Welcome to Stanley Park, home of Leverton!

Is it the truth that dare not speak it's name? The facetious merging of Liverpool and Everton Football Clubs aside, is a Stanley Park ground-share not just the obvious solution to the cities stadia problems, but the only solution? I believe it is...


Traditional views, stereotypes and negative thinking often hampers change; especially volatile and dynamic change that challenges the way the world is today. This is particularly evident when discussing the taboo that is a shared ground in Stanley Park for both Liverpool's football clubs. The reason for the taboo: the fans don't like it. I can probably be rightly accused of having a bit of an issue with football fans and their positioning within a football club, my post outlining essentially why football fans aren't important would be a good indication. It's not that a hate football fans (I consider myself as one), more the outdated way in which they are perceived and the influence they have upon how a football club is run. 


Looking at the ground share concept, that fans do not want to share a stadium with their city rivals is a reasonable concern. In an ideal world they would not need to. However the utopian Liverpool as depicted by so many of the football fans of the city is about to held up to scrutiny. 


A consultation period has been afforded and the views expressed but that should not stop the concept being explored further. In particularly I'd like to see the city, the football clubs and the fans look into the consequences of a ground share. Doom and gloom will inevitably be the predication but objective analysis and rational thinking may well prevail. For example, a common argument is that 'I could not sit in the Liverpool home end during an Everton match where the away fans didn't take up their allocation of tickets'. Why? Would it really be that bad? The colour of the seats is also a common concern - paint them all black then!


The identity of both clubs isn't primarily associated with their grounds anymore. Both have new and modern training facilities that act as a strong-hold for the club. An oasis and somewhere they can call home on a day-by-day basis. The clubs train there, eat there, relax there and only use the stadium to play matches. Having a stadium as an identity is nice but both clubs are beyond nice in their searches for improved facilities. Facilities is also a key word in the debate: a football stadium alone is no longer sufficient for the 21st century. Additional, complementary facilities are required as well: community centre, conferencing, hospitality, retail...the list goes on!


Tackling each issue such as the example above will only help gain a consensus on whether a ground share really would be feasible. Would the fans boycott? Perhaps for the first game or two, but forever? And even if they did, would there be other fans waiting to take their seats? Arguably yes there would.


Again in reference to early postings of mine, the fans aren't the most important stakeholders of a modern premiership club a the mission, objective and strategies of these clubs are more wide ranging that just football (if you think that sounds like business-speak, there's a reason for that!). Sponsors, TV companies and other sources of commercial revenue are what makes the business of a football club run. These stakeholders do not come with the same amount of sentimental baggage as a football fan. That isn't a criticism of fans but a fact. 


Radical change is sometimes needed to achieve the progress and change that is desired. Incremental change has it's place and is effective in lots of situations. I'd like the catalyst for change to determine the method used to achieve change and for that to be driving force of change. 


Share a ground, realise the benefits and act accordingly. The fans will follow suit...