Comments on: For Love, Money, or Ethnic Patronage?

By: well well

well well — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:55:45 +0000

Nothing but lies about liverpool on this site and from the liverpool directors. How can you say that they have any emotional attachment to Liverpool fc (ok Benefit of hindsight here in september) But also Hicks was owner of Corinthians in Brazil and texas rangers in the states. Corinthians were promised a stadium which they didnt get and they were relegated. Liverpool wes bought by the 2 yanks on money that they now don’t seem to have. That is not doing your job, that is not honoring your contract. I hope Liverpool will be taken over by RBS even if we lose 10 point in the premier League It will be good riddance to bad rubbish if hicks goes

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:50:25 +0000

“Dude, who *isn’t* Jewish?!”

Me, and I will never own a football club either.

By: Ace Cowboy

Ace Cowboy — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:28:03 +0000

Dude, who *isn’t* Jewish?!

By: David

David — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:04:41 +0000

Thanks for your comments everybody. Very interesting perspectives. In thinking about my post, I’ve realized that it was a bit too black and white. Owners can fit in more than one of the love, money, ethnic patronage categories. Abramovich’s appointing of Avram Grant, for example, seems to be in part due to them both being Jewish (I’m Jewish, don’t hate me). And the Americans, as y’all have pointed out, can love soccer just as much as they love money. Perhaps I would suggest that the motivations I pointed out are the primary ones, though not the only ones.

By: Zeno

Zeno — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:35:39 +0000

With the new Liverpool owners I see it like this.

Two billionaires in their sixties with a desire to be associated with something exciting and dramatic at this stage in their life. They have both been involved in various American sports for a long time, had their eye caught by the opportunities offered by Liverpool FC and the global popularity of the Premier League (the most popular league of the most popular game in the world). Sure, they saw dollar and pound signs in their eyes, but the emotional involvment in being a part of something phenomenal and exciting, something that whilst being a viable business, comes with a level of glory and beauty they just wouldnt get from managing a few businesses, trust funds, leveraging the purchase of factories in Texas or however they made their money. Tom Hicks and George Gillet have fallen in love with Liverpool, getting to the Champions League final in their first season, fallen in love with the club, history, tradition and passion of the fans.

Liverpool fans only have good things to say about them. They want to play the game of being custodians of the club, the glamour and status of that, of being major players on this global sporting stage, and want all that reflected glory from its success.

By: Linda

Linda — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:38:42 +0000

The interesting thing about Carson Yeung is that his words seemed to be focused on a critique of Chinese players (how they’ve got some technique but lack team work and commitment, which by the way is spot on) rather then saying that he’s going to make the manager sign Chinese players. It doesn’t really make sense to say ‘they’re not good enough’ and then ‘we should get some’, does it? I think his comments have been misconstrued by the press.

Great post as always.

By: David

David — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:08:30 +0000

Ace Cowboy – I think you’re right that the American owners do want successful teams, if for no other reason than the fact that success will bring more money. Perhaps that’s a bit harsh. I don’t think they are doing it only for the money. They could invest in the stock market if that were their only motivation. But unlike past club owners who were content simply to get the ego boost their position brought, the Americans are clear that they want to make money from their teams. The smarter ones may, as you say, recognize they don’t know that much about soccer and so hire others who do to handle the sporting side of things, which is not necessarily a bad situation.

By: Ace Cowboy

Ace Cowboy — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:05:15 +0000

Long time, first time.

I’m usually with you on just about everything, but I think you’re selling the Americans short here. The may not possess that love of the game, and they are most certainly in it for the profits, but that doesn’t mean they’re not interested in building a successful team. They just know their limitations and are willing to let someone else micromanage the path to success.

The Livapoo Yanks have done everything asked of them. They’ve sat with Rafa and Stevie, they’ve laid out the cash and the approval to sign all the core Reds, they let Rafa bring in a world class striker and several other parts, and they got the stadium deal done and looking sharp. I mean, love of the game or no, that’s making an effort to build a successful team with a happy fanbase.

I went to Villa Park last season and the crowd looked to be quite taken with Lerner’s hands-off style and O’Neill’s rule. Strangely, though, Jim Brown was at the match and the Browns montage was a weird sight to see. As for the Glazers…I mean, ManU won the title.

It’s clear they’re in it for the long-term cash grab. So I guess my question is, why is that so bad if they’re actually improving their clubs?