Martin Samuel responds: Should Liverpool and Everton share a ground?

On Monday, Martin Samuel asked if Liverpool and Everton should put aside their differences and share a ground, following the example of many of European football's greatest rivals.

You didn't hold back - and neither has he...

Of course, Liverpool and Everton should ground share. Somewhere equally convenient to both sets of fans – such as Southport. Peter Shelton.

MS: Don’t you mean equally inconvenient, Peter; or is this just some of that famous Scouse wit I’m always hearing so much about.

Just do the maths. Liverpool: massive season ticket waiting list + global support = need for 60,000 seat stadium. Everton: free ticket giveaways + empty seats = Woodison Park. How about sharing with Wigan Athletic, the place is already blue and white?
Andrew Clarke.

How about this? Liverpool build themselves a shiny new ground in Stanley Park and Everton move back to 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. Nick.

MS: I am so staying clear of ones like this.

Everton and Liverpool are like two squabbling brothers. They have lived together for so long that through the course of forging their identity from essentially the same cultural and geographical environment, they have forgotten that essentially they are maternally bonded.

Forcing them to share a home would begin with tears and tantrums but they would eventually settle down and each would make a mark of their own in their new surroundings and their relationship would be better for it in the long run. Besides ‘The Council Ground’ has a certain ring to it. Adam.

MS: Doesn’t it just? A nice analogy, Adam. After all, it is not as if the two Milan clubs have lost identity.

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-billionaire they have become instant beneficiaries of this public investment. In theory they could realise the value of this asset and convert all that public money into private gain. Nick.

MS: I am pretty sure there will be covenants preventing this scenario, Nick, short-term at least, but you make a valid point. In the light of recent events, Manchester City seem to have got off very lightly, particularly as the absence of mountainous debt would be one of the things that made them so attractive in the first place, whereas a buyer of Everton would have one eye on the bill for a new stadium.

The ‘Stadium of Scouse’ sounds like a great idea. DaveC.

MS: ‘House of Scouse’, surely. (I really should start charging for branding ideas like that.)

Last season Liverpool played 30 games at Anfield and Everton played 26 at Goodison Park. Would a pitch, in the climate of north-west England, really stand up to 56 games on one pitch during a season, particularly as with cup runs that number could be even higher? Matt Pomroy.

If clubs cannot share a ground in Dundee how on earth are Liverpool and Everton going to get together? Also, even in the mild climate of Milan the pitch was shocking for years, and isn't great now. Nogbad T. Bad.

MS: I understand your concerns, Matt, but the science of pitch preparation has greatly improved in recent years, to the extent that we now see billiard table surfaces in the unlikeliest locations and knowing the heavy use the pitch would take I am sure that would be taken into account, particularly at the moment of stadium design. Nogbad, there speaks a man who has never been to Milan.

Mild climate? Are you sure, mate? They hosted the Winter Olympics 30 minutes up the road. It is brass monkey weather there through the winter. (“Incidentally, a lot of people ask me how I manage to have a lawn like a billiard table – no grass anywhere and full of holes.” Aah, Alan Coren. I do miss him.)

What depressing reading these comments make. I grew up on the East Lancs Road, my mum, dad and one sister are blues, me and my two other sisters are reds. At school in the sixties and seventies the kids would all get new football kits at Christmas, and the split was pretty much 50-50: no animosity, it made for easy team picks for a game in Walton Hall Park or the playing fields near St Phillys school. Look at it now. The bile and anger spewing out from both sides is frankly tragic. Add to that the sickening chants and behaviour at the derby games, and you have all the reasons to yell a resounding no to the question. This city is now as divided as Glasgow with Rangers and Celtic. Sad.
Phil J N.

MS: Believe it or not, I do have some experience of this. We have three kids, the oldest supports Chelsea, like his mum, our twins support West Ham United, like their dad. When Chelsea play, I would genuinely like them to win because it makes two people I care about happy. They feel the same about West Ham. There is rivalry when we play each other, but that is all. If this means we are not real supporters because we are not wild-eyed with hatred every weekend, so be it. I can’t get into this new football fan attitude of being defined by who you despise. It did not used to be that way and nobody can tell me that football has improved for it.

As a Liverpool fan I would like to say what a shame it is that such bitterness has come between the fans of two great clubs. Maybe Liverpool have been more successful over the years but it is a mistake to consider Everton a small club. I don't think any Liverpool fans really think this. It is just used as a barb to wind them up. I think it makes tremendous sense to share a stadium, surely it is a better solution than saddling the clubs with hundreds of millions of pounds of debt which will negatively affect their ability to compete. We risk becoming small teams, with big grounds. Tony B.

MS: The other point is that if Michel Platini, president of UEFA, and his French allies get their way, clubs could be penalised for operating with debt. See the column in The Times today for more details

Ground sharing is the only plausible way Everton could afford to play their home games in a stadium of international renown. This is for why Evertonians are so keen on the idea, not because of the economic and environmental issues spouted by some. These parasites wish to profit from Liverpool’s success. Mediocre clubs should be happy with mediocre grounds. Everton wouldn't be able to get rid of 35,000 tickets if they gave them away with a free Curly Wurly. Rob.

MS: Certainly not a Curly Wurly. It’s just a toffee bar with great big holes in it. A rip-off if you ask me. Like fun size Mars bar. As Harry Hill said, they’re half the size of normal Mars bars. Where’s the bloody fun in that?

There are a lot of comments about animosity between fans being a factor. Yes, I almost forgot how Roma and Lazio supporters walk hand in hand to the stadium every week. Stephen.

MS: Good point, Stephen. Actually, unless it is match day the shared stadiums are completely neutral through the week, not even operating as administrative buildings for the clubs or ticket offices. There is a joint club museum at the San Siro which, one presumes, is run by the council, and plaques on the wall of the stadium mark the successes of both clubs. Otherwise it is the fans that make the stadium their own on match days with flags and banners. The only time both sets meet at the ground is for the derby, and that is no different to the arrangement on Merseyside now.

“The city of Liverpool is known throughout the world for two things: the Beatles, and football.” Nice try, Martin, but be honest: the city of Liverpool is known throughout the world for two things: the Beatles, and Liverpool Football Club. Terry Langley.

MS: Terry, you are right about the world beyond these shores, but in this country Liverpool is thought of as a football city for having two big clubs, with a fine history, and two passionate sets of supporters.

This is a debate of the heart, not the head. It is obvious that the sharing of a ground makes financial sense, but money is not everything. Fans want a place where they can follow their team, and enjoy their history, without the impurities of other colours and badges being displayed. Ian Paterson.

MS: Yes, and I acknowledged that. I just wondered whether there comes a time when the reality of the predicament means it is time to move on. And so does Tom here.

I think it's about time everyone grew up a bit. As an Everton fan I have no problem with ground sharing. In the current economic and environmental climate I'm not sure that having two stadiums that are largely unused for 300 days a year can be justified, when one would suffice. Build on neutral Stanley Park in the heart of the two traditional areas, allow significant public contribution from the council and North West Development Authority and build something of real international significance in terms of design and facilities, to make the City proud. Tom Holvey.

MS: I have always thought that, beyond the capital. Liverpool was our most striking city architecturally, the way Chicago is in America. It would be good to continue that tradition.

What is missed here is that if the council owns the ground there is nothing tangible to raise funds against to compete in the transfer market. A ground share would need to be owned jointly by the clubs: do not go down the council tenant route. Andrew Scullion.

MS: Well, the two Milan clubs do not seem to have been short of players lately. Also, you are missing the point about the possibility of UEFA moving the goalposts to punish clubs operating with debt, even if that debt was incurred building a stadium.

No. Should Tottenham Hotspur move to the Emirates Stadium? Should Manchester City move to Old Trafford? Then why should Liverpool share its ground with a small club? Gavin.

MS: Because the money is running out?

Would anyone dream of asking Manchester United and Manchester City to ground share? Thought not, case closed. John McCormick.

MS: Are the new owners of Manchester City sweating on a refinancing package amidst the biggest global financial crisis in history? Thought not, case reopened.

When Liverpool’s Americans leave – and the sooner the better – the club is not going to be an attractive proposition if it has a shared stadium. Kenny.

MS: A very good point, Kenny, although taking on a mountain of debt to build a new facility is hardly attractive in the present climate, either.

Everton don’t deserve to share anything with Liverpool. Liverpool are magic, Everton are tragic. Josh Muollo.

MS: And shouldn’t you be at school?

Comments

[Mark]

Everton don’t deserve to share anything with Liverpool. Liverpool are magic, Everton are tragic. Josh Muollo.

MS: And shouldn’t you be at school?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Samuel, you earlier queried the great scouse wit, well you just missed a play on it - think back to the late, great Crazy Horse Emlyn Hughes.
From your own nespaper:

18 Emlyn Hughes’ magic touch, May 1977

Back from Rome with the European Cup, the players, er, celebrated. When he rose to address the crowd Hughes appeared a touch unsteady on his feet. Carrying an injury, no doubt. “I want you to sing a song,” he said. “Liverpool are magic, Everton are tragic.” It was, indeed, the soberest of notions and, recognising that, the red hordes sang it back. Meanwhile, Terry McDermott, more ahead of his time than Martin Peters – 30 years in fact – was answering the call of nature and splashing a group of nurses. The next time they ask for a day’s slice of a footballer’s salary, we’ll send Terry round.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article2778185.ece
:rolls eyes:

[Dennis]

based on the feelings of many Liverpool and Everton fans above in this column it would seem ground sharing or even talk of sharing is a waste of time

[steve]

Nice idea about the Reds moving to a new home & the Blues moving BACK to Anfield. To quote Jim Bowen. "lets go & see what you could have won"

[Kopite]

One thing everyone seems to be missing... the income of both parties is very different. If you were asking Liverpool to share a ground with the likes of a team with similar financial stature then fine. But your not. What happens if Everton can't keep to their side of the bargain. Or if it means Liverpool having to cut back their plans to accommodate Everton. What happens if they get relegated? Or if Liverpool end up in a European super League? It's like asking Marks and Spencer to share their shop with the local green grocer. You can't have the fate of one team effecting the other. This is a pointless debate dragged up again and again - can't believe you've suckered me in! This is Mark Lawrenson's fault right?

[Bob]

Check the technology at Gelredome, the home stadium of Vitesse, Holland.

Everton and Liverpool could EACH have their own retractable pitch, so there would be no problems of over-use. Both pitches can be kept (well guarded) out in the sun, so no San Siro - type worries.

A retractable roof would enable money-making concerts and other events to be held there.

Yes, they should share.

[Jay]

I am an Everton fan and I think that from a financial point of view it would make total sense for both clubs to ground share.

Building two new stadiums in the current econmic climate to me, seems absurd and with UEFA possibly threatening to punish clubs operating with debt, this seems like a solution to saving both clubs a considerable amount of money.

I understand that money isn't everything but is this not the way to move ahead?

The only downside that I can think of is that Everton would never fill a 60,000 seat stadium (except maybe on Derby Day) and the stadium would only be two thirds full for Everton games.

[Christine Foster]

In the present economic climate neither Everton or Liverpool can afford a separate purpose built stadium. If a separate body was formed to own a joint stadium at a cost of 300m the revenue generated and the cost incurred would effectively be halved. In fact it would still cost Everton more that double the cost of the despised Kirkby Dome. Without Hicks & co, Everton may well be the saviour of Liverpools stadium aspirations.. Its called compromise, its called realistic, its sensible but hard to swallow none the less

[Gary G]

As a lifelong Evertonian I was totally opposed to a ground share but if the financial situations of both clubs are as bad as being made out and if the only real other option is giving the city up to the norwegians and moving to a retail park then I cave. If this is the way forward then I'd love to see a model based on the Alianz in Munich. I read that on match days depending which team is at home the stadium lights up in their colours like a beacon. Imagine walking towards a huge shining blue beacon on a saturday afternoon. Brilliant. Of course every other week I'd have to turn around and put my sunglasses on.

I'd like to add that I don't value anyones opinion on this if they're not from Merseyside - even if they claim to support one of our clubs. If you don't know where you're talking about, don't comment.

[Andrew Emmett]

All this about Everton building our own stadium if we're 'big' enough is a joke. If Liverpool are so 'big' off the field as they are on it then they would have built their stadium by now and would not need to snigger at Everton/Evertonians on here. Just in case Liverpool fans are unaware Everton have come out and not supported the ground move because we legally cannot as a club due to our 'destination kirkby' project.

Liverpool fans don't realise that they have only become a 'big' club again because the premier league/uefa authorities changed in the late 1990s from allowing only the very best i.e. the champions of their league into the european 'champions' league to allowing two, then three and finally four (which is where Liverpool have qualified as 'champions') into that once grand competition. Liverpool fans also make me laugh when they ridicule the uefa cup. Not forgetting that they dined out on the very same trophy in 2001.

Until the 'Champions League' becomes a competition for Champions again then English football will always be about the current top 4 clubs.

I'm not in love with football in general anymore because it all boils down to money. I wouldn't like Everton to go the way of Man City either because I feel that football clubs lose their very identity which is what makes me a supporter when all the success is founded on is money.

[Big Philly]

Better solution...get shot of the Yanks[literally]...and get council permission to demolish the derelict buildings, block off certain roads and re-develop Anfield,
As for the Bluenoses?..who gives a ....

[Rob]

Time and time again, regarding many different subjects, the phrase 'it make financial sense' is taken as read. It must make financial sense; football folk are proposing it, and there's nothing they don't know about money.

Unfortunately, it's often utter tosh, and is so here. It does NOT make financial sense (and I'm not one to use capitals lightly).

Everton would presumably pay half the lease, but would usually have fewer games, and smaller crowds, and would thus be subsidising Liverpool. Meanwhile, Liverpool, in desperate need for a new buyer, would be a much less attractive purchase without a large patch of real estate to call their own.

[Tim H]

But surely the debt is with the Americans, not the club and isn't that down to the Americans buying it all with borrowed cash?

The club still has assets and is an asset - same as if I bought a car by borrowing £10k - the car wouldn't be in debt, I would!

[Phil]

No! No!! No!!! Sharing the same ground with Evertonians would be unthinkable. We'd lose our identity. If they are such a big club as they make out to be, they should build their own place as we are going to do as soon as we kick out Gillett and Hicks

[Tom Saul]

Tom Saul
if we accept, say £400million to buid a stadium even at todays interest rate that equates to at least £24 million a season in interest payments. If that was split 2 ways instead of approx £1million a match between 60,000 supporters or £16-17 each it would cost about £8.00 each. The owners of both clubs, no matter who they may be are not going to subsidise that and presumably will have less for the teams. Anyway aren't both Milan clubs thoughty of , across the world as "big clubs" unlike the blue half of the city , at present. Perhaps that will change.

[Keith]

I don't understand the need for either club to move and I don't see why the tax payer should have to fund either club. On average, Anfield is only 96.2% full and Goodison only 86.6% for premier league games. You can understand it for the clubs that only fail to fill because of away clubs not taking up their quotas (Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs), but they would simply be racking up a lot of debt to have grounds that are only three-quarters full.

[Scott Flavell]

If funds are an issue, ground sharing can work well. Brisbane in Australia is a city of about 2 million. It has one major football stadium which is shared between the premier rugby league, rugby union and football teams. It is also used for league, rugby and football representative matches and is the home base of the Australian football team. It has been the home base of rival rugby league teams such as the Broncos and Gold Coast. I have never heard anyone raise a problem with ground sharing in Brisbane.