Page 3 of 3
Posted:
Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:07 pmby XSD
Where is everyone getting the figure 80k from? I thought they wanted the ground to be 60k
Posted:
Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:27 pmby Rafa
wouldnt mind a great stadium but helpin Everton? No thank u, let them suffer i say, i doubt it very much that they would help us.
Y help them get out of debt? Carry on wiv r own ground let everton suffer slowly and look forward to life in "The Championship"
Posted:
Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:00 amby Gareth G
I was thinking about thing's like that too Dalglish, it can only be a good thing having a multi-complex kind of thing going on.
Posted:
Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:03 amby zarababe
XSD wrote:Where is everyone getting the figure 80k from? I thought they wanted the ground to be 60k
Yes I was thinking the same.. the plans I've seen aren't more than 60k, what hymn sheet are the rest singing from???
As for sharing...NO 
Posted:
Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:25 amby Rafa
zarababe wrote:XSD wrote:Where is everyone getting the figure 80k from? I thought they wanted the ground to be 60k
Yes I was thinking the same.. the plans I've seen aren't more than 60k, what hymn sheet are the rest singing from???
As for sharing...NO
i think that they mean if we share a ground then we would get a 80,000 seater stadium between us?
I think 
Posted:
Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:46 pmby long sleeved joe
KOP-1892 wrote:I was thinking about thing's like that too Dalglish, it can only be a good thing having a multi-complex kind of thing going on.
Do you mean a multi-complex owned by LFC? i know these multi-complex ideas sound impressive but dont forget the famous Chelsea village that lost Bates a lot of money and a lot of dignity because it flopped. I've heard people talking about the club building hotels and stuff by the new site but with no disrespect to the area is it really somewhere that would attract visitors other than the night before and after a match? To me it doesnt make financial sense we should stick to being a football club- it would be a disaster for example if we had to limit transfer spendings because the mulit-complex was losing money- wheres the footballing heart in that?
Posted:
Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:50 pmby zarababe
Long sleeved joe (I know someone who could hem those sleeves for you:) )
Great signiture "If Everton were playing at the bottom of my garden i'd draw the curtains" Bill Shankly the great man quoted some real blinders:) 
I wonder if Dom1 has read it ...yet
Posted:
Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:51 pmby blind
KOP-1892 wrote:Surely then Liverpool were finacially covered to build a new stadium before Everton decided to try and jump on the band wagon, otherwise they wouldn't have thought of it, or do you mean differently fivecups?
I don't like the idea of ground sharing at all, let alone sharing it with Everton. It would extinguish the fire of the Merseyside derby too IMO, nothing would be the same again and would be a touch friendlier between our rivals. It was probably bluenose ******'s who petitioned against our proposed move to Stanley Park anyway and i bet if there was a petition against a ground share it would come out positive!
what do you think the Thai bid and Morgans bids where for they where to invest in the club towards players and the new stadium.
If the stadium costs us £87 million wouldn't we be better only having to pay £43.5 million instead and safe guard the clubs future.
look at the cost involved in running the club now if we have to find £87 million that will be secured against future gate reciepts the sale of anfield and the site and building itself.
now if you say it costs £3 million a year to run the club shop, the stadium facilities and the museum then surely if we built a grpound that had 2 museums and 2 club shops on opposite sides of the ground so that fo all intents and perposes it was 2 seperate grounds but with shared costs. It could work to our advantage just as much as Evertons as they need it more than us yes but only at the moment.
If Man city had not had god P*ssing himself with laughter at them, they would never of had their new stadium that was luck that got them that other wise they would have been forced eventually to look at shareing with another club.
Posted:
Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:53 pmby blind
XSD wrote:Where is everyone getting the figure 80k from? I thought they wanted the ground to be 60k
your right but if we ground share we will need 80,000
Posted:
Fri Jul 09, 2004 2:57 pmby REDTILLDEAD
Perhaps they should let us fans have our say, but if the powersthat be get their own way we wont be consulted coz they know full well that the majority of fans (L.F.C. ones anyway) dont want to share!...Personaly I would`nt share a taxi with an evertonian, never mind a bloody stadium!! 
Posted:
Fri Jul 09, 2004 3:42 pmby blind
i share a bloody bed with one so i'm not adverse to shareing.
the bed that is not the wife. 
Posted:
Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:06 pmby Gareth G
At the end of the day, you can all make as many good point's toward's it as you want. But it's the last thing i would ever want to do. Do you think the like's of Shankly would have even thought about this? Somehow, i don't think so.
Hey blind, wasn't the thought and plan's of a new stadium not decided before any Thai bid even came out?
The idea about a multi-complex was just a thought, i meant like a sporting complex. Nothing like Chelsea's complex...it has shoping centre's etc right? What i meant was like a leisure centre complex with indoor pitches, swimming pool's and the likes were shcool's could hold football tournament's and stuff, thing's that would be successfull. Then you would have all you're usuall things like the club shop, catering facilities and the rest of it.