Why Mersey share should happen - but won't

When Kenny Dalglish suddenly offered guarded support for a groundshare between Liverpool and Everton, it was regarded by some as a subtle shift in position from inside Anfield's corridors of power.

Dalglish, a figure arguably more woven into the fabric of Liverpool Football Club than anyone apart from Bill Shankly, suggested there could be growing sympathy for a notion previously regarded as unthinkable in the red half of Merseyside.

Everton chairman Bill Kenwright admitted he was "intrigued" by Dalglish's comments and indicated a willingness to discuss groundsharing.

Was Dalglish testing the water on behalf of Liverpool's hierarchy? Was the greatest player in the club's history being used to prepare the ground for a seismic move away from the absolute refusal to even consider sharing a home with Everton?

The truth of the matter is that Dalglish was not acting as messenger for higher powers at Liverpool. He was expressing a personal - and in my view eminently sensible - opinion.

After all, a swift examination of the facts supports the logic. Everton and Liverpool are both in desperate need of a new home but do not currently have the cash to build them. Surely discussing shared accommodation is at least a starting point?

Dalglish admitted it was not the ideal solution to what currently seems an insurmountable problem but he deserves credit for putting his head above the parapet and at least airing an idea that has been regarded as unthinkable at Liverpool.

In reality, however, the groundshare is as far distant a prospect as ever and never the twain shall meet when it comes to Merseyside's two great football institutions living side-by-side on the same property.

Kenwright's swift embrace for Dalglish's theory is no surprise. Unlike Liverpool, Everton have never ruled out a groundshare. From former chief executive Rick Parry through to Tom Hicks and George Gillett, the response from Anfield has always been of an "over our dead bodies" variety.

And the position is still as firmly entrenched inside Anfield, despite Stanley Park still looking very much like Stanley Park, not Liverpool's prospective new home.

Anfield's neighbouring Stanley Park is still awaiting any development

Liverpool, I am told, remain totally committed to building their own home - groundsharing is not an on any agenda - and believe that, once their search for new owners is successfully concluded, the new stadium will start to rise in Stanley Park.

Of course, this all hinges on the not inconsiderable matter of finding new owners to fund the project but, for now, I believe there has not been any alteration in Liverpool's policy.

Liverpool also believe different business needs dictate that sharing a stadium with Everton is a non-starter.They have fixed the capacity of the proposed new stadium at 60,000 - a figure they believe they can reach comfortably if the right owners are found and the club can finally start to fulfil its potential again.

This may seem a trifle fanciful in the context of only 22,577 attending the Carling Cup defeat against Northampton Town and 25,605 pitching up for the Europa League win against Steaua Bucharest.

It underscores the urgency with which chairman Martin Broughton needs to find new owners. The chain is obvious - new owners will presumably fund a new stadium and fund Roy Hodgson to buy the sort of players Liverpool will require to fill that stadium.

The recent decline has delivered the message that Liverpool's supporters will not turn up at Anfield out of blind faith alone.

Everton's failed stadium plan in Kirkby was expected to have a capacity of 50,000. Would they want to share a 60,000-seater ground with the prospect of having around 20,000 empty places on a regular basis?

It seems they are prepared to take that chance but Liverpool have no intention of taking it with them.

Liverpool have also ploughed an estimated �35m into infrastructure and early regeneration work in Stanley Park, another factor that makes them unwilling to back away from the proposal.

Everton's approach has been clear from the start. They would willingly meet their Liverpool counterparts and any other parties to discuss a groundshare.

The view inside Goodison Park, however, is that such a prospect remains a non-starter, no matter how often the idea is floated.

Everton's plans to move to Kirkby as part of a stadium and retail development with Tesco were rejected by the Government in November amid concerns about the possible harmful effects on the "vitality and viability" of local communities.

They now have three options.

A new stadium within the Liverpool city boundary - regarded as essential by Kenwright after criticism that the Kirkby development lay outside the city - alongside a retail partner on a similar model to Tesco is the preferred option.

The second possibility is the redevelopment of Goodison Park, which is regarded as almost impossible given the footprint of a ground effectively penned in on three sides by terraced housing and a school.

Thirdly, there is the shared stadium.

If two and three can be more or less ruled out, a new stadium within the city boundary is not likely to arrive imminently either.

When Everton recently announced plans for a new �9m retail and office complex at Goodison Park, shareholders were told this effectively meant the club would be staying for the short to mid-term - which I understand means between five and 10 years.

So we are left with the following scenarios:

Liverpool are all set to go on a new stadium in Stanley Park, with the minor hitch of not having any money to pay for it until Hicks and Gillett are removed from power.

Everton, having seen Kirkby fail, appear resigned to staying at Goodison for the next decade unless Liverpool City Council, or some other party, comes up with an alternative site and other partners can be tempted on board to help Kenwright fund the project.

Kenwright revealed this week that he is talking to "three parties" about investing in Everton but there is no suggestion a deal is in sight. It would also appear his first priority, not unreasonably, is to fund manager David Moyes rather than a new stadium.

It all places Dalglish's comments in context and gives them a complete air of common sense.

A groundshare has always been the most logical solution to the clubs' search for a new home but it was appears one has gone too far forward and the other too far back for this to be realistic.

If Dalglish has been the catalyst for even the slightest piece of revised thinking on this thorny subject, then his work is done.

Everton and Liverpool fans, who do not enjoy as close a relationship as many would have you believe, have their hackles raised by the often-stated claim that if something is good enough for AC Milan and Inter Milan then it is good enough for them.

They should also know that pride comes before a fall. If someone of Dalglish's stature can see the benefits shaped by the financial reality facing Everton and Liverpool, then surely others can do the same.

You can follow me at twitter.com/philmcnulty and join me on Facebook.

Burnely News Burnely Players Burnely Transfers Burnely Scores Burnely Matches