Tweet
Billionaires toys - Is that really what we want?
When Roman Abramovich first strolled through the Chelsea Village and into his new hot seat, did any of us really envisage what it would mean for the game, and fully appreciate the shear impact the financial clout he possessed could have? I don't think we did, not really; and I don't think I did, until stepping back and thinking it over amidst the recent takeover at Manchester City.
So with the likes of DIC still lurking in the shadows of our own club, will we fall under the same umbrella as Manchester City and Chelsea with new Billionaire ownership? I used to hope we would, now I'm not so sure.
Does money buy happiness?
Almost 5 years ago, David Moores decided he no longer had the bank balance to support Liverpool Football Club; to provide the funds required to keep up with the Jones'. Chelsea had been taken over by a Russian with an open wallet, Man United had increased the capacity of Old Trafford in excess of 70,000 and were making more money than any other club in world football.
Arsenal had plans in place for a new 60,000 seater stadium, and we were left behind. My opinion, is that we held back too long in trying to remain traditional, holding onto the notion that we were a football club first and a business second.
Something I support; but in this age, if you want to be successful on the field, you need to be successful off it. With the advent of The Premier League and Sky TV pumping money into the game, we chose to remain as we were, while the likes of Man Utd chose to exploit their ever growing global brand. As a result, we lagged behind and missed the boat, and only now have we bit the bullet and decided to jump aboard. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The decision was made in L4 that we needed outside investment to provide the capital for a new stadium, allowing us to cling onto the coat tails of the other three. Without it, we'd just fall further and further behind. So off Rick Parry went, spending upwards of three years searching for the right buyer. "You can sell the family jewels only once" were the words of David Moores. They ended up being sold to two American liars. Spend and hour on google searching for "Tom Hicks" and build a background of his history, and it becomes even more staggering how this man, with his track record, was allowed to have any involvement in the purchase of our club. But he has, and now owns a 50% share whether we like it or not, no matter what has gone on before. We can't change that now.
The birds have been singing that DIC are the only saviour; the people to rescue us from the grasp of these American rogues, that are slowly but surely dragging our club through the mud and stripping it of everything that made it so special to millions of fans worldwide. They are out to make a fast buck and are prepared to stamp on anyone that may be standing in their way. And as much as I'd celebrate when they final sell out and leave us be, is selling to DIC really the long term answer?
if you'd have asked me that question last week, I'd have replied before you'd finished asking. "Yes". But is short term repair really the answer, when you sit back and really think about what is happening to the game? Is throwing money at a problem really the answer?
Roman Abramovich rocked the foundations of football in this country. His money no object approach raised the bar to a whole new level, and we could now see a similar thing with Abu Dhabi taking over Manchester City. The signing of Robinho being a mark in the sand to Abramovich and Chelsea more than anything else; as if to say, "you've outbid everyone for years and signed who you like, here's a taste of your own medicine". They've taken the player Chelsea wanted, flashed him and Madrid the contents of their wallet and got their man.
No longer do football clubs seek success through hard work, an astute manager and players purchased using club profits. No longer do clubs have to generate their own money in which to buy players and compete. A sugar daddy can stroll into any club and buy them success, be that Chelsea, Manchester City or QPR. If the owners of those three clubs really pumped their wealth into their investments in search of success, who could possibly compete? The money involved dwarfs anything a club could generate as a stand alone entity. Whereas Manchester United and Liverpool have used their worldwide fan bases to generate profits and keep them at the top of the game, it now seems as though becoming the play thing of a billionaire negates the need for traditional "big club" characteristics. Money pumped in that hasn't been generated by the club alone. Bank rolled by an outsider, win at all costs.
We spent bigger than others in the 80's, but that was because we successful and had the money coming in associated with that. It was money well earned, and money we were entitled to spend. But it was not unrealistic amounts. It never put us out of reach of others. So while I thought we'd struck gold when Hicks and Gillett took over promising the world, I was soon brought back down to earth; and it's only looking back now, and looking into the future, that I realise how damaging for the game this new influx of money could become.
Football is a sport, a game, and one adored by millions worldwide. But is it now just becoming a play thing for Billionaires in game of one-upmanship? Roman Abramovich, Abu Dhabi and DIC flexing their financial muscles in a three way sword fight, using our football clubs as their weapons of choice.
Where does that leave the other football clubs that make up the football league? The other clubs that compete in European competition? How are they meant to compete with these super clubs, when everything they can spend has to be self generated? The simple fact is, they can't. Clubs such have Leeds have tried and failed, spending beyond their means in order to compete, and are now paying the price. I fear they won't be the last. This top 4 monopoly we have now is viewed by some as a closed shop. Well the front windows of that shop have just been smashed to pieces by Abu Dhabi, leaving the current occupants in real danger of being thrown out. Liverpool being the obvious club to be thrown out onto the streets with the rest.
Unless DIC step in and want to prove that their dad's stronger than your dad? Jockeying for position to install Dubai as a world force, with the mere consequence of having to throw millions into the pot in a bid to stay ahead of the competition. We sit and wait, but history seems to suggest they will. Abu Dhabi builds a £400m hotel, Dubai will build one for £500m. Their competitive nature could now be about to move into our football clubs. Some may welcome that, and be seen dancing outside the Shankly Gates as the news breaks on SSN as we are bidding £50m for Kaka and £45m for Tony Hibbert, but I really don't know if that's the answer anymore.
Our position as one of the top 4 is going to be under severe threat over the next few years. We're hundreds of millions in debt in the midst of a global financial crisis. Our operating profits can just about service the repayments on our loans. We're having to sell players before we buy new ones. So how are we meant to consistently compete with the big spenders, without a sugar daddy like DIC stepping in and throwing their wealth around? DIC coming to the rescue has it's benefits, but it also pushes football in a direction I'm not sure I like.
It would mean Hicks and Gillett were no longer tearing our club apart, but would it also mean the end for us as a football club? A football club that was once described as "existing only to win trophies and be a source of pride for it's supporters". We'd become just another Billionaires plaything, as the gap between the man on the street and the club he loves grows even bigger, expanding beyond comprehension. For how much longer will the interest remain in the game if it becomes so far removed from the game we all fell in love with? Money has changed the game for years, this isn't an overnight thing, it's been slowly changing the game for well over a decade now. But could this new approach of outside money take things to a whole new level?
Maybe I just need a break from it all; absence makes the heart grow fonder they say. But all I can see is the game and club I love slowly disappearing into the distance, drifting further and further away from my grasp, and that of millions of others.
Game 39, European Super Leagues, talks of a new Premiership with no relegation; ensuring the rich get richer and the rest no longer matter. That's not football, it's brand exploitation.
Paul Jones
Posted at 06:19 PM in Liverpool | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/297284/33004906
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Billionaires toys - Is that really what we want?:
Comments
In response to Paul Jones I would like to say I would gladly have DIC in charge over the Yanks. They have constantly lied and they can't be trusted.
All us Reds were fooled by them, but where are they now. It is clear they have failed to understand the financial commitments to the club. At least the DIC group do have genuine Liverpool supporters amongst there group.
As far as I am aware Al-Ansari has been to LFC games long before Benitez and in the great days of Red dominance. Also he was in Istanbul. For me this is clear proof that DIC will be open and honest.
If you look at Man.City you can see clear statements and there is no hidden agenda. This is how these Emirates groups operate, as serious investors. Unlike the Yanks, who have constantly demonstrated that they can never be trusted. The reason why they had support was over the promise of the stadium. It is clear that will not have the money to build the new stadium.
We also need to consider that the economic downturn here in the UK is still to reach it worst point. Therefore, I fail to see how G&H can estimate the stadium going
ahead.
Paul Jones is right to worry about our club being taken-over. In an ideal world the club would be run by the fans. But I believe this is already being planned. So, Paul, like me go to ShareLiverpool and urge all Reds to do the same.
Posted by: Nasser | September 03, 2008 at 09:31 PM
hey i think you've made a real good point there, football is not football with all the money the star players coming and replacing the old faces, no it isnt right and Liverpool are in a quandary. We need the money for bigger and better buys, we cant keep on selling players then using the profit to buy another player. Why havent we got Barry, because we had the sense not to sell Alonso. Its real hard to reach a conclusion with this...but in the end fate will tell, and the hungry eyes of DIC
Posted by: kiko | September 03, 2008 at 09:28 PM
Tim - do you really think that the EPL is the best league in the world? You must be watching a different league to me as I wouldn't cross the road to watch the vast majority of teams play. Apart from Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool and Tottenham I find virtually all the other teams as dull as ditchwater to watch and a lot of my friends share my view.
Posted by: Marc | September 03, 2008 at 09:27 PM
The notion that the passion of English supporters dwarfs the passion of Americans for their sports clubs is just laughable.
The worst ticket sales of the big four leagues in America is MLB at 86% (for 81 home games - many played during the work work). Compare that with the Premiership where half the stadiums are less than 60% full.
We have more sports networks, than you have networks.
And the #1-4 leagues globally in terms of licensing are the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL.
So what is your measurement, besides getting stupid drunk and causing problems?
Posted by: laughing at you | September 03, 2008 at 08:27 PM
Completely agree. There's a lot of hostility towards the Big Four, but there are also some fans of those clubs that genuinely would like to see a dynamic league - sport is about uncertainty and competition, and instead it's served up as simple repetition.
People tend to argue about salary caps and local ownership, but they're increasingly becoming the only real way forward. Otherwise, you have the billionares and clubs that are little more than franchises.
Here's a thought, and one that might apply equally well to American sports: Why not have city councils invest in this new wave of stadium building, but in return for a golden share in a team? It cements the club to their community, and maybe makes it less necessary to hook onto the rich man's coat-tails.
Posted by: Scott C | September 03, 2008 at 08:09 PM
The game is about to change completely in England... and in Europe. I see this as just the first step in a long line of takeovers that will destroy the fan experience in the premier league and Champions League.
I am from the US, and a Liverpool supporter, and I can tell you that as much as we love our NFL, MLB, and NBA teams over here, nothing can compare to the way supporters of football clubs in England, Europe and South America feel a part of their club... that will disappear.
I think there should be serious talk about salary caps, transfer caps and home grown talent quotas if european football is to survive as a sport for the true fan.
If Man City do indeed sign a superteam (which I think they will), and win the league, Champ League and all the cups year after year I will bet that many City supporters will become bored with the whole sport. There is no drama at that point.
Man City's bench will likely be filled with the world's best in a few year's time... just to keep other teams from signing them.
Posted by: 6fingeredjake | September 03, 2008 at 07:13 PM
good read, thanks for taking the time to write it but i just think some of the sentimentś in it and in the comments after are utter rubbish. gates have never been bigger in the prem, there not shrinking there growing. the fans arent gettin ripped off there watching the best football in the world, played by the best players around and organised by the best managers. the big four which everyone complains about is now a big 5, and still complaints! i say bring it on. i want to watch ronaldo play everyweek and ditto robinho. i hope all the fat cats buy all the big names and the champs legue final is between 2 english clubs forever, and i think it will be. am a liv fan and the sooner rafa gets money from a fat cat the better, the yanks are skint, bring on the oil!
Posted by: tim | September 03, 2008 at 07:06 PM
The question is, what can you do? Get bought out, lose your soul but challenge at the top, or resit and look forward to years of mid-table mediocrity?
In my opinion Gillett and Hicks are idiots, and I can't understand how Moores and Parry ever let them get involved in our club (you'd think they'd have at least Googled them!), but looking at the current climate in the Premiership, you've got to conclude that investment is the only way we'll ever challenge.
Posted by: Chris | September 03, 2008 at 07:00 PM
I have two competing instincts here. One says billionaire owners are bad for the game, clubs become playthings of the rich etc etc.
One reply to that would be that Chelsea weren't competitive before Ambramovich, nor City deemed a threat to the top 4 until this week. Arguably, those two takeovers have expanded the number of 'haves' and while that may be galling to a lot of other clubs, the likes of Everton, Wigan, Aston Villa etc are no further away from the top than they were when it was only Man Utd and Arsenal they were chasing.
At the same time, would I want to see Liverpool fade away on principle, becoming another Newcastle or Tottenham. To my mind its no choice at all to sling out the banditos yankee and replace them with DIC, but if its a choice between being competitive under DIC and uncompetitive with a fans buyout or local owner...
Is it really bad for the fans to watch rich clubs loaded with star players?
Posted by: Andrew Lawton | September 03, 2008 at 06:33 PM
From a sporting point of view, in an ideal world, the Premiership would be competitive. And a way to move closer to that ideal is to spread the money in the game more equally - by shifting some of the Premiership TV money down to the lower leagues. And by shifting the Champions League TV money between the rest of the Premiership and the lower leagues.
It wouldn't stop Sugar Daddies like Abramovitch unbalancing things but it would mean the Champions League "Big 4" cartel would be harder to maintain, and there would be less yo-yo'ing between the Premiership and the Championship. Less clubs would go bankrupt by attempting to "live the dream" because there would be less financial implications of footballing failure.
Between 1958 and 1972 11 different clubs were Champions. Every decent-sized club lived in hope of being Champions. Now big clubs like Spurs, Villa and Everton can only dream of finishing 4th.
Posted by: Giordano Bennetti | September 03, 2008 at 06:17 PM
Top flight football clubs have become the latest boy's toy, whilst doubling up as a cash cow. Who pays the price? The fans walking through the turnstiles. These billionaires aren't rich for nothing.
Money can certainly bring success à la Chelsea, but it won't necessarily bring ultimate success. A great manager, a well integrated team and lady luck are crucial ingrediants.
Posted by: 2nd5 | September 03, 2008 at 04:28 PM
The only reason you do not like this picture, is that your Sugar Daddy couldn't stump up the extra £2m for Gareth Barry. Liverpool has lived long enough on mediocre football, and is due another few decades squabbling for UEFA Cup spots.
Bitter pill to swallow?
Posted by: T Laernoes | September 03, 2008 at 04:27 PM
Excellent article. Yesterday's takeover make me wonder how long it will take for the loyalty of fans to diminish completely when their opinions are no longer valued and ceased be a part of their club. Football club used to belong to the fans(financially, to an extent too), but now for some clubs, fans are merely decorations on match day.
The new era of billionaire will be unpopular amongst the most managers and youth football. In future, no premiership clubs will be audacious enough to give youth players to prove themselves. Managers will have to deliver results immediately without fail. No club will have any sort of long term vision apart from winning trophies at all cost.
As a old fashioned type of football fan, it hurts exquisitely to see our once, highly valued football clubs become toys of billionaires. Worst of all, there almost nothing we can do about it. Perhaps I should start to forget about club football and only stick to international football.
Posted by: Jack | September 03, 2008 at 02:59 PM
As an Arsenal fan I have a lot of empathy with you guys at the moment. Arsene Wenger has been planning and building for 10 years to make Arsenal a European power with a sustainable business model. This work is now about to be undone by some Arab business men with unlimited funds. Sorry but real fans of real clubs such as Everton, Wigan, Blackburn, West Ham and Middlesbrough will stop bothering soon and I will not be far behind.
Posted by: Sam | September 03, 2008 at 02:52 PM
And this article, ladies and gentleman, is brought to you by the fear inspired by losing 4th place to the 2nd team in Manchester.
I mean, honestly. You've "only just realised"? It's only just occurred to you? Did you notice in 1992, when the Premiership was formed? Did it occur to you to think about what the Premier League, as an entity, did? Did it balls. And now you look around at the playground, realise what a bit-part player you are, and write 1000 words wringing your hands about it. Sadly, the conditions for these people to come into the game were set nearly two decades ago, and it's surprising that someone else didn't do it before Abramovich. There is not a hope in hell that the situation will change for the better. This is how it works these days. May I humbly suggest that you throw your way behind Tranmere or similar? The "club you love" is gone. It went years ago. If you want European success and to challenge for the title, that's the price you apparently have to pay.
Posted by: Rob | September 03, 2008 at 10:27 AM
It's not ideal as a model for owning a club but is better than the owners taking money OUT the game and ripping off fans like the Glazers and Liverpool lot. As long as they stay out of football decisions (City have already made that mistake- Hughes was told not asked about Robinho) it is alright, so long as the clubs ensure stability and have a wage structure that they could survive on if their owners is suddenly arrested, imprisoned, shot or gets bored and wants a new toy.
But clearly the best way forward is supporter ownership. That is the only way to ensure stability and that profits are put back into the club. Billionaires and investors can still come in and the board can still be led by heavyeight businessmen to ensure professionalism, but they would all be accountable to the fans in terms of redistribution of profits and carefull ticket pricing. United and Liverpool are doing a lot to prepare for this and note Bayern, Madrid and Barca all have it already.
Posted by: Oli | September 02, 2008 at 11:24 PM
I completely agree with your analysis. The problem with Roman Abramovich is that he did not earn his money the old fashioned, he took it. As a result he does not seek to build Chelsea with anything other than a more money than brains attitude. Given that Roman Abramovich's first commandment is to kowtow to Putin, all of his other pursuits are secondary in nature. There are those who know exactly how Abramovich stole his billions and where he subsequently placed those offshore funds. It is up to the western authorities to pursue those ill-gotten gains. If not for Abramovich's bagman relationship to Putin, he would have suffered the same fate as Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky.
Posted by: Evgeny Borsuk | September 02, 2008 at 11:13 PM
When Roman Abramovich first strolled through the Chelsea Village and into his new hot seat, did any of us really envisage what it would mean for the game, and fully appreciate the shear impact the financial clout he possessed could have? I don't think we did, not really; and I don't think I did, until stepping back and thinking it over amidst the recent takeover at Manchester City. So with the likes of DIC still lurking in the shadows of our own club, will we fall under the same umbrella as Manchester City and Chelsea with new Billionaire ownership? I used to hope we would, now I'm not so sure.
Does money buy happiness?
Almost 5 years ago, David Moores decided he no longer had the bank balance to support Liverpool Football Club; to provide the funds required to keep up with the Jones'. Chelsea had been taken over by a Russian with an open wallet, Man United had increased the capacity of Old Trafford in excess of 70,000 and were making more money than any other club in world football.
Arsenal had plans in place for a new 60,000 seater stadium, and we were left behind. My opinion, is that we held back too long in trying to remain traditional, holding onto the notion that we were a football club first and a business second.
Something I support; but in this age, if you want to be successful on the field, you need to be successful off it. With the advent of The Premier League and Sky TV pumping money into the game, we chose to remain as we were, while the likes of Man Utd chose to exploit their ever growing global brand. As a result, we lagged behind and missed the boat, and only now have we bit the bullet and decided to jump aboard. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The decision was made in L4 that we needed outside investment to provide the capital for a new stadium, allowing us to cling onto the coat tails of the other three. Without it, we'd just fall further and further behind. So off Rick Parry went, spending upwards of three years searching for the right buyer. "You can sell the family jewels only once" were the words of David Moores. They ended up being sold to two American liars. Spend and hour on google searching for "Tom Hicks" and build a background of his history, and it becomes even more staggering how this man, with his track record, was allowed to have any involvement in the purchase of our club. But he has, and now owns a 50% share whether we like it or not, no matter what has gone on before. We can't change that now.
The birds have been singing that DIC are the only saviour; the people to rescue us from the grasp of these American rogues, that are slowly but surely dragging our club through the mud and stripping it of everything that made it so special to millions of fans worldwide. They are out to make a fast buck and are prepared to stamp on anyone that may be standing in their way. And as much as I'd celebrate when they final sell out and leave us be, is selling to DIC really the long term answer?
if you'd have asked me that question last week, I'd have replied before you'd finished asking. "Yes". But is short term repair really the answer, when you sit back and really think about what is happening to the game? Is throwing money at a problem really the answer?
Roman Abramovich rocked the foundations of football in this country. His money no object approach raised the bar to a whole new level, and we could now see a similar thing with Abu Dhabi taking over Manchester City. The signing of Robinho being a mark in the sand to Abramovich and Chelsea more than anything else; as if to say, "you've outbid everyone for years and signed who you like, here's a taste of your own medicine". They've taken the player Chelsea wanted, flashed him and Madrid the contents of their wallet and got their man.
No longer do football clubs seek success through hard work, an astute manager and players purchased using club profits. No longer do clubs have to generate their own money in which to buy players and compete. A sugar daddy can stroll into any club and buy them success, be that Chelsea, Manchester City or QPR. If the owners of those three clubs really pumped their wealth into their investments in search of success, who could possibly compete? The money involved dwarfs anything a club could generate as a stand alone entity. Whereas Manchester United and Liverpool have used their worldwide fan bases to generate profits and keep them at the top of the game, it now seems as though becoming the play thing of a billionaire negates the need for traditional "big club" characteristics. Money pumped in that hasn't been generated by the club alone. Bank rolled by an outsider, win at all costs.
We spent bigger than others in the 80's, but that was because we successful and had the money coming in associated with that. It was money well earned, and money we were entitled to spend. But it was not unrealistic amounts. It never put us out of reach of others. So while I thought we'd struck gold when Hicks and Gillett took over promising the world, I was soon brought back down to earth; and it's only looking back now, and looking into the future, that I realise how damaging for the game this new influx of money could become.
Football is a sport, a game, and one adored by millions worldwide. But is it now just becoming a play thing for Billionaires in game of one-upmanship? Roman Abramovich, Abu Dhabi and DIC flexing their financial muscles in a three way sword fight, using our football clubs as their weapons of choice.
Where does that leave the other football clubs that make up the football league? The other clubs that compete in European competition? How are they meant to compete with these super clubs, when everything they can spend has to be self generated? The simple fact is, they can't. Clubs such have Leeds have tried and failed, spending beyond their means in order to compete, and are now paying the price. I fear they won't be the last. This top 4 monopoly we have now is viewed by some as a closed shop. Well the front windows of that shop have just been smashed to pieces by Abu Dhabi, leaving the current occupants in real danger of being thrown out. Liverpool being the obvious club to be thrown out onto the streets with the rest.
Unless DIC step in and want to prove that their dad's stronger than your dad? Jockeying for position to install Dubai as a world force, with the mere consequence of having to throw millions into the pot in a bid to stay ahead of the competition. We sit and wait, but history seems to suggest they will. Abu Dhabi builds a £400m hotel, Dubai will build one for £500m. Their competitive nature could now be about to move into our football clubs. Some may welcome that, and be seen dancing outside the Shankly Gates as the news breaks on SSN as we are bidding £50m for Kaka and £45m for Tony Hibbert, but I really don't know if that's the answer anymore.
Our position as one of the top 4 is going to be under severe threat over the next few years. We're hundreds of millions in debt in the midst of a global financial crisis. Our operating profits can just about service the repayments on our loans. We're having to sell players before we buy new ones. So how are we meant to consistently compete with the big spenders, without a sugar daddy like DIC stepping in and throwing their wealth around? DIC coming to the rescue has it's benefits, but it also pushes football in a direction I'm not sure I like.
It would mean Hicks and Gillett were no longer tearing our club apart, but would it also mean the end for us as a football club? A football club that was once described as "existing only to win trophies and be a source of pride for it's supporters". We'd become just another Billionaires plaything, as the gap between the man on the street and the club he loves grows even bigger, expanding beyond comprehension. For how much longer will the interest remain in the game if it becomes so far removed from the game we all fell in love with? Money has changed the game for years, this isn't an overnight thing, it's been slowly changing the game for well over a decade now. But could this new approach of outside money take things to a whole new level?
Maybe I just need a break from it all; absence makes the heart grow fonder they say. But all I can see is the game and club I love slowly disappearing into the distance, drifting further and further away from my grasp, and that of millions of others.
Game 39, European Super Leagues, talks of a new Premiership with no relegation; ensuring the rich get richer and the rest no longer matter. That's not football, it's brand exploitation.
Paul Jones
Posted at 06:19 PM in Liverpool | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/297284/33004906
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Billionaires toys - Is that really what we want?:
Comments
In response to Paul Jones I would like to say I would gladly have DIC in charge over the Yanks. They have constantly lied and they can't be trusted.
All us Reds were fooled by them, but where are they now. It is clear they have failed to understand the financial commitments to the club. At least the DIC group do have genuine Liverpool supporters amongst there group.
As far as I am aware Al-Ansari has been to LFC games long before Benitez and in the great days of Red dominance. Also he was in Istanbul. For me this is clear proof that DIC will be open and honest.
If you look at Man.City you can see clear statements and there is no hidden agenda. This is how these Emirates groups operate, as serious investors. Unlike the Yanks, who have constantly demonstrated that they can never be trusted. The reason why they had support was over the promise of the stadium. It is clear that will not have the money to build the new stadium.
We also need to consider that the economic downturn here in the UK is still to reach it worst point. Therefore, I fail to see how G&H can estimate the stadium going
ahead.
Paul Jones is right to worry about our club being taken-over. In an ideal world the club would be run by the fans. But I believe this is already being planned. So, Paul, like me go to ShareLiverpool and urge all Reds to do the same.
Posted by: Nasser | September 03, 2008 at 09:31 PM
hey i think you've made a real good point there, football is not football with all the money the star players coming and replacing the old faces, no it isnt right and Liverpool are in a quandary. We need the money for bigger and better buys, we cant keep on selling players then using the profit to buy another player. Why havent we got Barry, because we had the sense not to sell Alonso. Its real hard to reach a conclusion with this...but in the end fate will tell, and the hungry eyes of DIC
Posted by: kiko | September 03, 2008 at 09:28 PM
Tim - do you really think that the EPL is the best league in the world? You must be watching a different league to me as I wouldn't cross the road to watch the vast majority of teams play. Apart from Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool and Tottenham I find virtually all the other teams as dull as ditchwater to watch and a lot of my friends share my view.
Posted by: Marc | September 03, 2008 at 09:27 PM
The notion that the passion of English supporters dwarfs the passion of Americans for their sports clubs is just laughable.
The worst ticket sales of the big four leagues in America is MLB at 86% (for 81 home games - many played during the work work). Compare that with the Premiership where half the stadiums are less than 60% full.
We have more sports networks, than you have networks.
And the #1-4 leagues globally in terms of licensing are the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL.
So what is your measurement, besides getting stupid drunk and causing problems?
Posted by: laughing at you | September 03, 2008 at 08:27 PM
Completely agree. There's a lot of hostility towards the Big Four, but there are also some fans of those clubs that genuinely would like to see a dynamic league - sport is about uncertainty and competition, and instead it's served up as simple repetition.
People tend to argue about salary caps and local ownership, but they're increasingly becoming the only real way forward. Otherwise, you have the billionares and clubs that are little more than franchises.
Here's a thought, and one that might apply equally well to American sports: Why not have city councils invest in this new wave of stadium building, but in return for a golden share in a team? It cements the club to their community, and maybe makes it less necessary to hook onto the rich man's coat-tails.
Posted by: Scott C | September 03, 2008 at 08:09 PM
The game is about to change completely in England... and in Europe. I see this as just the first step in a long line of takeovers that will destroy the fan experience in the premier league and Champions League.
I am from the US, and a Liverpool supporter, and I can tell you that as much as we love our NFL, MLB, and NBA teams over here, nothing can compare to the way supporters of football clubs in England, Europe and South America feel a part of their club... that will disappear.
I think there should be serious talk about salary caps, transfer caps and home grown talent quotas if european football is to survive as a sport for the true fan.
If Man City do indeed sign a superteam (which I think they will), and win the league, Champ League and all the cups year after year I will bet that many City supporters will become bored with the whole sport. There is no drama at that point.
Man City's bench will likely be filled with the world's best in a few year's time... just to keep other teams from signing them.
Posted by: 6fingeredjake | September 03, 2008 at 07:13 PM
good read, thanks for taking the time to write it but i just think some of the sentimentś in it and in the comments after are utter rubbish. gates have never been bigger in the prem, there not shrinking there growing. the fans arent gettin ripped off there watching the best football in the world, played by the best players around and organised by the best managers. the big four which everyone complains about is now a big 5, and still complaints! i say bring it on. i want to watch ronaldo play everyweek and ditto robinho. i hope all the fat cats buy all the big names and the champs legue final is between 2 english clubs forever, and i think it will be. am a liv fan and the sooner rafa gets money from a fat cat the better, the yanks are skint, bring on the oil!
Posted by: tim | September 03, 2008 at 07:06 PM
The question is, what can you do? Get bought out, lose your soul but challenge at the top, or resit and look forward to years of mid-table mediocrity?
In my opinion Gillett and Hicks are idiots, and I can't understand how Moores and Parry ever let them get involved in our club (you'd think they'd have at least Googled them!), but looking at the current climate in the Premiership, you've got to conclude that investment is the only way we'll ever challenge.
Posted by: Chris | September 03, 2008 at 07:00 PM
I have two competing instincts here. One says billionaire owners are bad for the game, clubs become playthings of the rich etc etc.
One reply to that would be that Chelsea weren't competitive before Ambramovich, nor City deemed a threat to the top 4 until this week. Arguably, those two takeovers have expanded the number of 'haves' and while that may be galling to a lot of other clubs, the likes of Everton, Wigan, Aston Villa etc are no further away from the top than they were when it was only Man Utd and Arsenal they were chasing.
At the same time, would I want to see Liverpool fade away on principle, becoming another Newcastle or Tottenham. To my mind its no choice at all to sling out the banditos yankee and replace them with DIC, but if its a choice between being competitive under DIC and uncompetitive with a fans buyout or local owner...
Is it really bad for the fans to watch rich clubs loaded with star players?
Posted by: Andrew Lawton | September 03, 2008 at 06:33 PM
From a sporting point of view, in an ideal world, the Premiership would be competitive. And a way to move closer to that ideal is to spread the money in the game more equally - by shifting some of the Premiership TV money down to the lower leagues. And by shifting the Champions League TV money between the rest of the Premiership and the lower leagues.
It wouldn't stop Sugar Daddies like Abramovitch unbalancing things but it would mean the Champions League "Big 4" cartel would be harder to maintain, and there would be less yo-yo'ing between the Premiership and the Championship. Less clubs would go bankrupt by attempting to "live the dream" because there would be less financial implications of footballing failure.
Between 1958 and 1972 11 different clubs were Champions. Every decent-sized club lived in hope of being Champions. Now big clubs like Spurs, Villa and Everton can only dream of finishing 4th.
Posted by: Giordano Bennetti | September 03, 2008 at 06:17 PM
Top flight football clubs have become the latest boy's toy, whilst doubling up as a cash cow. Who pays the price? The fans walking through the turnstiles. These billionaires aren't rich for nothing.
Money can certainly bring success à la Chelsea, but it won't necessarily bring ultimate success. A great manager, a well integrated team and lady luck are crucial ingrediants.
Posted by: 2nd5 | September 03, 2008 at 04:28 PM
The only reason you do not like this picture, is that your Sugar Daddy couldn't stump up the extra £2m for Gareth Barry. Liverpool has lived long enough on mediocre football, and is due another few decades squabbling for UEFA Cup spots.
Bitter pill to swallow?
Posted by: T Laernoes | September 03, 2008 at 04:27 PM
Excellent article. Yesterday's takeover make me wonder how long it will take for the loyalty of fans to diminish completely when their opinions are no longer valued and ceased be a part of their club. Football club used to belong to the fans(financially, to an extent too), but now for some clubs, fans are merely decorations on match day.
The new era of billionaire will be unpopular amongst the most managers and youth football. In future, no premiership clubs will be audacious enough to give youth players to prove themselves. Managers will have to deliver results immediately without fail. No club will have any sort of long term vision apart from winning trophies at all cost.
As a old fashioned type of football fan, it hurts exquisitely to see our once, highly valued football clubs become toys of billionaires. Worst of all, there almost nothing we can do about it. Perhaps I should start to forget about club football and only stick to international football.
Posted by: Jack | September 03, 2008 at 02:59 PM
As an Arsenal fan I have a lot of empathy with you guys at the moment. Arsene Wenger has been planning and building for 10 years to make Arsenal a European power with a sustainable business model. This work is now about to be undone by some Arab business men with unlimited funds. Sorry but real fans of real clubs such as Everton, Wigan, Blackburn, West Ham and Middlesbrough will stop bothering soon and I will not be far behind.
Posted by: Sam | September 03, 2008 at 02:52 PM
And this article, ladies and gentleman, is brought to you by the fear inspired by losing 4th place to the 2nd team in Manchester.
I mean, honestly. You've "only just realised"? It's only just occurred to you? Did you notice in 1992, when the Premiership was formed? Did it occur to you to think about what the Premier League, as an entity, did? Did it balls. And now you look around at the playground, realise what a bit-part player you are, and write 1000 words wringing your hands about it. Sadly, the conditions for these people to come into the game were set nearly two decades ago, and it's surprising that someone else didn't do it before Abramovich. There is not a hope in hell that the situation will change for the better. This is how it works these days. May I humbly suggest that you throw your way behind Tranmere or similar? The "club you love" is gone. It went years ago. If you want European success and to challenge for the title, that's the price you apparently have to pay.
Posted by: Rob | September 03, 2008 at 10:27 AM
It's not ideal as a model for owning a club but is better than the owners taking money OUT the game and ripping off fans like the Glazers and Liverpool lot. As long as they stay out of football decisions (City have already made that mistake- Hughes was told not asked about Robinho) it is alright, so long as the clubs ensure stability and have a wage structure that they could survive on if their owners is suddenly arrested, imprisoned, shot or gets bored and wants a new toy.
But clearly the best way forward is supporter ownership. That is the only way to ensure stability and that profits are put back into the club. Billionaires and investors can still come in and the board can still be led by heavyeight businessmen to ensure professionalism, but they would all be accountable to the fans in terms of redistribution of profits and carefull ticket pricing. United and Liverpool are doing a lot to prepare for this and note Bayern, Madrid and Barca all have it already.
Posted by: Oli | September 02, 2008 at 11:24 PM
I completely agree with your analysis. The problem with Roman Abramovich is that he did not earn his money the old fashioned, he took it. As a result he does not seek to build Chelsea with anything other than a more money than brains attitude. Given that Roman Abramovich's first commandment is to kowtow to Putin, all of his other pursuits are secondary in nature. There are those who know exactly how Abramovich stole his billions and where he subsequently placed those offshore funds. It is up to the western authorities to pursue those ill-gotten gains. If not for Abramovich's bagman relationship to Putin, he would have suffered the same fate as Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky.
Posted by: Evgeny Borsuk | September 02, 2008 at 11:13 PM