Blandford saint Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Besides the obvious emotional reasons why it wouldn't work, it is also totally impractical for many of us who live West of Southampton. The drive from Blandford after work for a midweek game is bad enough now. I think you will find that the support is spread further West and North than East of Southampton, and the cities are 18 miles apart, however much you claim that they are joined up.
slickmick Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 I wonder if some of the respondents would respond the same way face to face.
Matthew Le God Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 (edited) GM I'll ask again Manchester and Liverpool are a similar distance apart to Southampton/Portsmouth. By your logic... Does the M62 mean Manchester and Liverpool are the same city? Can you imagine the annual police bill for policing 70k Liverpool fans in Manchester city centre at least 19 times every year Edited 27 November, 2009 by Matthew Le God
docker-p Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 PORTSMYTH DON'T NEED A NEW GROUND AS THEY CANT FILL THE ONE THEY'VE GOT ! If they want to sell the ground for housing and pocket a few quid they could ground share with Havant & Waterlooville. Much more appropriate.
Guided Missile Posted 27 November, 2009 Author Posted 27 November, 2009 GM I'll ask again Manchester and Liverpool are a similar distance apart to Southampton/Portsmouth. Manchester and Liverpool are 34 miles apart. Southampton and Portsmouth are 16 miles apart. But forgetting that, Manchester don't play their home games in the City of Manchester, but in Trafford, which is in Greater Manchester. Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Wigan also play their home games in Greater Manchester, although what that means, I don't know, apart from where you play your home games doesn't define a club. Its fans and its history that does that.
Arizona Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 The same weird state of confusion that believes that Manchester United is a Manchester Football Team, despite playing all its home games in Trafford. Just to show how confused I am, I also believe that Trafford is a borough, about the same size as Southampton, from this abstract: The Metropolitan Borough of Trafford is a metropolitan borough of Greater Manchester, England. It has a population of 211,800,[2] covers 41 square miles (106 km2),[3] and includes the towns of Altrincham, Partington, Sale, Stretford, and Urmston. Seriously, are you pretending not to understand this concept for the sake of an argument. :-s Trafford is a borough within Manchester. Portsmouth is a separate city quite near to Southampton. Manchester Utd represents Manchester. Ergo - Trafford, Moss Side etc. Southampton FC represents Southampton. Ergo - Botley, St Denys, Hedge End etc. Greater Manchester is a County. Not a City.
docker-p Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Pretty much every example of ground sharing is from 2 clubs from the SAME city sharing a ground. Pompey and Southampton are 20 miles apart. It would be a policing nightmare having 20k Pompey fans in a city they don't like. With the two Milan clubs at least both sets of fans respect Milan. If 20k Pompey fans were in Southampton 23 times or more a year it would end in tears. Steady on there. You're dangerously close to being taken in by the 'Portsmouth Myth'. They don't get that number at Fratton in the premiership. (they've been giving away around 3K tickets for most games this season to poor unsuspecting school kids, who know no better)
View From The Top Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 By the somewhat odd logic employed by the OP then Derby & both Nottingham clubs should share, as could both Sheffield clubs alongside Barnsley and Rotherham. That said, I do remember the time when a groundshare in Lee-On-Solent was proposed and was seen as viable for at least 30 seconds.
Guided Missile Posted 27 November, 2009 Author Posted 27 November, 2009 Seriously, are you pretending not to understand this concept for the sake of an argument. :-s Trafford is a borough within Manchester. Portsmouth is a separate city quite near to Southampton. Manchester Utd represents Manchester. Ergo - Trafford, Moss Side etc. Southampton FC represents Southampton. Ergo - Botley, St Denys, Hedge End etc. Greater Manchester is a County. Not a City. Totally confused and misleading. Manchester United play their home games outside the City of Manchester in the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, which is in the Metropolitan County of Manchester, as are Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Wigan. By your logic, they also represent Manchester...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 (edited) Guided Missile can you name a few ground shares for teams from different cities sharing a stadium in one city? Milan, Munich, Rio etc have both clubs from the same city. Inter Milan and AC Milan fans both come from Milan and respect Milan thus "unlikely" to damage their own city or make it unpleasant for local residents. Portsmouth fans do not like Southampton and having approx 20,000 roaming Pompey fans in Southampton twenty times or more every year is a bizarre idea. The annual police bill would be HUGE. It was bad enough for south coast derby games with 3k Pompey fans once a year. Edited 27 November, 2009 by Matthew Le God
Arizona Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Totally confused and misleading. Manchester United play their home games outside the City of Manchester in the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, which is in the Metropolitan County of Manchester, as are Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Wigan. By your logic, they also represent Manchester... It's up to you how you want to divide the country up, but to all intents and purposes, Old Trafford is part of Manchester. It may be part of Trafford Borough Council, but then Botley is part of Eastleigh. It's still in Southampton. Greater Manchester is a county. Oldham is part of Greater Manchester the same way that Portsmouth is part of Hampshire.
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Who would lend the Skates the cash to pay the rent?
once_bitterne Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 For two teams in the same city it would be fine, but can't see how it would be anywhere near workable for teams in two different cities. The success stories like Milan and Munich also work only because 2 teams are sharing a new stadium so no one of the teams could say the stadium was more 'thiers' than the other. For what you are proposing to have any chance of being feasible it would have to be in a new 50k stadium situation somwhere between them and us. What you are detailing is an owner, renter arrangement as happened with Palace and their tenant Wimbledon FC. The meagure financial income of getting a Portsmouth lodger would be far outweighed by the costs of policing their fans coming to Southampton and then having to repair most of the seating in the stadium every other week. However, it would make perfect sense for Everton and Liverpool to share a Merseyside stadium as they are in the same city, both are potless and both are playing in old stadiums that cannot sustain modern day football. I was shocked this season to look at just how run down Anfield has become. The electronic scoreboard looks as if it was made by the same people who did the one at Kenilworth Road!
dune Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 For what you are proposing to have any chance of being feasible it would have to be in a new 50k stadium situation somwhere between them and us. Bursledon would be a good shout, not sure what the local residents and councillors would make of it though...
70's Mike Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Bursledon would be a good shout, not sure what the local residents and councillors would make of it though... half a mile from Southampton boundary , 15 from skatemouth?
Trader Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Don't Citeh fans call Man U Salford? Because it's not in Manchester.
Arizona Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Don't Citeh fans call Man U Salford? Because it's not in Manchester. Yes, in the same way that Brum is "just a small town in Aston"
LGTL Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Ridiculous idea and a ridiculous thread (again...) I seem to remember wasting my time reading this last time. They all share the same city, we don't. It won't happen, thank god.
Legod Third Coming Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Setting aside the rivalry and vitriol why the feck would we want to help them out? Let them survive or fail on their own, just like we had to...
View From The Top Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 (edited) I'm sure the OP has plenty of examples that he'd like to share with us where two teams, in cities 16 miles apart, successfully share grounds? Edited 27 November, 2009 by View From The Top
rocknrollman no2 Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Why dont we rent the Skates Staplewood? Then at least they might even be able to fill it to capacity.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 (edited) Ridiculous thread, lock/delete it. I was reading through all the posts and thinking to myself sorry GM I can't see this as anything other than a good idea but one that would never get off the ground. The reason being people were in general making a good argument against it although GM was showing them alternatives but nonetheless a tough sell. Then we get these posts like this and the one earlier about I will never share anything with that lot or words to that effect. How neighbourly! All of a sudden I start to see merit in the idea and to a Swiss owner who understands more than anything the concept of neutrality and all of a sudden this could be a worthy solution. Before and after the war both clubs were loyally supported by in many cases the same set of supporters who simply loved Hampshire. My Grandad was part of that crowd his son (my uncle) is often telling me the stories and the clubs were more supported in a way you supported Hampshire Cricket. Unfortunately, he is too ill to travel to games these days but I usually catch up with him on a Sunday and he always says with a happy glint in is eye if Pompey had a good result. He is first and foremost a Saints fan and was my main influence for getting carried away with the celebrations in 76 but he has always loved to see Portsmouth win and got as much out of the their win last season being a local team in Hampshire. There will be one or two idiots who will spit their dummy out of the pram but a move back to previously good relations would surely be no bad thing and those who argue against it based purely on prejudice and not the logistics for example serve only to strengthen the thought that it is an excellent idea with the elimination of segregation the only downside for the regionalised racists and trouble makers no doubt in both camps. Edited 27 November, 2009 by Nineteen Canteen
benjii Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 It is a stupid idea, despite the practical difficulties, for the simple reason that it would not benefit either club.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 I'm sure the OP has plenty of examples that he'd like to share with us where two teams, in cities 16 miles apart, successfully share grounds? Charlton and Crystal Palace - not sure if its 16 miles exactly but if it was 10 it would still take twice as long. Mind you there weren't exactly easy bedfellows on the terraces but it worked for the clubs.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 It is a stupid idea, despite the practical difficulties, for the simple reason that it would not benefit either club. It would be if one was going out of business. Two little boys had two little toys each had a football ground.....did you think I would leave you dying, when there's room in my ground for 2.... Human spirit Benji - get's lost in football at times IMO.
aintforever Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Guided Missile posts a wind up and Nineteen Canteen is the only one who agrees it's a good idea.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 PORTSMYTH DON'T NEED A NEW GROUND AS THEY CANT FILL THE ONE THEY'VE GOT ! If they want to sell the ground for housing and pocket a few quid they could ground share with Havant & Waterlooville. Much more appropriate. Isn't this the point GM is making. Ground share with us and the 10,000 or so plastics who deserted us as soon as we were relegated from the Premiership would have the opportunity to watch top flight football once again as it appears to be the quality of the football not the team that motivates their attendance. (I note 1 big assumption has been made in this post)
Nineteen Canteen Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Guided Missile posts a wind up and Nineteen Canteen is the only one who agrees it's a good idea. Guided Missile posts a controverisal idea and Nineteen Canteen is the only one trying to look at the merits whilst the others simply dismiss it. Dismissing threats or new ideas is how wars are lost and businesses crash.
TopGun Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 The same weird state of confusion that believes that Manchester United is a Manchester Football Team, despite playing all its home games in Trafford. Just to show how confused I am, I also believe that Trafford is a borough, about the same size as Southampton, from this abstract: The Metropolitan Borough of Trafford is a metropolitan borough of Greater Manchester, England. It has a population of 211,800,[2] covers 41 square miles (106 km2),[3] and includes the towns of Altrincham, Partington, Sale, Stretford, and Urmston. I actually live in Urmston, within Trafford. So I get a fair view on the issue. Pretty much all of Trafford is Man Utd supporting although I see a few City shirts also. Trafford is one of about a dozen boroughs that make up Manchester and IMO that gives them the right to support either large Manchester side or indeed one of the smaller ones. The nonsense that is peddled about Man Utd not being part of Manchester is pretty silly. If you want to talk semantics, Salford is a city in its own right and the boundary is right on the Old Trafford doorstep. But it's still silly.
TopGun Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Totally confused and misleading. Manchester United play their home games outside the City of Manchester in the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, which is in the Metropolitan County of Manchester, as are Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Wigan. By your logic, they also represent Manchester... Wrong, as above post.
Glasgow_Saint Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 I think Rangers and Celtic should share with Motherwell and vis versa
TopGun Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Seriously, are you pretending not to understand this concept for the sake of an argument. :-s Trafford is a borough within Manchester. Portsmouth is a separate city quite near to Southampton. Manchester Utd represents Manchester. Ergo - Trafford, Moss Side etc. Southampton FC represents Southampton. Ergo - Botley, St Denys, Hedge End etc. Greater Manchester is a County. Not a City. More correct.
70's Mike Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Charlton and Crystal Palace - not sure if its 16 miles exactly but if it was 10 it would still take twice as long. Mind you there weren't exactly easy bedfellows on the terraces but it worked for the clubs. View from the Top said successfully? Charlton could not wait to get back to the Valley, it worked for the clubs because they had no choice if it was such a good idea why did it stop.
Windmill Arm 2 Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 All the clubs you mention all share the same City. I can't ever see two seperate cities sharing grounds. This settles the argument in my opinion. Good post.
ART Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 With Liebherr technology and a fast track railway anything would be possible. I've long said any such ground share should include the Cherries, although depending on what league they'd play in, one would find it hard to fit in games from three clubs and maintain a playable surface.
ottery st mary Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 Great idea..GM...50,000 seater stadium at Fareham...Red and Blue stripes with 19 canteen and Rupert in charge.....Wot could hold us back.. COYRs.
Under Weststand Posted 27 November, 2009 Posted 27 November, 2009 I could agree with your argument GM if we were from the same city, or were looking to build a new stadium say halfway between the 2 clubs. But as we have now a debt free new stadium, its a pointless argument really as Pompey are just not going to play their home games at SMS. And do you seriously think that the police would let them play here every other week. It would be a complete nightmare, however much it makes financial sense for them at the moment. I think the distance & different city's hypes the rivalry, as for the majority of us, are not next door neighbours with Pompey fans. I can see & agree with your argument regarding clubs in the same City, say Liverpool & Everton, which has hit the headlines this week. It makes so much sense for them to build say a 60,000 seater stadium in Stanley Park for both clubs. Half the cost HALF THE RISK great new facility for years to come.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 28 November, 2009 Posted 28 November, 2009 View from the Top said successfully? Charlton could not wait to get back to the Valley, it worked for the clubs because they had no choice if it was such a good idea why did it stop. What would have happened to Charlton if they couldn't have used Selhurst Park? Where are Charlton now financially? It's a bit of cliche but sometimes in order to survive you need to embrace change for the greater good or fold. Even in our situation after forced and difficult changes that have resulted in a new chapter of hope some of our eminent and alleged role models can't appear to accept the new world order with good grace. Good idea's stop because of people's desire to live in the past and inability to see potential in change. I'm not necessarily supporting Guided Missile but it would be folly to dismiss an idea simply on grounds of prejudice. Personally, I would prefer to lead and let others follow and with football's finances looking unsupportable in the medium term what happens when it crashes? It's no different in a way than the housing crashes of the past where demand outstrips supply and credit and money are easily available in a booming economy, and then 'unforseen' events occur that reverses the trends for a decade or two. The market is then over supplied and demand drops. IMO football on TV is at ridiculous levels at companies like Setanta paying stupid prices for essentially scraps paid the price. Do you watch any European 'Action' during the group stages? I don't they are tedious beyond belief so apart from the most ardent of fans who is watching what happens to the half time advertising? Football is living beyond it's means and sponsorship is getting tougher to find and you only have to look at the state of ITV to understand the decline in advertising revenues. It doesn't have the cache for advertisers anymore so who is to suggest football will? Clubs cannot rely on gate receipts alone and retain players on 7 figure salaries. Look at the debt of Liverpool and Man Utd they don't have government backing like Real Madrid or RBS and Northern Rock. Then we look to Dubai and see the disaster that has befallen that country's unsupportable lifestyle and wacky projects and where do our clubs go for Finance in this day and age? The Middle East and whose to say the collapse of the state owned company in Dubai building those 'islands' will have a knock on effect to the rest of the region. Afterall oil is a finite resource and then what? Maybe not in our lifetime Mike but certainly in our sons the football map will change it has to before it eats itself. If the current leagues are maintained then mergers, ground shares or a realignment of costs with revenues will be required. Failing that clubs will simply go to the wall and it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to image a NFL like structure in the States where promotion and relegation are a complete anathema and the status quo is maintained across the super elite and everyone else sits below them and change to their order rarer than a groundshare idea with your rivals. Its an interesting idea from GM and as a result should not be simply dismissed because due to ugly localised racism it will never happen. Banks don't go to the wall and become state owned and the ritzy surroundings of Dubai don't cause global markets to crash. Bubbles burst and football will to unless it changes and as we found out there are far more pretenders than Mr Liebherr's in this world and we are enormously fortunate to have him as our owner but at the same time we are at the mercy of his plans and ideas on what is good for the club's long term future.
Somewhere In Northam Posted 28 November, 2009 Posted 28 November, 2009 Why dont we rent the Skates Staplewood? Then at least they might even be able to fill it to capacity. maybe.. but only for a top 4 game
70's Mike Posted 28 November, 2009 Posted 28 November, 2009 As i see it this would only work if the grounds were owned by a third party , with both clubs paying a rent to that party. to become a tennant of a competitor would not happen in industry and football is an industry.
qwertySFC Posted 28 November, 2009 Posted 28 November, 2009 Ground sharing is supposed to benefit both clubs. If this was ever a considered option for the blue circus , they would be the only ones to benefit. SFC has nothing to gain , we don't need the money I am sure if Markus wanted to expand SMS he has the required ££££ to make this happen without being topped up every fortnight by PFC paying us a few quid. Cost of Policing such events has no relevance because Hampshire Constabulary provide the police , in previous arrangements where clubs shared grounds, the cost of such matters was covered by the "home team" . The only place where this would benefit would be Glasgow , both clubs have cash problems , both in the same city and as long as they dont join the EPL I will be happy .
Block 5 Posted 28 November, 2009 Posted 28 November, 2009 Guided Missile posts a controverisal idea and Nineteen Canteen is the only one trying to look at the merits whilst the others simply dismiss it. Dismissing threats or new ideas is how wars are lost and businesses crash. You having started referring to yourself in the third person.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 28 November, 2009 Posted 28 November, 2009 Ground sharing is supposed to benefit both clubs. If this was ever a considered option for the blue circus , they would be the only ones to benefit. SFC has nothing to gain , we don't need the money I am sure if Markus wanted to expand SMS he has the required ££££ to make this happen without being topped up every fortnight by PFC paying us a few quid. Cost of Policing such events has no relevance because Hampshire Constabulary provide the police , in previous arrangements where clubs shared grounds, the cost of such matters was covered by the "home team" . The only place where this would benefit would be Glasgow , both clubs have cash problems , both in the same city and as long as they dont join the EPL I will be happy . I will defer this to Glasgow Saint but my understanding is Rangers cash problems are acute whereas Celtic have problems in the same way as Man U have problems (on a smaller scale). Celtic are much more marketable, have better revenue streams as a result and can manage their debt for the time being. I accept Mike's point and who's to say that won't happen on a wider scale across the country as surely that would be the solution at Stanley Park. I think the thought of us ground sharing with Pompey is distasteful born out of a developing hatred as much to do with the chnage in society over the past 50 years than anything else. Once it was just fierce local rivalry as oppose to the bile laden hatred of today. However, because of the other deeper issues in Glasgow I think it would need a cold day in hell before those to clubs even shared a neutral ground or squeezed out Queens Park.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 28 November, 2009 Posted 28 November, 2009 You having started referring to yourself in the third person. AS oppose to being one dimensional in my thinking.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now