Should AFC and Raiders ground share?
Last updated 11:12, Thursday, 05 June 2008
THE Evening Mail web poll on whether the Bluebirds and Raiders should share a stadium couldn’t have been much closer.
A total of 355 voters (49 per cent) said YES while 373 said (51 per cent) said NO.
In the Evening Mail on June 5 we talk to those on the both side of the fence.
But what do you think? Join the debate and have your say.
Ground sharing does NOT work. Proof exists at Wigan, St Helens, Bury (who shared with Swinton RFL). The more succesful side ends up dominating with serious repurcussions for the other club. Incremental revenue is minimal as again either the owners or the stronger club dominate bars/refreshment kiosks etc.Oldham RLFC is trying to get a new ground and move away from football. Rochdale Hornets owe thousands in rent, Halifax Town might have to move out from the Shay (yet it was their ground before the Rugby club moved in). The list is endless
View all comments on this article
property
jobs
date
Have your say
Sirs,
The problem with ground share comes with the fact that the 2 main sports compete between themselves for the profits raised. The only way that it will be beneficial is if Barrow AFC, and RFLC join together as 1 club. All profits would have to be shared equally. This does work if its done properly and both teams are formed by the one club, with the same directors etc. The only other way for it to work is if the ground is owned by a company/council/entrepreneur who has no vested interest in either of the either teams but for the club itself. Unfortunately, this wont work till some people think about the teams before themselves.
Posted by Allan Crook on 7 June 2008 kl. 13:56