WEARILY – GROUNDSHARE AGAIN
By
Mickey Blue Eyes

There is only one issue guaranteed to get more fans underpants in a tiresome uproar than the Wayne Rooney saga. It is the question of groundshare with our pinky neighbours.

It is common to refer to it as – and I’m as guilty as the next fan – an “emotive issue.” Well, frankly, it’s time to put all that to bed and act like grown ups on both sides of the park. Knockabout humour should be in short supply when Merseyside football is at bay and the city has so much to lose. And get this straight: unless both clubs have a new ground they’re going nowhere fast. In our case it might well be into oblivion. The choice is that stark, the financial condition that taut. Time is running out.

Time too to get this accurate: the shared ground issue was raised by Liverpool Football Club and the City Council, not by Everton FC. If the debate is going to proceed on an adult basis you might as well get the facts right before you begin. Pink fans who ask why a shared ground wasn’t considered at the Kings Dock would be better referring the question to Parry across the park, because it was he who told a group of fans in favour of staying at Anfield that he had looked at Kings Dock and, his words, it was “a ridiculous place to build a stadium.” Which it wasn’t, but that’s another story you’ll find logged elsewhere on this website. So that notion was a none starter thanks to Parry’s stated views. I’m willing to bet he suffered loosened bowels for the time it looked as though Kings Dock might actually get built.

The fact is Liverpool’s admirable proposal for Stanley Park could not be funded by them. I wish it could. Our city desperately needs a state-of-the-art stadium and if we at Everton cannot have one, then Stanley Park should go ahead even if it left us behind. That is how dire the situation is. If assorted loonies could avoid staring up their own chauvinist arse for a few seconds we might actually get things done the way they have down the East Lancs in Manchester. Where, if it hasn’t escaped your attention, they actually have TWO excellent football stadia. We might have had that admirable state of affairs too if both our local clubs had shown more aptitude. Now we have little option because European grant money will not be available for either for a separate football stadium development. Only a groundshare will attract grant.

The only concession I will make to emotive argument is that a shared stadium should not be the one proposed by the pinkies. It would have to be another proposal on another site. The reason is obvious. The development would always be seen as THEIR project with us tagging along. It wouldn’t matter that it couldn’t proceed without us. The die would be set from the start. Therefore, either the pinkies would have to swallow the expenditure on costs incurred thus far or (my position) have them repaid before another site is considered.

In my opinion the location of a shared stadium is not important except that it should be the best deal available and the most suitable site. It doesn’t have to be in any particular area, south or north. And I certainly wouldn’t locate it to suit any politician of any party, all of whom are interested in nothing but votes for themselves. All that matters is that the stadium be located in the most fit-for-purpose area. As a waterfront city the aesthetic possibilities of such a site would be obvious even to the most culturally illiterate. The sketch concepts for Kings Dock showed just what is possible.

Thing is, there’s nothing new about the idea of groundshare. At the height of Merseyside football power it was suggested by Peter Robinson a generation ago. At the time both clubs were owned by the Moores family. Only they could tell you why they didn’t follow up on the idea from one of the greatest football administrators our city has ever had. Some time ago I vaguely recall someone on one of the football message boards suggesting a “football village” to include a shared stadium in Stanley Park. It was an excellent idea and I said so at the time but never expected it to rear its head again. It just demonstrates how quickly things can change.

Whatever the history, we are now in a time when both clubs’ options have reduced drastically. Whether we like it or not is besides the point. That’s the reality, and it is a good deal more stark for us than it is for the pinkies. Nevertheless they too have to face up to the situation. The absurdity and potential tragedy of the attempted Thai buy-in (when Parry made such a total ass of himself) only served to emphasise it even more than the hustling of home-grown spiv Steve Morgan. For them, another couple of seasons like the last few could see them start to plummet to the same depths as ourselves.

It needs to be said also that a new stadium is not THE answer to both clubs problems. But without it there is no answer at all. We might as well settle for shuffling through the disgusting discarded chip papers around both grounds, or kidding ourselves the local ale houses are anything less than tobacco-smelly rat-holes. And that’s quite without looking at the financial gains so tiresomely necessary in the condition of the modern game. Both clubs need those financial gains or they can forget any notion of prolonged challenge for honours.

So whatever anyone says from both sides of the park it very much looks like a ground share is the only realistic game in town. We don’t have the money to build anything since Paul Gregg failed to meet his end of the bargain at the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that was Kings Dock. It looks more and more as though Liverpool cannot afford to build on Stanley Park without European money. Ergo procter sum……………

Time for everyone to grow up, and right quick. It would be nice for someone to cut through all the narrow-minded shite and get something decent designed and built. But that might well be asking too much. C’est la guerre. (09/07/04)

What Do You Think? e-mail bluekipper.com              M.B.E. Index