Reading posts on various fora from US based fans it seems to me that there is a basic difference in looking at acceptable business norms. How otherwise would posters who are obviously genuine supporters of the club and are concerned at its well being seemingly have difficulty understanding the implacable opposition of most of us over here to what Hicks represents.
Is it that in the US version of the loosely regulated free enterprise system entrepreneurs like Hicks are admired precisely for their freebooting cavalier approach. An oil analogy seems apt: for every gusher you have to sink 20 dry wells. The buy low sell high mentality is prevalent and the victims have themselves to blame for selling on the cheap. Institutions are transient for the most part anyway. You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, you will get my drift.
In Europe probably and the UK definitely a different view is taken of the “soul” of an institution like LFC and we are more risk averse when it comes to threats facing our clubs.
There is also the custodianship versus proprietary ownership issue dividing us. We baulk at the “it’s my property I’ll do what I like with it, build what I like on it” approach. Are there not examples of US sports franchise owners simply upping sticks and moving the franchise, lock stock and barrel to another city or even state. We regard the owners of the shares, the manager and even the current squad as being of the moment, here for the time being, whereas the “Club” consists of timeless elements like the historic achievements, those managers and players who have achieved “legend” status and most important the fanbase.
1 comment:
MK Dons, franchise or football club, cant ever remember a more treacherous act being committed against the fans of a football club in England .
While I am not a fan of airing the clubs problems in public, there are advantages to this American way of keeping the fans aware of every little detail. For once we can see what is happening and express our opinions.
I am not a fan of Parry's and a large part of the existing problems have come about through is failure's to assist Rafa. Gillette did not like Rafa going public and subsequently made a move for Klinsman based on this and a poor run of results.
Now Parry has Gillette's backing, only one reason for this, and thats because Parry and Rafa don't see eye to eye, the same as Gillette and Rafa don't.
If we had a choice of losing Parry or Rafa, then which would it be.
I don't blame Hicks for wanting to replace Parry, lets be realistic here, he as achieved nothing and cost us big signings, as well as the ticket fiasco in Athens.
It even transpired, that Parry was the reason Gerrard was nearly allowed to leave Liverpool.
One of the present owners as to buy the other out, or the two have to come together for the time being, this is imperative. But it wont and cant happen, while Parry is there. If Gillette buys Hicks out, then we can wave goodbye to Rafa, there have been to many issues between Parry and Rafa. Now it appears, Gillette wants to keep Parry.
So we could finish up with one of the owners (Gillette) who wanted to replace Rafa, and a Chief exec, who fraughts Rafa in the transfer market.
I don't like Hicks, but I would rather have him and Rafa, than Gillette and Parry.
As for Moore's, I have no comment, I wont waste energy on someone who only wanted the most money and renegade on an agreement
Post a Comment