Soccer

Quoting Edward Crusoe <Edward.Crusoe@btinternet.com>:

> And from a business point of view a shared stadium does make sense: a
> sharing of costs and risk without radically reducing income - whilst making
> it easier to grease the corrupt wheels of local government.

Sharing can reduce the building costs provided you can find another party with
the funds to do it. To date, Everton have offered to share the use of Stanley
Park, not to split the costs of building it (which they seem to think should be
up to someone else). Sadly Kenny has given the pantomime dame that is Blue-rinse
Bill the opportunity to get out his begging bowl again.

Longer term the share does not make sense. According to Rogan Taylor (who I
believe knows about these things), we need a new stadium for both increased gate
revenue and corporate entertaining where the latter (along with ground tours,
sales at club shops etc) needs to be happening 7 days a week to allow us to
compete with the Real Madrids of this world. If we were to share we could not do
this.

The Milan ground-share is often cited as a model for us to follow. But they have
been looking to split - partly because they want their own identity and partly
because they cannot each fully exploit the ground for increased revenue.

And all this ignores the obvious concerns over the state of the pitch with the
UK rainfall when two teams are playing on it and the loss of our identity.
Anfield is a massive part of our brand (Real Madrid had more demand for tickets
when they played us than any other European fixture). Maintaining the stadium
brand when (if?) we move will be difficult. If we go to an anonymous bowl full
of neutral coloured seats then that will kill it off.

----------------------------------------------
This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net