Liverpool FC housing association

[Deleted member 1740]

To be fair that related to a move to Kirkby. It was a significant move in terms of distance and few fans like that whatever their club.

LFC have not only bought houses around Anfield, they actually had planning to build in Stanley Park, designs the lot as you know. Another wedge spent on an alternative so they were running two boats so to speak. That was the obvious groundshare. It could be re-visited if the will was there but I doubt whether it is

With the kirkby deal, that is the best offer they've actually had. I don't see them leaving woodison unless a rich yank/Arab/Russian buys them.

As for Liverpool's plans for Stanley park, all of those have been financed by Liverpool. The amount of green space that would be lost is minimal compared to the Walton Hall project.
Maybe had the council and EFC had a proper deal to offer Liverpool then I'm sure the club would've listened.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

With the kirkby deal, that is the best offer they've actually had. I don't see them leaving woodison unless a rich yank/Arab/Russian buys them.

I think this is a chicken and egg situation. They need a rich buyer but the rich buyers are put off by needing to build a new stadium. Some pretty poor clubs have been bought recently by rich owners and ignored Everton. Ignore the red glasses for a moment, the only reason can be that no one wants to lay out £100'sm straight away on a new stadium. Can't blame them. Everything else is there and ready for someone to take the club on but the stadium or lack of is a major issue that is holding the club back.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Teams in the UK are tribal which means they want their own identity and their own home not share with others

Clubs in Italy and Germany share grounds that are built by the local government , owned by the local government and costs paid by the local government which then allows the club's financal freedom

That will never happen in this country

 

[Deleted member 1740]

I think this is a chicken and egg situation. They need a rich buyer but the rich buyers are put off by needing to build a new stadium. Some pretty poor clubs have been bought recently by rich owners and ignored Everton. Ignore the red glasses for a moment, the only reason can be that no one wants to lay out £100'sm straight away on a new stadium. Can't blame them. Everything else is there and ready for someone to take the club on but the stadium or lack of is a major issue that is holding the club back.

And that is why I think Everton Will never have a better chance than the kirkby deal they rejected.

Beggars can't be chooser's.

 

[Liverbirdie]

And that is why I think Everton Will never have a better chance than the kirkby deal they rejected.

Beggars can't be chooser's.

The Albert dock one was an even bigger gift horse.

£30 million was all they had to contribute for this to happen, with a brand spanking stadium near to the city centre.

They'd have paid it off by now. Maybe they should have had Wenger in charge.

 

[Liverbirdie]

I think this is a chicken and egg situation. They need a rich buyer but the rich buyers are put off by needing to build a new stadium. Some pretty poor clubs have been bought recently by rich owners and ignored Everton. Ignore the red glasses for a moment, the only reason can be that no one wants to lay out £100'sm straight away on a new stadium. Can't blame them. Everything else is there and ready for someone to take the club on but the stadium or lack of is a major issue that is holding the club back.

Yep, I also think they would have new owners by now, even if they had even reasonably upgraded Goodison.

 

[Liverbirdie]

I think there are two answers, proximity and need. One joint stadium in Stanley Park would have minimum impact for both sets of supporters as the location is near to both existing stadiums. One stadium in Washington for example would mean a significant move for fans of both Newcastle and Sunderland. For either team it would be an illogical move.

Need, most of the teams mentioned either have perfectly decent stadiums, Man City + Utd, Newcastle + Sunderland or simply can not financially justify a new one being built, Sheffield Utd + Wedensday, Bristol City and Rovers. Everton need a new stadium, Liverpool need an upgraded and larger stadium. Both are established Premier League teams with relatively sound financial set ups.

Rather than hamstring both clubs why not share the costs of the build and day to day running costs? It works in Italy, it works in Germany. Even the mighty Bayern Munich stadium share. We need to move on and face reality.

Head raised above parapet.

Yes but I'm talking about before the Etihad, before OT's extension.

I just wonder why LFC/EFC has always been held up nationally as the natural trial to the Milan situation, but in England.

Due to it being a more friendly derby than elsewhere, or just the proximity situation, and also being two top clubs?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I just wonder why LFC/EFC has always been held up nationally as the natural trial to the Milan situation, but in England.

Due to it being a more friendly derby than elsewhere, or just the proximity situation, and also being two top clubs?

All of the above.

 

[Liverbirdie]

All of the above.

Thanks, I'll sleep tonight.

 

[peterlav]

Common sense says they should have shared the Kings Dock, would have done without the need for the Echo Arena giving an extra revenue stream, also would have been built before Liverpool One, leading to an incredible amount of day trippers, hotels on site, the 2 Clubs would have cleaned up. Unfortunately due to football's biased/blinkered views of 'passionate' supporters, I don't think we will ever see a permanent shared ground between 2 City rivals in this Country.