David Neve presents the case for a New Stadium 

Shanklygates Columnist David Neve writes in favour of a move from Anfield.

The proposed move. The conclusion?

Are we at last reaching the final stages of the proposed new stadium debate? Should Liverpool Football Club leave our Anfield home of nearly 110 years and move to a new better, large stadium befitting the club's stature? The issue appears to have dragged on and on for ages with claim and counter claim being presented, debated over and resurrected in another form a short time later.

It comes as no surprise to those who have followed the debate, that there are two groups who each believe their way is the best way. In short, you are either anti move or pro move. Some may be undecided but I'm not convinced they are a sizable proportion. Neither am I convinced the anti move faction have the majority on their side.

I nailed my colours on the Stanley Park debate to the flagpole a long time ago. I would be less than honest if I didn't admit to reconsidering that decision especially when you marvelled at the colour and atmosphere on show for the Barcelona UEFA Cup tie and other games.

Despite that re appraisal though, I see no reason to change my views. That is not to say I give Liverpool FC a blank cheque to push ahead with the scheme. On the assumption that the city council will not allow the Re Gen scheme to proceed (and it is the city council who have stopped that, not Liverpool) thereby turning Anfield into a suitable 63 - 65,000 (approx) all seat stadium and, subject to funding issues that will enable transfer money to be ring fenced, I am still in favour of the new stadium going ahead.

When asked to write this piece, I kind of thought 'oh not again' and wondered if I could put the pro move point across any more vigorously than last time. I have sat down and started to write something only to leave it, come back to it and continue from where I left off, scrap it all then start again. There are so many points to consider and argue / debate against, that it is fair to say I could probably write a lot more words on the subject.

In truth, I consider many of the points I have raised and discussed previously to still be valid. The only real new development seems to have been the production of the proposed plans for the new stadium site on the Stanley Park car park by someone only known as 'a resident.' These pictorial plans while a little fuzzy, can be viewed on the A4E website.

These plans show the stadium occupying what is currently the car park, the Vernon Sangster sports hall and, part of the park up to the tarmaced road which runs through the park from Priory Road to Anfield Road. It also shows the area occupied by Anfield subsumed into the park.

Taken together, when the area that is Anfield is 'handed over' to become parkland, the total area of the park taken by the new stadium is not that great considering over half of the proposed footprint of the new site is already occupied by a glass strewn car park and the Sangster building.

I do not therefore subscribe to the view held by the 'resident' or A4E that a lot of parkland is being lost. I could argue the actual footprint of the new stadium itself isn't that much bigger than Anfield. When you include the concourse around it, the area does increase but this will effectively be free space.

Reasons for staying at Anfield.

OK, I don't profess these to be all the reason used by the anti move group but are the ones that tend to be used most.
Tradition. This seems to cover a number of other points but basically goes that everything Liverpool Football Club is has Anfield as its epicentre. Nothing else should be considered, as no changes should be countenanced. We mustn't change else we are betraying our roots and will forget what Liverpool is all about.

Tradition is often used to back up ones own point of view, but how traditional is tradition? Anfield itself is vastly different to what it looked like 2, 5 and 10 years ago not to mention 20, 50 or even 100 years ago. Traditionally, most of us used to stand at football grounds. We don't now. Traditionally, our club didn't have sponsors blazed across our shirts. We do know. Traditionally, we used to watch the game mainly on a Saturday afternoon. We don't now. Traditionally, players used to be paid similar wages to most workers. They don't now.

I could go on and on but the point is proved. Tradition doesn't stand still. It evolves at different speeds and goes on around us. Standing still could result in us becoming the club of yesteryear.

It's our home. A real tug on the old heart strings this one. Yes Anfield has been our home for nearly 110 years. And let me say quite clearly it has served us well in that time. However, Anfield was sited where it is in a bygone era and offers no room for expansion. I am amazed at the number of people who declare their 'love' for Anfield. That is, in my opinion, an over used word to such an extent that many have devalued its very meaning.

'Love' a building? Do these same people love their own homes, where they may have been born, or seen a parent die or enjoyed many, many other personal memories, not to mention loving and caring for their fellow human beings, to the same degree?

There is no shame in moving on from a home you have outgrown and clearly, Liverpool FC has now outgrown Anfield. Quite simply, in itself, it is not a reason for staying put. It is a 'do nothing' option.

We never sell out. Frankly, I don't know how people have the gall to claim this one as correct. We can talk statistics all day about what is Anfield's capacity. The fact of the matter is that the average league attendance (remember what Shankly called the 'bread and butter?') is around 97%. Just ask any business that is operating to that level of performance whether expansion is required and I know what the answer will be.

The truth of the matter is that if you know you have very little chance of getting a ticket for games, you are going to be less inclined to try and get one. We do sell out quite regularly and this despite the fact that games are being arranged for different days of the week and idiotic kick off times.

Anfield can be expanded. This is just about the weakest of all the anti movers' arguments, even before you talk about knocking down existing houses. In one breath, the anti movers are prepared to support the 67,000 all seat stadium (although different individuals and anti move groups will tell you anything from 52,000 to 67,000 is suitable) that was Anfield Re Gen but claim 70,000 for Stanley Park is too big and we'd never fill it! Inconsistent or what?

There are also glib and totally unsupportable claims about putting extra tiers on the existing stands and that Anfield can easily be brought up to 60,000+. Well no actually it cannot. There are firm structural as well as space requirements needed to accommodate such expansion. For one, the height you can build to is dependant on the horizontal surface to build on.

Extra tiers mean amongst other things, extra weight. Adding a couple of thousands of tons to an existing structure is not possible and is downright dangerous. Besides, what view of the players will you get when you are that high in the clouds?

St James' Park, Newcastle has been expanded and towards the back of the new stand, you are 175 foot above pitch level. Is that the kind of views we want to give people?

There are other reasons put forward by A4E and others but I think that is enough to be going on with. What about the arguments for moving?

The reasons for moving from Anfield.

Nearly every fan I have spoken to or, read comments from, who are in favour of the move do so reluctantly. I am no different. I savour the atmosphere at Anfield every game I go to. If Anfield could be expanded such that it was around 63,000 all-seater stadium with good access, views and facilities, who would want to move?

The trouble is, Anfield cannot be enlarged to that size and unlike others, I consider the potential of our great club is far beyond a paltry 52,000 capacity.

Anfield is not Liverpool FC. Some say Anfield is Liverpool. I vehemently disagree. Nothing is bigger than the club, no player, no manager, the supporters not even the ground itself. All are integral parts of the club but no one part is the club.

A further example of this is that some of Liverpool's greatest results have been achieved away from Anfield. Cup Finals at Wembley and Cardiff, league victories at Old Trafford and Stamford Bridge. European triumphs at the Stadio Olympico, Stad de Lutz and as recently as the Westfalenstadion are testament to what Liverpool Football Club is all about.

But all the visiting fans marvel at Anfield. Do they? Do they marvel at its size, the shape of the stands and the playing surface? Or do they marvel at us, the noise we the fans make, the songs we sing, the enthusiasm we have for the team? We would make the same noise anywhere Liverpool played. We would sing the same songs and still have enthusiasm for the team. Moving to the proposed stadium does not preclude any of these.

Potential to grow. I believe Liverpool Football Club is now at a crossroad in its development as is football generally. We have had an age when big clubs have evolved and seemingly cemented their place in English football's hierarchy.

Around the late 60's and early 70's, there developed a 'big 5' in English football. Those clubs held the influence, power and money in the game. With the advent of big TV money, the big 5 perversely shrank to the big 3. While in financial terms and ability to pull in the cash, Liverpool's placed in the big 3 looked assured for the immediate future longer term and in footballing terms, it looked like we may have become detached from that elite group.

Now, however, we are seeing the emergence of 'super clubs' both at home and in Europe. The country already has one super club and unfortunately, it isn't Liverpool, yet. In Europe, we are seeing clubs paying transfer fees Liverpool could not and cannot dream of matching. The knock on effect is that the players Liverpool will look to recruit will also become more expensive.

The club has to maximise its income every way it can including 'bums on seats.' More importantly, the new stadium provides the opportunity for the club to offer tiered pricing making the game more affordable to younger fans, senior citizens and disabled fans. It also allows those fans who are presently put off getting a ticket because they consider they have little chance of getting one (and what view would they have with someone's 'spare' at Anfield?) to now have the real probability of attending games.

Designed for the purpose. There is no doubt some seats at Anfield have great views. I can heartily recommend the front row of the Centenary Upper Tier! But there are also many more atrocious ones. The pillars of the Main Stand, not to mention the Main Stand wings at the Kop and Anny Road ends, the Lower Centenary wings at the Kop and Anny Road ends all have restricted views or poor viewing angles. The back rows of the Kop and Anny Road lower tier are also reputed not to be amongst the best seats in the house.

I have even heard comments that the view from the back rows of the Centenary Upper Tier isn't too great either (and yet some think putting another tier on it will help solve the capacity problem).

As regards facilities, probably only the Main Stand and Paddock are not up to the standard afforded elsewhere in Anfield but that's still between 13 - 15,000 people affected.

At the proposed stadium, everyone would have unrestricted views and you wont be miles from the pitch as some have suggested. The shape of the new stadium will be similar to the Millennium Stadium at Cardiff. And I didn't hear anyone complaining they had a poor view there.

The new stadium will also provide the opportunity for Liverpool Football Club to offer more seats, spaces for wheelchairs and better facilities for our disabled fans. Surely these people deserve better than to be placed in a corner or at pitch level where they cannot see the other end of the pitch clearly?

It will still be our home. Despite what others may say, the new stadium will still be our home. As the saying goes, home is what you make of it.

During the 90's, was any team in awe of us at home? Did they fear coming to Anfield? Did they look intimidated by the place? Didn't look that way to me and many others. So, the fact that Anfield was and always had been 'our home' despite all our past glories counted for very little if anything in pure footballing terms.

The point I'm trying to make here is not that Anfield didn't matter but that more importantly, it is what the team does that makes a home appear invincible and impregnable. It is the team that makes other clubs' players fearful of playing Liverpool at home not what or where the home ground is.

In a new stadium, we will still sing our songs, bring our banners, watch the boys in Red and cheer them on to victory. Maintaining a winning way will make teams as fearful of the new stadium as they used to be of Anfield when we were the dominant team. Numerous clubs have moved to new grounds in the last 10 years. Not one of them has lost its traditions, its values or its history. Most of them if not all, have seen their average attendance increase. Could the better facilities have attracted them?

I have said before there will be sadness if we do move from Anfield. There will also be tears in my eyes on that day if it ever does come. But I think this issue is more important than the idiosyncratic interests of those who don't want to move because of memories, traditions or building Anfield into some deity it is not.

It is about allowing Liverpool FC to achieve its potential and establish itself as a true footballing power in the world. It is about allowing more fans the opportunity to see the team they want to see in the surroundings they feel comfortable with.

We can either be insular and continue to turn fans away, which will ultimately result in a reduction in our support and marginalisation of the club as a football power, or we can embrace the new stadium and the potential it will give Liverpool Football Club for the next 110 years and beyond.

Decisions such as these aren't easy. There again, letting your heart rule your head often results in one looking back and thinking what might have been. Is that the future you see for Liverpool FC?

David Neve