I have seen that movie believe it or not. And yes it was iconic due to decor not much else especially the actual stands inside. I was affectionately referring to it as a pile of dirt.
I just find it strange that some would accept a new stadium that would obviously come with a different name but wouldn't accept renaming Anfield. At least one of them is still the same stadium (to an extent) but people are only willing to accept the completely new option. PS...no one was talking about changing colour or club name either, JB just used that as part of his argument.
The club we see today is nothing like it was initially bar the name. Things change. Plus, I never said I'd agree to changing the shirt colour or club name (unless someone paid is enough for the privilege, never stated an amount) which isn't a likely scenario. Change the stadium name is realistic and could generate a lot of money for improving the team. Wouldn't do it right now we're nearly as **** as spurs at spending it!!! As I said, people would accept am entire new stadium with new name and all but not Anfield being renamed where you'd keep the original stadium; aka part of the clubs history that would be completely lost with a new stadium.
Easy answer, ground share with Everton and rename it Fields of Goodison Park. Job done Gerrez likes this
Some of us didn't want a move to a new stadium Had we done so I'd still have been against giving it a **** name for a few dollars.....don't forget G that the club is a big part of the history of the city too and the lives of those of us who have trudged back and forwards through the wind and the rain and invested heart and soul into getting to the match....shouldn't we have a say in the club or should all those decisions be made by whoever the current cowboys are in charge? They wouldn't even have to guarantee that the money from naming rights WOULD get anywhere near the transfer kitty. So it isn't as simple as extra income = a better team....just richer owners
Imo "the main" is a **** name anyway. How it was not named Shankly stand is beyond me. It is actually amazing that in 1992 parry got away with calling the other side the Centenary Stand.
Which is why I didn't say "all" or "everyone". I realise not everyone wanted a new stadium (myself included) and I realise it is different for fans from the City too I also said "if" it improved the first team; aka provided a bigger transfer kitty, whether that be short term (immediate kitty) Or long term (bigger stadium meaning more money on future seasons). Not quite the same (especially since I'm not a fan) but Stags changed their stadium name a few years ago and nothing happened. People still call it Field Mill despite our being called The One Call Stadium. As I said not the same but only link I have in terms of geographical location to a club.
Never agreed with ground share idea, never will. Used to be dead set against renaming Anfield too mind lol
Would love us to have a Shankly Stand. We'd obviously have to have a Paisley Stand and a Dalglish Stand too
I think it's in awful bad taste to name a stand before the person pops thier clogs. In fact it's what a bunch of Surrey chavs would do
Imagine having both a statue and a stand for someone who isn't even dead, and is in fact still on the payroll #desperate
Yeah even the Mad lad down the cottage only put the statue of the peado up after he was dead. Some clubs are just an ego trip for their former bribe givers
