posted Feb 8, 2007

The unfortunate thing about all of this is that football has changed over the years, some for the better and some not (and this will always be happening) that's why we have all the great era's from each decade. Liverpool's greatest achivments came in the 70's & 80's. They are still winning things since then which is great but that era was when they were at there most consistant. What has been more prominant over the last 20 years or so has been the money. Long gone in this fantastic sport that I love to play & watch (especially Liverpool) are the days when nearly everybody involved in it did what they did because they loved the sport, it has now become a business and a mega one at that.
I will always love the game, always love Liverpool and always enjoy the great feeling when they win the next piece of silverware.

As far as the new owners are concered, after watching the press conference not long ago I know that Americans can “talk the talk”, it will be interesting to see if they can also “walk the walk” with the Liverpool Football Club. Hopefully they can, then they will never walk alone.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 9, 2007

Liverpool were bought by a good pair of us businessman but i am unsure whether they will actually play football properly

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 16, 2007

I'm happy Liverpool get the cash, but since it's from George Bush's strongest financial backer and I loathe everything George Bush stands for then it seems dirty money. The idea of Tom Hicks down on the Crawford ranch with his buddy watching Steven Gerrard against Berlusconi's Milan or Chelski is light years from what Anfield's about.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 16, 2007

comment by Koppola
posted 35 Minutes Ago

"I'm happy Liverpool get the cash, but since it's from George Bush's strongest financial backer and I loathe everything George Bush stands for then it seems dirty money."

This is just a load of garbage being spread by the likes of the Guardian. Yes, Tom Hicks supports George Bush, but he is not the biggest financial backer. In terms of the Premiership, that honour goes to Randy Lerner of Aston Villa. He was chairman of MBNA bank in 2004 when they were the 6th biggest contributor to Bush's re-election campaign. His personal political contribution to Bush is also bigger than Hick's.

The only way Hicks is Bush's "strongest financial backer", is that he bought the Texas Rangers from Bush, making him a millionaire.

In any case, who cares? Hicks also contributed to the political campaign of Democrat Anne Richards, who was Bush's predecessor as governor of Texas. That's how politics and big money works in America. There is probably not a single American with this kind of money who HASN'T contributed to both Republicans and Democrats.

Now take a deep breath and remember - Once a Red always a Red!!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 16, 2007

>>There is probably not a single American with this kind of money who HASN'T contributed to both Republicans and Democrats.


it's not necessarily 'support' either.

it's buying access to a politician in case legislation could hurt your business.

That's why anyone with significant wealth and/or business ownership donate to everyone.

I don't think it's right, but you'd be a serious fool not to do it since it's allowed.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 16, 2007

"it's not necessarily 'support' either."

Absolutely. It's just pragmatism.

It's probably not a bad thing that we have a couple of ruthless businessmen at the helm. Let's face it, Moores loved LFC, but he was FAR too loyal to his friends. Houllier should have gone about 2 or 3 seasons before he did and Souness should never have been appointed at all.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

Yeah, Moores really shafted Liverpool didn't he.... things are so much better these days eh!?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

comment by AudienceOfOne (U5496749)
posted 2 Hours Ago

Yeah, Moores really shafted Liverpool didn't he.... things are so much better these days eh!?
--------------------------------------------------

Actually he did, but not in the way I thought.

The reason we have H&G, who have obviously turned out to be a disaster, is purely because of Moore's greed.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2008

A lot to do with greed, a bit to do with an 'exit strategy' memo that was leaked from DIC.

The point is the same all the same though... the grass always appears greener on the other side but of course very rarely is.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 11, 2008

Its got nothing to do with greed, more simply the fact that he is incapable.

Moores is the Paris Hilton of the Anfield & Moores Dynasties - all inherited money and no inherent intelligence. All to willing to gamble the family silver by associating with American hype and consumerism.

add comment | complain about this comment