Archive for the ‘Liverpool’ Category

Dynasty: A rich history of success or a soap opera that beggars belief?

Following his unveiling at Anfield, Brendan Rodgers described Liverpool Football Club as “a dynasty”. Which begs the question did he mean the club had with an established, rich history of class and success, or was he likening it to a preposterous soap opera with storylines that beggar belief.

Liverpool’s current predicament is the result of two decades of mismanagement, neglect and short sightedness, leaving the scale of Rodgers’ task much greater than the seventeen points that the team finished off the coveted fourth Champions League place.

On the footballing side, Rodgers has inherited a squad that, despite the truck load of cash thrown at it over the last eighteen months, will need a great deal of work before it can emulate the high tempo possession game that has already become his hallmark.

The midfield in particular, is staffed by players who either lack the technical ability (Spearing, Shelvey), favour the ‘Hollywood Ball’ (Gerrard, Adam) or have simply been non-descript in their Anfield careers so far (Downing, Henderson). The only players who seem ready-made for the ‘tiki taka’ keep-ball style are Lucas and Bellamy, the latter at the wrong end of his career.

There’s then the Andy Carroll conundrum. Given how he was used, or misused, last season, his critics have been overly harsh as he has shown the potential to be an intimidating force in attack. Yet you don’t need Andy Townsend’s tactic truck to tell you that Carroll is not a player suited to a short passing game. Rodgers will either need time to work with him to refine his game (he is still only 23), find a tactical style that suits him or employ him in some other creative option (scarecrow, coat stand, hired goon – answers on a postcard please).

Lastly, there’s the ‘Gerrard problem’. Those who criticise Gerrard are usually labelled as heretics and madmen. Yet, dare I say it, some Liverpool fans have been whispering for awhile that for all his heroics and swashbuckling drive, he has never developed the all round technique and tactical discipline required to dominate a midfield, and the tempo of a game. Whilst others would just come straight out and say that the team plays better, more incisive football without him.

These might seem harsh criticisms given the years when, at his peak, Gerrard seemingly dragged Liverpool to heights that seemed beyond them. That was in the past though – and a past that heavily relied on Xabi Alonso. One-man Roy Race midfields are not a viable long-term plan in the Premier League or Europe, and it is now undeniable, even for fanatics, that Gerrard is way past his best.

Trouble is, as the club captain, local hero, living legend, and crucially, the top-earner in the squad, he poses a big challenge for Rodgers. One possible option is to gradually deploy him as a centre-back, thus adding some technique and passing ability in defence.

All of the above, however, requires time and patience – two virtues that Liverpool are, with some justification, short of. On the cusp of a fourth season without Champions League football, conservative estimates of the revenue lost over this period fall somewhere around the £100m mark.

With the stadium saga ongoing, the club still playing catch-up with their commercial operations, and Financial Fair Play regulations preventing random cash injections, the longer Liverpool are outside the Champions League the more elusive ever returning there will become.

Rodgers and Fenway Sports Group face big challenges on every front. The club have made a brave and well suited appointment but another period of failure will likely mean that the LFC dynasty may go the same way as the TV programme which disappeared from our screen in 1989 – the same year as Liverpool’s last title triumph.

Peter Whittingham of Cardiff City F.C. 05/12/0...

Image via Wikipedia

There’ll be more an edge to the League Cup final on Sunday than you’d initially think for two teams that have little link or rivalry. A lot of this may come as a surprise to Liverpool supporters.

One reason is that there are a lot of Liverpool fans that live in South Wales. And I mean a LOT. The jokes were that the two best supported teams in South Wales had got to the final and they weren’t far off the mark.

The high level of support owes more to Liverpool’s past glories than being any reflection on their current abilities, and the unbelievable crapness of Cardiff during the 80s and 90s contributed a lot to the attractiveness of supporting Liverpool. Many City fans will have grown up with the majority of their mates supporting Liverpool and giving them stick for going to the City.

Now the gap between the teams has narrowed and it’s heartening to see as many City shirts being worn by kids in South Wales as Liverpool or Manchester United ones. But for the older generation the chance to put one over on Liverpool is a huge motivation, even if it is simply so they can walk into work on Monday and brag to the Liverpool supporters.

Another thing that’ll be confusing for Liverpool fans is that the majority of the country will be behind Cardiff (a novelty for Cardiff fans too) and not simply in an ‘oh-the-British-love-an-underdog’ fashion.

Liverpool have always been the media darlings of football. Ex-players have gone to work in high-profile TV and radio jobs (just look at the regular MOTD sofa) and Liverpool have always had a smooth ride. Everyone cheered them on in Istanbul, the same can’t be said for Manchester United in Barcelona. Liverpool built up a reputation and a stack of goodwill from the football community in general, but their reputation is in tatters after the Suarez incident and the way the club handled it. Every football team has a ‘no-one likes us’ attitude among it’s support but at Liverpool it’s been slightly delusional and coupled with a bit of a victim complex. However now the ‘no-one likes us’ view may be justified. It’ll be interesting to see how Liverpool players and fans react to that on the day. Perhaps a spell as a genuine underdog would help soften attitudes towards to Liverpool.

It’ll also be an interesting game for Craig Bellamy, who was at Cardiff last season and is a Cardiff boy through and through (just listen to him talk, pure Cardiff from the accent to the mannerisms to the attitude). Like many South Walians he grew up a Liverpool fan, but if he does manage to score (and many Cardiff fans are resigned to the fact that it would be bloody typical if he did) then the chances that he’ll celebrate it are slim.

On the pitch, Liverpool shouldn’t underestimate Cardiff, who are a decent side pushing for promotion in a strong division. Though their form hasn’t been great lately they have genuine ambitions to be in the Premier League in the near future will be looking at the League Cup as a way to show that they’re serious about that. Of course on paper Liverpool are stronger than Cardiff, but Cardiff have a solid defence and an industrious midfield, sprinkled with the inspiration of Peter Whittingham, whose link up play for the ever alert Kenny Miller will cause problems for Liverpool if they’re caught napping. Most people will be expecting a Liverpool win and anything less would be a disaster for Kenny Dalglish.

Cardiff won’t be looking to merely ‘put up a decent fight’ and for their fans to have a jolly day out. They will be going there to win. And Liverpool fans would be minded to recall that Cardiff have played at the new Wembley more times than Liverpool have.

English: Andy Carroll during pre-season friend...

Image via Wikipedia

With the news that Liverpool tried to swap £35million flop Andy Carroll for Carlos Tevez we at 1FITG Towers went on a search for the  conversation transcript. Here is what we found – disclaimer the following may or may not have *actually* happened:

Liverpool: <Ring> <Ring><Ring><Ring> “Hi, is Gary Cook there?”

Man City: “Er..he doesn’t work here anymore…who’s calling?”

L: “Shit..this is going to be a lot harder than we thought”.

MC: “Sorry…what did you say?”

L: “Er, nothing, never mind. I’m calling from Liverpool football club, you know; You’ll Never Walk Alone, the Kop and all that stuff from the 70s when we were good. And we understand that you are trying to sell Carlos Tevez? We’re really interested as we’re a little short up there with our star forward being found guilty of being racist and all”.

MC: “Erm, okay. Yes, that’s right, we want at least £25million but as you’re another club who are in our division we will want considerably more”.

L: “Cause we’re competitors for the league, right?”

MC: “Ha…er, no.”

L: “So we’ve got £35million, and that is what we’d like to offer you.”

MC: “That certainly is something we would be happy to talk about, would it be split over the season or in one sum?”

L: “Oh, it would be one big, huge, wasteful lump sum”.

MC: “Good, we’d much prefer to have the sum paid upfront.”

L: “Yeah, exactly, you want the big lump upfront, right?”

MC: “Exactly”.

L: “So when do you want to talk to Andy Carroll? I’m sure he’ll be easy to convince to join, there’s lots of strippers and bars in Manchester and it’s easier for him to get back to Newcastle”.

MC: “Sorry? Why the hell would we want to talk to Carroll, you’ll want to talk to Carlos no?”

L: “Yeah, we’ll need to talk to Carlos, but we’re offering £35million Andy Carroll for him?”

<Dinnnnngggggg>

L:“Hello? Is anyone there?”

<Line goes dead>

The row over tackling in the modern game keeps coming back with depressing regularity. In the last week alone we’ve had rows about tackles by Man City’s Kompany, Chelsea’s Lampard and now Liverpool’s  Glen Johnson. To be honest, I’m bored of it. It’s time to sort it out once and for all.

Most disagreements seem to stem from the evaluation that some players are not capable of making a truly bad challenge. This is most frequently seen in the use of the phrase, “He’s not that sort of player” by pontificating pundits and managers trying to defend a player.

Whilst part of my brain tells me this line of defence is bollocks I have never played the game professionally. So what do I really know?

Instead let’s accept the wisdom of the football professionals. Let’s follow their logic through and bring some black and white clarity to the grey area we’re currently mired in.

If there really are footballers who “aren’t that sort of player” let’s officially recognise them. Each season an independent panel of former players and match officials could meet to categorise players into “not that sort” and “that sort”. So Lee Cattermole and Joey Barton would obviously be quickly and easily categorised as “that sort” whilst say Luka Modric and Theo Walcott would be “not that sort”.

Managers and more importantly match officials could be given a list of these players. With a pre-agreed list of players who are “that sort” or “not that sort” referees would then be empowered to use more discretion.

Whilst the oft quoted ‘letter of the law’ may require the player to be sent off for a career ending, two footed, lunge, a players status as “not that sort” would allow the referee to opt for a yellow card or perhaps simply to wave play on. Similarly, a referee may be unsure whether a tackle justifies any action, however, if the player’s one whose been classified as “that sort” then it’s easier for him to reach for the red.

“Consistency” is what players, fans and pundits most often demand of a referee. Even with professional match officials we’ve not been able to create this refereeing panacea. It obviously can’t be achieved.

Introducing a “that sort” “not that sort” system would formalise inconsistency by introducing a rationale for it. It we can’t have consistency, we might as well have consistent inconsistency.

English football (soccer) referee Howard Webb

Image via Wikipedia

“Sure I saw him forearm the lad McCarthy. But what can I say I’ve always been a Manchester United fan so I was never going to send Rooney off.” So says Mark Clattenburg explaining his decision to turn a blind eye to a seemingly obvious red card offence.

Speaking later in the week Martin Atkinson explained his decision to send Nemanja Vidic off in the dying moments of the game: “Every time I have a game with him he’s always bitching and moaning about this or that decision. I’d been looking for a chance to send him off all game and teach him a lesson. He tugged the shirt, I thought, thank you very much and pulled out the red.”

Of course none of this happened. I made it all up. The referees in question said no such thing. Unfortunately, they abide by the rules of their employers and maintain a stoic silence as Alex Ferguson ignores the rules applying to him about questioning referees integrity. So much for the FA’s respect agenda.

The trouble is referees are an easy target for managers for the simple reason they can’t answer back. You can heap abuse and derision upon them, and if you’ve got a big enough reputation like the Govan gobshite Fergie then you’re probably not even worried about getting punished.

But what if referees could answer back? And what if referees could actually fire the opening salvos in a war of words with a manager?

Imagine if Howard Webb, ahead of Manchester derby, spoke about how Rio Ferdinand had harangued him in the tunnel after the last game. “I hope Rio doesn’t try tackling in the box. Any excuse to give a penalty and I’m pointing at the spot.”

If referees were allowed to mark the card of players and referees I think we’d find there’d be a sudden a new found respect for the match officials. I’m guessing managers would find themselves having a new found sympathy for that difficult offside decision. All for fear of antagonising the same referee at any future fixture. The FA could even start choosing referees on the basis of promoting their respect agenda. Courteous behaviour could be rewarded with a sympathetic referee.

And unapologetic recalcitrant’s like Ferguson? Well they could find themselves with Martin Atkinson every week.

 

Frank Lampard, a footballer from England.

Image via Wikipedia

1. The Premier League era

Yes, it’s an obvious one that annoys us all, but it’s probably the single most irritating habit of all commentators, and it reared its head again after the recent 4-4 result between Arsenal and Newcastle when one BBC pundit pointed out that this was the first such comeback in “the Premier League era”. So what? So bloody what? Some of us, millions of us in fact, remember football before 1992. There were records then too – over 100 years of records and history as it goes. It was even on TV. In colour! What is this obsession with the arbitrary era beginning in 1992? After all, all that happened was that the top division decided to keep their own TV money and ‘rebrand’ Division One as the Premiership. There was even the same number of teams. We don’t refer to Manchester United as the best team of the Rumbelows Cup era, do we? It’s bad enough when Sky do it to protect the Premier League ‘franchise’ but you expect more from the BBC.

2. Quarterback role

What? A quarter what? Is that a burger? This is one that has crept into football journalism and punditry over the last decade and it makes my blood boil. It seems that we’re not content with describing midfielders as ‘attacking’ or ‘deep lying’ or even ‘holding’. Hell, if you’re feeling particularly flamboyant, you can even describe them as playing ‘in the hole’. But ‘quarterback’?!?! Football is not, and never has been, an American sport. I first heard this during Sven Goran Eriksson’s ill fated experiment with David Beckham as a deep lying midfielder (another ‘DB7′ vanity project) launching balls up to England’s forwards. Since then, it has crept into use for any midfielder who has no pace and sprays long passes about. Not to mention it’s a fairly grandiose title for a player who simply horses it into the mixer. Does this make Paul Warhurst a quarterback? And what next? Will we introduce other sporting positions into the football lexicon? Will we soon be describing Iniesta as a world-class point guard? Will we laud Ryan Giggs as the best silly mid-off in the Premier League era? (see what I did there?)

3. Makelele role

This is a bit of a mangling of numbers 1 and 2. Some cerebral football journos seem to think that there was no such position as holding midfielder before Claude Makelele, hence they’ve named it after him. Sure, he was great at it but he wasn’t the best ever and by no means the first, unlike Cruyff’s turn. It’s a bit like referring to centre forward as the Kevin Campbell role. Depending on your age and personal bias, you could equally call Makelele’s position: the Keane role, the Hamman role, the Robson role, the Dunga role, the Souness role, or even the Nobby Stiles role. The possibilities are endless. How about the Terry Yorath role?

4. First name terms

Brian Clough must turn in his grave at the familiarity with which today’s pundits refer to players. It’s frighteningly common to hear Jamie ‘My Trousers Are Made Of Chrome’ Redknapp referring to how well Frank played today, or how good Stevie was. Who? Frank? Frank McAvennie? Frank Sinclair? Oh, Frank Lampard! He’s not our cousin, ‘Jamie’. We just know him as ‘Lampard’ (or possibly something less flattering). It’s not just Redknapp, they’re all at it. I heard Steve Claridge refer to him as Frank the other day – as if Claridge is a good friend of Lampard’s! It’s a peculiarly English affliction though, reserved for the Anglo-Saxons in the Premier League – Wayne, Jamie, Ashley and so on,. I don’t hear anyone referring to Dimitar, Kolo, or Yossi. Given his difficulty with pronouncing Benayoun, David Pleat probably should call him Yossi. But then he’d probably end up calling him Jossy or Yassir.

5. World class

The term ‘world class’ is bandied around in football more often than the term ‘bandied around’. It’s used to describe everything and everyone (see also: ‘legend’). A pass or a tackle can now be ‘world class’, even if delivered just once by a carthorse right-back. Surely the term ‘world class’ must have some boundaries on context and longevity? Surely if Zidane scoring his third goal in a World Cup final is ‘world class’, the same can’t be said of a half decent cross whipped in behind Bournemouth’s defence by Danny Cadamarteri? It used to be that only the very best or the most special were deemed ‘world class’. It used to be that ‘world class’ was reserved for those players that had consistently delivered at the very pinnacle of the game. This week, I heard of a “world class performance” by Chris Eagles.

Given the events of the last week, the messianic return of Kenny Dalglish should be celebrated. Not for the 3-0 win that his team recorded over Wolves. Nor for any belief that the return of the ‘King’ is a panacea for Liverpool’s ills – such beliefs are misguided. No, his return should be celebrated for his handling of the press and media, and it should be celebrated by all fans.

Daglish’s caustic wit was at its finest this week when he mocked a Sky Sports News reporter, questioning whether it was ok to have a woman present, and then noting the absence of any questions relating to female officials. Though they were the two most amusing moments of his press conference, the most satisfying was his reaction to being asked why he thought there were six managers from Glasgow in the Premier League. “Is that your last question? And you want me to answer your questions?” was accompanied by a look of disbelief, followed by a shrug of the shoulders and a weary response that he had no idea why there were six Glaswegians in the Premier League but at least he had someone to talk to.

His reaction should be applauded and long may such treatment of anodyne and facile journalism continue. Football reporters, journalists, pundits and presenters seem to be on a never ending decline into tedium, asking the most questions lacking in any insight (let’s not even get started on how Andy Townsend is the lead pundit for the Champions League). We’re now used to a reporter thrusting his microphone under the nose of a triumphant manager, to ask “You’ve just won six-nil, Alan. Does it feel good?”. Or “The referee gave that crucial penalty against you for a foul that was two yards outside the box. Are you unhappy with the decision?” What next? “I’ve just slept with your wife, Steve. Do you mind?”

Dalglish is a throwback to a time when managers wouldn’t suffer fools gladly. They didn’t have intensive media training in his day, they simply answered good football questions with good football responses, and woe betide anyone who deviated from that simple brief. In those days, managers like Clough, Atkinson and Graham spoke their minds. In those heady days, it wasn’t uncommon to see such managers as members of the panel for live games, before things got so litigious and carefully scrutinised by the FA.

Ferguson too, was once a master of insight and cutting sarcasm but, alas, has long since turned his media events into a hand selected crowd of fawning journos feeding bland and toady questions, lest they be banned for asking anything remotely tricky. Perhaps, just maybe, Fergie will get that fire in the belly of his press conferences again with the return of his old sparring partner down the M62. Let’s hope it rubs off on a few more managers too because, frankly, things have been a bit dull.

Am I the only person who is starting to think that Liverpool are slowly becoming a poor imitation of Newcastle United?

Hear me out:

  • A club overly-romantic about past glory.
  • Fanatical supporters who believe they’re entitled to success.
  • A succession of beleaguered managers that have failed to win the title.
  • Fandom overriding rational logic.
  • Disgruntled players who see their future elsewhere.
  • A belief that a messiah in the form of an ex-player/manager will come and save the day.

You see, not such a far-fetched comparison is it? Some similarities are uncanny. The only thing missing is a fat, meddling, buffoon from London! Hold on, isn’t Roy Hodgson from Croydon? (ok, that was a little harsh).

As a Liverpool fan I’ve been perturbed and a little surprised about all the column inches Liverpool FC have been consuming over the last few days. There seems to be genuine hysteria emanating from the club.

It was embarrassing to hear cries of “Hodgson for England” and “Dalglish” from the fans during the recent home defeat to Wolves. Alright yes, Roy Hodgson hasn’t done a good job as Liverpool manager. Actually in truth, he hasn’t even done an average one but the level of hostility towards the man is becoming unacceptable.

Every interview he has conducted has been brutally assassinated and taken out of context. Even something as banal as Hodgson rubbing his face is now up for discussion on the LFC internet forums. Ex-players who in the summer were praising his appointment have now trickled out of the woodwork to publicly damn him.

Hodgson isn’t the only one to have fallen foul of the Liverpool fans of late. Paul Konchesky, a limited but willing player has become a target of the boo boys in the last few weeks. It would appear that a few disparaging remarks made by Konchesky’s mum about the city of Liverpool and its fans on Facebook (I know…. Facebook???) has done a lot of damage. Didn’t she have anything better to do, like change her profile picture or send a friend request???

Liverpool fans are supposed to be the most knowledge football fans around (truly a self-proclaimed notion). Therefore, can they not see that the club as a whole is going through a rebuilding process and need some patience? A magic wand will not be waved and everything will be rosy again. No plaster or band-aid can cover over the mistakes made in the last 18 months.

The new owners Fenway Sports Group (FSG or formerly known as NESV) will need time to evaluate the structure and long-term planning of the club. Changes will be made, I’m certain. These changes however, need to be the correct ones for the club. No quick-fixes here please! Whilst I admire and greatly respect Kenny Dalglish (affectionately known as ‘the King’ by many). He is a man who has not managed a football club for 11 years!

I watch with baited breath to see how Liverpool football club conducts itself over the next two transfer windows. Most importantly the current one, which is already four days old. New players are a priority and prudence as well as conscientiousness will have to be exhausted. The question is, will the board back Hodgson and give him the money he desperately needs?

It will seem inevitable that there will a parting of the ways between the club and manager at some point in the near future. My only wish is that it’s done at the end of the season in an amicable way. That will allow Hodgson to leave with some dignity instead of with his tail tucked between his legs.

The words “You’ll Never Walk Alone” are paramount to the club. Enough of the witch-hunts and agenda’s.  It’s time to be united.

New football stadiums seem to be in vogue these days. Every club wants a one. The benefits for a club when they move to a new stadium are quite clear to see. Increased attendances, more room for corporate hospitality, better experience for fans, more are

Kop a load of thisas for retail and catering, increased non-match day facilities etc.

For example, over the last few weeks, Tottenham and West Ham have been squabbling over the ownership of the Olympic stadium post the 2012 Olympics. Both clubs have been wise and canny enough to see the potential for greater revenue and increased turnover from the move to Stratford.
This brings me onto a topic that is quite close to my heart. The future home of Liverpool Football Club.
After a tumultuous battle to become the owners of Liverpool FC, NESV are now faced with their first big challenge (some will argue that it’s the position of Roy Hodgson, but that’s for another blog). So far, John W. Henry has been very tight-lipped about any plans surrounding the new stadium. Perhaps he is scared to make any broken promises like his native predecessors?
This heightens the fact that the eventual decision whatever it may be, cannot be rushed and requires careful strategic planning. At present there would seem to be three options available to NESV.

Option 1: Redevelop Anfield

When NESV acquired the Boston Red Sox in 2002, they were faced with a similar dilemma to the one currently in place at Liverpool i.e. an iconic stadium that was fast becoming a relic. NESV decided to redevelop Fenway Park instead of building a new stadium elsewhere.
The idea of redeveloping Anfield has its plus points. It will cost NESV far less to increase the capacity of Anfield (which currently stands at 45,000). Obviously if money can be saved in the building of a new stadium then it will be done. NESV are business men after all. The romantics will also argue that Anfield holds too many fond memories. Why move when you can expand upon history and tradition?

Option 2: Stanley Park
George Gillett and Tom Hicks got a lot of things wrong during their three year tenure as owners of Liverpool football club. One of the most cringe-worthy, was Gillett’s infamous “a spade in the ground within 60 days” statement (not long after their takeover in 2007), referring to the construction of a new stadium on Stanley Park. Three years on and that spade has done nothing but gather dust.
The short move to Stanley Park would do a lot of the things I alluded to in my very first paragraph. Liverpool as a city would be invigorated by the regeneration opportunities a new multi-million pound stadium could provide.

Option 3: Ground share
It might not be the most popular decision with the fans but there is a mounting possibility that Merseyside rivals Liverpool and Everton may consider a ground share. From NESV’s perspective it provides the best of both worlds. The luxury of a new stadium with only half the additional costs.
Kopites and toffees would find the notion of sharing a stadium difficult to comprehend but other major European clubs such as AC Milan and Inter Milan, as well as Roma and Lazio have ground shared for well over 60 years. However a loss of individual pride and identity may prove to be problematic.

Personally, I cannot see anything other than a move to Stanley Park for Liverpool. Staying at Anfield is not viable in the long-term as capacity and future re-development will be severely restricted. Why expand Anfield to cater 60,000 people (its proposed maximum capacity) when the club could possibly sell-out 70,000? Quite simply, staying at Anfield limits any future growth.
The thought of Liverpool sharing a stadium with bitter rivals Everton is even more irrational. One of the primary contributors to a football clubs wealth is its assets, such as a stadium. It is estimated Milan council, take five million Euro’s in rent from AC and Inter each year. Also, non-ownership of the San Siro means each club is restricted in what it can generate or do on non-match days. Nor can either club undertake re-structuring without the other clubs consent.
These are just some of the factors John W. Henry and co, will have to consider when deciding the future home of Liverpool Football Club. As the new custodians of the club, it is a decision they cannot take lightly. NESV will be wise to not raise the ire of Liverpudlians. We all know what happened to the last group of Americans who dared to do that.

Dragged through the mud and courtroomsFinally the Liverpool Football Club takeover has come to a dramatic end.

The soap opera that saw the club embroiled in court room battles, injunctions, £1 billion lawsuits claims and counter claims, personal accusations, and the very serious the threat of the club going into administration loomed large.

The Hicks and Gillet years will always be remembered as the leadership that had brought one of English Football brightest institutions steeped in success and tradition to its crumbling knees.

A grim outlook that has been replicated on the pitch with the humbling defeats to lowly League 2 outfit Northampton in the Carling Cup, and Premier League new boys Blackpool respectively. It could be easy to remark on what has occurred and pick the bones over the whole sorry episode, but for this article a different direction is going to be taken.

With this post I am going to refer to something I wrote almost four years ago during my Masters studies in a discussion forum over the state of English football, and to a degree the sport as a whole and what it represents in the early 21st Century. Also reviewed was the worrying and increasing dependency of finance within the game.

The reference to the proposed Liverpool takeover at the time in the piece was that of two suitors, Dubai International Capital, and what proved to be the sucessful bid from Tom Hicks and George Gillett. With the consistent talk of Manchester United’s financial situation and visible protests, the literal transformation  of  the Manchester City’s fortunes, and Portsmouth being the first Premier League club to go in to administration  within this four year timeframe, I pose this question once read, has much changed regarding the sport and the highlighted issues mentioned?

Like always enjoy folks….

From my perspective the current trend that seems to be taking place in English football regarding club ownership, is quite a delicate and complicated situation that is not easy to unravel.  Liverpool FC is the most recent club to be the subject of a takeover bid. Arguably this would present an instant short-term resolution and a bright rosy future for the club but I have my reservations.

As a fan of the club without doubt the initial appeal of the proposed takeover would place the club in a stronger position where they could compete with the present market setter’s Chelsea in terms of economic resources off the pitch and naturally on-pitch by attracting the big-name star players. Although this may not guarantee an immediate change of Liverpool’s fortunes on the playing field from possible title-contenders to actual annual champions, without question it would put the club on par if not surpass some of the world’s top clubs. Clearly all this talk of Premiership clubs being taken over is not a coincidence but clearly a direct relation to what has occurred at Chelsea FC, and their resulting dominance.

Despite waning public standing amongst football fans of Chelsea, what cannot be disputed is Roman Abramovich’s commitment to the club, and presenting him as a genuine football fan. Which introduces the question how or what makes a genuine football fan? Is it merely because a person states that they follow a particular team, buy the clubs memorabilia, or regularly attend matches no matter the distance or cost?

Well whatever the basis maybe, Abramovich may forward his case stating he brought the club outright. In doing so he instantly wrote off the club’s pending £80 million debt, and has spent heavily on attaining the best human resources available be it players, management and administrative staff. If that’s not enough we the football viewing public regularly see him on our television screens always watching his prestigious acquisition every time they play.

Aside from Chelsea, recent reports have suggested that Abramovich now plans to commit £20 million to his native Russia and its national football team in developing state-of-the-art facilities in which current players will use and help develop talent in future players. It could be said that this gives evidence to Abramovich’s keen interest in football. Perhaps Chelsea’s benefactor is an isolated case, but this brings me to my initial concern with the sudden interest of such individuals and Premiership clubs. Do these people really have a genuine interest in football and the well being of the clubs they are proposing to buy?

As a Liverpool fan I am not that bothered what nationality is stated in the passport of the owner now or in the future, all that concerns me is are they going to do right by the club. The Premiership has a rich cosmopolitan flavour with many players, managers and their nationalities represented in the league. I feel that this has heightened the playing standard set in England so in theory why can’t the same be said of overseas owners and investors?

My fear is that we might have a situation where such grouped individuals are merely looking to strip the tenuous but prosperous investments some clubs may retain, just to line their own pockets or any other drastic act that is detrimental to the clubs future. I suppose I say this because my worry is that football is our national game and although globally popular I am always concerned do these individuals recognise what these clubs mean to people. Due to the fact they do not live or have not grown following a club and the English football culture.

I understand that the way the game is at present, it is no longer just a game. A statement that which brings me to reference the article ‘Play Element In Contemporary Sport’ by Johann Huizinga. In which he refers to the loss in free spirit play displayed in sport. This sentiment is a suitable description trend appearing in English football. Top-level soccer is no longer about playing the game; it is big-time business on all fronts with mere participation was sidestepped long ago and winning and losing is now taking a back seat. But is the imminent future and success of clubs pending on finding a rich individual, overseas or over wise? Is the league table going to resemble a financial rich list with the wealthiest owner at the top in an ascending order? Time will tell…