|
azinorum -> RE: Anfield Forever - the Scouse corner (1/18/2007 3:13:16 PM)
|
Part 4 (final)
Then there is the impact of Pay Per View and saturation TV coverage? Will the more lukewarm supporters simply drop the habit of trekking to the game with the armchair beckoning?
Such adverse impact on attendees has already been felt in Italy where clubs as prominent as Lazio and Juventus are flirting with reduced capacities to meet the special circumstances which PPV dictates.
When any or all of these factors come scything down across the game, will we then be able to achieve regular attendances of 45,000? Never mind 70,000?
Remember during the last recession our average home gates dropped as low as 33,000 and that at a time when we were European Champions.
The upshot of all this is that no matter how much we would wish to, we simply will NOT fill a 70,000 seater stadium on a regular basis. To those who proudly proclaim "BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME", we say get real. Your assertion is unfounded. It is wishful thinking. We are not being negative here but the only evidence available tells us that attendances of such a size will not happen except POSSIBLY for those most prestigious of fixtures. And there is no historical precedent to suggest that even then they are likely to be realised.
What all this means is that the assertion that we are losing £600,000 per home game to Manchester United is unfounded. Even if we were to build a 70,000 seater stadium we would not fill it, so the fortnightly revenue shortfall would NOT BE BRIDGED in any case.
In reality, the citing of such a massive regular financial shortfall is simply another attempt at instilling fear amongst Reds about the inadequacy of our current home. The notion that we HAVE to move so as not to fall further behind United is at best nonsense. At worst it is insidious propaganda designed to delude.
We still concur that an increased capacity is a MUST. The new generation of younger Reds MUST be accommodated. However, any attempt to finance the development of a new 70,000 seater stadium is not only unnecessary but folly. We believe a capacity of around 57,000 will meet Liverpool's needs in all but the most exceptional circumstances. Those exceptional circumstances do not warrant taking the risks inherent in the move Rick Parry envisages for this club.
In stark contrast, the capacity we propose can be readily achieved at an expanded and improved Anfield for roughly 25% of the cost projected for a new 70,000 seater stadium at Stanley Park. Financial risk is minimised, demand is satisfied and we retain our home of 108 years.
Just who is speaking sense here? More pertinently, just who is courting ruination of our unique football club? We shall look closer at the financial picture in point 3.
3. Do we need to "compete" with Manchester United? If so, do we need a new 70,000 seater stadium to do that? What's more, can we afford it?
Clearly we do need to compete with Manchester United. In spite of the unprecedented season we are experiencing, United at present are still the team to beat. Whilst we do not necessarily see toppling them as our sole aim, it has to be, by definition, a priority. It does not mean, however, in any way, shape or form that we should ever contemplate emulating them. Indeed, real Liverpudlians should wince at any attempts for our club to ever become another version of them. Nonetheless, they have become the bench mark whether we like it or not.
The question remains, though. Will building a new stadium help to achieve such a goal?
The prima facie answer to this is that surely the increased revenue from an increased capacity will help.
That said, let us once again reiterate what we said earlier concerning the basic principle involved here. Our ability or otherwise to compete with United is NOT dependent upon the respective size of our grounds. FACT.
What transpires on the field of play is THE paramount concern and that is attributable to the respective abilities of the management and players. Good management and players bring about success. A big stadium does not guarantee either of those things. The alluring equation of BIGGER GROUND = MORE REVENUE = SUCCESS is no more than a soundbite without any substance or creedence.
If the size of your stadium was the criterion for success on the field of play then Queens Park, whose ground capacity once almost equalled the combined capacities of its two illustrious Glaswegian neighbours, would now be unrivalled in Scottish Football. Similarly Barcelona would have been more successful than Real Madrid. More pertinently, Anfield's relatively restricted capacity would have thwarted Liverpool's unprecedented success from the sixties right through to the nineties.
Clearly, whilst it is important that the size and quality of a club's stadium is reasonably consistent and commensurate with its stature as a football club - to pretend otherwise would be foolhardy - it is equally important to retain a sense of proportion and reality concerning its actual significance.
Crucially, too, the fame and repute of a stadium have a role to play in the overall equation. In that connection Anfield has few peers.
The actual facts of the matter is that Manchester United's recent success is down to factors which dwarf the significance of their ground capacity :-
a) the finest manager since the demise of our own managerial dynasty
b) a one million pound signing who dictated the destination of the Premier League title for 4 consecutive years
c) a youth policy second to none in Europe.
Neither Old Trafford's capacity nor the revenue ensuing from it have been what can be termed crucial to their success. A quick glance at comparable transfer expenditure at either end of the East Lancs Road bears that out. In the nineties decade Liverpool Football Club spent £20 million more than United on transfer fees. The distinction was that whilst United's was spent wisely on good players Liverpool's, essentially, was squandered. Compare the signings. Cantona, Irwin, and Kanchelskis for United. Stewart, Dicks and Walters for Liverpool. And that at a premium of around £5million! Need we go on? Because we could. Ad Infinitum. [Or should that be ad nauseum!]
Nor must we forget in all this the significance of ground capacity will continue to be undermined with the ever-diminishing role to be played in the future by gate revenue in any top football club's overall business strategy.
But all this aside. Let us now consider the actual economics of the situation; let us explore this increased wealth argument with a few numbers shall we?
Let us assume that the stadium together with its extensive infrastructure costs such as underground parking and massive retaining structures due to the hill location will cost £150 million to complete [this being Rick Parry's initial estimate].
It is anticipated this will be financed by loans from the banks and financial institutions [the source? - Rick Parry again - any murmurings of raising money by flotation having been admirably squashed some time ago by David Moores]. Given such a scenario, the banks will have FIRST CALL on any increased revenues until the loan is paid off.
Say, contrary to what we would term the realistic attendance expectations outlined above, we did after all manage to achieve an average attendance of 65,000. And let's say each of these hardy souls will spend £30 a game on tickets/food/merchandise etc. Over 25 games a season this would generate an additional annual income over and above the current one of some £15 million.
If, as would seem reasonable to assume, this additional income were to be used to pay off the debt, then it would take 10 years to discharge that debt. That, of course, is without taking cognizance of the interest that would in reality be added to the equation! So, in simple terms and taking an extremely optimistic view of both attendances and financial charges, by about the year 2015 we should be in the market with our arch enemy for the likes of Ruud Van Kneesgotbetter.
We ask you. Are we all prepared to wait that long for the financial advantages of the new stadium to kick in, if at all?
The point is Rick Parry's assertion that the new stadium wouldn't affect team building was certainly cleverly worded - BUT THAT MYTHICAL ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM THE BIGGER STADIUM WON'T PROVIDE ANY EXTRA MONEY FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS!
We need to be asking ourselves what our fiercest rivals will be doing in the intervening period WITHOUT quite such massive financial burdens around their necks?
There are other salient points, too, which fly in the face of the logic of the move.
Gate receipts have and will increasingly become less and less important to football clubs. More money is generated by sponsorship along with merchandise and television than Joe Public forking out his £25 or £30 a game. Indeed, could it be in a decade or so's time when EVERY game is televised that the clubs and TV stations will actually be having to fork out for the likes of us to go and provide the atmospheres for which they will then be so desperate!?
On the face of it the plans for a super stadium may seem to some to be the answer to our aspirations to compete with Manchester United. As we continue to delve that little bit below the superficial gloss of the package on the table we can begin to see that the reality of destroying and starting anew is perhaps not all it may be purported to be.
On the contrary what we need to be doing is cashing in more on what we already have. Exploiting our own stadium's renown. Extolling the uniqueness of the brand name of ANFIELD which most other clubs would die for.
This is currently a major shortcoming in our club's armoury and a distinct failing in its current strategy. Moving from the most legendary club stadium in the world to some lesser form of Nou Camp or Bernebau will do nothing but exacerbate that shortcoming. Down the years we have had teams and pressmen from all over Europe coming and marveling at Anfield. If not at the structure itself then at the fact that they were stood inside such a legendary edifice. Theirs was truly a sense of awe at what they beheld. Does not that sort of marveling by others at our heritage tell us something?
4. Can we expand at the current location ?
Back in October 1999, it was suggested that we could readily expand the existing ground to 65,000 as part of the Anfield Plus Initiative which encompassed the wholesale regeneration of both the Anfield stadium and the immediate Anfield area.
Given sensible and sensitive negotiations with the local residents and Council, there is NO REASON on god's earth why a resurrection of this scheme cannot be realised for the GOOD of ALL concerned parties. IT MAKES SENSE FOR EVERYBODY SO WHY SHOULDN'T IT BE RE-SURFACED?
Any architect or engineer with imagination would relish the challenge of expanding and developing one of the most famous and historic club stadiums in the world. Of course, it is achievable. Of course, there are ways and means of doing it. Perhaps things could begin with an independent survey of the current site and some detailed clarification on the status of the Anfield Plus Initiative to establish precisely what the alternatives are that are available.
And even if the full Regeneration scheme is not immediately viable, then contrary to some of the viewpoints that have been bandied around, there IS still room to expand at Anfield. Piecemeal expansion it might be but hasn't that always been the case with existing football grounds? An expanded Anfield Road and Main Stand beckon enticingly. And what of the Kop itself? Double tiered with 3000 additional seats as was one of the original proposals considered. Together such imaginative developments could take the capacity towards 60,000.
Over to you Rick Parry.
5. Are we being sentimental and emotional for wanting to stay?
You betcha.
Football and Liverpool FC, in particular, tend to make you that way. As such it is inevitable that those so affected do also retain a tendency to want to cling to what they regard as their home.
Many people in favour of the move have stated that in the modern arena of commercial cut and thrust, there really is no place for such cloying sentiment. Their contention is that we need to move on. That things change and institutions such as the Kop do, too. That Anfield, itself, has changed so dramatically in recent years that all those wonderful memories are, indeed, just that. In any case, they point out, it is not the ground that provides any aura or atmosphere. It is the supporters, themselves. The ground, after all, is simply bricks and mortar.
Now without wishing to be disrespectful to this view, it must be said it hardly carries a great deal of credence, once you begin to analyse what it is these people are contending.
The point, quite simply, is that the traditional English football ground is a structure that by its very essence has to and does evolve down the years. At any given point in its history you will find some change or modification has taken place that will reflect the style or needs of the particular period. It is this evolving form and concept which gives such edifices their architectural uniqueness. In recent years, of course, such changes have gathered pace but there has always been some degree or another of evolution going on.
The Spion Kop is a rather evocative example of this evolution.
The Kop originally was flat land behind the goal. Then it was a huge earth bank christened the 'Spion Kop' by a Liverpool Echo sportswriter. Later it had concrete terraces. Later still a roof. Next a Boy's Pen. Then a new roof covering. Then came proper access and egress staircases. Then new crush barriers. Finally, wholesale replacement by the current seated Kop grandstand. Similar stage developments are true of all parts of Anfield.
What this means is that any argument in favour of moving which uses the submission that Anfield is no longer the same and so we may as well move anyway is inherently flawed. The contention is self-defeating. The changes to a ground become part of that ground. Part of its history and part of the intrinsic fabric and feel of the place. There is no finer living breathing example of this in the world than Anfield.
[image]http://www.loki2001.f2s.com/anfieldpeice4.jpg[/image]Anyone who attended the recent European games cannot have failed to be impressed by the atmosphere of our ground. At matches like those Anfield can still generate intense, perhaps still unparallelled, beauty, excitement and majesty. The atmosphere seems to invoke the spirit of that legendary splendour from far off days and nights. That stuff of our matchless folk-lore. It is as if the circle of our dynasty becomes complete again. Once more, we are whole.
Unwittingly, yet unerringly, we become emotionally, nay, spiritually connected to those far off occasions. Times before many of our current supporting stock were born. Unveiled before us is the very essence of what this football club we support is all about. We tap into the prevailing aura and in so doing we all become part of those great atmospheres borne from the past. Just as the Kop in its own sixties heyday linked with ghosts of its own past. All that singing and chanting. All that swaying and emotion. The fervour, the flags, the scarves, the humour, the sheer bountiful devotion to our team, our great managers and each other.
Nowhere else save Anfield retains that imbued sense of communion and, indeed, community. Nowhere else in the world. It is then that we truly do become the football club that is set apart from the rest. A Holy Trinity of a club. Team plus manager, fans and stadium.
And what is it that holds all this together? What is the glue that binds us?
Why, it is Anfield, itself. Our sanctuary. That sacred place where we worship our heroes and mourn our dead. Anfield our home. Shankly's home. Paisley's home. And now Houllier's home. The home of friends dear and departed. Their sprinkled ashes. Their precious buried caskets. Above all their spirit. The spirit of Liverpool Football Club.
We cannot leave it. We cannot desert it. There is too much, far too much to lose. And so, so little to gain. We again make no apologies here for ending on an emotive note. For all the sound logic we have presented here. For every scrap of evidence we have pieced together, still underpinning everything is the most important argument of all. Without Anfield, Liverpool Football Club is no different to any other football club. With Anfield, it is unique. There are certain rare times when emotion is more important than all the facts and figures and money in the whole world. This, our fellow Reds, happens to be one of those times.
|
|
|
|