In Italia guardiamo sempre agli stadi inglesi come ad un modello da imitare ed una delle caratteristiche più invidiate è la proprietà degli stadi. Una particolarità degli stadi inglesi è poi che ogni singolo club ha il proprio stadio e salvo in casi più unici che rari non esiste il "groundsharing" ovvero la condivisione dello stadio da parte di due società.
Tutto bello dal punto di vista del prestigio e della storia dei club ma il punto è che per la situazione delicata delle finanze di alcune società - in testa a tutti il Liverpool che proprio qualche giorno fa è passata nelle mani della New England Sport Venture - i costi di uno stadio di proprietà sono molto elevati, spesso a fronte di una capienza troppo ridotta per le potenzialità dei club. E' così che in questo articolo si parla della possibilità che alcuni club decidano di trasferirsi in un nuovo stadio comune ad entrambi. Il Liverpool ha già ottenuto la concessione per costruire un nuovo stadio nella zona di Stanley Park con una capienza di 61.000 posti (Anfield ne tiene 45.000 ed è praticamente impossibile trovare un biglietto per una partita di campionato) e l'idea potrebbe essere di condividerlo con l'Everton. Ancora si ipotizza che il West Ham ed il Tottenham - che dal canto suo ha già una concessione per costruire un nuovo stadio dove sorge ora il White Hart Lane - possano trasferirsi dopo il 2012 nel nuovo Stadio Olimpico. Questa seconda ipotesi è più remota dato che mentre Liverpool ed Everton hanno due stadi che distano l'uno dall'altro poco più di un Km, per il Tottenham si tratterebbe di muoversi a Stratford, ovvero da Londra Nord a Londra Est.
Ho cercato di riassumere brevemente, se masticate l'inglese l'articolo di sotto è molto più approfondito.
Intanto gustatevi un pò di foto suggestive degli stadi d'oltremanica.
Anfield Road e Goodison Park.
Notts County e Nottingham Forest.
Dundee e Dundee United.
Bayern Munich, Milan and Roma groundshare, so why can't Liverpool and Everton, Tottenham and West Ham? By Michael Walker
7th October 2010
As if yesterday was not momentous enough on Merseyside, the idea of Liverpool and Everton sharing a new stadium is back on the agenda. It is not known yet how this is viewed in New England.
Due to economic and architectural issues at Goodison Park as well as Anfield both Everton and Liverpool are eager/desperate to release funds from their respective, unquestionably large support via expanded attendances.
Mind the gap: Liverpool's Anfield (top) and Everton's Goodison Park are separated by Stanley Park
A prospective new stadium accommodating both clubs provokes anxiety, amid thoughts of increased revenue.
But debt expert Stephen Schechter looked at the bottom line on Sky Sports News yesterday and advised Liverpool's new owners: 'The first call I would make would be to RBS to ask for a discount on the payments. The second call I would make would be to Bill Kenwright to discuss the possibility of a groundshare.'
Simon Inglis also considers it an idea worth exploration, more so than, for example, Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham United sharing London's Olympic stadium post-2012.
Inglis, author of the definitive work The Football Grounds of Great Britain, is sceptical about groundsharing in general, but says: 'If it is going to happen anywhere it should be Liverpool.
'Liverpool want a new stadium and have been granted public land on which to build one. Everton are desperate to leave Goodison Park. It is a fantastic opportunity for both clubs to re-invent themselves and for the city to construct a venue capable of holding Champions League finals etc.'
England's nearest neighbours: Notts County (top) and Forest
Inglis understands the reservations but sees 'happenstance' as an explanation for various stadium developments since the 1880s when clubs such as Stoke and Preston first began to build their own homes. Everton, of course, were the original occupants of Anfield. Shared turf in Liverpool makes it different from Tottenham's potential move to Stratford, Inglis says.
'In London the east, west, north and south divides are clear-cut. West Ham are palpably an east London club, Tottenham are palpably a north London club. Tottenham is also a place name. That said, West Ham play in East Ham.
'Ground-sharing is very rare and it's not just in England. Across Europe there a few examples but not many, so we are not that different.
'The primary reason is that a football club's wealth and ability to borrow has traditionally been based on one asset: their stadium.
'It is also about clubs' individual pride and identity. Those may not be the most logical of factors but they are powerful.'
Whereas West Ham see the move to Stratford as a way to sustain the club in the Premier League, Tottenham have planning permission for a new ground adjacent to White Hart Lane. Not having to build a new stadium could save them £400m, however. The economic argument of sharing costs is obvious and when the issue of ground-sharing arises so does the San Siro in Milan.
Closest in Britain: Dundee (left) and Dundee United are just 310 yards apart
If Tottenham are serious about moving to the Olympic Stadium in 2012 - and potentially groundsharing with West Ham - then their next Champions League game provides the opportunity to do some research.
Harry Redknapp's players will train at the San Siro on Monday week prior to meeting Inter the following night.
Spurs' strategists will note that on the ground floor of the famous stadium, there are three dressing rooms: one for the away team and two for the home clubs, Inter and AC Milan.
For 63 years this has been the shared situation at the San Siro. The fact that the stadium is owned by the local council has not prevented Inter and AC Milan hoovering up trophies in Italy and Europe for decades.
In Rome, too, the Olympic Stadium is shared by Lazio and AS Roma. In Genoa, Sampdoria and Genoa share a home. Yet in Britain ground-sharing has never taken off and the mere mention provokes revulsion. Charlton Athletic could not wait to get back to The Valley during their tenancy at Selhurst Park and then Upton Park. Watford continue to share Vicarage Road with rugby club Saracens, but that is a less contentious matter, if annoying for the groundsman.
And Inglis has warnings for those who 'tamper with the heritage' of any club. 'What is it that the foreign investors and the audiences across the world are buying into? Our football heritage. The protectors of the Premier League would do well to remember history and identity.'
The popularity of the Premier League and English football across the world is envied in Europe for the money it can generate - and owning a 'home' stadium is seen as essential to that. It is one of the major reasons why, ironically, two years ago Inter announced their intention to leave the San Siro for a place of their own.
Bayern Munich's Allianz Arena was cited as a model. It was built with two tenants Bayern and 1860 Munich but, when 1860 hit difficulties four years ago, Bayern bought their 50 per cent share and now 1860 effectively rent the ground from their Bayern landlord.
It is estimated Milan council take 5m euros in rent from AC and Inter each year, while non-ownership of the San Siro means each club is restricted in what it can generate on non-matchdays. Nor can either undertake re-structuring without consent.
With Italy losing out to France to stage the 2016 European Championship, Inter have 'put back but not abandoned' their plan. But the idea is still in the air elsewhere in the country.
Roma have revealed an ambitious model for a 55,000-capacity stadium. Roma wish to get away from the Olympic stadium they do not own or control and from the athletics track around the pitch. They described their proposed new ground as: 'English-style'.
Read more:
www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...l#ixzz11hEDfEfB
