Anfield Forever : Alan Edge presents the case against the move.
The arguments FOR leaving Anfield
The pro-movers' reasons for moving can be broadly summarised
as follows:-
The arguments AGAINST leaving
Has the time come to move on?
Do we need a 70,000 capacity stadium?
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?
Can we expand at the current location ?
Are we being sentimental and emotional for wanting to stay?
Has the time come to move on?
"We need to move on."
A convenient catchphrase from the pro-move lobby within the
club. One that invokes images of the go-getter; of thinking big and keeping
one step ahead of the pack. Above all, of finally entering the Millennium.
"If you stand still you move backwards."
And yet another one from the same stockpile. At once, Liverpool
fans worldwide are being persuaded into believing a move to a new stadium is
a panacea for any ills we may have suffered throughout the past decade. It is
almost as if we are courting failure if we don't move.
This, as far as we at A4E are concerned, is the core confusion
and misrepresentation at the heart of the pro-movement campaign. Muddled thinking.
Ill-founded ideals. Dare we go so far as to say deception too? At heart, anyway,
a paucity of logic and a blandness to chill the souls of those who really do
bother to think the whole thing through.
The reality, of course, is startlingly different. A brand new
stadium guarantees nothing. It is a hollow undertaking to the fans. A promise
of goods to be delivered that is actually more likely to fail than it is to
succeed.
In football, success is not about new stadia or expansion or
even expansion of existing stadia. It is about good management and good players.
By all means the two concepts can be fused, if appropriate and timely, with
the requisite stadium redevelopment. However, for anybody to project a new stadium
as pivotal to any success story we crave means they have taken their eye off
the ball. If indeed it was ever focussed. Scrutinised, such dogma is as misleading
as it is preposterous.
Witness the resurrection of this club's fortunes this past year
or so. To what precisely do we owe this resurgence? The prospect of a sparkling
new stadium as expounded by the likes of Rick Parry? Or Gerard Houllier's expert
guidance and the emergence of genuine talent and sensible transfer dealing at
our current home?
Notwithstanding such upturns in fortune, we must also ask ourselves
just what it is that a football club is about at the end of the day. Well, we'll
tell you. At the end of EVERY day, a football club is about heritage, continuity
and tradition. Ultimately, all else we hold dear about a club stems from the
base those ingredients provide. That also includes any great players and managers
and any success that may ensue. Gerard Houllier and Phil Thompson included.
The "moving on", about which we have been consistently
regaled, is actually a betrayal of the core values these latest saviours represent.
The current boardroom custodians of our heritage - which we need to remember
is all such people as Rick Parry are - have neither the right nor the mandate
to enact a move from our home. Unless faced with no other possible choice, a
move should NOT even be considered. Apart from being too drastic, irreversible
and risk-laden it is completely unnecessary, as we shall go on to demonstrate.
Do we need a 70,000 capacity stadium?
Whatever else is said, it is clearly evident that Liverpool
Football Club DO need to increase capacity from the current 45,500. This current
capacity is insufficient for the most attractive fixtures and affords little
pricing flexibility other than for the less attractive games.
That said, the crucial questions still need to be asked - DO
WE ACHIEVE THIS INCREASED CAPACITY BY MOVING TO A NEW 70,000 STADIUM AND IF
WE DO SO CAN WE ATTRACT 70,000 FOR EVEN THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS FIXTURES LET ALONE
ON A REGULAR BASIS? IF NOT, THEN WHAT INCREASED CAPACITY IS ACTUALLY NEEDED?
Let us first look at the pro-movers' representation of the current demand situation:-
We have an average league crowd of around 44,000 in a ground
holding only 45,500. We also have a further 10-14,000 on the season ticket waiting
list champing at the bit to get in.
The clear insinuation here is that if the aforesaid 44,000 are
not quite all season ticket holders then they certainly represent the guaranteed
minimum base upon which we need to build for the future.
Add the 10-14,000 waiting list to the 44,000 and that gives
a virtually guaranteed catchment of 54-58,000. Throw in a further 2,000 -12,000
casual visitors depending on the attractiveness of the particular game and there
is your magical 60-70,000 regular attendance.
Many Reds appear to have bought this convenient idealogy. Local
"luminaries" such as the Liverpool Echo's Ken Rogers and Tommy Smith,
definitely have. What's more they have expounded on it in print. Repeatedly.
Needless to say, the facts are significantly different. Alarmingly
so:-
Liverpool Football Club currently restricts its season ticket
holders to around 29,000. The season ticket waiting list is claimed to be 10-14,000.
It is suspected that the real waiting list figure is closer to half that due
to multiple applications, "officially unsanctioned" ticket inheritance
arrangements, long-term drop-outs etc. Indeed, Rick Parry himself has recently
hinted at it being nearer half the originally perpetrated figure. Discounting
away supporters the rest of the regular 44,000 attendance is composed of around
12,000 specific match day ticket applications.
[Incidentally, it should be stated here that the reason for
the club restricting the number of season ticket holders and maximising the
match-day applications is to balance the make-up of the clientele attending
Anfield thereby satisfying the lucrative day-tripper following which in turn
helps to sustain club shop turnover.]
Back to the argument, the crucial point as far as the optimum
capacity issue is concerned, is that the 12,000 match day applications effectively
account for the whole of the season ticket waiting list demand.
YES, you heard right.
In other words for a run-of-the-mill league fixture there is
NO FURTHER DEMAND OF ANY REAL SIGNIFICANCE to be tapped into. Thus, the forty
odd thousand that is currently Liverpool's average attendance happens also to
be - moreorless - Liverpool's maximum regular attendance OTHER THAN FOR the
most attractive fixtures.
This submission is borne out both HISTORICALLY and by reference
to THIS SEASON'S ATTENDANCES at the aforesaid run-of-the-mill league games and
also cup games where the possession of a season ticket is not required.
The highest average attendance in our club's entire history
is around 48,000. That came at a time when our club was eminently successful
and capacity was nudging 56,750. That record average comprised several games
at - or almost at - capacity such as Everton, United, Chelsea, Leeds but reveals
several lesser fixtures struggling to break past 38,000.
Correspondingly, most of the less attractive league fixtures
THIS season have failed to attract full capacities whilst attendances for cup-ties
- apart from the most attractive European ties and the finely balanced domestic
Semi-Final against Palace with their large away support - have been SIGNIFICANTLY
below capacity.
Staying on this point, the attraction of European games is often
cited as a reason for a significantly greater capacity. Yet, the reality does
not bear this out. Apart from the recent Roma and Barcelona ties the attendance
at every European tie this past decade or so has fallen significantly below
capacity or has barely reached capacity. And, contrary to unsubstantiated rumours,
even for the Roma and Barcelona ties it is unlikely whether there remained that
much unquenched demand - certainly from supporters who could by any stretch
of the imagination be branded as core supporters. And taking this point even
further how many such fly-by-night supporters will pledge their support if such
fixtures were ever to become run-of-the-mill in the Champions League as opposed
to one-off mouthwatering affairs?
All this prompts the question - if we just about manage to pack
in forty odd thousand at Anfield on such occasions how on earth would we ever
hope to fill a 70,000 stadium, particularly once the novelty of such a prestigious
move has evaporated?
We would justifiably ask. Where are all these mythical legions
of supporters to be found? The ones cited by so many as the reason behind the
move? The ones who so vociferously support the idea of the new stadium and who
vow so adamantly that they will fill it?
We must stress that we are not setting out deliberately to goad
here. The fact is hard-hitting, soul-searching questions simply demand to be
asked AND ANSWERED before the club begins even to entertain the possibility
of quitting our beloved home.
We at A4E have been Anfield regulars for many many years. We've
seen the fickle souls come and go. Surely what we are saying does at least prompt
the need for more serious thought than has to date been given into the reasoning
behind the move and the assessment of our realistic regular active drawing power.
If at some such games we sometimes struggle to amass 20,000
of our own kind - such as has been the case so often these past few years -
how the hell on earth can we then seriously look in the eye the prospect of
a stadium with almost four times that capacity?
Let's be brutally honest, it simply doesn't stack up.
And for those who point in mitigation to the difficulty in obtaining
tickets for ordinary league games, we would say this. The reasons behind such
failure often have more to do with Anfield's restricted ticket CREDIT CARD HOTLINE
capacity rather than its restricted GROUND capacity. It is important the two
problems are not confused. Other than the most popular fixtures, prompt postal
application or personal attendance at the ground invariably produce successful
applications for MOST games. Tickets are often still available right up to the
day of the match.
There is another interesting paradox to be considered here.
If Liverpool were to move to a 70,000 seater stadium, the demand
for season tickets would in all likelihood be significantly reduced. How many
ordinary fans would bother forking out £400-00 or £500-00 up-front
for a season ticket when guaranteed entry without one? After all, what else
is a season ticket purchased for? Essentially it is for the guarantee of admission.
So what happens? Supply of seats goes up. Demand for season tickets goes down.
You pick and choose your matches and obtain a ticket on the day or pay at the
gate. And for cup finals? Well, simply take your chances in the same way as
everybody else will likely end up doing.
So in that event, how many WITHOUT season tickets will then
turn up on a cold slushy New Years Day to admire the silky attraction of Southampton?
Would the 38,000 actually managed this season be repeated or would a sub 30,000
crowd have been more likely? It is another crucial question that needs addressing
by Rick Parry and the pro-movers.
Of course, one of the misconceptions in this debate is that
we have an active support - ie those that actually go as opposed to simply making
loud and concerted noises about going - to equate with that of Manchester United.
People watch United comfortably filling their 67,000 capacity
stadium for every league game and, more pertinently, for every domestic cup
and Champion's League fixture. They then automatically assume that we could
do the same if we possessed a stadium of comparable capacity.
Sadly, as much as it might hurt us to say, that is simply not
the case.
United have since the war been able to boast a significantly
bigger following than ourselves. Whilst we may lay claim to be quite comfortably
the second biggest, United regrettably are out on their own.
Now it is true that part of this does arise from their greater
ground capacity. There are, though, other more significant factors at work.
Contrary to the popular perception, the reason for United's
greater volume of active support is not down to busloads of Cockneys and Devonians.
Nor is it down to the hordes of native Mancunians or Salfordonians either.
No, the reason why United have no trouble whatsoever filling
their stadium on a regular basis is because they just so happen to be at the
heart of the most fervent footballing hotbed in the entire world. The inestimable
football devotees of the North West and Lancashire look inwards to Manchester
United as their favourite team. The North West represents United's hinterland.
It is akin to the numerical support that Barcelona can draw upon in Catalonia.
Or, we daresay, the carve-up of virtually ALL Scottish and Ulster support between
Rangers and Celtic.
Only Merseyside, arguably THE most football-crazy part of the
very same region, significantly bucks the distinctly United-flavoured Lancastrian
trend.
None of this is easy for Liverpudlians to stomach. Unfortunately,
it is the way it is. Whether we on Merseyside like it or not. Many vicarious
followers our club may boast but when it comes down to getting actual bums on
seats on a regular basis, United simply have a hell of a lot more bums. Fact!
Moving quickly on to the wider slightly longer term picture.
It may currently be BOOM time for soccer. How long will it last, though? Even
the most optimistic forecasts predict the vogue has reached its zenith in Europe.
Unfashionability will come. Sometime. De-gentrification will
arrive. Sometime. The next recession, too. Sometime.
Let us not forget exactly what a recession is about. On Merseyside
it will mean even larger chunks of the football loving population with no job,
no money, no life. At such times £25 for a football match becomes somewhat
beyond the compass of even the most fanatical Red. Back in the eighties amid
such circumstances the odd game might just have been affordable. Nowadays? Forget
it.
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.
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.
Alan Edge
Alan writes on behalf of the [url=http://www.anfield4ever.co.uk]Anfield
Forever Group.[/url] He is also the author of Faith of Our Fathers, essential
reading for all Reds and available from Amazon and all good bookshops !
Do you agree with Alan's article? Pop along to our Stadium debate forum and give us your views.
