobile phones aloft so that their friends at home could hear the Kop singing You’ll Never Walk Alone brought home what a unique club Liverpool are. No doubt this is why groundsharing with their rivals would be resisted at all costs, yet perhaps English football misses a trick with its dogged independence.

Given Platini’s warped reading of a balance sheet, it could one day count against them.

The Debate: Should Liverpool and Everton share a ground?

Comments

[Mick]

As a neutral supporter (of Aston Villa) reading through this debate I am struck, from the outset, by the belittling arguments of Liverpool fans towards Everton Football Club. Any student of football knows that Everton are the older, more historic club on Merseyside and - for that reason alone- they deserve respect.
This groundshare won't happen because one of the clubs involved's supporters seem to be riddled with a deep-set insecurity about their status and how they might look to others...Liverpool fans, you need to grow up, engage in debate properly or simply sell Anfield back to the club that pioneered football on that patch of land and in your city.

[Jamsie]

Who are Everton ?
There are only two football teams on Merseyside - Liverpool F.C. and Tranmere. There's no way Liverpool would share a ground 'over the water' in Birkenhead.

[grass]

There's no way for everton to share a ground with us...
liverpool: winner
everton:loser

[Taymur]

what makes the Liverpool vs Everton situation unique versus other intracity clubs is how close there current stadiums are. Sharing a stadium will not be inconvenient for either club's supporters (as far as getting there is concerned). If Lazio and Roma (who hate each other to the point of regular violence) can share a stadium why not Liverpool and Everton?

Neither club has the money for the type of stadium they deserve, i would rather have a top notch stadium with a large capacity and share with Everton then have a lower capacity with lower facility and have it lieing empty half the year. To be honest that is just a waste of money.

The best way to convince the fans is to show that what can be done with the money saved e.g. buy Keane, Torres, Bable, Dossena, Agger, Arbeloa, Kuyt, Riera, Alonso and Macherano (and you'll still have money leftover)

[Wee Jock]

If the rationale behind the move is financial, then why get fussy over ground-sharing? Its just another step down the same road.

In any case, both clubs are severing their historical links by moving away from Anfield and Goodison.

[Matthew MacMillan]

If Everton want to groundshare let it be with Manchester United, their brothers at Old Trafford. As for sharing with Liverpool Football Club stop talking nonsense.

Are Everton a big club? Yes they are but no more so than Villa, Newcastle, Spurs, West Ham, Sunderland, Leeds, Wolves, Man City, Blackpool, Bolton, Cardiff and scores of other Clubs that have a distant history.

We hear that the cost of building new stadia is too expensive due to rising cost of materials, hence groundshare - I suggest in a worldwide recession those materials will now be drastically cheaper and back to levels that are affordable for hardup Everton. As for new stadia, more executive boxes, again who is going to fill those boxes in a recession? Finally on behalf of Everton, the Blues cannot even fill 2/3rds of their stadium when they are pushing for a UEFA Cup place, so it ain't gonna look pretty with all those empty red seats besides the sad blue shirts.

Ask yourself would Manchester United fans be miffed if they were forever linked with Stockport County, and Spurs fans with Leyton Orient just because, through accident of location, they happen to be at other end of road?

[Rob]

The proposition is that Liverpool and Everton ought to share a ground, because it works in Italy. But does it? Or is it, rather, tolerated by clubs who have no alternative? I find it hard to believe that anyone could look at the situation in Milan and say that that is the ideal, the way for all big city clubs to go.

So, if we ignore the rather limited evidence from Italy (and Italy alone), what benefits do we have? It's often propounded that it would make financial 'sense', but this is based solely on the simplistic notion that the financial aspect of the discussion only reflects the cost; if neither club has to pay for an entire stadium, they must be better off.

Utter hogwash.

If we take Liverpool's side of the deal first: there is no secret to the club's need to find a buyer, and presumably that future owner will be an investor, looking to turn a medium-to-long-term profit from the club (DIC, last year's suitors, apparently proposed selling the club after seven years). That investor would be looking to build a new stadium (as Hicks and Gillette were, before they ran out of money) in the knowledge that it would boost the future value of the club substantially. Without opportunity for a bigger stadium, with the huge profit advantages it brings, the club would be far less attractive to future investors.

As for Everton, presumably they would be paying half the lease; yet it's very unlikely that they would sell as many tickets throughout a season as Liverpool (particularly when you consider that the latter generally play more games per season, primarily in Europe), and, not meaning to be rude, they do not currently need a 60,000+ seater stadium. So why pay for one? Wouldn't it make a great deal more sense to build a stadium suited to their own needs, and keep potential for future profits firmly within the club?

But this still misses a very fundamental point; that, surely, there has to be more to life, and perhaps still to football, than simple financial expediency. Fans of the two clubs generally don't want to share, and I've no doubt Everton fans in particular would not welcome the influence of a council that has undeniably favoured their larger and better supported neighbours for many years. So, ultimately, why bother? Do any of us really need to make such a vast, unwarranted change just to make Michel Platini feel useful?

[Stu G]

As a red scouser living in Liverpool. I would rather sell my soul to the devil, than share a ground with the "small" club from across the park! NEVER in a million years should this happen!

[swamplee]

Most certainly they should share a ground. Better still, get the team's players to share houses too... then at least there will be someone at home when the other team plays away and they won't find themselves getting burgled quite so often...

[Sam]

Never in a million years - Everton can't fill their stadium as it is so groundsharing just wouldn't be logical! Maybe they should share the JJB with Wigan if they're that desperate.

[Thomas]

both sets of fans need to grow some balls!! its just petty ignorance, you both need each other. if liverpool are so high and mighty, when did you last win the league?! both clubs can grow, and this is good for football, and the local area which being liverpool could do with a lick of paint.

[Ian]

It saddens me at how petty Liverpool supporters come across, this whole topic is just another opportunity for them to attack Evertonians. In a city where families are split between clubs and both clubs mean so much to the local people and the city itself it is truly sad reading some of the comments posted from supposed Liverpulians.

[Peter Shelton]

Of course they should groundshare, somewhere equally convenient to both sets of fans such as Southport.

[Nick]

How about this? Liverpool build themselves a shiny new ground in Stanley Park, Everton move back into their old home - Anfield. A lick of blue paint and the job's done. Oh, and keep the Shankly Gates, I'm told he died an Evertonian anyway!

[Paul Sweeney]

J Barker, football did not start in 1992. Premier League = First Division. They just re-branded it.

[Adam]

Everton and Liverpool are like two squabbling brothers. They have lived in each others pockets for so long that through the course of forging out their own identity from essentially the same cultural and geographical environment, they've forgotten that essentially they are maternally bonded. Forcing them to share a home would begin with tears and tantrums but would eventually settle down and each would make a mark of their own in their new surroundings and their relationship would be much the better for it in the long run. Besides "The Council Ground" has a certain ring to it.

[John Piper]

It would just be morally corrupt for both clubs to share. Financially it makes sense, but since when did the finances in football ever make sense!

[Nick]

You make an interesting point about how stadiums in continental Europe are often funded by the local authorities. This is also the case at Manchester City who moved into the commonwealth games stadium that was paid for by public money. Now that Manchester City has been taken over by a multi-billionnaire they have become instant beneficiaries of this public investment. In theory they could realise the value of this assett and convert all that public money into private gain. There seems to be a real issue over who benefits from public investment in football stadiums and the behaviour of clubs desparate for any competitive advantage

[Allan Kane]

In the interest of fairness, who wants to sit in the Nick Barmby End, and who would prefer the Abel Xavier End?

[DaveC]

The 'Stadium of Scouse' sounds like a great idea. When Liverpool played there the fans could paint the seats red. When Everton played there the fans could paint 'em blue. After five years you'd have the biggest seats in the Premiership. Comfy! Alternatively, all the seats could be permanently black and supporters from both clubs could mourn the fact that they’ll never walk (or watch) alone!

[Louis Blanc]

Build a super stadium which is neutral to both teams and then both teams rent out the stadium for their matches.

[Swordsman]

As a Southend fan I have no interest in this however just wondering why the Liverpool fans are so bitter towards Everton, most of the Everton posts are sensible and they realise that their glory days are behind them at the present as are Liverpools, Liverpool fans seem to think of themselves as this magic club that everybody should aspire to, around the country the are viewed as also rans that lets be honest will not win the prem. Not sure ground sharing is the way forward but at least have an objective view rather than a deluded one...

[Matt Pomroy]

Last season Liverpool played 30 games at Anfield. Everton played 26 games at Goodison. Would a pitch, in the climate of North-West England, really stand up to 56 games being played on one pitch during a season without turning into a mess?

Depending in the cup runs of the respective clubs, that number could potentially be even higher.

[J Barker]

As an Evertonian, I would be embarrassed to ask our illustrious neighbours to share a ground with us, because you see, Everton have never won the Premier League. Oh but, wait a minute, neither have...!

[Dave N]

It would be interesting to know who who actually be the smaller partner finance wise in this deal. Would Everton end up buying a financially strapped Liverpool out and then renting the ground back them at an extortionate price? Would they split the revenue 50/50? Will it make any difference when LFC are forced to sell Torres and others in January to bankroll the Americans, don;t make the CL and have to sell more players in the summer? Sorry another argument there. They should do it. They won't do it, and I think that the majority of vociferous resistance would come from the Liverpool side; out of an arrogance at their own legacy and an expectation of success as a right, rather than any well constructed and reasonable arguements against it - of which there are many. This is actually the problem. Its impossible to reduce this debate to one of cold rational thought. People are emotionally attached to stadiums and clubs creating stronger ties than to material things. The same problem exists in the middle east, albeit for reasons much more severe than we're talking about and established over a much longer time. No I'm not comparing the 2 things, just applying the same principle.