We might need a Groundshare Thread

[Guest Snorky]

It isn't going to go away regardless of the 'official' noises coming out of both clubs.

[Sion]

Everton will never agree to it even if G&H do, because they'll be totally embarrassed trying to fill a 70k stadium every week.

[Sinos]

It isn't going to go away regardless of the 'official' noises coming out of both clubs.

 

That'll be the end of me supporting LFC if this happens.

Edited July 6, 2008 by Sinos

[Mike]

we will never groundshare.

[Hector McDougal]

But wouldn't it cost us loads of money in terms of putting the planning application back to the start of the process as it wouldn't be single use anymore, losing out on NWDA and european money in the process. Also, wouldn't Hicks selling price to DIC be a lot less if he were only selling half a stadium?

[surf]

But wouldn't it cost us loads of money in terms of putting the planning application back to the start of the process as it wouldn't be single use anymore, losing out on NWDA and european money in the process. Also, wouldn't Hicks selling price to DIC be a lot less if he were only selling half a stadium?

They're not selling a stadium, they're selling the revues 60k+ fans bring in on a bi-weekly basis. That wouldn't change. The stadium costs would be shared between Everton and Liverpool, so for G&H a shared stadium makes financial sense. There's  a lot of reasons why it's a stupid idea, but money isn't one of them.

[Gunga Din]

Groundshare wont happen now. zero chance. it makes no financial sense to half the value what will be the clubs biggest and most important asset.

[budgie]

Groundshare wont happen now. zero chance. it makes no financial sense to half the value what will be the clubs biggest and most important asset.

 

 

Maybe because you half the cost of putting that asset in place. In reality a groundshare makes great financial sense. You still get to generate the same revenue streams as you still have all your home games. The loss would be the sell on value of the property. Not the biggest element in the grand scheme of things.

 

 

That said I hate the idea & you wouldn't want to be subsidisying the bitter's struggle to fill 60-70 thousand.

[Gunga Din]

Maybe because you half the cost of putting that asset in place. In reality a groundshare makes great financial sense. You still get to generate the same revenue streams as you still have all your home games. The loss would be the sell on value of the property. Not the biggest element in the grand scheme of things.

 

 

That said I hate the idea & you wouldn't want to be subsidisying the bitter's struggle to fill 60-70 thousand.

 

 

it wont be a good investment because people who own the club own it to make money and sell it on. the resale value will be a lot less, and thats where any owners will make the most money.

[Guest Raisbeck]

Its all about degrees of certainty.

[budgie]

it wont be a good investment because people who own the club own it to make money and sell it on. the resale value will be a lot less, and thats where any owners will make the most money.

 

I agree it will be less but not a lot less. The initial cost of the build would be lower accordingly as well

[Gomez]

Groundshare wont happen now. zero chance. it makes no financial sense to half the value what will be the clubs biggest and most important asset.

 

I doubt it will happen either, probably scaremongering from the anti-Hicks and Gillet camp, which is always ultimately counter productive.

 

However, I believe that G&H, particularly H, plan on making a lot from the contracts to build the stadium, so it would not matter if it was a shared stadium or not.

[Gunga Din]

I doubt it will happen either, probably scaremongering from the anti-Hicks and Gillet camp, which is always ultimately counter productive.

 

However, I believe that G&H, particularly H, plan on making a lot from the contracts to build the stadium, so it would not matter if it was a shared stadium or not.

 

i think most people are in the anti G&H camp, its just some are weakening the position by blaming them on all manner of things whether they are true or not, like lack of transfer funding etc, insted of sticking to the main factual issues, not speculative ones

[Wazz]

Talk about bloody s*** stirring. I suppose they want to secretly sell Torres aswell.

[DaveLFC]

Beats me why they have never considered a figure 8 stadium that shares one wall. Two pitches and two arena. Surely not much more expensive and could share so much of the utilities in that common wall.

 

I suppose it makes too much sense.

[surf]

Great idea!

We could build a new stadium with a massive Kop, Everton could have the area underneath the Kop as their new stadium.

[Mike]

Beats me why they have never considered a figure 8 stadium that shares one wall. Two pitches and two arena. Surely not much more expensive and could share so much of the utilities in that common wall.

 

I suppose it makes too much sense.

 

is that a joke?

[suzyv]

I am totally against a shared stadium. I would do what i could to stop it i.e. protest ect whatever sos came up with. The one thing I would not do is stop supporting Liverpool itis in my blood. I cannot and never will understand whu people who say the support Liverpool say they will stop if certain things happen. Yes you could stop going to the ground to watch them stop buying merchandise but if you are a real fan how could you stop supporting them.

[Tim]

Groundshare makes NO financial sense no matter what the daily post/echo/everton/broomhead say.

 

Everton are struggling to find the money to fund their part of the Kirkby development when all they need at most is £100m. They will need over 50% more than that to have a shared stadium with us. They couldn't find £30m for the Kings Dock and they won't find the money for Kirkby (unless they borrow it from Tesco).

 

A change to a groundshare stance means a change to the stadium design. That in turn means another application to the planning committee. However this time it won't be a simple change of design that will be assessed. The FULL consultation process would have to be done again and it is a guarantee that a dual club stadium would be called in by the DCLG for review.

 

The groundshare debate has been killed more times than Highlander and Dr Who put together.

[Guest mike_m]

It isn't going to go away regardless of the 'official' noises coming out of both clubs.

 

Why do you say that?

[Guest Snorky]

Why do you say that?

 

Because of what I was told yesterday by a friend who works at Everton.

[Tones]

Not going to happen

[badtodabone]

Because of what I was told yesterday by a friend who works at Everton.

 

and that was ??

[surf]

Groundshare makes NO financial sense no matter what the daily post/echo/everton/broomhead say.

 

Everton are struggling to find the money to fund their part of the Kirkby development when all they need at most is £100m. They will need over 50% more than that to have a shared stadium with us. They couldn't find £30m for the Kings Dock and they won't find the money for Kirkby (unless they borrow it from Tesco).

 

A change to a groundshare stance means a change to the stadium design. That in turn means another application to the planning committee. However this time it won't be a simple change of design that will be assessed. The FULL consultation process would have to be done again and it is a guarantee that a dual club stadium would be called in by the DCLG for review.

 

The groundshare debate has been killed more times than Highlander and Dr Who put together.

 

 

Theoretically groundsharing makes sense to me as you're getting the same revenue from half the cost. 

 

Are you saying that groundsharing makes no financial sense from a purely practical point of view (Everton don't have the cash, changing plans take time, we lose funding) or is there also a flaw in the theoretical argument?

[Guest Snorky]

and that was ??

 

That they are still looking at the possibility of groundsharing if the TescoDome doesn't come off.