• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Groundsharing with Everton FC

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess I should have googled the stadium name, seem obvious now 8)

You're right though about the ground-sharing.

There's no way a ground-share would ever work even if it did make economic sense (which it doesnt)

There's a huge divide between supporters of both clubs, and it's very hard to elaborate it into words..there's a real distinction and I could feel it even though my time there was incredibly brief.. on paper it seems unusual since they're both from the same city and are literally family, but it's definitely there.
 
Money isn't generated solely by ticket sales, but by commercial usage of the conference facilities & venue on non footballing days. This is the majority of revenue raised by new or more modern stadia, not ticket sales.

For this simple reason we wouldn't do a groundshare.
 
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=41795.msg1171116#msg1171116 date=1283935134]
In our current predicament , it does not make any sense to move, or for it to be a big driver.
With the current demand, our stadium is modern enough and adequate.
It's a chicken and egg thing, if we are to make a stadium cost effective we have to have the demand, a couple of years ago we did.
That can all change in a blink of an eye. New owners throwing money at the team will bring back that demand because we are competing again.
We will then need a new stadium that increases our capacity and revenue, if the demand is there it pays for itself.
Which is why it is being factored in as one of the must haves in the sale.

regards

PS exactly Rafa 😉
[/quote]

As I said above bums on seats is t the priority, its multi usage & the revenue generated.

Therefore it is still a huge priority.
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=41795.msg1171153#msg1171153 date=1283944933]
i think crump raises a good point about anfield - i've thought for a long time that a lot of fans don't seem to really appreciate just how much is being lost in leaving anfield. a massive part of our heritage is going to be bulldozed and i think it's important that we all stop to think about the costs/benfits.

i know the club has long dismissed the idea of expanding anfield, so i'd like to think they're right and it's not workble, but i'm not completely convinced. would it really be impossible to replace the main stand, and add the 10k seats and however many corporate boxes we need? i've never seen a proper explanation of why it couldn't work, and why it wouldn't perhaps be the wiser option given how vastly cheaper it'd be.
[/quote]

I thought the club were denied permission because of all the housing around Anfield?
 
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=41795.msg1171171#msg1171171 date=1283949667]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=41795.msg1171153#msg1171153 date=1283944933]
i think crump raises a good point about anfield - i've thought for a long time that a lot of fans don't seem to really appreciate just how much is being lost in leaving anfield. a massive part of our heritage is going to be bulldozed and i think it's important that we all stop to think about the costs/benfits.

i know the club has long dismissed the idea of expanding anfield, so i'd like to think they're right and it's not workble, but i'm not completely convinced. would it really be impossible to replace the main stand, and add the 10k seats and however many corporate boxes we need? i've never seen a proper explanation of why it couldn't work, and why it wouldn't perhaps be the wiser option given how vastly cheaper it'd be.
[/quote]

I thought the club were denied permission because of all the housing around Anfield?
[/quote]

The issue about developing the existing Anfield, was that major sections of the ground would not be accessible for at least a season, to get the capacity we needed we would have had to rotate the ground so the existing Kop would become a side stand, the main stand moved back and increased in size and would become an end stand. The loss of revenue , goodwill and even not being able to play matches there made it a none starter.
I understand and sympathise with the history argument, but retaining the ground in the same area is a reasonable compromise to that.
If I had my way it would have been built in the Speke location that was identified, it's industrial , we could have expanded however we wanted , did not need to consider neighbours (much) the transport links are there, and it still stays in Liverpool.
History is great, but it's the future that matters




regards
 
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=41795.msg1171164#msg1171164 date=1283948063]
Money isn't generated solely by ticket sales, but by commercial usage of the conference facilities & venue on non footballing days. This is the majority of revenue raised by new or more modern stadia, not ticket sales.

For this simple reason we wouldn't do a groundshare.
[/quote]

San Siro still gets used for many concerts as they tend to take place during months when there's no games or in the weeknight evenings too. So there's still potential for PLENTY of multi-usage - so I am afraid that point falls my friend. Outdoor concerts don't happen in November-March generally speaking, so that's a moot point you make Fox Force Five.

Secondly, yes of course EFC gets to keep their gate receipts on match day, but it's another party helping you with the Mortgage, and it's also another party paying for the construction costs, and other fees.

I don't see how financially this can be kicked to the side, so easily. Emotionally I get it, but me? I would rather see if competing for the title with a shared ground, than in mid table with our own historic stadium. Sometimes the focus on history for us actually hurts us. At some point, it's going to become the only thing we have - which ain't good.
 
[quote author=Rafa4PM link=topic=41795.msg1171114#msg1171114 date=1283935020]
We might be desperate, but we're not that fucking desperate.
[/quote]

I think we're there already mate
 
[quote author=localny link=topic=41795.msg1171281#msg1171281 date=1283968785]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=41795.msg1171164#msg1171164 date=1283948063]
Money isn't generated solely by ticket sales, but by commercial usage of the conference facilities & venue on non footballing days. This is the majority of revenue raised by new or more modern stadia, not ticket sales.

For this simple reason we wouldn't do a groundshare.
[/quote]

San Siro still gets used for many concerts as they tend to take place during months when there's no games or in the weeknight evenings too. So there's still potential for PLENTY of multi-usage - so I am afraid that point falls my friend. Outdoor concerts don't happen in November-March generally speaking, so that's a moot point you make Fox Force Five.

Secondly, yes of course EFC gets to keep their gate receipts on match day, but it's another party helping you with the Mortgage, and it's also another party paying for the construction costs, and other fees.

I don't see how financially this can be kicked to the side, so easily. Emotionally I get it, but me? I would rather see if competing for the title with a shared ground, than in mid table with our own historic stadium. Sometimes the focus on history for us actually hurts us. At some point, it's going to become the only thing we have - which ain't good.


[/quote]

No, it's not, as a fair few of us have already pointed out. The blueshite haven't got two pence to rub together. They'd be paying bugger all towards it but getting half the benefit.

Besides, with the depth of feeling against the move from Liverpool fans, there's a real question about what our gate receipts would end up looking like, and without those being at a healthy level even a new stadium will be of no help to us.
 
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41795.msg1171289#msg1171289 date=1283971242]
[quote author=localny link=topic=41795.msg1171281#msg1171281 date=1283968785]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=41795.msg1171164#msg1171164 date=1283948063]
Money isn't generated solely by ticket sales, but by commercial usage of the conference facilities & venue on non footballing days. This is the majority of revenue raised by new or more modern stadia, not ticket sales.

For this simple reason we wouldn't do a groundshare.
[/quote]

San Siro still gets used for many concerts as they tend to take place during months when there's no games or in the weeknight evenings too. So there's still potential for PLENTY of multi-usage - so I am afraid that point falls my friend. Outdoor concerts don't happen in November-March generally speaking, so that's a moot point you make Fox Force Five.

Secondly, yes of course EFC gets to keep their gate receipts on match day, but it's another party helping you with the Mortgage, and it's also another party paying for the construction costs, and other fees.

I don't see how financially this can be kicked to the side, so easily. Emotionally I get it, but me? I would rather see if competing for the title with a shared ground, than in mid table with our own historic stadium. Sometimes the focus on history for us actually hurts us. At some point, it's going to become the only thing we have - which ain't good.


[/quote]

No, it's not, as a fair few of us have already pointed out. The blueshite haven't got two pence to rub together. They'd be paying bugger all towards it but getting half the benefit.

Besides, with the depth of feeling against the move from Liverpool fans, there's a real question about what our gate receipts would end up looking like, and without those being at a healthy level even a new stadium will be of no help to us.
[/quote]

So the bitters are in dire straits money wise? Weren't they planning on their own stadium. Surely they planned on taking out a loan to pay for it?

New stadium shared or not would see good gate receipts....fans wouldn't stay away from seeing the club play, just because we had a shared stadium.
 
No, they wanted to get Tesco (whose current CEO is a bluenose, though he's retiring soon) to pay for their new place.

I'm not saying fans would definitely stay away from a shared stadium. IMO there's a real risk of that happening though, to some extent at least, and it's a risk we can't afford given that Reason 1 for the new stadium is to increase matchday income.
 
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=41795.msg1171293#msg1171293 date=1283971854]
No, they wanted to get Tesco (whose current CEO is a bluenose, though he's retiring soon) to pay for their new place.

I'm not saying fans would definitely stay away from a shared stadium. IMO there's a real risk of that happening though, to some extent at least, and it's a risk we can't afford given that Reason 1 for the new stadium is to increase matchday income.
[/quote]


it can't be as simple as that, can it - surely tesco weren't just going to give everton a stadium were they?


i think maybe we're being a bit harsh on localny here - i hate the idea of a shared stadium personally, but i'd be very surprised if it didn't at least make financial sense.
 
Tesco would have benefited big-time from the commercial spin-offs. Except obv.not big enough as they didn't go through with it.

I like localny and I'm not trying to be hard on him, or indeed anybody else who takes the same view, but I honestly think it's a non-starter (for us - it would be very nice indeed for the bitters).
 
I'd imagine Tesco would be kicking in something and Everton would be taking out a loan of some sort as well.

Thanks Peter, but I don't mind being the contrarian here,but desperate times call for desperate measures.

If it means having 100K or so extra more to spend on players, I'm in..

It would also mean we could be bought for a cheaper price!

Thanks for the kind words JJ, but I do think we'd have no bother getting people to support the club in our new digs, even if initially there's a few people unhappy...
 
Localny: Are you originally from Liverpool? I'm not and whilst I have documented my feelings on this subject, I always feel the final say should be with Liverpudlians.

It is at the end of the day, their city and effectively their club.
 
[quote author=localny link=topic=41795.msg1171299#msg1171299 date=1283973030]
I'd imagine Tesco would be kicking in something and Everton would be taking out a loan of some sort as well.

Thanks Peter, but I don't mind being the contrarian here,but desperate times call for desperate measures.

If it means having 100K or so extra more to spend on players, I'm in..

It would also mean we could be bought for a cheaper price!

Thanks for the kind words JJ, but I do think we'd have no bother getting people to support the club in our new digs, even if initially there's a few people unhappy...
[/quote]

Our desperate times currently aren't going to be resolved by a groundshare. What's the point of raising the point when that's not a decision that can even be made right now? We couldn't even fund half a stadium right now. We can't function at all if things continue the way they are.
 
yeah i think it's worth talking about because if it's on the table, it might make the prospect of a takeover a more attractive option for potential investors etc. the whole stadium issue is linked into the value of the club and the silly money G and H are looking for...

I'm not from Liverpool, I'm from Dublin, and of course it's for the city of Liverpool to decide, but doesn't mean we can't offer up twopence worth. Besides, OOT'ers do help support the club in some way or another.

But yeah if it's left to Liverpudlians, it'll never happen. Bit like leaving peace in Northern Ireland to the two communities. Never would have happened without outside involvement (obviously, one was a war, and one is a club rivalry, but you get the point!). Both examples are too bogged down in baggage and history to see what's right in front...
 
[quote author=localny link=topic=41795.msg1171346#msg1171346 date=1283977874]
yeah i think it's worth talking about because if it's on the table, it might make the prospect of a takeover a more attractive option for potential investors etc. the whole stadium issue is linked into the value of the club and the silly money G and H are looking for...

I'm not from Liverpool, I'm from Dublin, and of course it's for the city of Liverpool to decide, but doesn't mean we can't offer up twopence worth. Besides, OOT'ers do help support the club in some way or another.

But yeah if it's left to Liverpudlians, it'll never happen. Bit like leaving peace in Northern Ireland to the two communities. Never would have happened without outside involvement (obviously, one was a war, and one is a club rivalry, but you get the point!). Both examples are too bogged down in baggage and history to see what's right in front...
[/quote]

The groundshare is a possibility in some theoretical sense for any potential buyer, and will have absolutely 0 influence on a sale.

What the fuck would the point be in doing any preliminary discussions, when those discussing from our side won't be around once a sale is finally conducted one way or the other.

Anyway, I don't think it's a good idea, I think there are plenty of examples of lucrative stadiums, there is broad agreement that it's fundamental to our progress, and the counterexamples that have been brought up on here recently are mostly US stadium issues which aren't remotely similar in finance to football clubs in England.
 
Of course it could influence a sale. Buy a club and build a stadium for significantly lower cost. It's a game changer, for some buyers if it was a possibility. this is why people "who won't be around" would discuss it, because it would help the sale no?

Plus some of our current management may likely be still around after the sale.

Yeah of course there's lucrative stadiums out there, but they always require heavy capital investment, which we're not capable of since we've a mountain of debt. Ground sharing would require a lower bar, a lower level of capital to make it happen.
 
[quote author=localny link=topic=41795.msg1171360#msg1171360 date=1283979938]
Of course it could influence a sale. Buy a club and build a stadium for significantly lower cost. It's a game changer, for some buyers if it was a possibility. this is why people "who won't be around" would discuss it, because it would help the sale no?

Plus some of our current management may likely be still around after the sale.

Yeah of course there's lucrative stadiums out there, but they always require heavy capital investment, which we're not capable of since we've a mountain of debt. Ground sharing would require a lower bar, a lower level of capital to make it happen.
[/quote]

We aren't in a position to negotiate the building of even a shared stadium at present, as we are struggling to deal with even basic operational costs due to our hemorrhaging money on debt. Again, there's no point talking about it, even in some preliminary way when we don't know the intention of an owner. If that owner has a groundshare in mind, then we really have fallen off in a catastrophic way, because it never needed to come to that, and it still doesn't, unless the owners really want to drag us around through some legal cluster fuck for months.
 
Yeah fair points - the lack of CL football plus crushing debt agreements really is slowly killing what should be a fairly steady business.

If something was to happen, I would see LFC issuing a statement saying that they would be open to ground-sharing, with some kind of a hypothetical statement showing the lower amount of funding now needed to purchase the club. It might reference initial discussions with EFC. Of course, there'd be an SOS uproar....as well as from other fans. But it opens the door to lower offers...and might kick start the bidding process.

Anyway, personally, I think it's something that should be looked at given the recession and our situation...whether now or after a purchase by a new owner.

Cheers
 
[quote author=localny link=topic=41795.msg1171368#msg1171368 date=1283981137]
Yeah fair points - the lack of CL football plus crushing debt agreements really is slowly killing what should be a fairly steady business.

If something was to happen, I would see LFC issuing a statement saying that they would be open to ground-sharing, with some kind of a hypothetical statement showing the lower amount of funding now needed to purchase the club. It might reference initial discussions with EFC. Of course, there'd be an SOS uproar....as well as from other fans. But it opens the door to lower offers...and might kick start the bidding process.

Anyway, personally, I think it's something that should be looked at given the recession and our situation...whether now or after a purchase by a new owner.

Cheers

You are wrong.

THE END.


[/quote]
 
[quote author=grjt link=topic=41795.msg1171374#msg1171374 date=1283981548]
[quote author=localny link=topic=41795.msg1171368#msg1171368 date=1283981137]
Yeah fair points - the lack of CL football plus crushing debt agreements really is slowly killing what should be a fairly steady business.

If something was to happen, I would see LFC issuing a statement saying that they would be open to ground-sharing, with some kind of a hypothetical statement showing the lower amount of funding now needed to purchase the club. It might reference initial discussions with EFC. Of course, there'd be an SOS uproar....as well as from other fans. But it opens the door to lower offers...and might kick start the bidding process.

Anyway, personally, I think it's something that should be looked at given the recession and our situation...whether now or after a purchase by a new owner.

Cheers

You are wrong.

THE END.


[/quote]
[/quote]

Ah yes, another rational point! Let me guess? Our history disallows it?
 
You've been given plenty of rational points as to why this is a bad idea and perhaps more importantly an irrelevant one right about now, but the response tends to follow the lines of "uhh, yeah, but we *really* should consider this".
 
[quote author=keniget link=topic=41795.msg1171387#msg1171387 date=1283982190]
You've been given plenty of rational points as to why this is a bad idea and perhaps more importantly an irrelevant one right about now, but the response tends to follow the lines of "uhh, yeah, but we *really* should consider this".


[/quote]

There is no rational argument against it, they're emotional ones.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41795.msg1171392#msg1171392 date=1283982585]
There is no rational argument against it, they're emotional ones.
[/quote]

So you think that prospective owners would be enticed into bidding for Liverpool because the current management declared they'd be open to the idea of a ground-share?
 
It's just that not one of the financial reasons (to my limited business mind) seem to be reason enough for not doing it..

Arguments against
* San Siro didn't work out - only because it's owned by local council and clubs pay 13 M in rent - wouldn't be case with us
* Can't be used as a multi use facility so we won't make money - actually it can be used (see San Siro point about concerts)
* EFC will use their own gate receipts - yes but they will also be paying half the mortgage and paying it off quicker with them involved
* Doesn't make sense now - Well if it lowers asking price for club it does...
* Everton don't have the money - well they were going to take out a loan for their own stadium so why not this?

I'm looking to be proven wrong on this one. All the points thrown out against this idea thus far don't seem to hold water. I'd love to be wrong. Shut me up with a good financial argument against it, and I'll change my avatar to Graeme Sharp for a month (it will hurt).
 
[quote author=keniget link=topic=41795.msg1171396#msg1171396 date=1283982736]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41795.msg1171392#msg1171392 date=1283982585]
There is no rational argument against it, they're emotional ones.
[/quote]

So you think that prospective owners would be enticed into bidding for Liverpool because the current management declared they'd be open to the idea of a ground-share?
[/quote]

I don't follow ?

One wouldn't have any effect on the other surely ?
 
[quote author=keniget link=topic=41795.msg1171396#msg1171396 date=1283982736]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41795.msg1171392#msg1171392 date=1283982585]
There is no rational argument against it, they're emotional ones.
[/quote]

So you think that prospective owners would be enticed into bidding for Liverpool because the current management declared they'd be open to the idea of a ground-share?
[/quote]

I think it opens the possibility of a lower bid and makes the club a more attractive purchase (if the argument for ground sharing actually doesn't make financial sense in the cold light of day). Suddenly we're back competing with the rich clubs because we've got 100M going to player purchases instead of a stadium build
 
Old Figures from an article 10 months ago..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article6934272.ece

"Staying put, it seems, is not an option for either Merseyside club, such would be the difficulties of expanding their historical homes, which are outdated and penned in by Victorian housing. “Everton are 33 per cent behind the average Premier League club in terms of income,†Elstone said last season. “Five years ago, it was 19 per cent behind. Arsenal earn £3 million per home game and we earn £800,000. Over 19 games, we’re almost £40 million worse off. As each year passes, we are increasingly clinging on by our fingertips to our rivals.†"

Going halves on grounds

Clubs sharing a stadium has never taken root in this country, but there are examples abroad.

San Siro, AC Milan and Inter Milan, capacity 80,018 They have shared a stadium for 62 years. Hosted Champions League finals, rugby matches and concerts.

Allianz Arena, Bayern Munich and 1860 Munich, 69,901 1860 Munich compete in Germany’s second tier, and with a considerably smaller fanbase to boot. The stadium, opened in 2005, will host the 2012 Champions League final.

Luzhniki Olympic Complex, Spartak Moscow and Torpedo Moscow, 78,360 Maybe the most famous artificial football pitch in the world, where John Terry slipped as he ran up to take a penalty in the Champions League final in 2008. They have shared the home for 15 years.

Maracanã, Botafogo, Flamengo and Fluminense, 82,238 Brazil’s biggest and most famous stadium is home to three of Rio’s largest clubs. They share the ground not only with each other, but with volleyball matches, concerts and even a visit from the Pope. In 2016, the Maracanã will stage the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games.

Words by Oliver Kay
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=41795.msg1171392#msg1171392 date=1283982585]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=41795.msg1171387#msg1171387 date=1283982190]
You've been given plenty of rational points as to why this is a bad idea and perhaps more importantly an irrelevant one right about now, but the response tends to follow the lines of "uhh, yeah, but we *really* should consider this".


[/quote]

There is no rational argument against it, they're emotional ones.
[/quote]

Predicated by the fact that being a devout football fans is, in itself, an emotional rather than rational state.

And making a decision emotionally isnt necessarily a poorer process than one made rationally. So the point is....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom