Date: 28th August 2011 at 12:17pm
Written by:

John Henry told The Daily Telegraph that it is highly unlikely that Liverpool will consider the option of a ground share with Everton, citing that it is something fans from either clubs would not be interested in even if it makes financial sense to share a new stadium.

Henry said, “I’ve seen a lot of talk recently about ground-sharing, but our position hasn’t changed. There’s no doubt that if a new stadium were to be built in Liverpool from a financial perspective – which is the major issue – a ground-share would be helpful for both clubs. But there doesn’t seem to be any support for that from Red or Blue fans – at all. So how could that ever happen?

“We would love to expand Anfield, but there are enough local and regulatory issues to keep that avenue stalled for years with no assurances that once begun it would bear any fruit.

“If Anfield cannot be expanded a new stadium is wonderful choice. But the fact is we already have 45,000 seats. If a new stadium is constructed with 60,000 seats you’ve spent an incredible sum of money to add just 15,000 seats.

“If the cost is £300m for an extra 15,000 seats, that doesn’t make any sense at all. Liverpool isn’t London, you can’t charge £1 million for a long-term club seat. And concession revenues per seat aren’t that much different at Emirates from Anfield.

“That’s why the search is on currently for a naming-rights partner. And that could very well happen.”

From the sound of things, it seems as if Liverpool are looking at building a new stadium but it will take some time to get that going and a lot of money.


6 responses to “John Henry: No ground-share with Everton”

  1. Bill says:

    It would be pointless building a 60,000 seater stadium anyway, a minimum of 75,000 is needed.

    • Dude says:

      There’s enough people on the waiting list for season tickets to make this do-able. I think it must be something else stopping it happening. Initial cost or refusal of planning permission maybe.

  2. Rob says:

    I have a different opinion. I think if LFC have planned 60,000 then that would do. For e.g yesterday the stadium still had some 1000 seats that were not sold. If out of 45,000 we are not able
    to sell them out, then how will we sell 75,000?

  3. vipakindele says:

    70,000 will be a fantastic stad,cos ten years to come we won’t be thinking of expamsion again.And as long as we are competitive,spectators we troup in. Nice job FSG!

  4. bobbiDanger says:

    We built two world class stadiums right next to each other in Seattle, one for major league baseball teams, and one for our major league soccer and national football league teams. Both stadiums can be used for associated football 🙂 Both stadiums are filled on the same day all the time (except major league soccer currently runs around 35000 instead of the 65000 capacity). Both stadiums are around 60000- 65000. Built with a lot of tax dollars but they rake in tons of revenue for Seattle, selling gear and beer and food and people just go there and buy stuff when nothing is going on. Easily accessible and just works out real well.

    Everybody panicked about building not one but two stadiums and people that hate sport freaked out about the costs and everybody doubted and pouted and moaned and argued but they got built, created tons of jobs and put money flowing into the economy and now everybody is happy even the Seagulls.

    Liverpool and Seattle are similar type cities and I think John Henry needs to chill on “Liverpool isn’t London”, of course not and Seattle isn’t New York.

    Liverpool can totally rock it with the best of ’em so don’t get stuck in a moment, build some stadiums, make some money, have fun, and relax!

  5. GODWINEO says:

    75,00 wud b gud 4 us, we dnt knw wat is goin 2 hapen in the nxt few years in terms of ticket selin coz wen d trophiz starts comin along wit d stars yr couch wud b use as seats in a 60,000.