If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
You can have Anfield for £1 billion and Arteta, once we're done with it.
actually, while i am against shared grounds, if Liverpool and Everton shared car parks/transport infrastructure costs etc, there is no reason why two grounds couldnt be built on stanley park, especially as the Anfield and Goodison Park areas could be redevolped afterwards. Easily enough room and would half not-stadium costs for both clubs.
Originally posted by Tomek Grabowski:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by saved_by_barry_horne:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Tomek Grabowski:
I am surprised you haven't blamed Liverpool FC for this.
why would we? Primarily the councils fault. </BLOCKQUOTE>
im my experience, bitter blues blame us for everything else. </BLOCKQUOTE>
Not really but hth.
Quote:
You can have Anfield for £1 billion and Arteta, once we're done with it.
actually, while i am against shared grounds, if Liverpool and Everton shared car parks/transport infrastructure costs etc, there is no reason why two grounds couldnt be built on stanley park, especially as the Anfield and Goodison Park areas could be redevolped afterwards. Easily enough room and would half not-stadium costs for both clubs.
Totally agreed about a groundshare being an awful idea (just for example would a 'this is anfield' sign be put up for lpool games and taken down for everton ones?).
But a very good point about a shared infrastructure though.
I started off in favour of Kirbky, as it seemed self-evidently the best thing to do, but the way it's been handled by Wyness and Kenwright has turned me completely against it now. The transport arrangements are a shambles, the horrible redesign/recently released images (including the loss of the basement structure containing megastore, etc which was one of the defining characteristics of the stadium) and how close the retail is all of a sudden (even ignoring the shadowy building next door in the initial images) look horrible and the stadium increasingly looks tacky - if done properly (design wise) it could be quite nice, but increasingly it seems it will not.
I'd spend the 30 million we're seemingly having to pump in now (on top of naming rights/goodison sale) on tarting up Goodison and making it worthy of a safety certificate to be honest. May even be able to remove some of the restricted views for that amount also.
Originally posted by Cobbler:
<BLOCKQUOTE>just for example would a 'this is anfield' sign be put up for lpool games and taken down for everton ones?
That's the biggest problem you can think of?
Shared ground makes a lot more sense than two seperate grounds. </BLOCKQUOTE>
No, obviously thats not the bigget problem. But two clubs with a rich footballing history (yes i know its history and that liverpools is more recent and is a richer history) should be able to have their own grounds in one city.
To put in bluntly, Everton fans dont want a groundshare, Liverpool fans dont want a groundshare and neither do the boards.
The point i was making about the sign is that is a huge part of Liverpools history, and you cant just put that into another clubs ground.
Originally posted by The Rafalution:
Well as far as I know our new ground will be called Stanley Park, so not sure why there would be that sign at all.
Cobbler - from a neutrals point of view sure, but from a subjective view from the clubs its never gonna happen.
i always thought it was going to be either Anfield or New Anfield?
people always peddle the old 'shared ground makes more sense' sh*t. it makes no sense at all. these are two big, successful football clubs with tons of their own identity. oh, and they despise each other too. no sense whatsoever.
Originally posted by saved_by_barry_horne:
The point i was making about the sign is that is a huge part of Liverpools history, and you cant just put that into another clubs ground.
Linear Mode
