The Archive

Liverpool supporters want to remain at Anfield but, as Rob Hughes explains, moving to Stanley Park may be the more viable option

Nearly ten years after announcing plans to build a new stadium in nearby Stanley Park, the future home of Liverpool remains in limbo. Managing director Ian Ayre’s recent admission that the preferred redevelopment of Anfield is becoming “increasingly unlikely” was compounded by owner John Henry’s comments on Twitter. “Anfield would certainly be our first choice,” he posted. “But realities may dictate otherwise.” There were, he concluded with a distinct tang of frustration, “so many obstacles”.

Ayre’s more detailed assessment cited problems over land and property acquisition, along with certain environmental and statutory issues, as the main “barriers to our ambition”. He couldn’t forego another pop at former owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett while he was at it either, saying that their failure to keep their promise of a new stadium had “set the club back several years”.

But Liverpool’s main beef seems to be with the city council. There are major logistical issues with redeveloping Anfield, chief among them being the knock-on effect of extending and heightening the stands to allow for a proposed 60,000 bums on seats. “Local people have the right to light,” was council leader Joe Anderson’s Zen-like justification for the impasse. “You can’t build something right next to someone’s house that blocks daylight, whether Liverpool FC like it or not.” More ominously, Anderson estimated that, with red tape being what it is, it may take up to three years before rebuilding could even begin. Thus the council has firmly chucked the ball over the club’s wall. They have given Liverpool an extra three months to decide on whether or not to renew their option on a 999-year lease on the Stanley Park site, which takes them to September.

So just where does all this leave the club? Liverpool have long been looking at ways to increase capacity, not just to satisfy the demand (and I’m conveniently leaving aside the brief Roy Hodgson era here) but to better compete with the matchday revenue steams of rivals Man Utd and Arsenal. They are currently searching for a naming rights partner for the potential new stadium. At least that would take care of a fair slice of the £300 million construction bill. But there is a deeper issue at stake here than just the volume of somebody’s pockets.

Never mind that a move to Stanley Park might make more practical business sense – it is Anfield itself that seems to be the crux. Fan forums and local opinion suggest the supporters are overwhelmingly in favour of the current stadium being given a makeover rather than setting up camp down the road. There’s much talk of “the special magic of Anfield” and the unique spot it occupies in people’s hearts. While no one denies the inevitable reach of progress, the emotional bonds between Liverpool and their fans run uncommonly deep. And with no title for 21 years and counting – and no major trophy for the last six – Anfield’s stature as the only living symbol of past supremacy only grows stronger with time.

It is possible to view the supporters’ opinion as being driven by sentimentality rather than pragmatism. Cynics might even say it is indicative of the nostalgic inertia that has befallen the club since we stopped winning stuff. But football is nothing if not an emotional game, and the preservation of identity and heritage is paramount.

In this respect Liverpool appear to have sympathetic owners. Some years ago Henry was presented with the problem of overhauling Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox and one of the oldest meccas in North American baseball. Conscious of the high degree of community feeling towards the stadium and all it represented, he refused to compromise the needs of residents and opted to modernise the place where it stood rather than hike up the capacity by demolishing any surrounding buildings.

That’s all very noble, of course, but it does not offer a model for expanding Anfield. Whatever the eventual outcome, Ayre has been at pains to explain that no decision will be made that is not in the club’s best long-term interests. “We will not,” he stated emphatically, “make any promises to our fans that we cannot keep.” For those of us still raw from the false assurances of the Hicks and Gillett reign, that is at least something to build on.

From WSC 295 September 2011

Mysterious foreign signings don’t always live up to heightened expectations. Andy Clark recalls how Dundee United fans found out the hard way

When Dundee United manager Jim McLean attempted to exploit the South American transfer market in 1991, his hope of bringing the next Gabriel Batistuta to the banks of the Tay didn’t quite work out as planned. In the early nineties, the formidable side United had become over the previous two decades began to falter. With an increased number of foreign players arriving in Scotland along with the recent Souness revolution at Rangers and growing pressure from fans for a big money signing, McLean decided to go international.

So it was in August 1991 that Dundee United announced the signing of ‘flying Argentinian winger’ Walter Rojas, a twenty-year old with dark flowing locks and “blistering pace”, from Buenos Aires club side San Lorenzo for a reported fee of £200k. United had apparently beaten off a host of clubs including Sampdoria and Foggia for the Argentine under-21 international signature. “El Explosivo“, as he had been nicknamed in his home country, was unveiled in a blaze of publicity. Fans were assured his debut would be imminent.

Then it all went very quiet. Weeks passed without any sign of the new long-haired wing wizard. According to the club, he had damaged a thigh muscle in training. However, rumours were circulating that Rojas might not be the player everyone thought he was. Opinion was rife in the city he was a “duffer”, apparently being taken to the cleaners by the reserve and youth team players in training. After almost three months, Rojas finally turned out for the reserves against Aberdeen in what proved to be his solitary appearance in a tangerine shirt and was well short of the standard required. One fan later claimed he had only two decent crosses in the game “when he blessed himself coming on and off the park”.

Then the conspiracy theories began. One source claimed United had been the victim of mistaken identity and had signed the wrong player. Another alleged that McLean had seen video footage of a prolific striker and was keen to sign him. A deal was negotiated but the player didn’t fancy the move so United were offered Rojas and took a chance.

Whatever the truth, United had been done. Rojas had only been a reserve team player at San Lorenzo and had played a mere four times for the first eleven in four years. Despite being inconspicuous by his absence on the park, there was no shortage of sightings of the player off it. ‘Rojas-spotting became a popular pastime with United fans in and around the city. “I used to see him in Buddies (a popular nightclub)” remembers one “he was strangely fond of having his jumper draped over his shoulders”. Another spotted him at a wedding in nearby Broughty Ferry.

I also had the thrill of encountering Rojas at the Megabowl Leisure Complex in Dundee. He looked slightly embarrassed and kept diverting my attention to the guy he was with. “Victor…this Victor,” he repeated in broken English. I thought nothing of it. He turned out to be Argentinian international Victor Ferreya, signed by United that day. Rojas clearly knew he was something of a fraud and had been embarrassed by all the attention whilst his new team-mate’s arrival appeared to have gone un-noticed. Rojas and Ferreya; were also invited to the Glenrothes Arabs player of the year dance. “They turned up in shell-suits, won nearly all the raffle prizes then swiftly fucked off back to Dundee,” recalled a witness.

Rojas returned to San Lorenzo then played for another three Argentine clubs before ending his career with Uruguayan side Huracan Buceo in 2000. Despite never playing a first team game, he achieved cult status among Arabs, as United fans are known. His moniker appears in a range of guises as usernames on messageboards and he has become a by-word for a duff foreign signing (and there have been plenty).

Twenty years on, McLean finally broke his silence on the bizarre episode. Rojas apparently only cost United an air fare and a few week’s expenses. There was no mistaken identity but having never seen him play, and to get around red tape, the player signed a contract and release form at the same time meaning United kept him if he was any good or could release him if he was a “dumpling”. The Explosive One proved to be a damp squib.

From WSC 295 September 2011

There are problems with the Brandywell but, as Aidan Bonner explains, Derry City’s frustrating search for a new stadium continues

Derry City are a club that is neither here nor there. Located in Northern Ireland but competing in the Republic, they have often found themselves caught between two worlds. Based in the Irish FA’s jurisdiction, the club were forced to leave the Irish League as the political situation and sectarian tensions worsened around them. After kicking around junior leagues for 13 years, Derry eventually re-emerged in the Republic of Ireland’s national league in 1985. This bout of border-hopping can still cause the club problems from time to time.

Drowned by a saga of double contracts and financial mismanagement in 2009, Derry City returned as a new, debt-free entity last season. Although the new DCFC were initially left to explore the delights of the lower of Ireland’s two senior leagues (dubbed the “Discover Ireland” division by fans) their budget still outstripped many of their rivals and they were promoted at the first time of asking. Back in the Premier Division, things are going swimmingly. But many fans have long viewed the club’s Brandywell home as being in a location that discourages potential new supporters.

Situated in the heart of what was once the predominantly nationalist “Free Derry” district – a no-go area for the RUC at the time – the ground remains unpoliced, with the club relying on the services of a dedicated band of stewards. This arrangement has been largely successful but can still prove problematic on occasion, as potential flash-point fixtures with the big Dublin clubs have recently shown.

Health and Safety officials reduced the Brandywell’s capacity by 700 this year. With the ground’s slightly dilapidated state, the promise of one new 2,500-seat stand does little to satisfy supporters, many of whom would prefer a more permanent move to either the vacant Templemore or Fort George sites in the city. The Fort George site is in the hands of Ilex, the company set up to take charge of the regeneration of the city, who have yet to engage DCFC.

Proposals and projects are nothing new to City supporters. In mid-2006, the club unveiled plans for a new £15 million complex to be built on the site at the Brandywell, complete with 6,000-seat ground, synthetic 3G pitches and retail development. This bid fell apart and the eventual demise and rebirth of Derry City brought them back to square one – a “new” club with an old ground, hoping to be gifted what they cannot afford to build.

But who is going to hand them anything? The Maze Stadium project was an ambitious plan to build an all-encompassing home for Northern Irish sport which collapsed. Instead, the money set aside for this plan has been dispersed to football, rugby and GAA clubs around the country. The cost for the proposed new stand at Derry is to be drawn from this funding, but that alone would be a poor return.
Derry City officials have watched as new stadium projects for clubs such as Crusaders began at great pace. In fact, across the town work is nearing completion on major improvements to the home ground of Institute, Derry’s Drumahoe-based Irish League neighbours. Meanwhile, just over the border in Donegal, a new 6,800-seat home for Finn Harps has been given the green light. For Derry supporters, seeing the door to 21st century facilities opened to a host of “smaller” clubs has raised serious questions.

The belief that Derry City playing across the border could harm their chances of receiving funding from the Northern Irish executive grew to the extent that in 2008 local MLA Raymond McCartney challenged Gregory Campbell, the minister for culture, arts and leisure, to acknowledge publicly that the club’s cross-border status would not be an issue. Recently, however, the lack of progress has mostly been blamed on the apathy of local politicians and the failure of club officials to apply any pressure.

For the time being, as the city council, rather than the club, own the ground, they must apply for funding and also have the final say on any proposed improvements. The suggested changes are unlikely to attract new supporters or to appease those already there. On the positive side, all signs indicate that money may be available for the right project, with the right pitch. The drawback is that this may be a brief opportunity for clubs seeking funding, and that local officials seem content to sit on their hands and let it drift by.

From WSC 294 August 2011

The FA took a principled stance over the FIFA presidential election but they remain as equally flawed in their governance of the Premier League

For the England squad the season ended with the Euro 2012 qualifier against Switzerland. But it was to have gone on a few days longer. After the Swiss match the national team – or more likely a second-string – were due to play a friendly in Thailand. In exchange for seeing Bobby Zamora and Kyle Walker jogging around at half speed, the Thai FA chairman Worawi Makudi was expected to support England’s 2018 World Cup bid.

Read more…

Football journalists were made to eat their words when a Lionel Messi-inspired Barcelona produced a stunning performance to beat Manchester United in the Champions League final

Opinions can change quickly in football. Only a few months ago sections of the press were berating the BBC for having the temerity to expose corruption at the top of FIFA. The broadcasting of a Panorama episode that outlined why FIFA need to reform was deemed “disgraceful”, “ridiculously unpatriotic” and “laughable” in the Sun. This month Sepp Blatter was placed beside Colonel Gaddafi on the paper’s front cover above the headline Despot the difference.

Read more…