Liverpool FC's off-field crisis Part II: Fans' questions answered

AN estimated 5,000 Liverpool fans took to the streets of Anfield for a protest match against club co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett before the Reds defeated Manchester United at Anfield last month.

The show of strength against the American tycoons was the latest in a series of demonstrations against Hicks and Gillett organised by Spirit of Shankly - the UK's first football supporters' union.

But Liverpool fans are not united on the subject of ousting the owners and many have questioned the motives - and tactics - of SOS.

Some fans even think the latest protest was an attempt to mask the current on-the-field disappointments, despite action against Hicks and Gillett dating back over 12 months.

Here, in the second part of an in-depth interview, PAUL GARDNER, Community Liaison and Regeneration Officer for SOS, answers questions from fans about the union, the owners, and the hopes for whoever next takes charge in the Anfield boardroom. (Read part one here) 

WELL RED: Some Liverpool fans have suggested laying the blame for the club's situation solely at the door of Hicks and Gillett is wrong. Would you agree that the previous boardroom regime of David Moores and Rick Parry hold some responsibility for the club's current off-field plight?

PAUL GARDNER: Definitely. Moores and Parry held us back with poor sponsorship deals, no new stadium, and then they sold us out for more money when a simple Google search would have shown what Hicks' so-called expertise at managing sports teams was like. Questions have been put to them since, and noted in one of our recent leaflets handed out at the Burnley home game.

We have heard nothing back from them. It helps our cause if they came out and said 'Sorry, lads, we got it wrong when we sold to Hicks and Gillett' - but they won’t do that. Some anger and action has to be aimed at them, but it’s the current owners that are currently doing the damage at our club so we cannot take our eye off the ball.

WR: Another criticism levelled at SOS is that it is failing to recognise that football clubs need to be run as a business - what would you say to this?

PG: We agree that football needs to be run as a business, SOS has never said otherwise. Our membership spans the globe - we recognise the global market in football and its importance to the game. But we still have to take into account that despite being a business we are still a football club that exists to win trophies. The business is currently running to the detriment of that. Winning trophies and doing well in the Champions League will help the business, but without the right support we will struggle to achieve that.

There have been many criticisms falsely aimed at Spirit of Shankly. Our presence on the likes of Facebook has allowed us to talk to fans and address some of these issues. If you are unsure about us or have concerns, our website is there to address anything you need to know.

WR: What are the hopes of SOS for Liverpool FC's next owner? Some fans say the union is merely begging for a sugar daddy to 'bail the club out' - what would you say to this?

PG: We want an owner who will run Liverpool FC in a way that is expected of them by the fans and according to the traditions of the 'Liverpool Way'. We have never called for the club to be bailed out by a sugar daddy as this would go against our aims. A sugar daddy's business model would not be financially sound for a business - you have the risk of problems again in the future. Take away the debt on the club and we are very close to being a well-run club. We do not need a sugar daddy.

Spirit of Shankly's main hope would be for the fans to be the next owner of Liverpool FC and it is something that SOS and Share Liverpool are working on all the time.

WR: A banner was held up at the Carling Cup game at Elland Road saying 'We are the new Leeds'. Is it the union's fear that this the direction the club is heading and if so, why?

PG: If we fail to qualify for the knockout stages of the Champions League, and fail to qualify for the Champions League next year, the club's business model will have to change accordingly. That model, as confirmed by Gillett, is based on the last six years and a relatively limited run in the Champions League. We had no net spend in the summer despite earning over £20million every year under Rafa Benitez through the Champions League so what will happen without that money?

Would we have to sell to keep players rather than the 'sell to buy' system we have been undertaking the last few years? That is when becoming a 'Leeds' becomes more of a possibility. Leeds then and Liverpool now might have their differences but both involved business models which relied on Champions League football. Without that who knows where we could end up?

The money from the Robbie Keane sale was kept to pay off interest payments. Then we all thought we had about £20m at least to spend in the summer on players but that didn't happen after RBS asked for £60m from Hicks and Gillett as part of the refinancing deal.

Even Rafa said after signing Glen Johnson that he had money for one more major signing, regardless of player sales. But after RBS took the money he didn't have that. Without Champions League football, or if RBS ask for more money back, what will happen? Who will be sold to allow Hicks and Gillett to keep hold of the club? The banner said 'LFC - The Next Leeds?' We are not saying it will happen, but there is a strong possibility it could happen.

WR: SOS say the Americans have lied over the building of the new stadium, but some fans say that, due to the credit crunch, it would be the wrong time to build a ground. What is your response?

PG: The simplest thing for us to say is for them to take a look at our YouTube recordings of Gillett talking about the stadium here, here and here.

In that one meeting he says he didn't say the '60 days' comment, that it was Hicks - even though there is video proof of him saying it at the press conference when they took over the club.

He says in the same meeting that the credit crunch started at two different times. They use it as an excuse. The credit crunch doesn't have an exact start date - it is a gradual process but was widely accepted as starting in 2008, not a year earlier when they bought the club.

Also, if they kept to their promise of not putting debt on the club like the Glazers did at Manchester United, then the stadium would have been paid for out of their own pockets - the credit crunch would have had no affect on their ability to deliver a stadium. If anything, it would have made it better for them as it might have reduced the price of the stadium.

WR: One problem for fans is understanding the complex accounting arguments. Some fans simply say our debts aren't as bad as other top four clubs, others get much more technical and say that LFC would not be liable for the parent company set up by Hicks & Gillett (Kop Holdings) should it go bust. Could you clear this up?


PG: Other clubs' positions do not make our position any better. As far as we are aware most, if not all, of the debt is now on Liverpool FC after the refinancing. Even if that is not the case then it still does not affect the severity of the situation. Liverpool FC is the only asset of Kop Holdings.

When we met with Christian Purslow (LFC managing director) we asked the question of how much debt is on Liverpool Football Club and Purslow told us £245million. It was specifically asked if there was more debt elsewhere, not on the club directly, and he confirmed the £245m figure again.

Also look back to April of this year. Southampton Leisure Holdings owned Southampton Football Club, its only asset. They tried to use that explanation to say it was the holding company in administration and not the football club. It was seen as a grey area, like it could be with Liverpool, but we all know that Southampton got relegated and started this season with a points deduction. If it was Liverpool it would not make a difference in the eyes of the FA and the Premier League.

WR: SOS critics say fans have no say in who the owners are and will be in the future and argue this situation will never change. What makes the union confident it can engineer a change?

PG: You just need to look at our record in what we have achieved through negotiations with the club. We have regular contact with Ian Ayre (commercial director) and will be having more contact with Christian Purslow over issues to do with the club (more on our site).

We asked for a decrease or freeze in season ticket prices and there was a price freeze (or a reduction if you count the reduction in VAT).

The club scrapped the Priority Ticket Scheme at the end of last season and only part introduced the new scheme with no loyalty involved. We received hundreds of complaints which we passed on to the club. Shortly after a loyalty scheme for the new All Red membership scheme was announced. We are a professional organisation and Purslow and Ayre respect our views - we can make a difference.

Why should we sit back and just see what happens? We have to at least try and save our club. They say fortune favours the brave. We are Liverpool. If anyone can do it, then we can.

WR: Everyone associates SOS with the campaign to oust Hicks and Gillett from the club, but it is also about a lot more than that isn't it? Could you tell us about that?

PG: We were set up originally with the aim of getting Hicks and Gillett out of the club but we have 15 elected committee members who cover many areas.

We have organised cheap coach travel to all domestic games and into Europe last season. We have also negotiated discounts with travel agents for away games in Europe this season, set up free coaching camps for children and arranged fundraising events for the Michael Shields Campaign.

We are there to provide for all fans regardless of where you are based or how much you go the match - Spirit of Shankly is an organisation to provide for the fans, from the fans.

WR: Spirit of Shankly support the Share Liverpool proposal - the idea of fan ownership of Liverpool FC. Could you tell us the latest on it?

PG: We do support the Share Liverpool proposal because our ultimate aim is to have fan ownership of the club. We have been unhappy at the speed of how things have been moving but we are working hard with Share Liverpool to make this idea become reality.

WR: One fan has suggested a truce, putting forward the idea that SOS and Hicks and Gillett could agree some aims for the club then the co-owners would be allowed some breathing space to achieve those aims. The fan's idea is that if they failed to meet the agreement after a year, it could lead to stronger support for SOS? What's your take on this?

PG: This fan is welcome to join the union, and to raise the idea at the next mass meeting. But there is too much at stake to sit back and do nothing. It would need our members' support which I'm pretty sure it wouldn't get. We gave them the benefit of the doubt already when they bought the club so they definitely don't deserve it again. Purslow and Ayre have got a job to do that is made difficult by the owners. Going easy on them is not going to make the situation any better.

If Liverpool fans have any other questions for Paul, you can email him at: community@spiritofshankly.com

Liverpool FC's off-field crisis: Spirit of Shankly answer fans' questions

SINCE my recent post about the Spirit of Shankly march before the win over Manchester United, several fans have raised questions about the ongoing protests against Liverpool's co-owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

Spirit of Shankly (SOS) is a Liverpool supporters' union - the first of its type in the UK - whose ultimate aim is supporter ownership of Liverpool FC.

I put the questions asked by fans to PAUL GARDNER, Community Liaison and Regeneration Officer for SOS.

WELL RED: One of the main criticisms being levelled at Spirit of Shankly is that marching before games is pointless and counter-productive, that it is somehow taking away from the support of the team and is also unlikely to unsettle Hicks and Gillett. What are your views on this?

PAUL GARDNER: With arranging any protest there is always a fine line in finding a balance. Any protest has to be achievable in both the support it can get and needs, and the outcome it has.

Many different ideas have been considered by SOS and we can say that the majority of protests, if not all we have held, have been very successful. A march was not everyone's first choice of protest before the United game this season, but we supported the majority of our members’ views that chants were not to be taken into the ground while the game is on.

This view is taken because they want to support the team whilst in the ground. Having a march outside the ground does not affect in any way the ability to support the team. In fact, if you compare the results after both of our two big marches (both wins against Manchester United) then you could say the march helps to get people even more motivated to support the team once in the ground.

On the point of unsettling Hicks and Gillett, yes, Hicks and Gillett probably wouldn't haven't heard the chanting directly but the other way of getting at them  is finding out where they are whenever they are over here, as shown when SOS confronted Gillett prior to the Hull game at Melwood and the Academy. Some fans also made their feelings known to Gillett after the reserve game against Sunderland the week before the United game.

The march is about gaining media interest and spreading the word about what Hicks and Gillett are doing to our club. It is not only about putting pressure on the owners but informing fans, whether they are watching on the path of the march or across the world reading or watching via the media.

There were massive amounts of positive coverage of the march including a clip on one of the biggest national news programmes. With around 5,000 on the march (more than the previous march) and with the coverage it received we can say it was a success on all levels.

The club will also be aware of our protests that day with 600 beach balls thrown around the ground and on to the pitch before the game, all with messages for the owners written on them.

We need to keep on coming up with ideas for protests that maximise the pressure on the owners. We have regular mass meetings were our members vote on  issues including what type of protests they support. If people have ideas to put forward they can e-mail: directaction@spiritofshankly.com

WR: Fans against the protests have also suggested it could put off potential new investors/owners - what would you say to them?

PG: This is something Christian Purslow (Liverpool FC managing director) has suggested to us as well. We can understand people's thoughts on this. You have to look at both sides of the argument and try and judge what is best for the club.

Protesting will get a message across to potential investors and owners. It shows we understand when someone is damaging our club for their own benefit. If those type of investors are put off then it is for the better.

The key thing to remember is protests are not against Liverpool Football Club - they are against Tom Hicks and George Gillett. New deals with Standard Chartered, 188Bet and Halliwell Jones show investors realise this. The protests are not having a damaging effect.

Fans have to realise that every ticket, shirt or hot dog bought at Anfield is paying towards interest repayments to allow Hicks and Gillett to own the club. Spending £2.5million net in the last two seasons shows that they are not willing or able to invest back into the team regardless of our earnings at the moment so it is important that we keep putting pressure on them.

The problem for new investors and owners is the valuation that Hicks and Gillett have put on the club - no investor will invest at the wrong price. We can help by making life uncomfortable for Hicks and Gillett and make them get out sooner with a lower price that a suitable owner is willing to pay.

WR: The use of the word 'Yanks' on the SOS website and in banners/literature etc has been highlighted by some critics who accuse the union of being xenophobic. What's your response?

PG: Yanks is a shortened version of Yankees and is a playful colloquial term for Americans used in Commonwealth countries since World War 2. It was not meant to be derogatory and having American members of SOS illustrates this. It was used as a shorter term in banners and chants to help relay the message about the owners.

Recently, we have been working on a new campaign called 'Tom and George - You're not welcome here'  along with banners such as 'Tom and George - You Tell Lie$' so it further highlights how we are not intending to be xenophobic in our pursuit to get the owners out. Our quarrels are with Hicks and Gillett as individuals and not as a nationality.

Also, if using the term 'Yanks' was really deemed to be xenophobic why are possibly the most successful baseball team in America called the New York Yankees? Surely if it was so offensive they would be called something else?


WR: Some fans want to see more direct action against Hicks and Gillett. They have suggested boycotts of games, club merchandise and so on. Have you looked at these options?

PG: At present we do not think they are realistic. Club merchandise is sold around the world. You would need to stop millions of people buying merchandise.

Boycotting a match has been talked about a lot. It would definitely have an effect seeing an empty Anfield, but for every person giving up their ticket there would be someone else willing to buy one, so the number of people you need to boycott the match becomes much bigger.

With season tickets and the auto cup scheme it means most of the ticket revenue will already be in the club's hands. Also, there is the issue you raised in the question about does a march affect the ability to support the team. People have different opinions on what direction to go with a protest and rightly so. Boycotting a match was discussed at the last mass meeting and the majority voted against it.

WR: Some fans have highlighted what they see as good things achieved by Hicks and Gillett - the Standard Chartered sponsorship deal, Benitez's new contract, the manager being given control of the academy and transfer deals. Would you acknowledge these things have been steps in the right direction by the co-owners?

PG: I don't think it is a step in the right direction by the co-owners, but a right step in the right direction by Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre (LFC commercial director). The co-owners have pretty much left the running of the club to them two. All Hicks' and Gillett's names mean on club documents now is that there is £245m worth of debt on the club. So these deals are great, but when the money received from them is going straight to Royal Bank of Scotland and not to strengthening the team it means there are still major problems.

On the point of Standard Chartered, look at the deals Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal have been getting for the past five years and then compare that to the Carlsberg deal we kept renewing under Rick Parry.

What has been delivered recently with the new sponsorship deals is great and would be even better if it didn't just go to servicing debt. But the opportunities for such a deal were there beforehand. David Moores and Parry missed out on them - Purslow and Ayre are simply taking us up to the level we should be at rather than of the owners' making.

WR: Is there anything that Hicks and Gillett could do to reverse SOS's stance on their ownership of the club, or is it an 'out at all costs' approach?

PG: It is a simple 'out at all costs' approach. People may see that as one tracked and narrow minded, but you have to look at what has happened during their ownership to see why this is important.

When Hicks and Gillett  bought the club we trusted Moores and Parry when they said they were the best option to take the club forward. We then believed Hicks and Gillett when they said there would be no debt on the club like the Glazers' takeover at Manchester United, that there would be a spade in the ground in 60 days and that Rafa would be given money to buy anyone he wants (remember 'Snoogy Doogy'?).

If they did manage to pay off the debt, or rather by us going the match and buying merchandise we were able to pay it off for them, why should we ever trust them? They have lied to us many times before, damaged the club massively and continue to do so. Take a look at the recordings on our YouTube side and on our website of a meeting with Gillett - he still continues to lie to us on issues which have been proved countless times before.

Hicks is struggling with his other sports teams and is hated by Texas Rangers fans as he was by Corinthians fans when he did similar things to what he has done with Liverpool.

Hicks, as part of a group, Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, bought a winning team with Brazilian football team Corinthians in 1999. Similar to with Liverpool reaching the Champions League Final in 2007, Corinthians won the World Club Championship in the same year Hicks bought them.

He promised them a new stadium, but didn't deliver it. He went against the traditions of the club and failed to deliver on any of his promises. Hicks retired from the group owning Corinthians before they sold to MSI in 2003. Legal battles between MSI and Hicks group went on until 2007 and in 2007 Corinthians got relegated for the first time in their history.

Here's an article from December 2000 about Corinithians - the similarities with Liverpool are uncanny.

Then look at the Texas Rangers - they are still looking at closing the museum there to create more room for corporate events. More on this here

They have had plenty of opportunities to learn the right way how to run a sports team and they still can't get it right - we have no reason to ever trust them. 

WR: It has been widely reported that Hicks and Gillett's ownership of LFC could be diluted by the introduction of new owners. What are the union's views on this?

PG: We have to judge this as it happens. A reduction in the shareholding of Hicks and Gillett would be great, but only if the other owners are suitable custodians. We can thank Hicks and Gillett for making us learn that the hard way. One of Spirit of Shankly's constant aims is to hold whoever owns the football club to account. 

WR: People who oppose the views of Spirit of Shankly in respect of Hicks and Gillett are suggesting the issues with the owners are being used as a smokescreen to cover up what they perceive to be the real problem, the manager Rafa Benitez. What would you say to this?

PG: Spirit of Shankly will not get drawn into whether Rafa Benitez is the right person to manage Liverpool Football Club. It’s not what we were set up for. We do however support the position of manager and the owners are undermining that position constantly - the lack of support in the transfer market with a net spend of around £2.5m in the last two seasons highlights this.

I would go as far as to say the issues about Rafa Benitez are a smokescreen for the owners. We have the fifth most expensive squad and fifth highest wage bill in the league but are still expected to win the title. If you expect a manager to achieve something you need to give him the necessary support for it and that isn't being given at the moment. We were outbid for two players in the summer by Sunderland. As long as that is happening then whoever is manager of Liverpool Football Club will struggle to win the league. 

Part two tomorrow

A WINTER TALE: In reply to Henry's hatchet job on Rafa Benitez

HENRY WINTER took time out from bowing at his Alex Ferguson shrine yesterday to stick the knife in on Rafa Benitez with a laughable piece in the Telegraph.

Lauded as one of the best journalists in the land by some, the least you would expect is a fair, balanced and accurate report. 

Not a bit of it.

Winter has a clear anti-Benitez agenda and it leaves his hatchet job on the Spaniard full of holes.

Now clearly after a nightmare run of six defeats in seven games, the Liverpool manager is far from bombproof - questions are being asked, and rightly so, not least as to why Yossi Benayoun was substituted in the defeat to Fulham. 

But for someone like Winter, is an appreciation of the circumstances too much to ask?

He kicks off with the opening line: 

"Virtually no one." So argued Jamie Carragher when asked whether Liverpool had anyone to replace Fernando Torres should the talismanic target-man miss Wednesday's Champions League tie at Lyons.

Oh no, you might think, Rafa's lost the dressing room, even Carragher is having a pop...then you read the rest of the quote which Winter decided to leave out: 

“We know Fernando is not quite 100 per cent,” Carragher said. “If Fernando had got injured at the end, we would have had virtually nobody for the game in midweek but we still brought a Dutch international in Ryan Babel on. It should be enough quality.” 

Paints a different picture doesn't it? One, perhaps, that doesn't suit Winter's agenda?

Further into the article: 

"His verdict is partly a compliment to Liverpool's exceptional No 9, but also an implicit indictment of the understudies assembled by Rafael Benítez. Blaming such individuals for being too poor (Andrei Voronin) or too raw (Ryan Babel, David Ngog) is pointless; culpability rests with Benítez for recruiting them while ignoring prodigal sons such as Emile Heskey and Michael Owen."

Did Winter have a straight face when he typed this? Was he sniffing glue? Heskey? The player who can't get a regular game at Aston Villa? The player who has scored TWO goals since moving to Villa Park in January? Yes, Henry, he would be ideal, wouldn't he? What a replacement for Torres. And Owen - well Winter seems to love him almost as much as he does Ferguson. From where I'm sitting, he's not setting the world alight since moving to Man United. We've been there, done that and he's a shadow of the player he was when he snubbed LFC and headed for Spain. And, despite his protests to the press, he DOES get injured a lot. 

"In August, few people outside Anfield considered Liverpool to have a squad comparable to those at Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge. Benítez, as usual, will divert attention elsewhere. He will bemoan refereeing decisions, injuries, tardiness in the transfer market and the comic capers of the American co-owners."

Er, yes? Few people inside Anfield thought the squad was comparable to those at Old Trafford and Stamford Bridge either. Knock him all you want, but Benitez's counterparts have had more money in one go to spend on players - and they haven't had to sell to buy. And Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal and Manchester City pay bigger wages. Well documented. Fact or diversion? Refereeing decisions? Well they haven't helped have they? Oh and your mate Fergie, well he never moans about refs does he Henry? Winter, by the way, recently wrote a sickening defence (see here) of Ferguson's ridiculous attack on Alan Wiley, a move made with the sole aim of concealing a poor performance against Sunderland. And the owners? Well don't get me started - I wrote a huge post about them on Sunday (see here).

"He will even criticise "senior players'' such as Carragher and Steven Gerrard following the early-season loss to Aston Villa. One constant: Benítez never accepts responsibility himself."

Am I missing something? Are Carragher and Gerrard not allowed to be questioned? Carra has admitted himself he has been below-par this season. And the comment Winter refers to comes after Gerrard charged the length of the pitch to launch himself into a ridiuculous tackle that gave Aston Villa a penalty and sealed their 3-1 win at Anfield. He's blown hot and cold (when fit) so why shouldn't Rafa have a pop? As for accepting responsibility - what manager does that, name one? I'd love to see the examples of Fergie coming out to the press and saying "You know what lads, I got that wrong, it's all my fault." He's bought crap players, he's got his tactics wrong. ALL managers make mistakes, none of them admit it - why single out Benitez? 

"That is why some people tire of the self-absorbed Spaniard."

For some people, clearly, read Henry Winter. 

"We've heard all the excuses before. We've seen the utter reliance on Gerrard, Torres and, for all his recent woes, Carragher."

Benayoun is enjoying his most effective spell at Anfield, continuing where he left off last season. Pepe Reina is the best keeper in the league, Glen Johnson has been a quality signing, Alberto Aquilani looks promising...tired argument, Winter. 

Liverpool can afford to sack Benítez. Compensation would be less than £5 million under the "mitigating the loss'' principle if he found employment, but no desire can be detected within the club for a regime change.

You seem confident he would find employment, would that be, by any chance, because he's a good manager? And it would cost £20m thereabouts if Benitez didn't find employment - so would the fiscally-challenged Hicks & Gillett be prepared to take that risk? And who would recruit the new manager - our beloved co-owners? The same people that wanted Jurgen Klinsmann? Shudder to think who they would go for this time. Finally - what world-class manager would want to come to the club right now? Why would they choose to work for owners who hate each other, at a financially-insecure club with a budget significantly less than your rivals enjoy? Alan Curbishley is available though... 


"But it is known around Anfield that Purslow has talked to Benítez about his style of management, notably his cold detachment from the players"

Yawn, one of your favourites this, isn't it? When I last looked, Benitez is the manager, not the players's best friend. We've done the best mates thing with Roy Evans - it didn't work. You don't like him, get over it. Maybe Fergie will give you a cuddle... 

"Sensible businesses plan for succession and any defenestration of Benítez should take place only in the close-season. Who knows? Benítez might win the FA Cup."

So after all that, your point is he should stay? Stunning. 

Hicks & Gillett love the green of the dollar more than the red of Liverpool FC

FOR fans arriving outside the Liverpool Supporters Club on Lower Breck Road more than two hours before kick-off in a crucial Premier League match with arch-rivals Manchester United, it was simple.

Tom Hicks and George Gillett have shown in their nigh on three-years in charge at Anfield that they are more interested in the green of the dollar than the red of Liverpool Football Club.

To them, it’s not a sporting heritage, a club with passionate, loyal fans – it’s an asset, a vehicle to make money. A brand, as Hicks said, “Like Weetabix.”

Broken promises, lies and approaching a manager behind boss Rafa Benitez’s back have long since convinced the thousands on the Spirit of Shankly (SOS) protest march that these two Texan tycoons are not the men to put Liverpool back on their perch.

What amazes the marchers, most signed up to the country’s first football supporters’ union in the shape of SOS, is the 40,000 fans turning up for the game that shrug their shoulders at the off-field soap opera – supporters happy to watch from the stands in the here and now, but seemingly uncaring when it comes to the future of the club.

For 20 years, Liverpool FC has fallen short of where its fans think it should be on the pitch - winning the league. Off the pitch, it’s a similar story.

The big boys got bigger, stadiums grew, wages spiralled, transfer fees boomed. It became clear Liverpool needed change in the boardroom to compete.

A landlocked stadium, failure to follow the commercial lead of rivals and not capitalising on successes in a marketing sense (notably the 2005 Champions League win) meant Liverpool were struggling to keep up with the financial pacesetters.

So in stepped George Gillett and Tom Hicks - collectively worth over a thousand million pounds when they took over the Anfield reins from David Moores.

They promised a new stadium and new players. They would be, Liverpool fans hoped, the catalyst for a revival.

Back then, at the start of 2007, LFC shareholders were told: “Kop Football Limited (the American pair’s bid vehicle) has indicated that it is committed to an annual budget for player transfers and is able to supplement this should Liverpool’s management and Kop agree additional funds are required.”

The then Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry later said: "It has always been the aim of the club, with the backing of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, to be world class both on and off the pitch.”

How would that be achieved fans wondered? Don’t worry, was the message, it won't be like the much-maligned Malcolm Glazer and family at Manchester United.

The Independent said in February 2007:

“Gillett is a serious investor with a good track record,” a source in his camp said. Since his 1990s downfall (Well Red: When he was made bankrupt), the American has rebuilt his empire and is estimated to have a personal fortune of £440m.

Gillett has not made public how he intends to pay for his proposed £170m buyout, write off debts of £80m, pay for a £200m new stadium or fund transfers. “But if you're asking whether this a majorly debt-driven venture, then no,” the source claimed. “It is not a Glazer-type deal.”

Gillett himself added: “We have purchased the club with no debt on the club so, in that regard, it is different [to the Glazers]. We believe in the future of the club, the future of the league, the new TV contracts are outstanding and we are proud to be a part of it.”

The Glazer family borrowed heavily to buy Manchester United and have since heaped £660m of debt liability directly on to United’s books.

Liverpool was £40m in debt when Hicks and Gillett took the reins. Now that debt is approaching £300m.

So in fact, no different to the Glazers. But is the club now world class?

Well, under Rafa Benitez Liverpool have never missed out on Champions League qualification. The one season a top-four finish wasn't secured, Benitez won the European Cup. So on the pitch, arguably it is. But is that in spite of the owners rather than because of them?

Off  the pitch? Without the promised stadium, Liverpool loses out to the tune of £3million per home game to Manchester United. That's £100m a season. Or three players of the quality of Fernando Torres – per season.

Arsenal with 7,000 premium seats in the 60,000 Emirates, generated £94.6m last season. Chelsea brought in £74.5m, £25m more than the £39.2m generated at Anfield.

Players? Undoubtedly money has been spent. It would not be in the interest of the co-owners to completely run down the club. But they’re clearly happy with a top four finish – because the big bucks just haven’t been there.

Gillett claimed: “We’ve spent £128 million on top of what’s come in over the past 18 months to buy players.”

Benitez’s net spend in that time has been around £20m.

Ask yourself, how many times have Liverpool bid in the region of £30m for a genuinely world-class player since Hicks and Gillett have been at the helm?

And why doesn’t the club offer the wages Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, or now, Manchester City offer?

Under the ownership of Hicks and Gillett, Liverpool is going nowhere fast. It is ticking along, doing OK, while the co-owners wait for the right time to sell up and pocket the profits – their intention from day one.

Yet some so-called fans can't see it. They don't get it. They stop, stare and point at protestors. Film it on their mobile phones. But don't join in.

Maybe all the spin and business talk is too much for some. Well that’s great news for Hicks and Gillett – apathy is their ally.

Or maybe the naysayers are just buying the PR spin.

Maybe they believe transfer budgets have always included contract renewals and improvements.

Maybe they believe the credit crunch has stopped the stadium being built.

And maybe they believe auditors doubting Liverpool FC's ability to "continue as a going concern" because of soaring interest payments piled on the club by Hicks and Gillett is just "accountancy speak".

Maybe they think securing a £20m-a-year shirt sponsorship is some kind of genius - rather than an obvious step for a club with a worldwide fanbase of millions of supporters.

Maybe they don’t realise that improving marketing and sponsorship is offset by having to find £30-40m a year to pay interest on the debts Hicks and Gillett created.

Maybe these fans will still ignore the protests and mock from a distance when the club starts to sell star players. Or when transfer budgets – already slim - get further eaten up by interest payments.

Maybe they have forgotten Gillett telling Liverpool: “I don’t think that we come with any plan other than to support him (Benitez) in winning.”

Or what about: “If Rafa said he wanted to buy Snoogy Doogy, we would back him.”

But they won’t back him if he wants to buy Gareth Barry.

They won’t dip into their personal fortunes to improve the defence by signing young, proven quality like Ryan Shawcross or Michael Turner instead of an ageing Greek international.

They don't care about the club, or the fans. They are not football men. Money, and money alone, gets them out of bed in the morning.

The credit crunch is just a convenient excuse for the lack of action on the stadium. If it isn’t, why did Hicks say the following in January 2008 (five months after the commonly accepted start date for the credit crunch):

“With the refinancing process now done, club supporters can look forward to the timely commencement of construction work on the new stadium and renew their focus on actions on the pitch."

A month before Parry had told fans:

“The situation in the credit markets has not affected our design, programme, or implementation of building our new stadium. The priority has always been to build a winning team on the pitch and everything else we do is geared towards that."

And yet now, all of sudden, it is feasible for a project key to the future competitiveness of Liverpool FC, to be dismissed because of the credit crunch without question?

It’s OK though, says Gillett, the club debt situation is “very sound” and “Liverpool is in an extraordinarily good financial position."

That’s why you are donning a Liverpool tie and jetting all over the world, hawking the club to men with deep pockets, is it George?

Liverpool FC paid £36.5m in interest on their debts in the financial year ending 31 July 2008.

This is in spite of the announcement of a record turnover of £159.1m and a pre-tax profit of £30.2m.

In spite of Liverpool trousering around £20m a season from the Champions League.

In spite of 12 months of increasing turnover and a 60 per cent rise in TV income.

Put simply, if Hicks and Gillett, who have claimed more than £1m in expenses from LFC’s holding company, are the goodies and Spirit of Shankly and like-minded fans are the baddies, why don’t the Americans come out and tell fans what they have got so wrong?

If they laugh at fans’ small mindedness, open-mouthed in disbelief that they are the target for such vitriol, communicate, put us right. Prove to us you are doing a great job.

Some questioned the pre-Manchester United match march as taking away from the support inside the ground for such a crucial game.

Support the team, they said.

That's exactly what the march is all about - the team, the club, the future. That’s why thousands turned up two hours early to pound the pavements around Anfield.

People on the march would rather see the team be improved than have a second club shop at the Liverpool One shopping centre. And they'd rather see the team do well than have to pay to join the “All Red” membership scheme just to have the chance of a match ticket.

What would Gillett and Hicks rather have - team success or profit? Well Hicks is also owner of Major League Baseball side Texas Rangers.

And as one fan said on their forum:

“So, Hicks is being accused as being a double-talker who is reducing the club to mediocrity while he sells tickets to terminally loyal fans and makes a profit. Sound familiar?"

PODCAST: Beating United, beachballs, Lyon & Martin Kelly/Ian Callaghan interviews

I'VE teamed up with three other fellow Reds to have a first-ever crack at an LFC podcast.

In it we discuss the cracking win over Man United, the infamous beach-ball incident, the defeat to Lyon, squad strength and the situation regarding the club's co-owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

There's also interviews with impressive youngster Martin Kelly and Reds legend Ian Callaghan.

Would love to hear your feedback on it.

http://podcasts.footballfancast.com/liverpool_fancast/296715/beach-balls-man-united-and-ian-callaghan-liverpool-football-fancast-031/

Beating the Mancs is a big two fingers to LFC's critics

EVERYONE from the Sky Sports-fuelled idiot to the crap ex-pro has been queuing up to have a pop at Liverpool lately.

So what better way to give them all the bird than by comfortably beating your most hated rivals, the Premier League champions and the media darlings, Manchester United?

Make no mistake, this was deserved. Antonio Valencia's shot that hit the bar aside, the Mancs hardly had a sniff.

And if the excellent Fabio Aurelio had put a bit more beef behind his point-blank range header, the scoreline could have been even more convincing.

So when does crisis not become a crisis?

Well the weird thing for me is, it's never felt like one. War against a tirade of bullshit and fact manipulation? Yes. Crisis? No.

Spurs and Sunderland aside, I think we've shown something in every game. It's just been a case of maintaining that level over 90 minutes.

And a bit of luck with decisions and a fully-fit squad would be nice, too.

Pre-match there was no doom and gloom amongst the supporters on the Spirit of Shankly protest march against bungling LFC co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett (more on that soon).

And there was plenty of support on show for Rafa Benitez, a manager supposedly verging on the sack, losing the dressing room and becoming more unpopular with fans by the day.

Climbing the stairs to the Kop, I was confident of a result. It looked like the players were too.

It was a day for answering questions.

Jamie Carragher answered the people who questioned whether his best days had gone - he had a stormer, throwing himself into tackles and blocks Istanbul-style.

Lucas answered the critics who say he can't play in the Premier League - outshining the more experienced, and three times more expensive, Michael Carrick.

And best of all everyone connected to LFC - players, fans, manager - showed they can pull together and get a result when it matters most, but then, did anyone ever question that?

What the performance also answered was the murmurs of Benitez "losing the dressing room".

That wasn't a performance of a team that has no faith in its manager. A home FA Cup defeat to Bristol City, well that is.

That was the match that cost Graeme Souness his job as manager at Anfield. And while the doom-mongers would have you believe it, we are light years away from those dark days.

Players of the Souness era have since admitted he HAD lost the dressing room. He had players in his team who wanted him to go and consequently put in half-hearted performances and made sure it happened.

There was no evidence of that kind of attitude in the Liverpool team against United.

Lucas, Aurelio and Javier Mascherano had all came out in the media in the week in support of the manager.

But actions speak louder than words. And there were no signs of a disaffected team on the pitch - from keeper to striker they all wanted it, summed up by Pepe Reina's pitch-long dash to congratulate David N'Gog after his coolly-taken match clincher.

That outpouring of relief was replicated in the stands where grown men screamed, hugged and punched the air and it was the same in the press box - well for Tony Barrett at least...

But this was a top, top performance. It's hard enough beating the Mancs at the best of times. But when you've lost four on the spin and the world's media is getting ready to label you the worst Reds side in 50 years, it shows some mettle to pull that performance out of the bag.

Not that it will satisfy everyone, of course.

But, as Benjamin Franklin said: "Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain...and most fools do."

Looking in the Mirror is never a pretty sight for Liverpool FC

THE MIRROR has taken some hammer from this blog lately - rightly so.

Just yesterday, I posted the response I received from the paper's sports editor, Dan Silver, when I questioned Stan Collymore's obsession with bashing Liverpool FC in his column.

Well now they're REALLY taking the piss.

Just the other day I was speaking to a season-ticket holding Red of 25 years about the media coverage Liverpool FC receives.

Looking ahead to today's game with Man United, we were joking about the headlines in the Sunday papers. And we remembered how almost every time we faced our hated rivals an attempt to unsettle one of our star players would appear in that morning's paper...

And here we are, 10-15 years on, and it's STILL happening. Manchester United-supporting hacks obviously still rule the Mirror. Well, two words boys...unsubstantiated drivel.

By Simon Mullock

Liverpool fear another season of failure could spark Fernando Torres' departure from Anfield.

Nobody doubts the brilliant Spaniard's commitment to the Anfield cause. But since arriving from Atletico Madrid in a £20 million move 28 months ago even Torres' goal-scoring brilliance has not inspired the Reds to lift a trophy.

There is mounting concern that another barren campaign will prompt the striker's advisers to start pressing for a move to a more successful club.

That would be a body-blow to the Anfield cause. A club insider said: "Fernando is a great lad and a fantastic player. We don't worry about his attitude but the issue will be if rival clubs start making it clear to his advisers that he can win more by joining them.

"He's hungry for success. We don't want to lose him."

Torres has scored 46 goals in 64 games for Liverpool. He is idolised by Liverpool fans and acknowledged as one of the world's finest strikers.

He also signed a new contract at Liverpool in August that ties him to the Anfield cause until 2013. But any hint that he is unfulfilled by life at Liverpool would be seized on by major rivals.

So far in his career the only club honour he's won is the Spanish Second Division title in 2002.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-insiders-fear-Fernando-Torres-may-quit-Anfield-article199675.html