The problem is AP will never admit that. He harps on like a stuck record about our 'evil' owners, drawing comparisons between them and H&G but conveniently forgets to mention the state of the club when they took over and what they'd had to do just to get us running like a 'normal' club. Never praises them for the good things they did, never a positive word, always negativity. Our owners aren't perfect but they're far from the picture he likes to paint.
Not just me who condemns them. Also well respected journalists/commentators like Evans and Barrett. Numerous ex players etc.
The idea that Fenway "saved us" is nothing short of ridiculous. If I fail to make the repayments on a mortgage, I don't find my home is demolished, it just gets sold off.
Fenway were the buyer of stolen goods, in a dodgy process that RBS (a scummy lot themselves if u read the financial press) had a gagging order over the press over. So the public were never allowed to hear the truth of the takeover.
What have RBS got to hide? (Probably a LOT if the rest of their business is anything to go by - just check the fines they've received in recent years!)
Even the snake Purslow admitted Fenway were "bottom of the barrel" and large debts would still remain (albeit further up the chain of ownership - unlike G&H)
________________________
___
Whilst there may be superficial differences between this lot and the last lot, the fundamentals are very similar. Even Henry refused to rule out taking dividends and profits out of the club. As things stand, the cash withdraws don't happen in the Hicks manner. Because it all happens between the banks and FSG off books. Fenway make a downpayment of 20% or so, the company appreciates in worth 20% or so, and Fenway are allowed to withdraw equity. Not a lot dissimilar to Hicks at all, except you don't see it in the same way.
However, this has major repercussions elsewhere:-
1)ridiculous ticket prices - compare ours to Real, Barca and Bayern.
Looks like you DONT have to charge sky high prices to be a top club! Thats one lie from Fenway.
2)A complete destruction of the ethos of a club. "Liverpool football club exists to win trophies/be a source of pride for our supporters" - Moores.
Henry " the Liverpool soccer brand exists to monetize customer affinity". Which customers? Standard Chartered? Barcelona? They dont seem that bothered by the 20m "customers" who built the "brand".
3)Most importantly of all. During the Hicks era we actually bought world class players. We were even ranked number 1 team in Europe. 2 European Cup finals in the Moores/Hicks era.
Where are we now? We've sold pretty much every top class player from that era. Every one replaced with a low wage, lower quality, lower fee replacement. Even more than G&H, they arent bothered about winning. The truth is clouded in a load of doubletalk and pr guff. Players are bought to profit on, not to win matches on. The objective isnt to build a club or "brand" by building a quality "product" ie team. Its about creating a 2nd or 3rd tier "brand" - like the Pierre Cardin or Quicksave example I gave elsewhere. Thats fine if that was our natural level. But its not. Our fan base and income justify a rebuilding of our status, of what our identity has truly been. We're Liverpool, once the richest club in britain. Recently the top UEFA ranked club in Europe. We're not Villa or Everton. No one should be fooled by that.
The scam is ultimately one of arbitrage. World class income, Everton style investment.
I never expected a giant flood of equity investment and "buying" trophies.
But the club deserved certain fundamentals:-
1)respect for the fact we are a cultural institution not a "brand" or "corporation".
2)allow the supporters to re-buy their shares in the institution.
After all, Fenway are actually buyers of stolen goods.
3)A sunstantially investment from day one to reflect our global fan base.
An investment that reflects our income.
An investment that reflects the fact fans contributed to maintain the club for 120 ish years, whilst its previous owners plundered it.
In other words, Fenway cry that Hicks ruined the club. Sorry but this is a blatant lie from Henry.
The sale price of the club reflected H&G's abuses, and Fenway got a massve BARGAIN.
They were therefore under a moral and footballing obligation to rebuild the parts of the playing squad that G&H decimated.
Shrugging your shoulders and saying "wasnt me mate, it was G&H" wasnt an acceptable response, it was the sign of cu*ts.
After all, the fan groups enquired to Henry whether they could buy/buy BACK their shares. Henry told them in no uncertain terms to go f**k themselves. (And duly let a basketball clown who thought the Liver bird was a GRIFFIN have a share!!)
4)An undertaking that if Henry or his colleagues lack the capital or ambition to take the club back to its natural level, then they must search for new capital via the supporters and other responsible parties.
5)An undertaking that the supporters will have proper imput into the management of the club and regaining its standing/traditions etc.
________________________
_____________
It really wouldn't have taken that much for |Fenway to have satisfied the fans. But thats not their way. They want as much as possible for as little as possible. With as much deception as possible. Frankly, they think we're a bunch of clowns for even LIKING football. I mean how many times do they watch a match!! (Answer much less than G&H even!)
In on pitch terms terms, all I expected was a proper replacement for Alonso, Mascherano, Keane and a proper Torres replacement.With a bit of padding out. It wouldn't have cost THAT MUCH more money. Esp when you consider the bas**rds had already found about 300m to hold the club captive!!
It wouldnt have cost THAT much. And we'd have saved ourselves all those half players going in and out. And once a team is built, you might not NEED that much purchasing for 4, 6, even TEN years.
But all we had was Fenway utlising the tax losses clocked up by G&H to justify pisspoor investment. They call it arbitrage amongst themselves. Football fans should call it "being duplicitous cu*ts".
With a Rafa or similar at the helm, the revenue would flood in even more. The problem was that they wanted to own the club on an absolute shoestring. Way less than the relative investment we made under the Moores years. And much akin to a mickey mouse Europa Cup/midtable team.
_____________
Some say "oh theyre not like G&H".
Well:-
1)no affinity with our traditions and often moderate income fans -CHECK
2)tendency to bullshit and come out with glib promises they have no intention of keeping
eg "we can compete with anyone", "we will not sell our best players" - CHECK
3)lack ofplaying sqyad investment due to the purchase being leveraged" - CHECK
4)pisspoor performances on the pitch after substantial player sales and after the team came close to league and other success CHECK!
5)football not an end in its own right, only profit is the objective CHECK
6)players being considered assets to sell on at a profit CHECK
7)Replacement players to be cheaper and on lower wages CHECK
Overall, infact we actually did better on the pitch in the G&H era than we have done under Fenway. AND less quality players sold.Sadly, once people detach themselves from the emotion and the addictive nature of being a fan, there isn't a lot of difference between the 2 boards.
For once, Purslow was spot on.
