Liverpool's going all American!

[Montreal Wanderer]

I hope some of the fears of getting George instead of DIC have been somewhat allayed. Debt wiped out and a new 60,000 seat stadium. I wouldn't be surprised if the new owners brought Dallas and Montreal to play some exhibition hockey games in Merseyside next September (assuming a suitable arena exists). To give you an idea of what George is like, a couple of years back the local paper ran a story on the high price of hockey tickets. One man said he could only afford to take his family to the less expensive pre-season exhibition games. George contacted the guy and gave him and his whole a place in George's luxury box for a game. I suppose this might be dismissed as a simple PR move but most people seem to feel he is just a nice family-oriented guy.

[blurred]

I hope some of the fears of getting George instead of DIC have been somewhat allayed. Debt wiped out and a new 60,000 seat stadium. I wouldn't be surprised if the new owners brought Dallas and Montreal to play some exhibition hockey games in Merseyside next September (assuming a suitable arena exists). To give you an idea of what George is like, a couple of years back the local paper ran a story on the high price of hockey tickets. One man said he could only afford to take his family to the less expensive pre-season exhibition games. George contacted the guy and gave him and his whole a place in George's luxury box for a game. I suppose this might be dismissed as a simple PR move but most people seem to feel he is just a nice family-oriented guy.

The wiping out of the debt and the building of the new stadium were guaranteed under the DIC move, Monty, so nothing's really changed there. I think there's some knee-jerking, anti-American bias coming out of Merseyside, but then that's to be expected (see FC United and the whole Glazer thing). Personally I view it with cautious optimism - these guys have a history of investing in sports, and with sticking with their sides rather than asset-stripping them and moving on a few years later. Looking down the M62, what has really changed in the 18 months (or however long it is) since Glazer took over? Precious little from what I can tell. For all the mass hysteria of rocketing prices and lack of funds for team building to finance debt payments, they're still able to splash £15m plus on Carrick and have been consistently linked with Hargreaves from Bayern for a similar fee.

I actually prefer these guys to the likes of Abramovich - they'll take less of a personal interest, and instead will rely on the advice and the experience of those around them who do know what they're doing. Abramovich, it appears, has more of a hands-on role than either Glazer or Lerner do, or Gillett and Hicks appear to want.

Cautious optimism, and we'll see where we are, and what's changed, in a couple of years.

[Montreal Wanderer]

DIC also expected a 25% return on their investment and planned to sell in seven years (I'm given to understand). Gillete is so enthusiastic about the Reds even if he did call them a franchise. He tells the story of going to watch them in Cardiff and not being able to get in the Liverpool section - ended up in the Chelsea fans. He and his son didn't understand the 'rules' and leaped up with joy when Liverpool scored and came in for verbal and physical abuse. I think he is more a sports fan than anything else. I have to confess we took a very guarded view when foreign ownership to over the Montreal Canadiens - but we are very happy with him and for him now.

[blurred]

I think a bunch of that is just his attempt at PR - if he's that wealthy he'd've just got a touted ticket somewhere, surely? (Or joined those of us, er, I mean them...) who try and sneak in when we can't get a ticket? But yeah, these guys do both seem to be sports fans first and foremost, which is perhaps a good thing. Time will tell, of course.

And I'll forgive him the 'franchise' slip, as I do believe that that's just him reverting to type, it being synonymous with 'team' as far as American sport is concerned.

[Lennon]

Yet again the scousers' selective memories kick in, conveniently forgetting the criticisms they threw at Manchester United and Chelsea during/after their big money take-overs.

[blurred]

Yet again the scousers' selective memories kick in, conveniently forgetting the criticisms they threw at Manchester United and Chelsea during/after their big money take-overs.

There's plenty of Liverpool fans who hate this move (as I've said above), but as with both the aforementioned clubs, the mood of the fans is overall more positive than negative.

As a distinction (which makes it easier for me to swallow) we haven't been bought out by an interfering sole owner (a la Abramovich) and the new owner(s) haven't had to mortgage themselves to the hilt in order to fund the purchase of shares (a la Glazer), plunging the club into debt.

Some people don't see that, though, and that's fine. One of my best match going mates is literally sick with the whole thing, and plenty of people have come out and said similar. To each their own.

[Penny]

Yet again the scousers' selective memories kick in, conveniently forgetting the criticisms they threw at Manchester United and Chelsea during/after their big money take-overs.

Makes me smile when I hear the Man U / Liverpool fans accusing Chelsea of buying the league title

[blurred]

Yet again the scousers' selective memories kick in, conveniently forgetting the criticisms they threw at Manchester United and Chelsea during/after their big money take-overs.

Makes me smile when I hear the Man U / Liverpool fans accusing Chelsea of buying the league title

That's funny. It makes me laugh when people can't make the seemingly staggeringly simple distinction between someone buying something as a business (Glazer) and someone willing to bankroll what is effectively a personal ego trip, to the tune of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on transfer fees and wages in such a startingly short space of time (Abramovich).

[Penny]

That's funny. It makes me laugh when people can't make the seemingly staggeringly simple distinction between someone buying something as a business (Glazer) and someone willing to bankroll what is effectively a personal ego trip, to the tune of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on transfer fees and wages in such a startingly short space of time (Abramovich).

So just out of interest how exactly do you know what Glazers and Abramovichs motives are behind them buying their clubs ? I am guessing you know neither of them have no real knowledge of their business dealings or their personal board room discussion so your assumptions are based on conjecture ?

[Lennon]

That's funny. It makes me laugh when people can't make the seemingly staggeringly simple distinction between someone buying something as a business (Glazer) and someone willing to bankroll what is effectively a personal ego trip, to the tune of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on transfer fees and wages in such a startingly short space of time (Abramovich).

You're proving my point perfectly with your biased justifications.

Obviously, Chelsea had the title bought for them to fulfill the egotistical desires of a Russian billionaire, and Glazer only took over at Old Trafford for financial gain, but Gillett is a man of the people and only wants to bring Liverpool the entirely legitimate success they so deserve!

If you think this is the case, I'd like to know why you think he chose Liverpool.

[blurred]

So just out of interest how exactly do you know what Glazers and Abramovichs motives are behind them buying their clubs ? I am guessing you know neither of them have no real knowledge of their business dealings or their personal board room discussion so your assumptions are based on conjecture ?

Because Malcolm Glazer has installed other people to do his work for him, is never seen at the matches, and does not personally get involved in transfer dealings to the extent that the matchgoing, interfering Russian oligarch does.

While I cannot speak for their own thoughts, obviously, it becomes incredibly apparent from their respective actions that they differ greatly, and if you can't see that then, er, I dunno, words fail me.

[blurred]

Obviously, Chelsea had the title bought for them to fulfill the egotistical desires of a Russian billionaire, and Glazer only took over at Old Trafford for financial gain

Of course he's doing it to make money, why would you buy a business otherwise (unless you have the limitless funds of an Abramovich and can afford it for a hobby)?

They've obviously seen the potential that Liverpool can offer them as a money making entity. In the case of these two blokes, they are also genuine sports fans (see the comments of Hicks on the Dallas Stars winning the Stanley Cup, for instance), which also helps.

If you think this is the case, I'd like to know why you think he chose Liverpool.

I don't think it's the case, but I'd've thought it's pretty obvious why they chose Liverpool?

[Penny]

Because Malcolm Glazer has installed other people to do his work for him, is never seen at the matches, and does not personally get involved in transfer dealings to the extent that the matchgoing, interfering Russian oligarch does.

While I cannot speak for their own thoughts, obviously, it becomes incredibly apparent from their respective actions that they differ greatly, and if you can't see that then, er, I dunno, words fail me.

So you are basing your argument on the fact Abramovich attends matches and is rumoured to get involved in transfers ? And then to cap it all you insinuate that if people don't agree with you they must be stupid or blind ? Don't know what is in on boards like this that people have to put forward opinions as though they are facts and then to stifle arguments / discussions they feel the need to belittle other peoples opinions as worthless as they don't match their own.

Blurred your whole argument is based on supposition and gossip from boards like this. None of us have any idea of motives of any of the three owners of the clubs nor we can really make generalisations on the way they attend matches or are rumoured to conduct their businesses .

[Lennon]

I don't think it's the case, but I'd've thought it's pretty obvious why they chose Liverpool?

Yes, it's "seemingly staggeringly" obvious that it's for the exact same reasons Glazer and Abramovic chose Manchester United and Chelsea, although you seem to think Liverpool have more integrity than those clubs for some reason....

It's sort of like a woman defending her abusive husband because he says he loves her, then slagging off other women in the exact same situation because it's obvious THEIR husbands are "just saying it". Sort of. Well, not really, but I like making obscure analogies.

[Penny]

Of course he's doing it to make money, why would you buy a business otherwise (unless you have the limitless funds of an Abramovich and can afford it for a hobby)?

They've obviously seen the potential that Liverpool can offer them as a money making entity. In the case of these two blokes, they are also genuine sports fans (see the comments of Hicks on the Dallas Stars winning the Stanley Cup, for instance), which also helps.

If you think this is the case, I'd like to know why you think he chose Liverpool.

I don't think it's the case, but I'd've thought it's pretty obvious why they chose Liverpool?

From what I have read about Abramovich his aim was to take Chelsea to the top quickly which certainly he has done in the Prem but with less success in Europe then to make the club self financing. No idea how successful he has been or will be with this but he doesn't really strike me as a hobby man in my opinion obviously.

Again from what I have seen of Abramovich he does seem to genuinely enjoy watching Chelsea and to be a sports fan.

No doubt Liverpool are a great name in English and European football have a great heritage and while they have slipped behind Chelsea and Man U recently this should give them a great opportunity to compete on a level playing field with them once they get the new stadium / extra capacity.

For what it worth I think both Abramovich and Glazer have been good for their clubs as will he for Liverpool whether they are good for football as a whole well time will tell on that one.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Owners have several reasons for wanting to own sports teams, or combinations of reasons. Some wish to make money, some wish for glory or to feed their egos, and some are genuine sports enthusiasts. Some owners interfer with the football operations, while some leave it to professionals. Some are desirable as owners, others less desirable. Over the years George Steinbrenner has brought world championships to the New York Yankees - but I would hate to have him own a team I support and he is generally not good for the league because it creates a division between rich and poor, inflates salaries, etc. etc. - he is an interferer much like I gather Abramovich to be. Other owners, like Mario Lemieux in hockey, lose money to keep a franchise going in a small market - and my hat is off to them. Personally I think Liverpool can count their blessings they did not get a Steinbrenner type - but it is all a bit of a lottery I suppose.

[blurred]

So you are basing your argument on the fact Abramovich attends matches and is rumoured to get involved in transfers ? And then to cap it all you insinuate that if people don't agree with you they must be stupid or blind ? Don't know what is in on boards like this that people have to put forward opinions as though they are facts and then to stifle arguments / discussions they feel the need to belittle other peoples opinions as worthless as they don't match their own.

Not entirely, but the way they go about their business is indicative of their personalities, and thus their reasoning behind moving in to football. As you have yourself commented below, it is an egotistical desire for Abramovich to make Chelsea a world-conquering force (he and Kenyon have been quoted as saying they wish to make them the biggest side in the world, etc etc). The fact that he's thrown an enormous amount of money at the club in a startlingly small amount of time, while paying mere lip-service to 'financial accountability', marks him out as exactly the sort of person who fans of Man United and Liverpool can quite reasonably claim as 'buying the title'.

Compare and contrast him with Malcolm Glazer and his modus operandi. Not a man who views Manchester United as a personal quest, not a man who feels the need for the ego boost of watching his team of superstars week in, week out. Partly because he's not done what Abramovich has done and precisely not thrown a load of money around at Old Trafford. Their income from merchandising and the ever increasing Old Trafford means they can afford the top players/fees, but no moreso than at any stage before. In fact, they'd spent more on players before this multi-millionaire owner turned up. Hardly 'buying the league' is it?

Blurred your whole argument is based on supposition and gossip from boards like this. None of us have any idea of motives of any of the three owners of the clubs nor we can really make generalisations on the way they attend matches or are rumoured to conduct their businesses .

While I can't speak for a personal motive, not knowing their mind, I think it is reasonable to draw some form of conclusion from their actions. Glazer's intent to 'buy the title' doesn't exist, and he's not investing a great deal of personal wealth in bringing trophy players to Old Trafford. Abramovich's apparent desire for financial accountability is meaningless - the man has a personal fortune like almost nobody else on earth, and the amount that he has personally invested in his club is staggering. He is the very definition of someone out to 'buy success', and not invest as a business. Nobody with any financial responsibilites could act in the way that he has in the past few years.

[blurred]

From what I have read about Abramovich his aim was to take Chelsea to the top quickly which certainly he has done in the Prem but with less success in Europe then to make the club self financing. No idea how successful he has been or will be with this but he doesn't really strike me as a hobby man in my opinion obviously.

Again from what I have seen of Abramovich he does seem to genuinely enjoy watching Chelsea and to be a sports fan.

No doubt Liverpool are a great name in English and European football have a great heritage and while they have slipped behind Chelsea and Man U recently this should give them a great opportunity to compete on a level playing field with them once they get the new stadium / extra capacity.

For what it worth I think both Abramovich and Glazer have been good for their clubs as will he for Liverpool whether they are good for football as a whole well time will tell on that one.

I'd agree with the bulk of that - whether Abramovich is good for Chelsea in the long-run is another thing. He could pull out at any time and leave them seriously in the shit - they will need to be financially stable before that can happen if they've any hope of remaining a force when he eventually cedes control. Glazer has changed remarkably little at Old Trafford and it's business as usual, which even if he decided to sell up, would mean remarkably little changing.

[Penny]

Not entirely, but the way they go about their business is indicative of their personalities, and thus their reasoning behind moving in to football. As you have yourself commented below, it is an egotistical desire for Abramovich to make Chelsea a world-conquering force (he and Kenyon have been quoted as saying they wish to make them the biggest side in the world, etc etc). The fact that he's thrown an enormous amount of money at the club in a startlingly small amount of time, while paying mere lip-service to 'financial accountability', marks him out as exactly the sort of person who fans of Man United and Liverpool can quite reasonably claim as 'buying the title'.

Compare and contrast him with Malcolm Glazer and his modus operandi. Not a man who views Manchester United as a personal quest, not a man who feels the need for the ego boost of watching his team of superstars week in, week out. Partly because he's not done what Abramovich has done and precisely not thrown a load of money around at Old Trafford. Their income from merchandising and the ever increasing Old Trafford means they can afford the top players/fees, but no moreso than at any stage before. In fact, they'd spent more on players before this multi-millionaire owner turned up. Hardly 'buying the league' is it?

Blurred your whole argument is based on supposition and gossip from boards like this. None of us have any idea of motives of any of the three owners of the clubs nor we can really make generalisations on the way they attend matches or are rumoured to conduct their businesses .

While I can't speak for a personal motive, not knowing their mind, I think it is reasonable to draw some form of conclusion from their actions. Glazer's intent to 'buy the title' doesn't exist, and he's not investing a great deal of personal wealth in bringing trophy players to Old Trafford. Abramovich's apparent desire for financial accountability is meaningless - the man has a personal fortune like almost nobody else on earth, and the amount that he has personally invested in his club is staggering. He is the very definition of someone out to 'buy success', and not invest as a business. Nobody with any financial responsibilites could act in the way that he has in the past few years.

A lot of the ego thing comes from the press how in reality does anyone know ? Agreed he has spent a lot of money but if he does make Chelsea the biggest club in the world (Europe ?) then presumably he would stand a decent chance of getting his money back if he sold it to Blurred Enterprises Inc ? Is it not also true that a lot of the reason Man U, Liverpool etc are ahead of Bolton is their ability to spend millions on players so would the accusation of them buying Champions League spots not be valid ? Man U are currently in debt up to the hilt yet spend £18 million or whatever it was on a player like Carrick ? My point is that the big 4 are the big 4 because they have more money to spend than the rest of the league (perhaps historically now with new owners at West Ham/ Villa/ Pompey) irrespective of where it comes from so it still doesn't sit right that one of the big 4 then turns round and complains about one of the others buying the title.

I don't take your point that Abramovich watches Chelsea for an ego boost how do you know he doesn't enjoy watching them ? I don't go watching Bolton for the ego boost of knowing I can afford a season ticket I do it cos I enjoy it. Not sure Glazer has the sort of money to throw at Old Trafford that Abramovich has to throw at Chelsea if he had who knows how we would operate.

[Penny]

I'd agree with the bulk of that - whether Abramovich is good for Chelsea in the long-run is another thing. He could pull out at any time and leave them seriously in the shit - they will need to be financially stable before that can happen if they've any hope of remaining a force when he eventually cedes control. Glazer has changed remarkably little at Old Trafford and it's business as usual, which even if he decided to sell up, would mean remarkably little changing.

Well I have to admit I would love it if he did pull out and dump then in it . Having said that who knows that if Glazer pulled out of Man U with the debts they are lumbered with they wouldn't be in serious grief (please god let this happen ). Same applies to the new guys at Liverpool they seem genuine they seem to have the best interest of the club at heart but if they pull out in 5 years who the hell knows what sort of shape you guys would be in.