Great piece by Barney thingio. Thanks Chopps.
It got me searching back for some of the pieces we at A4E wrote back in 2001 to try to resist what was the seemingly overwhelming urge by so many fans [principally of the KopTalk internet variety] to support Rick Parry's determination to quit Anfield and build the Parrybowl.
Also a visit to the old site which incredibly is still available online makes for fascinating reading
http://web.archive.org/web/20010330184059/http://www.anfield4ever.co.uk/As it is the following piece seems to have been the first one we wrote against the proposed move and it clearly reveals the depth of our feelings:
IT'S JUST NOT THE SAME GROUND
As the craving for our new Mecca reaches virtual desperation stakes in some quarters, the pro-movers' old chestnut - that of Anfield no longer being the same as it was - is to be found surfacing with increasing regularity. Why scarcely a single pub toilet throughout Merseyside is safe from these Rick Parry stalwarts as they reflect, arms propped against urinal walls, on the stream of golden wisdom flowing from them.
"If yer ask me like, it's not been the same since they stopped serving Higgies pale ale in the Boys Pen Lizard Lounge. Two beakers of the stuff and yer could get smashed out yer head. Nectar it was to us young lads. I've not been near the place since thee banned it. It's just not the same ground. A move's the only answer yer know."
I mean, have these guys never heard of evolution? Or Bacardi breezers for that matter?
Of course, Anfield is different now to what it was twenty years ago. And it was also different fifty years ago from what it was twenty years ago. And so on and so forth since the place began life as merely a glorified field for vagrant Evertonians. The point is that despite - and indeed just as crucially because of - all these changes this 'place' we all speak of is still Anfield. It IS still the same place. Whatever its current manifestation, whatever outward guise it now presents to the world at large, its name remains one of the most legendary in the world of club football. It resounds in ALL football circles. Nobody should ever underestimate the significance of that.
And yet there seems to be widespread confusion over this very straightforward concept which is extremely puzzling. It is as if the inherently flawed and actually rather pompous observation - that Anfield is not the same place as it was - constitutes some sort of argument against staying. As if each of these perceptions of what is the "old" Anfield constitute the definitive one.
"It's not as I remember it so it ain't worth saving." Really?
And what about the foregone legions whose perception of the Kop was when it was simply an ash bank? Or those slightly later ones who recall it before it had a roof? Might they not have felt similarly disenchanted about the "classic" sixties Anfield in comparison to theirs?
In reality the very opposite to what these people state is actually the case. Each individual's own freeze-frame of Anfield - as precious as they may rightly be to the person concerned - matters not at all in the big picture. Not even Rick Parry's or Gerard Houllier's. What matters is Anfield as an absolute in itself. As an entity - warts and all. It is that vital principle which lies at the core of this club of ours.
The rest follows from that.
The very fact it has changed so much since its humble Evertonian origins lies paradoxically at the heart of the argument for why we should stay. If the current Anfield was say a mere twenty years old and had remained the same throughout that period then it is doubtful if the place could muster a modicum of support in the face of the hue and cry for somewhere newer, bigger and better. Certainly not amongst us at Anfield4ever. The cement would still be wet, the bonds still very much in their infancy.
Of course, none of this is the case. The fact is Anfield is one hundred and eight years old. It has been our home for generations. Fathers and sons. Great grandfathers and great grandsons. Such lineage matters enormously. More than can ever be represented in mere words alone, no matter how hard we may have tried.
The very nature of the changes it has witnessed since it was that humble muddy field are precisely what separates football grounds like Anfield from other architectural edifices. It is one of the reasons why these places literally cry out to us - their current custodians [for that is all we are] - for us unequivocally to cling to them. They are part of us and us them. We each of us belong to the other. To that same entity which is our football club. Just as do all those past legends who haunt their hallowed corridors and pitches. We move and all that is cast aside. For good.
These are places that have evolved with us. It is what makes them unique. Of course they change. Just as we all change. We still remain the same entity though. So too does a football ground. As society forces its own transformations onto our lives so it does the same to football grounds. Those changes are at once completely irrelevant yet also utterly integral to the role these irresistible concoctions of steel, concrete and grass perform in we fans' existence.
Simply because we are entering a period where the ethos of the disposable commodity so totally dominates almost every aspect of our lives does not mean we should extend such shabby principles to our football grounds. The advent of the "throwaway society" is not some carte blanche signal to toss a major chunk of our very being onto the scrap-heap along with everything else in this grimy, money-ridden, godforsaken era we happen to be living through.
In particular, you do not desert somewhere as unique and as steeped in football history and vital local folklore as Anfield merely because such moves appear to have become vogue in some peoples' eyes. THE home of modern football fandom should not be destroyed just because its current caretaker happens to have somehow become deluded into believing a new ground is the only way forward for a club of our pedigree.
As you will be aware, the fundamental gist of the A4E argument has been that we don't want to desert our heritage and tradition. Contrary to what some have levelled at us, this by no means signifies that we are not interested in success for Liverpool Football Club. The opposite in fact. Indeed, who is to say we might not be more successful if we stayed and expanded? And think how sweet that success would taste if it were not tainted with the blood of an innocent football ground.
By the same token, if some fans ARE willing to trade in their heritage then that is their prerogative. We respect them their choice. We simply don't agree with it. In fact we vehemently disagree. The fact that they seem to be in the majority is no proof that they are any more right than someone who voted for Tory Blair back in the day. Bandwagons are compelling things. They can distort real objectivity.
We do not claim that is necessarily the case here. Nor do we claim sole ownership in the objectivity stakes. The fact remains, however, it could be the case. Take the Blair scenario as an analogy. Those with true Socialist ideals could see through Blair and his eastern Scottish cronies years before they came to power. They could never accept the man nor those cronies nor the compromises they stood for. A majority - many of whom now claim otherwise - were sucked in by the man and his gloss. Those against the man were in a minority then.
As we, indeed, now appear to be.
As it happens, our desire to stay at an expanded Anfield is almost totally instinctive. Quite simply, we have not been seduced by what is on offer. Nor are we in the least bit impressed by the financial myths put forward by Rick Parry and his cohorts. Our cold and experienced logic tells us that at best any increased returns would be so relatively marginal as to be virtually irrelevant. At worst there always remains the possibility if football loses its current vogue that the move could actually lead us into oblivion. Indeed, the only argument that has anywhere near touched us is that which concerns the exclusion of young Reds from our current restricted capacity ground. Our answer to that is we must accommodate such future lifeblood at an expanded Anfield and permit them like us to sample their birthright.
Any other arguments of grandeur or such like leave us cold. We place infinitely more value on the preservation of our home. To us Anfield is priceless. With it, Liverpool oozes greatness. Effortlessly. Without it we become just like any other club with a sparkling new bowl. The changes to Anfield and the fact that the atmosphere is currently to be found wanting matter not. That is not guaranteed to improve wherever we are. In fact given a vibrant team pouring forward once again, we would suspect that a packed Anfield would remain a better bet than most places to produce a fitting atmosphere.
The fact is atmospheres depend on what is happening on the pitch. Not which stadium you're in. Many diehards from the sixties reckon that Anfield in the seventies was shite compared to the sixties. On reflection, having spanned both decades, I would say the essence of what they're saying - as it certainly was never shite - is probably right. What matters though is what Anfield - quiet or noisy - represents.
And that, in simple terms, is our heritage.
Because we stick to this viewpoint some people accuse us of arrogance. I suppose it depends on one's definition but what we try to do each time is not be bland with our articles and answers. We feel Anfield deserves more than a glib remark and so we attempt to develop an argument to support our stance. Call us apologists if you wish but I guarantee you that everything we say about the pivotal significance of our ground to the future well being of this club of ours we happen to believe to be true. We would not pour so much into it if we were simply playing at it.
Perhaps it is only when you have bought into the fact that Anfield is essentially an emotional concept at the core of LFC's very being that you can also begin to comprehend from where we are coming and see why we have never once wavered from our stance. With so many unwilling even to contemplate such nebulous ideals, it seems that a divide will remain over the importance of our Anfield home. The reality, as we see it, is that we shall almost certainly lose this battle. Our overwhelming dread is that in the final analysis if Rick parry gets his wish and Anfield is no more, then EVERY Red will have lost the war.
Anfield4ever http://web.archive.org/web/20010330184059/http://www.anfield4ever.co.uk/ Alan Edge, Will Melia, Tim Kelly