HEY, York City fans – here’s a plan. Due to issues surrounding the sale of Bootham Crescent and the development of a new ground, plus the fact that Scarborough too are without a permanent home since the closure of their stadium, then it is proposed both clubs share a spanking new arena in the vicinity of Malton.

It’s so practical. The new site is halfway between the two clubs, has easy access to the A64 and also means all administration and groundwork costs will be halved. If the York City Knights also come on board, those expenses could be cut to a third apiece.

Even if the plan involves extra travelling time and expense for fans – it’s not a perfect world, after all – it’s a grand plan. Happy days.

At this point, I’d expect all City fans to either groan to the highest heaven or moan to their local MP as soon as possible, even if the aforementioned proposal is mere fantasy.

No, no, no, no they would rightly declare and not simply because such a ground would be based in Malton.

Their raise-the-roof objections would be more down to the fact of actually sharing anything with North Yorkshire rivals Scarborough.

So why is there this sudden uncommon interest that Merseyside rivals Liverpool and Everton should share the same ground?

In the wake of the Government rejecting Everton’s planned move to Kirkby, four miles from Goodison Park and outside the city boundary, in a stadium-cum-restaurant-cum-retail complex in tandem with supermarket titans Tesco, the chestnut of the two Premier League rivals occupying the same ground has been hurled into the air once more.

With Liverpool’s finances strapped in a stars and stripes straightjacket – thanks George and Tom, the Stadler and Waldorf of football club owners – the Reds’ desire to move from Anfield a few hundred yards away to a super-duper new arena in Stanley Park is mired in deadlock.

Surely it would make economic sense to just have the one ground between the two rivals, especially as the global recession still has Blighty in its tightest grip.

The clue is in the 16th word of that sentence – rivals. We are foes, we are adversaries, we are opponents. We are two different tribes and we are not for turning, or sharing, or any such namby-pamby, touchy-feely nonsense.

Those who favour the ground-sharing argument point to AC Milan and Inter Milan at the San Siro, or fellow Serie ‘A’ antagonists AS Roma and Lazio occupying the same Olympic Stadium in the Italian capital. Those respective fans would put their mutual feeling of each other at the loathing end of any love-ometer, but they have been forced into dwelling in the same abode because the stadiums are not owned by the clubs but by municipal authorities in a nation where public finances contribute significantly more to private ventures than in this country.

Somehow I don’t think Liverpool City Council is currently so well-off as to undertake such a massive public expense as building a stadium to accommodate its two Premier League teams.

And it should not have to. Both clubs are independent companies based on making money as well as the small matter of winning top-flight football matches.

They need to sort out the matter of new stadia themselves, but any proposal involving ground-sharing should be utterly rejected.

As a Liverpool fan I want nothing to do with the blue half. Their most rightful-minded supporters – can there by any after all they support THAT team – would say the same.

Plain economics do not come into the equation, this is all about plain emotion. As a diehard Red I don’t even want to vacate Anfield, though the 48,000 capacity lags well behind the likes of Old Trafford and the Emirates Stadium thereby much reducing vital revenue.

But if a move has to be made, then it’s to our own ground, our own home, our own stadium. The nature of football in this country, indeed in the United Kingdom, is clannish.

Liverpool should never more share with THAT LOT across the park as should Aston Villa with Birmingham, Hearts with Hibernian, Chelsea with Fulham, Celtic with Rangers, or York City with Scarborough.