Birthright for sale
By Steve Kelly, Will Melia and Alan Edge
From Issue 47, Summer 2000
I thought this Internet stuff was going to be
great. Loads to read, the news at your fingertips,
music to download - I spent, ooooo, a whole 5
minutes on Napster before they shut it down! Typical.
Loads of LFC stuff, too, but if you're doing a
fanzine you have got to be careful. Great minds
think alike, and every so often my feeble one
might get up to speed with them.
And so it was when I read what Alan Edge and Will
Melia had to say about the proposed ground move
to Stanley Park on the 'Kop Talk' web-site. I
think I uttered the word "shit" about
4 paragraphs in. By page 4, I was muttering the
word "bastards". By page 8, I was just
groaning. Not for anything untoward that Will
and Alan were saying - far from it - but there
was my imagined article on the subject, not only
thought for thought but expressed so well that
I couldn't possibly compete. What the hell was
I going to write now? Still, not everyone's surfing
("you're not surfing, you're typing"
- Jack Dee) so someone might have missed it. The
idea occurred to me that I could take you stage
by stage through their piece, add the odd bit
of my own and come to a happy compromise.
Needless to say, we all think it's a terrible
idea. Or is it needless to say it? So many people
seem to be going along with the club's doublethink
that it would seem any opposition is in a tiny
minority, but I think there are an awful lot of
fence sitters around. They may be waiting to see
how the Houllier Revolution pans out, but it could
be too late by then. There is also a disturbing
degree of apathy amongst Liverpool fans, borne
from two things. ONE; "if the club are gonna
do it, they're gonna do it". Well, we'll
see. That's why Melia & Edge are forming Anfield4Ever,
in direct opposition to the club's machinations
- maybe even just to provide a forum on whether
this really is the chosen future of the outright
majority. TWO; "they're not really going,
they're just scaring the householders by the current
ground into selling up quickly and cheaply".
A valid point, as it happens, but we can't afford
to assume that. If we leave our protest until
it's finally confirmed that we're leaving, the
wheels will have been set in motion and it will
take a superhuman effort to make them grind to
a halt.
A4E set out their argument by approaching each
'reason' for moving and setting out to systematically
demolish it. We need a 70,000 capacity because
there are great demands for the tickets currently
on offer and a long season ticket waiting list.
There isn't any argument about the need to increase
capacity, but 70,000? A4E. point out that our
biggest ever average attendance is 48,000. Obviously,
we have added a whole multitude of new fans around
the country and around the world since then, but
ticket prices have become utterly ludicrous. They
will be at least £30 by the time this new
ground is supposed to be up and running. For many
fans, I believe this will be a hike too far. You
can already see fans making their choices. The
League Cup is almost officially dead and buried,
while Liverpool's last two home ties in the FA
Cup (to Premier League and recent-Premier League
opposition) just about managed to sneak over the
30,000 mark. Was it a coincidence that we lost
both matches? There is something about a ground
with huge rows of empty seats that is truly dispiriting.
The less said about the Catch 22 of European competition,
the better. Confirmed live terrestrial coverage
will eat into the attendance, and a full house
will only be guaranteed by the sort of visitors
most likely to knock us out!
There was a certain bittersweet irony on the day
this move was proposed, because the 2000/01 fixtures
were announced on the same day. Wouldn't you just
know that Bradford (h) was going to be the first
game of the season? For anyone who needs reminding,
this game was 5,000 below capacity last season
- in other words, we couldn't even sell out the
ground we've already got!! And for those with
the seemingly conclusive argument that "ah
yeah, but that was on telly", answer this;
do you think football's coverage on the little
cathode ray god is going to get better? Or worse?
It's going to get worse, isn't it?
The new TV deal comes into effect in a year's
time. Not only is Sky's saturation coverage set
to continue, but ITV will screen two highlights
programmes. NTL will be showing about 40 matches
on pay-per-view. Saturation will turn into a deluge,
but that's only half the story. How will NTL make
PPV really pay? Intriguing local tussles? Perhaps.
The really BIG games? Nope - Sky will have first
option on those. No, NTL will be looking for games
where they are guaranteed a national audience.
For me, there are only two clubs who fit that
description. Want to take a guess? Here's a clue:
United are the other one. PPV is going to absolutely
hammer Liverpool's games. There has been a concerted
attempt to 'educate' the football fan away from
slavish devotion to kick-offs at 3 o'clock on
a Saturday afternoon, but they haven't really
succeeded. For everyone, bar Man U it would seem,
the starting time of the game and the day are
of some importance.
Let's examine the very make up of that (perfectly
admirable) 40,000 gate against Bradford. Who do
you think made up the bulk of that crowd? That's
right - season ticket holders i.e. people who
had paid in advance to watch it, whenever it was
being played. Those of you in possession of such
an artefact know full well that you only ever
pay for 16 matches - you get the other three for,
well, free. But aren't there some among our number
who look at the fixture list and (if they were
being brutally honest) could spot at least three
matches that they would rather not bother with?
I did Economics at school - badly, as it turned
out. At the A level stage, they just give you
an O level grade simply for turning up, which
was quite lucky for me otherwise I wouldn't have
got one! Anyway, from all of those dreary lessons
with Mr Fletcher, only one economic principle
stayed with me: when supply goes up, demand goes
down. Is the club really saying that they will
not only retain every single season ticket holder
for a 70,000-capacity stadium, but will also be
able to hand out season tickets to every person
on the (allegedly) huge waiting list?
I think not. Some are going to go beyond passing
on the cup-ties and start giving a few league
games a miss too. At the very best, they are just
going to join the "walk-up" and pay
on the day. With 25,000 extra tickets on the market,
a lot of Reds will dump their season ticket (which
will be a lump sum payment of at least £500
by the summer of 2003) and take their chances
- even for those rare games when 70,000 hardy
souls will fill the place. Alan and Will (I'm
making them sound like a couple of Robin Hood's
merry men here!) make another excellent point
when they say that the vast majority of fans on
the season ticket waiting list actually go the
games via single tickets. I gave mine up in 1993
because Moores bottled out of sacking Souness,
and I certainly wasn't the only one. When the
bastard kept his job despite our 'protest', I
was saddled with paying to get into the Kop or
getting a ticket wherever I could find one. I
sat in some far-flung corners of the ground that
year. When Roy got the job, I immediately applied
to get my season ticket back. I was on the list
but still attending games. Has the club done its
maths correctly - or are they counting the waiting
list crew twice?
A4E's second category was the most contentious,
in reply to the argument that We need to compete
with MU. They are so far ahead commercially that
we'll never catch up. To see them take over our
trophy haul is unthinkable, and they must be stopped
at all costs. Alan and Will knew this would not
make them very popular, but they grasped the nettle.
Too firmly, in places, but facts still have to
be faced; United's support at the moment is at
a frightening level. We can get close, but not
so close that we could build a ground bigger than
theirs and regularly fill it. To argue otherwise
is nonsense. As for financial clout, they have
already won this battle. Reds cream themselves
over the new kit deal or the new Internet deal.
Do you really, even in your wildest fantasies,
think that United have not considered such options
and are not in the process of carrying them out?
Do you really think they will not increase, perhaps
even double, what we make from shirt sponsorship
or the Internet? Once we establish the financial
arena as the biggest battlefield, we're already
beaten.
A4E ask the perfectly pertinent question "do
we need to expand to 'compete' with United?".
They make the point that we can build the ground,
but how will it be financed? Through bank loans?
Then the whole idea of building the new stadium
(providing more transfer funds for the manager)
is held up to ridicule, as the bank(s) will have
first call on any extra profits we make. "This
mythical additional revenue from the bigger stadium
will not provide any extra money for at least
ten years!" - and what will United be doing
in the mean time? They have not mentioned the
possibility of council assistance in their article
(although I may have missed it - it IS huge!),
perhaps because it is basically a non-starter.
I can hardly see the ratepayers of Liverpool being
thrilled about millions of EC money being diverted
to build a new home for what, in essence, is a
multi-million pound business - no matter how important
it is to the community. If the council wasn't
prepared to reciprocate for the blues, there's
half the votes lost before the election even starts.
The only way round that would be a shared stadium,
but of course they've all said that will never
- and Brutus is an honourable man.
Alan and Will then touch on the subject that frankly
I am getting sick and tired of banging on about.
The chequebook has not served Liverpool Football
Club's purposes throughout the 90's. What on earth
makes anyone think that spending even more than
we have already (Souness £30m, Evans £45m,
Houllier £50m and rising weekly!) is going
to finally bring about the success we crave? When
the proof of a successful alternative policy stares
us in the face not only at Anfield - McManaman,
Fowler and Owen were the players of the 90's -
but also on TV whenever Giggs, Beckham and Scholes
ply their ugly trade. As for the most influential
player of the 90's, that must be Eric Cantona
- all one million pounds' worth of him. Sad but
true.
These are all painful lessons, but learn them
we must. There are too many people being too 'realistic'
for their own good, citing past Liverpool success
as something that could only have happened then
and not now. Bullshit! Liverpool fans are becoming
too clever for their own good sometimes. I lost
count last season of the number of times our improving
league place and the chance of a spot in the Champions
League was referred to solely in terms of the
financial rewards, while sneering at anybody who
happened to mention how we won the damn thing
in the first place. The public knew only two players
from that 77 side at large before they wore the
Red shirt - McDermott and Ray Kennedy. When I
hear the pitiful claim that I'm "living in
the past, that couldn't happen nowadays",
it shows that examination of United's superiority
doesn't stretch to looking at the actual team.
Schmeichel and Irwin cost less than £1m,
Jonsen and Solskjaer weren't much more. Giggs,
Neville, Butt and Beckham cost nowt. Scholes would
have played in Barcelona but for suspension. Yes,
the other players cost a lot but that's a third
of the team - and don't tell me Cole and Yorke
weren't vastly overpriced. Keane went to United
at the same time Clough came here, and if they'd
had Hyypia instead of Stam would the outcome have
been any different? Well, yes - they'd have beaten
Bayern 2-0. What United have done has always been
within our reach, even without a new stadium that
could end up as the biggest white elephant since
the Millennium Dome. In fact, United have only
done what Shankly, Paisley, Fagan and Dalglish
did for far longer. Dominate England - and will
I mention our four European Cups? You fucking
bet I will! I know they are past achievements,
but they weren't won with past-it methods. Good
teamwork, skilful players, fit, passionate - they
still play the same game in the 21st Century,
as far as I can make out.
A4E give short shrift to the most insidious argument
of all; ever since the Kop was flattened, it's
not been the same Anfield anyway. This is really
sneaky, and is easily demolished - a bit like
the old Kop! They patiently describe the numerous
changes our ground's been through, and will hopefully
go through in the future. "The Kop was originally
flat behind the goal. Then it was a huge earth
bank……later it had concrete terraces.
Later still a Boy's Pen. Then a new roof. Then
came proper staircases. Then crush barriers. Finally,
wholesale replacement by the current seated Kop
grandstand. Similar 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".
Exactly. Their 'epilogue' may well be sentimental,
but it is beautifully written. I could not do
it justice by condensing it here, and I've already
'stolen' enough. Their article ready does deserve
to be read in its entirety. I know 'RAOTL' have
been reproducing Alan Edge's stuff, but if they
do it with this that's at least six pages they'll
have used!
One area they steered clear of is the subject
of TRUST. That may be because they don't want
to make any more waves than they're already doing.
As a supporter of Anfield4Ever (and not a leader,
as a couple of reports have insinuated), I'm under
no such obligation. I wouldn't trust the fuckers
as far as I could throw them, frankly. One minute
Rick Parry is quoted as saying he doesn't envisage
pay per view because it would be counteracted
by loss of ticket revenue. The next minute, here
comes pay per view - to muted (if any) LFC objection.
In fact, what is the Internet delayed screening
of matches but PPV by another name? One minute
he's saying leaving Anfield is not on the agenda,
the next minute we're um leaving Anfield - that's
without a single second's consultation with the
fans.
This is the same club that has spent around £40m
on renovating Anfield in the last ten years -
including that gloriously inept and inadequate
upper tier at the Anny Road end. This is the same
club that talks of closing the financial gap between
ourselves and United, but when the latter were
quoted as being worth one billion pounds they
were busy selling 10% of our club for a fifth
of what a similar slice of the plc would cost.
And people are falling for all this! You hear
people talking about keeping the new ground in
'the spirit' of the old Anfield, even referring
to the Shankly Stand and Paisley Stand - well,
unless Nessie and Jessie have got a million a
year they can fork out, you're living in cloud
cuckoo land. The Millennium Stadium in Cardiff
is already looking for a sponsor! Have a look
at the current Anfield and count the references
to Reebok and Carlsberg - and they're not even
sponsoring the ground. Yet. Some talk about the
use of the land left vacant when we leave; "ooo,
it'll be a nice little park for the local kiddies".
It'll be a park all right, a car park. Oh no,
sorry. They've denied they'll turn it into a car
park - so that means they won't, right?
It's just really hard not to be cynical sometimes.
Perhaps there is a bit of arm-twisting going on,
and the inheritors of the Mason sisters' mantle
will give up faster than they did. Then we can
expand the Main Stand and the Centenary, ending
up with a 55,000 capacity. That sounds just about
right. A new 70,000 capacity may be a bold initiative,
but it is fraught with difficulty and danger.
That is before we get into the romantic and sentimental
argument about destroying our spiritual home.
If it is true what they say and romance is dead,
and it is true (as some are actually implying)
that Anfield is not that special anyway, then
how many people want to stick it out with the
Reds in their new home? Saturday afternoon at
3 o'clock? Not special, we can ditch that. A proper
Red Liverpool kit to be proud of? Not special,
we can ditch that. The Kop? Not special, we can
ditch that. A reasonable entry price? We can definitely
ditch that.
But can we honestly ditch Anfield? For some, that
may be one betrayal too far.
For the full transcript of Will and Alan's excellent
article, check out Anfield4Ever
|
