Is Ground Share Really Dead?

Let's get my opinion out straight away. I hate the very mention of this idea. Why bring it up now? Well it comes down to the bits of info coming out on the Hicks/Gillett bust-up. Gillett was never an outright opponent of ground share, he wouldn't rule it in or out. Hicks has always gone for broke when building stadia for his sports teams. I am asking myself questions about the possible reasons for such a complete about turn in the relationship between the two americans and the stadium design figures large in them.

In the few statements Gillett has made he talks darkly of Hicks' use of the media and his "version of events". The economic environment has changed radically since the first Hicks stadium design was completed. We have had one return to the drawing board on cost grounds since but I am left wondering if the project still is a "stadium too far" for the resources of Hicks and the club. Is this the nub of Gillett's beef with Hicks? If such an ambitious proposal is forced through will the fans be told, once it is near completion, that the economic realities facing the club mean that the question of sharing the ground has to be revisited?

Hicks will feel confident he can get popular support for the project, most fans love it and the design is radical and would make the club stand out from the crowd. Whether he can obtain the finance without straining future revenues of the club too far is another thing. I pose the question, is this a bone of contention between them with Gillett viewing Hicks as being deceitful in conning the fans into thinking they can have both the big new stadium and all the player signings deemed by the manager to be necessary to get us back to the top and keep us there?