US invasion' of English soccer

Rumple Foreskin

The AH Patriarch
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Posts
11,109
US invasion of English soccer

Just curious what folks, especially English soccer/football fans think of this.

By the way, although Tom Hicks is from Dallas and I lived there until December, he did not ask me for advice on this deal, honest. :)

Rumple Foreskin :cool:

==

'American invasion' of English soccer gathers speed in Liverpool
By CHRIS LEHOURITES, AP Sports Writer
February 6, 2007


LONDON (AP) -- The Beatles started the "British invasion" by leaving Liverpool and heading to the United States. Forty years later, George Gillett Jr. and Tom Hicks are joining an "American invasion" of English soccer, and taking it right back to Liverpool.

On Tuesday, the two American sports team owners agreed to buy controlling interest in Liverpool, the famous English Premier League soccer team that has won a record 18 league titles and five European Cups.

The duo is expected to take full control of the team after buying out the remaining shares, making the club the third in England's top soccer league to be owned by Americans.

"It was not a question of money," said Hicks, who owns the Texas Rangers and the Dallas Stars. "It was a question of, `Are we the proper custodians?' and I believe we are."

Malcolm Glazer may have felt the same when he took over control of Manchester United two years ago, but the Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner was met with protests because his purchase put the team in debt.

Randy Lerner, the Cleveland Browns owner who took over at Aston Villa, was accepted right away, with fans hoping his money will help restore the team to the upper echelon of the league.

Gillett and Hicks' reception remains to be seen, but the fans knew the team was on the market -- it has been for about three years.

"It really is about winning," Gillett said at a news conference to introduce the pair who will share the title of chairman, adding that Liverpool is "perhaps the greatest franchise in the history of the greatest sport in the world."

Gillett should know. He owns one of the sports world's other great franchises -- the Montreal Canadiens, who have won a record 23 Stanley Cup titles.

Liverpool has a history of success, but not much recently.

The Reds won the Champions League title two years ago by rallying from a three-goal deficit in the second half against AC Milan. But the team needed a special exemption to even get into the following season's tournament, because it finished in fifth place in the Premier League.

That's a far cry from the glory days when Liverpool won 11 titles from 1973-90, with great players including Kenny Dalglish, Kevin Keegan and Ian Rush leading the way. The team won its first four European Cups in 1977-84.

Hicks and Gillett became the leading contenders to take over Liverpool after Dubai International Capital pulled out last week. According to Liverpool CEO Rick Parry, it was when Gillett enlisted the help of Hicks that things started to change in their favor.

"I would not say we welcomed him with open arms, but he would not go away," Parry said of Gillett. "He came back with a very different proposition because he came with Tom and that changed the complexion of the bid. If Tom had been with him in November, we may have made the decision then."

The extra money Hicks brings to the team should help Liverpool break the dominance of the big three. Manchester United and Arsenal combined to win 11 of 12 league titles until Chelsea broke the trend by winning the last two.

Liverpool, on the other hand, won its last title in 1990. Hicks' solution to combatting that problem is rather basic.

"If you have a chance to get a great player, you get a great player," Hicks said. "We're not going to put a budget on what we're going to do."

It's not always that easy in the world of soccer, with teams from all over Europe -- and sometimes the rest of the world -- also bidding for the top players on the market.

Then again, the Beatles did a pretty good job of competing with Elvis Presley and the Beach Boys.
 
Last edited:
Yea I did read about this Rumply mate, not that I'm a soccer fan... bunch of frickin poofs... But I have to confess to having had a bit of a liking for the Reds over the years and hopefully these guys will pull the club up a bit... they can't do any worse that the bunch leaving the club to them.

I'm more a supporter of their neighbours to be truthful, St Helens Rugby club... being a Rugby football type rather than nancy-boy soccer...

A man of the world like yourself knows about Rugby I'm sure Rumply, but for those who don't, it's the forerunner of, and slightly similar to, American football... but played without helmets and or body armour and much less stopping for scrum down... Also punching, biting, stamping, is legal in Rugby if done in a gentlemanly manner.
 
It's been a-long-time-a-coming, Rumple, though most thought Liverpool was going to the Arab Makatum(?), ruler of Dubai, until just a few days ago. Dubai are probably more pissed over the deal than the English. In many ways the club had to be sold, the new stadium they are building will absorb cashflow leaving little to purchase players, so the downside risk was huge without 'deep-pockets' riding to the rescue. Probably better to have 'franchise owners' in on Liverpool rather than pure investors. Won't change the football overmuch in the short term and I imagine dedicated fans will shout for a few days, then get back behind the team.
 
pop_54 said:
Yea I did read about this Rumply mate, not that I'm a soccer fan... bunch of frickin poofs... But I have to confess to having had a bit of a liking for the Reds over the years and hopefully these guys will pull the club up a bit... they can't do any worse that the bunch leaving the club to them.

I'm more a supporter of their neighbours to be truthful, St Helens Rugby club... being a Rugby football type rather than nancy-boy soccer...

A man of the world like yourself knows about Rugby I'm sure Rumply, but for those who don't, it's the forerunner of, and slightly similar to, American football... but played without helmets and or body armour and much less stopping for scrum down... Also punching, biting, stamping, is legal in Rugby if done in a gentlemanly manner.

[threadjack]
Soccer is a gentlemen's game, played by hooligans. Rugby is a hooligan game, played by gentlemen.
[/threadjack]
 
neonlyte said:
It's been a-long-time-a-coming, Rumple, though most thought Liverpool was going to the Arab Makatum(?), ruler of Dubai, until just a few days ago. Dubai are probably more pissed over the deal than the English. In many ways the club had to be sold, the new stadium they are building will absorb cashflow leaving little to purchase players, so the downside risk was huge without 'deep-pockets' riding to the rescue. Probably better to have 'franchise owners' in on Liverpool rather than pure investors. Won't change the football overmuch in the short term and I imagine dedicated fans will shout for a few days, then get back behind the team.

It might work out. I mean, Macolm Glaser of the US bought control of Manchester United and the Red Devils went from back in the pack to, well I'll be damned if they don't currently lead the Premier League by six points!
 
Oh. good! So now they're gonna teach 'em how to play real football? With helmets and quarterback and all? ;)
 
the whole "American football vs. Rugby" thing is bullshit. Put an offensive lineman in a rugby game and he is overmatched. Put a rugby player at defensive tackle and he is overmatched.

they are different games entirely. Quit comparing apples and oranges.

Hicks is not afraid to spend money...but his baseball history suggests that spending lots of money and spending it wisely are not connected in Hick's brain.
 
Okay so our money has invaded. Here's the real question, have any American Players moved to British Teams?

Cat
 
SeaCat said:
Okay so our money has invaded. Here's the real question, have any American Players moved to British Teams?

Cat

Cat...

there are many more americans playing internationally than there used to be and a majority of those play in the UK...and not just in goal, like it used to be.

...which will have far more of an impact on future US international successes than Beckham playing for the Galaxy will...although, I admit, I will be making the road trip to see him play...
 
Oooh, another team who are going to throw lots of money at big players -just what the premiership needs :rolleyes:

There will be inflated prices payed for players that basically they don't want playing at another club but then don't end up playing at all (Sean Wright Phillips suffered this fate with Chelsea) but end up frustratedly warming the bench. Good teams won't be able to buy players because they'll be holding out for the millions of Chelsea and now Liverpool and we'll end up with an even bigger gap betwen the rich teams and the poorer ones in he premiership.

I do realise, as a Manchester United fan, that I'm one to talk -but you don't see Fergie throwing money away to get a good team -the only real money he's spent in the past couple of seasons has been the 30mil paid or Wayne Rooney. Which probably is partly because he has no damn money to spend'cos it's going to pay glazer's debts but he has neve been one to splash the cash unnecesarily.

I'm not a fan of these take over things simply because I think they cause many more problems thn they solve in the long run especially as the money involved with football is already at a crazty level -this latest "franchise" is only going to excalate it further.

Oh, and I can tell you, the liverpool fans are just loving being referred to as a "franchise" :D
 
I thought the Montreal Canadiens had 26 Stanley Cup rings?
 
OK, I'm not a soccer fan...

Rumple Foreskin said:
Just curious what folks, especially English soccer/football fans think of this.

By the way, although Tom Hicks is from Dallas and I lived there until December, he did not ask me for advice on this deal, honest. :)

OK, I'm not a soccer fan, but my partner is. She went to Manchester United games with her father from age 5, sat on George Best's knee at about that age. At the time we met, she had not missed a single United game anywhere in the world for about ten years. She also had several hundred pounds worth of shares in the club. When Glaser took over it was like a death in the family.

But the die-hard fans didn't leave it there. When Glaser bought their shares out (there came a point in the takeover process where they weren't allowed to hold onto their shares any more) they took Glaser's money and founded a new football club. Being a new club it had to start at the bottom of the English football leagues, but with a much bigger budget and much bigger fan base than other little league clubs it's charging up through the leagues, one league a year.

This is a sort of real ale approach to football, fan owned and fan driven, and they're having a lot of fun. They aren't alone, either - there's a similar club that was founded when Wimbledon were bought out or something (don't know enough about football to remember the details). I think as big business continues to take over the big clubs, we'll see more and more of these fan-owned clubs coming through. Whether they'll ever make the premier league - whether the finance will ever let the make the premier leagues - I don't know - but I suspect they are the future.
 
pop_54 said:
Yea I did read about this Rumply mate, not that I'm a soccer fan... bunch of frickin poofs... But I have to confess to having had a bit of a liking for the Reds over the years and hopefully these guys will pull the club up a bit... they can't do any worse that the bunch leaving the club to them.

I'm more a supporter of their neighbours to be truthful, St Helens Rugby club... being a Rugby football type rather than nancy-boy soccer...

A man of the world like yourself knows about Rugby I'm sure Rumply, but for those who don't, it's the forerunner of, and slightly similar to, American football... but played without helmets and or body armour and much less stopping for scrum down... Also punching, biting, stamping, is legal in Rugby if done in a gentlemanly manner.

What's the saying? Football (as in soccer) is a game for gentlemen, played by thugs whilst Rugby is a game for thugs, played by gentlemen...
x
V
 
Vermilion said:
What's the saying? Football (as in soccer) is a game for gentlemen, played by thugs whilst Rugby is a game for thugs, played by gentlemen...
x
V

I was both a thug and a gentleman when I played Rugger yrs back... I always apologised properly after hurting someone :D
 
Not sure it'll be an altogether bad thing. I'm a Manchester United fan, and, as someone's said, we're 6 points clear of the premiership. Sure, the club's in debt, but the way to get out of that is by winning and having a good business model. If there's one club who can do, then it's united.

And, on a different note, I know football players aren't all innocent. However: i can't stand rugby. I watched the wales v ireland match on Sunday and all I saw was a load of 'men' in little shorts, jumping on each other and having a grope. I wouldn't mind, in fact, I don't. They should just come out and say it: they adore the cock. :p
 
Seamus123 said:
Not sure it'll be an altogether bad thing. I'm a Manchester United fan, and, as someone's said, we're 6 points clear of the premiership. Sure, the club's in debt, but the way to get out of that is by winning and having a good business model. If there's one club who can do, then it's united.

And, on a different note, I know football players aren't all innocent. However: i can't stand rugby. I watched the wales v ireland match on Sunday and all I saw was a load of 'men' in little shorts, jumping on each other and having a grope. I wouldn't mind, in fact, I don't. They should just come out and say it: they adore the cock. :p

Well if you're going to watch that kind of match I'm not surprised you didn't like it :D
 
pop_54 said:
Well if you're going to watch that kind of match I'm not surprised you didn't like it :D

..was it a bad one then? i'm pretty clueless :eek:
 
neonlyte said:
Probably better to have 'franchise owners' in on Liverpool rather than pure investors.

The word "franchise" must have a much more ominous connotation in the British sports world than it does in the American one. The BBC was all abuzz last night because one of Liverpool's new owners referred to it as "the franchise." All sports teams are called franchises in the States. I suppose this arose because the respective leagues are the ultimate authority and confer rights to the team owners. Anywho, I think you guys are reading too much in to that comment. The language that we speak over here is only a loose approximation of English.
 
Seamus123 said:
..was it a bad one then? i'm pretty clueless :eek:

Well it wasn't that bad... but it wasn't good either... but then a lot of the professional Rugger players are suffering the same as pro soccer players these days... overpaid and over inflated ego's.
 
pop_54 said:
Well it wasn't that bad... but it wasn't good either... but then a lot of the professional Rugger players are suffering the same as pro soccer players these days... overpaid and over inflated ego's.

Yeah, agreed. The pay is ridiculous. A few weeks after the season started, i read on BBC about Michael Ballack complaining that he was tired, and that he was disappointed there wasn't a mid-season break, as in Germany. He needs a wake up call! If I was getting paid £120,000 a week, I'd be able to train and play 90 minutes every week. Bloody footballers. Not all of them are that bad, though.
 
Seamus123 said:
Not sure it'll be an altogether bad thing. I'm a Manchester United fan, and, as someone's said, we're 6 points clear of the premiership. Sure, the club's in debt, but the way to get out of that is by winning and having a good business model. If there's one club who can do, then it's united.

And, on a different note, I know football players aren't all innocent. However: i can't stand rugby. I watched the wales v ireland match on Sunday and all I saw was a load of 'men' in little shorts, jumping on each other and having a grope. I wouldn't mind, in fact, I don't. They should just come out and say it: they adore the cock. :p

Yay, another Manchester United fan -hello :)
 
CBM_Redux said:
The word "franchise" must have a much more ominous connotation in the British sports world than it does in the American one. The BBC was all abuzz last night because one of Liverpool's new owners referred to it as "the franchise." All sports teams are called franchises in the States. I suppose this arose because the respective leagues are the ultimate authority and confer rights to the team owners. Anywho, I think you guys are reading too much in to that comment. The language that we speak over here is only a loose approximation of English.

The only sort of "franchise" we recognise is outlets of Fast Food joints and variously dubious MLM schemes.

There are other, more legitimate, franchises like drain-clearing, chemists, etc. but we don't think of them as "franchises".

A Premiership Football Club is about far more than the football. The Club's brand name has enormous marketing potential, as do the individual star players. The financing of the club depends on much more than ticket sales.

Manchester United's sale was unwelcome because it was financed by loans. Chelsea is so wealthy thanks to Ramon Abromovitch that it can buy high quality players and not use them. Liverpool will hope that a new stadium and money to enter the transfer market will bring new successes.

Arsenal now has their new stadium but they cannot afford to buy players on the scale that Chelsea can. Arsenal has to grow its own new stars. The top flight has been made uneven by insertions of large amounts of money. Manchester United's current success is heartening because it is happening without an unlimited bank balance.

Og
 
Thanks for all the input. Just a couple notes from the IMHO column.

As Belegon pointed out Tom Hicks has a lousy record as a baseball owner. His Texas Rangers are perennial also-rans. However, his NHL hockey team, The Dallas Stars, won the Stanley Cup a few years ago and is still a contender. The difference may be that Hicks knows just enough about baseball to get him in trouble. But to him, hockey is just an investment. As such, he tries to hire management types who know what they're going and then he stays out of the way.

If that's the way he approaches Liverpool, fans may be pleasantly surprised.

And I agree with CBM Redux (welcome to the AH) about the term, franchise. The business model for professional sports here in the states is different from that in the UK. Teams do not move up and down between minor and major leagues. In most cases, the team owners in a league, sitting as a board of directors, must approve the sale of an existing team or the creation of a new one, both of which involve a fair slug of money. All owners agree to obey, more or less, league imposed rules and standards.

Hence the term is a common one, especially when speaking, not just of the team on the field, but the entire organization, its employees, and any assets.

Rumple Foreskin :cool:
 
Last edited:
oggbashan said:
Manchester United's current success is heartening because it is happening without an unlimited bank balance.
And the world of football laughed its ass off, the day Manchester United tried to pass itself for poor.
 
Lauren Hynde said:
And the world of football laughed its ass off, the day Manchester United tried to pass itself for poor.

"Poor" in football is always a relative term. :rolleyes:

A poor performance by a team in the upper half of the Premiership could be seen as a brilliant performance if it had been from a team in a lower division.

The price of world class football players is ridiculous. I remember when professional footballers were paid little more than the average working man. Without new money, UK football would have been in serious financial trouble when TV fees dropped. Many clubs are still surviving with impractical business plans and losses that would make most bank managers suggest hara-kiri as the only solution left. Football isn't about financial sense.

The financing of the purchase of Manchester United depended on so many unknowns that it shouldn't have happened. Now it has, but the finances are still like a house of cards. One piece removed, and the whole lot could collapse in disaster. The longer the structure stands, the stronger it gets, but I wouldn't want to be a Manchester United Board member...

Og
 
Back
Top