Topic: Bascombe Story - let's wait for confirmation before discussing it ok?

[TepidT2O]

Its all very well talking about steep stands, but there is a restriction on how steep they can be.

[Alan_X]

Its all very well talking about steep stands, but there is a restriction on how steep they can be.

Hopefully one of the tweaks will be the rake of the power stands - I hate the lower tier at the Emirates - it's shite but has to be to get the 'ring of silence' in.

[DonkeyWan]

It's a football stadium with seats on four sides so that the fans in the ground can see the match. That makes it generic. We could do a whole load of things to make it less generic and worse to watch the game.

I fully understand why we would get the things that I don't like

- the curved tops and oval plan are to ensure that everyone buying a ticket gets a decent view. We could square it off and all be pleased with the look of the ground and some poor fucker up in the far corner of the New Centenary will be getting the same shite view and crap atmosphere I've got when I've been up there.

- The seat and row spacing will be bigger than at Anfield and we'll lose some of the atmosphere, but I'll be able to sit down without fucking my knees on the seat in front. The Emirates is way too generous and hopefully we will find a decent balance of tighter rows in the 'cheap seats' to keep the atmosphere and more spacious to maximise the premium seats that subsidise them.

The alternative is to go for 'unique' as HKS did and create a brand new stadium that would have huge areas of prime viewing space empty of seats and instead have stands that went up as high, or higher than the away section at St James Park.

The irony of Anfield is that it's four generic bogstandard stands and the oldest is the most generic of all - the Main stand is essentially the Leitch stand which was rolled off his production line but with the gable stripped off and the cross girders covered up.

I find it all very surprising to hear people getting uppity over what amounts to a decent, understated stadium like the Parry bowl, which prioritizes the viewing experience of the fans and keeps to a sensible capacity. A lot of the talk of bigger capacity is driven by envy and a desire to compete with Old Trafford and the Nou Camp. I've never been to the former but I have been to the latter and its half empty except for the bigger games and if you have the cheap seats you won't even see the game. Which is shit.

60,000 is massive, a huge increase from 45,000 (33%) and it's not like you turn up to Anfield and 15,000 people are standing looking in, wistfully. The bigger the stadium, the further away some fans will get from the pitch, to the point where you may as well stay at home and watch it on telly, since the view will be about the same. I've seen lads with binoculars at the Nou Camp, what's the point of that? No, 60,000 is about as big as you can comfortably get without having 12,000 fans (if the capacity was 72,000) so far from the pitch as to ruin it. I have been to the Aviva stadium in Ireland, that also only increased capacity by 10,000+ and the difference in viewing experiences was incredible... I was miles from the pitch. I would also add that as there have been some discussions vis-a-vis standing arrangements its likely in the future that capacity could be expanded by whipping out seats and putting in standing only sections around the ground.

As to not liking the look of the top of the stadium, exactly who will be looking at it? How many fans are arriving to the stadium by helicopter again. No, people who want a beautiful stadium with a huge capacity are doing for reasons other than the viewing experience (I dunno, they like to hear Gurrah praising the new stadium and huge crowd on TV?) For myself, I'm more concerned about what it's like inside and if the viewing experience is better (that's what the antenna are for, isn't it? To get rid of girders in the ground and give people an unrestricted view) I really couldn't give a shit if it looks like an upside down table.

[NorthamptonKopite]

It's an interesting predicament for sure. Do we risk slipping further behind the rest by spending another 5/8 years designing, getting permission and building a brand new stadium? There are many risks with the above idea.

1. Will the current regime still be here in 8 years time? We've seen before how owners can come and go. Their own financial situation could change. What then?

2. The global financial situation could change drastically. We're living in unstable times.

3. The above would mean slipping further behind the rest. Every game we make less money than Arsenal, United, and even City to an extent is a blow to our financial muscle within the transfer market.

4. Would a new design be worth the time added on to do? Will the new design really be that much more significant to the future. We'd all love a brilliantly unique looking stadium, but would a new design really be that much more of a cauldron of noise? Is 60,000 kopites, not just 60,000 kopites, irrelevant of stadium. Anfield has been pretty poor over recent seasons, yet it's still the same stadium that heard all that clamour when the final whistle was blown against Chelsea in 2005. Is it not the fans, and perhaps more importantly, the situation that creates the atmosphere, rather than the venue itself?

As much as I would love, in a perfect world, to have a stadium like Borussia Dortmunds, I fear time is slipping away. We need decisive action, and we need to start competing on and off the pitch with United. And it's not like the original design was awful. With a few adjustments, it could be a very decent stadium. Everyone uses the Arsenal situation as comparison for atmosphere, but let's face it, Arsenal fans were pretty shocking at Highbury aswell.

It's a massive decision, and whichever way the owners go, there will be criticism.

[shelovesyou]

It's a football stadium with seats on four sides so that the fans in the ground can see the match. That makes it generic. We could do a whole load of things to make it less generic and worse to watch the game.

I fully understand why we would get the things that I don't like

- the curved tops and oval plan are to ensure that everyone buying a ticket gets a decent view. We could square it off and all be pleased with the look of the ground and some poor fucker up in the far corner of the New Centenary will be getting the same shite view and crap atmosphere I've got when I've been up there.

- The seat and row spacing will be bigger than at Anfield and we'll lose some of the atmosphere, but I'll be able to sit down without fucking my knees on the seat in front. The Emirates is way too generous and hopefully we will find a decent balance of tighter rows in the 'cheap seats' to keep the atmosphere and more spacious to maximise the premium seats that subsidise them.

The alternative is to go for 'unique' as HKS did and create a brand new stadium that would have huge areas of prime viewing space empty of seats and instead have stands that went up as high, or higher than the away section at St James Park.

The irony of Anfield is that it's four generic bogstandard stands and the oldest is the most generic of all - the Main stand is essentially the Leitch stand which was rolled off his production line but with the gable stripped off and the cross girders covered up.

I certainly bow to your superior knowledge Alan, I was just saying that it may look 'dodgy' but its when yer in it, thats the time to
get real perpspective of the design and appreciate its qualities and negatives, if any.
I did like the HKS design, again going on pics only but then yerself made those observations in that thread and it becomes clear
it would never have worked.
Its important to the fans but thats been significantly magnified what with all the shite that come and gone since the original plan was submitted.

[richmiller1]

The AFL design is the best we can hope for if we move. I would rather we stay at Anfield because I love it. I hate the Emirates and I don't like the impact that optimising sightlines and quality of view has on the upper profile of the stands.

But what people do is read the overall oval plan (which they'll only see if they arrive by helicopter) and the profile of the top of the stands and read it as a round bowl of seats. In fact it's four distinct stands with rows of seats parallel to the pitch and links at the lower levels:

I'll be pretty satisfied if this is the eventual outcome. Granted it isn't much to look at from the outside but then again where is? The inside ticks the right boxes, it does at least look like a football stadium and with a few tweaks should win over the doubters. The roof in particular still looks very impressive and follows the rake of the stands in a way that gives it a decent chance of retaining any atmosphere we can be arsed to generate in five years time.

Perhaps most importantly for the area it was also a cohesive well thought through plan, something that could never be levelled at the HKS design or AFL's half-arsed second attempt. The community aspects of the original were very well designed and integrated.

[richmiller1]

Going back to this... are the two 'behind' goal ends the same, or is there only one single tiered end?

They were both essentially identical in the original plan so that would hopefully be tweaked in some fashion

[richmiller1]

One concern I do have with this plan is the degree to which it might be compatable with a later conversion to safe standing.

If built, this new stadium will presumably make it well into the second half of this century. Given the recent changes in Scotland and a fairly significant swell of opinion in favour of safe standing amongst fans south of the border I would be suprised if legitimate standing in Premiership grounds is more than 10 years off. Being stuck with a ground where this cannot be introduced would be a touch frustrating, particulalry if our rivals have shown more foresight in their designs.

[Strummer77]

They were both essentially identical in the original plan so that would hopefully be tweaked in some fashion

Ah cheers. I hope so. The 'Kop' end is actually ok after Alan has pointed out it is single tiered etc. so it would be nice for the other end to be a bit different. Not sure how mind.

[eirwen]

One concern I do have with this plan is the degree to which it might be compatable with a later conversion to safe standing.

If built, this new stadium will presumably make it well into the second half of this century. Given the recent changes in Scotland and a fairly significant swell of opinion in favour of safe standing amongst fans south of the border I would be suprised if legitimate standing in Premiership grounds is more than 10 years off. Being stuck with a ground where this cannot be introduced would be a touch frustrating, particulalry if our rivals have shown more foresight in their designs.

Even if standing is allowed in England, it would never be at this club.

[Strummer77]

Never been a fan of the Parry bowl. I dont like it and never will.

The design is 9 years old

Unless we're building a stadium every decade each stadium design will be at least 9 years old. I genuinely think a stadium like that is going to stand the test of time better than Hicks' piece of modern art...

[cullinp]

As to not liking the look of the top of the stadium, exactly who will be looking at it? How many fans are arriving to the stadium by helicopter again.

Not many fans, but there's always the chance of Ryan Babel making a transfer deadline day visit in his helicopter!

[Alan_X]

I bet there people moaning when they put a roof on the Kop...

[18 yard line]

Alan X - you mentioned that the AFL 2003 design would allow an increase in capacity in future if necessary.  But if I recall, you said that would involve removing the roof.  IF that was to facilitate building an additional tier then surely that would raise rights of light issues - which are already restricting the proposed design?

[koptommy93]

the 2003 design just looks like a larger reebok stadium to me

[koptommy93]

the 2003 design just looks like a larger reebok stadium to me

[CaptainHindsight?]

Even if standing is allowed in England, it would never be at this club.

I personally don't see why not, safe standing is majorly different to standing. People have their own area.
Considering the Kop of old atmosphere wise, I think it would be a nice touch to have areas in a single tier stand to be safe standing.

[Alan_X]

Alan X - you mentioned that the AFL 2003 design would allow an increase in capacity in future if necessary.  But if I recall, you said that would involve removing the roof.  IF that was to facilitate building an additional tier then surely that would raise rights of light issues - which are already restricting the proposed design?

There are no rights of light issues if we build in Stanley Park. Rights of light is an issue if we expand Anfield.

[Alan_X]

the 2003 design just looks like a larger reebok stadium to me

It is. That's all it is. You're absolutely correct.

[Alan_X]

I personally don't see why not, safe standing is majorly different to standing. People have their own area.
Considering the Kop of old atmosphere wise, I think it would be a nice touch to have areas in a single tier stand to be safe standing.

Hillsborough?

[richmiller1]

Even if standing is allowed in England, it would never be at this club.

On big nights (although not so much this season) its already basically tolerated on the kop.

We certainly won't be an early adopter but if this is introduced elsewhere in the league and seen to be:
 (A) safe; and
 (B) of benefit to atmosphere

 then it's all but inevitable it will be introduced here at some point.

[Twelfth Man]

In what ways can the original 2003 AFL design be tweaked and modified without having to go through another planning permission application?

Can stands be extended at the expense of others? Could you make stands steeper? I presume compactness, seat space modification is a given.

Without changing the capacity, what type of changes can be made?

[barald]

retaining any atmosphere we can be arsed to generate in five years time.

Brilliant

[ultimatewarrior]

The planning approval relates to the size (which impacts on local residents right to 'quiet enjoyment' and the visible appearance from the surrounding areas and Stanley Park in particular.

Anything that happens within that visible envelope is up for grabs but the underside of the stands and their upper profile are what you see from outside.

The revised AFL plans from 2008 are completely irrelevant and should be discounted. In my opinion they are also a fucking diabolical design with too much of a nod to the HKS design with huge areas of glass and wanky arches that had fuck all to do with anything apart from Hicks' ego.

Alan , when comparing both AFL designs from above , the footprint and facade look very similar except for the Kop end. I was curious because I remember reading here before (but really dont have the time to search) that as long as the footprint an height of a planned project are not exceeded, changes may be made. I might be wrong but would this allow us to make significant changes to the 2003 design?

I dont understand why you have such a problem wiith the 2008 design. In my opinion it looks better in every way and as far as i can see, there are no issues with ristricted views. Having a single tier Kop was what many fans loved about the HKS design and I think many fans would love to see this in a new stadium. I think that the Kop in the 2008 makes much more of a statement than that in 2003.

Seriously? "huge areas of glass and wankey arches". I assume that the Kop end faces north therefore the glass is used to allow light to penetrate for pitch quality. Makes sense! and in my opinion also looks cool. You could also argue that the use of glass is to give an open feel and allow both park and stadium to blend. In your prefered 2003 design there is a lot more glass used and the inverted arches and masts make it look like a futuristic circus tent . Even though the 2008 version maybe irrelevant, it definitely not "fucking diabolical".

[J-Mc-]

Quick question.

If a new stadium or a re-development happens, would these still include the plans to make a sort of 'Anfield Way' which iirc was proposed early on?

Shops, bars and restaurants on either side of a walk way which leads upto the stadium.

Or was all that never really mentioned in the plans and was just a rough idea?

[richmiller1]

Quick question.

If a new stadium or a re-development happens, would these still include the plans to make a sort of 'Anfield Way' which iirc was proposed early on?

Shops, bars and restaurants on either side of a walk way which leads upto the stadium.

Or was all that never really mentioned in the plans and was just a rough idea?

The loose plan was to have such facillities within the Anfield Plaza development (i.e the existing Anfield site). That said no formal plans for the site were ever produced.

The 100 metres or so between the two sites is parkland. A few statues is as good as it is likely to get.

[peterb17]

It's a football stadium with seats on four sides so that the fans in the ground can see the match. That makes it generic. We could do a whole load of things to make it less generic and worse to watch the game.

I fully understand why we would get the things that I don't like

- the curved tops and oval plan are to ensure that everyone buying a ticket gets a decent view. We could square it off and all be pleased with the look of the ground and some poor fucker up in the far corner of the New Centenary will be getting the same shite view and crap atmosphere I've got when I've been up there.

- The seat and row spacing will be bigger than at Anfield and we'll lose some of the atmosphere, but I'll be able to sit down without fucking my knees on the seat in front. The Emirates is way too generous and hopefully we will find a decent balance of tighter rows in the 'cheap seats' to keep the atmosphere and more spacious to maximise the premium seats that subsidise them.

The alternative is to go for 'unique' as HKS did and create a brand new stadium that would have huge areas of prime viewing space empty of seats and instead have stands that went up as high, or higher than the away section at St James Park.

The irony of Anfield is that it's four generic bogstandard stands and the oldest is the most generic of all - the Main stand is essentially the Leitch stand which was rolled off his production line but with the gable stripped off and the cross girders covered up.

For someone who was in the upper centenary seat 2 row 23 for Newcastle and Blackburn (There is no seat one). Which is the corner seat annie rd end top row I agree totally with the above statement. When I stood up I could only see across the pitch to about the corner of the penalty area

[Alan_X]

You could also argue that the use of glass is to give an open feel...

And there's the problem right there - since they put the roof on the Kop in 1928 Anfield has nothing to do 'an open feel' - there are no 'views out' at Anfield and that's one of the things that makes it so special. The wanky arches look like a fairly blatant attempt to appeal to Hicks by referencing the Cowboys stadium. They're pointless, expensive and have nothing to do with providing the best ground for the fans.

[Alan_X]

For someone who was in the upper centenary seat 2 row 23 for Newcastle and Blackburn (There is no seat one). Which is the corner seat annie rd end top row I agree totally with the above statement. When I stood up I could only see across the pitch to about the corner of the penalty area

But according to received opinion it's important that you or others would have the same shite view to satisfy their idea of what a ground should look like.

[Peter McGurk]

I haven’t read any confirmation of Bascombe’s story but it doesn’t matter. Because there’s nothing in it that changes anything either way.

He’s sold a few papers and all power to him but the club still has planning consent for a new stadium and the club still does not having the sponsor that makes it possible.

Some things are changing though...

***

In 2006, a mate of mine said we had 5 years ‘brand value’ after Istanbul. After that, the slow slide would start if nothing was done to capitalise on it, now ie., in 2006. Now, he couldn’t have foreseen the furore over the sale which if nothing else has kept our ‘international profile’ popping over the barricades just a little bit longer. But we are now losing overseas ground fast.

Like it or not, the key to our future financial success is overseas. In ‘Global Merchandising and TV rights’. The place are owners are looking for the sponsors they need.

I have read that our Global Popularity is slipping. Our commercial draw is waning. Our sun is setting in the East...[sic]. I can imagine seven draws at home hasn’t helped. I can’t begin to imagine potential sponsors being overjoyed with the prospect of a club labelled as having racist tendencies by its governing body.

I have read that both of our ‘friends down the road’ are increasing in popularity out that way. And why not? Star players, goals for dogs, top of the league. Come-day go-day glory-hunters all, sure enough but...

***

I also read doom-mongers who tell us that the world is going to hell in a hand-cart - bigger than before, forget 2008. This time no-one will be spared. Oh well.

Meanwhile, I’m surprised there are only five pages here relishing the prospect of a new stadium and what will go where and how will it be. Counting chickens. Not one word (apologies if I missed it) on how much it might cost us. ‘It’ being football, the working man’s game. I also read that there are one in three unemployed households in Liverpool (I'm sorry but it just is where most match-goers come from). Some individuals are obliged to survive on £20 a week after commitments. Go to the pub? Forget it. Fill 70,000 seats? my arse.

So, while the country is going to the dogs and there’s talk of government of national unity in times of ‘economic war’, we are relishing the prospect of getting ever-closer to opera prices for 90 minutes ‘entertainment’ every two weeks - just to get in. Maybe we’ll go back to wearing suit and tie.

***

I say ‘entertainment’ not for want of the team’s performance but more for the lack of ‘experience’. I move around the ground a lot for one reason or another. Lately, it has been dire. If not entirely mute - the bitching and moaning that goes on... I wonder why they come. And not just from the old farts like me but from the ‘kids’ too. Thank God for our away fans.

In this world of instant satisfaction, the club will need to come up with the goods NOW - on the field and off it.

***

The meanwhile the country is battening down the hatches. Conserving what we’ve got. Rationing meagre government resources but no, not us.

In the little time we have, the club may turn its back on the community and build in Stanley Park. If it can find one, it may mortgage the future of the club to a sponsor, ever-ready for the sound of one stupid arse shouting you ‘manc’ bastard and leave us with the bill to pay... or not.

So nothing has changed for a new stadium. It’s still a dead weight.

(Well, there’s one New Year’s resolution blown)




Edit: I see in the Daily Post that the club hasn't given up on redevelopment, so there's hope for us all after all.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/sport/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2012/01/18/liverpool-fc-have-not-dismissed-prospect-of-redeveloping-anfield-despite-reverting-to-original-stadium-move-plan-99623-30144926/

[ultimatewarrior]

And there's the problem right there - since they put the roof on the Kop in 1928 Anfield has nothing to do 'an open feel' - there are no 'views out' at Anfield and that's one of the things that makes it so special. The wanky arches look like a fairly blatant attempt to appeal to Hicks by referencing the Cowboys stadium. They're pointless, expensive and have nothing to do with providing the best ground for the fans.

I'm confused, do you like Anfield or dislike Anfield? Previous posts suggest you think its generic and the same as dozens of stadiums around the UK and also claim in some parts of the stadium , fans are alienated and obstructed. What maks Anfield special?
Is is so hard for you to comprehend AFL redesigned the stadium to suit their clients desires? Did you expect them to ignore the client an create something just like Anfield on a bigger scale?

[west_london_red]

Ahhh, another balanced post by Peter

just a few questions if you done mind...

Is your mate some kind of expert on brand value etc

Any evidence to show that we are 'loosing value' fast other then the obvious lack of success over the last few years?

Any evidence that our commercial draw is waining?

A new stadium is at a minimum 3 years away, do you think people will still call us racists or will people have forgetten about the wholse affair? (Also, i dont remember any governing body calling the club racist or stating it has any such tendency, i do however remember them stating Suarez is NOT a racist)

The people who live on £20 a week cant afford to go to Anfield as it is, and whether we stay at Anfield or move ticket prices will only go one way sadly (Fenway Park being a relevant example here)

Yes, our football has been far from exciting this season, but that can happen at any stadium and if we cant fill a new 60,000 (not 70,000 as you suggest) stadium, what makes you think we could fill a redeveloped Anfield?

Im confused as how moving to stanley park is turning out backs on the local community? A new stadium is likely to create a few more jobs and its not exactly like we're moving miles now is it?

[LiamG]

I don't know it's not unique enough or maybe I just prefer the look of the 2008 AFL design

Also where is the Kop end, is that it on the left ?

That big "main" stand definatley reminds me of Old Trafford's main stand


Id be happy with that AFL design, i never used to like it but Alan very greatly pointed out how much better it is a design than the HKS design!

[CraigDS]

Any evidence to show that we are 'loosing value' fast other then the obvious lack of success over the last few years?

Any evidence that our commercial draw is waining?

These were going to be my questions.

I can't see much evidence of this, in fact our commercial deals seem to be going from strength to strength in markets which are in extremely bad times right now with a team that is fighting for league places against two big big spending sides and an established United.

[McSquared]

I haven’t read any confirmation of Bascombe’s story but it doesn’t matter. Because there’s nothing in it that changes anything either way.

Edit: I see in the Daily Post that the club hasn't given up on redevelopment, so there's hope for us all after all.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/sport/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2012/01/18/liverpool-fc-have-not-dismissed-prospect-of-redeveloping-anfield-despite-reverting-to-original-stadium-move-plan-99623-30144926/

Who are these sources then? No direct quotes on redevelopment as far as I can see. The daily post article is about as credible as the bascombe one (did I just say that?)

[free_at_last]

Edit: I see in the Daily Post that the club hasn't given up on redevelopment, so there's hope for us all after all.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/sport/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2012/01/18/liverpool-fc-have-not-dismissed-prospect-of-redeveloping-anfield-despite-reverting-to-original-stadium-move-plan-99623-30144926/

I wonder if this could be Fenway's get out  of jail card. You could just imagine them quivering
behind the scenes before coming out and announcing that the impending economic crisis
means that no sane business person would load up on debt and build a stadium(I agree there). Why not go back to the Parry Bowl which would probably not be accepted well by the majority of fans then later withdraw further to the (now glowing) alternative of a redeveloped Anfield(even if we do have to wait for a bit until the council comes to the party) - or maybe it's just wishful thinking.

[Peter McGurk]

Ahhh, another balanced post by Peter

just a few questions if you done mind...

Is your mate some kind of expert on brand value etc

Any evidence to show that we are 'loosing value' fast other then the obvious lack of success over the last few years?

Any evidence that our commercial draw is waining?

A new stadium is at a minimum 3 years away, do you think people will still call us racists or will people have forgetten about the wholse affair? (Also, i dont remember any governing body calling the club racist or stating it has any such tendency, i do however remember them stating Suarez is NOT a racist)

The people who live on £20 a week cant afford to go to Anfield as it is, and whether we stay at Anfield or move ticket prices will only go one way sadly (Fenway Park being a relevant example here)

Yes, our football has been far from exciting this season, but that can happen at any stadium and if we cant fill a new 60,000 (not 70,000 as you suggest) stadium, what makes you think we could fill a redeveloped Anfield?

Im confused as how moving to stanley park is turning out backs on the local community? A new stadium is likely to create a few more jobs and its not exactly like we're moving miles now is it?

Well, Bascombe didn't offer any sources either so...

Balance? What interest have we got in balance? On balance we probably should have drawn the seven draws at home. On balance, United probably will win the league again this year. On balance, we probably won't be in the CL next year. We don't want balance - we want to win. We want what's best for the club. Certainly I do.

My mate a brand expert? So it would seem. Whatever he is, he grabbed some insight from somewhere.

Losing value/Waning? The obvious lack of success of the last few years would be enough but can't you feel it? Can't you feel the interest sliding away? Not so much in the papers, less on the TV, the numbers of overseas posts here, media always full of City, last on match of the day. Nothing hard-evidenced (apart from the concrete lack of a sponsor) .

People don't forget slurs easily. Particularly when it doesn't suit them. Above all clubs, we should know that mud sticks. And make no mistake, this racist mud has stuck. As the saying goes, 'bad news is up and around the world before truth even gets its boots on'. Outside this fan bubble, people say some pretty nasty things about us. Did you hear what the South African FA had to say about it or any number of articles from the Far East? You don't think Ghana (or SA on their behalf) are still smarting from the World Cup?

You can disregard those on £20 a week if you will but the way things are, we could all be next. Ticket prices may only go one way. That's only if people can afford them but if things don't buck up... or if we don't get a mega sponsor for a new stadium, we may as well go to the opera. And if we can't fill 60000, at least we won't see our arse for £300m if we stay at Anfield.

And what will a new stadium do for the community exactly? Exactly this, a restored park and conservatory (done), a sports centre (a redevelopment would do also), an empty site for sale to developers tbc, a public open space where the pitch was. Ooh - I forgot: £300k a year to council. Well, fan my bloody tastic.

(sh*t, another resolution gone)

[CraigDS]

Losing value/Waning? The obvious lack of success of the last few years would be enough but can't you feel it? Can't you feel the interest sliding away? Not so much in the papers. Less on the TV, the numbers of overseas posts here, media always full of City, last on match of the day. Nothing hard-evidenced (apart from the concrete lack of a sponsor) but this is persuasive http://www.clickliverpool.com/sport/liverpool-fc/1215118-new-deal-but-liverpool-fc-still-have-a-lot-of-work-to-do-off-the-pitch.html

Im sorry, but you're judging our world wide popularity/value on 'feeling'.

How about a record shirt deal with a company that isn't even particularly active in the UK or European markets? Or a shirt manufacturer who isn't either.

Could argue last on MOTD to keep the biggest audience watching the 'little' games waiting for the big one at the end. Isn't that how they normally do it, biggest on first and last and the tripe that no one wants to watch in the middle.

[Peter McGurk]

Im sorry, but you're judging our world wide popularity/value on 'feeling'.

How about a record shirt deal with a company that isn't even particularly active in the UK or European markets? Or a shirt manufacturer who isn't either.

Could argue last on MOTD to keep the biggest audience watching the 'little' games waiting for the big one at the end. Isn't that how they normally do it, biggest on first and last and the tripe that no one wants to watch in the middle.

Jeez, positive brand awareness or rather the value in a brand is based on a feeling. Excuse me, we have a go at City for getting their best mates in as sponsor, now Warrior are a true reflection of the market place? That said, it's only less than United's shirt deal (just) but sure, we'll blow City out of the water with a stadium (only) deal. ok.

And no they don't. They put the 'best' on before everyone goes to bed/the pubs shut.

I wonder if this could be Fenway's get out  of jail card. You could just imagine them quivering behind the scenes before coming out and announcing that the impending economic crisis means that no sane business person would load up on debt and build a stadium(I agree there).

Why not go back to the Parry Bowl which would probably not be accepted well by the majority of fans then later withdraw further to the (now glowing) alternative of a redeveloped Anfield(even if we do have to wait for a bit until the council comes to the party) - or maybe it's just wishful thinking.

Careful Sherlock. Walls have ears 

[CraigDS]

Jeez, positive brand awareness or rather the value in a brand is based on a feeling. Excuse me, we have a go at City for getting their best mates in as sponsor, now Warrior are a true reflection of the market place? That said, it's only less than United's shirt deal (just) but sure, we'll blow City out of the water with a stadium (only) deal. ok.

And no they don't. They put the 'best' on before everyone goes to bed/the pubs shut.

I think you'll find it goes on a lot more than a feeling when you're the one approaching companies/they are approaching you with regards to sponsorship.

And now you're comparing Henry & Co's influence over Standard Chartered (which was done pre-them I think) and Warrior to that of City's Sheik over companies he pretty much has a hand in?!

And guess will have to disagree about MOTD, havent watched it religiously for years but on the odd time I do I always seem to end up waiting until the end to see a game Im interested in involving someone like us, United, etc.