Feint then Parry
Rick Parry just got the sack at Liverpool FC. Clearly a victory for the Hicks/Benitez faction, but many will argue no victory will be complete unless both American owners are gone as well. However at the risk of sounding like a Homer, Gillet may be the real weak link of the two. Clearly Benitez is a stabilizing force at Anfield, and Hicks has been a strong supporter of the Spaniard for some time. I don’t believe for an instant Hicks will sell his portion of the club. According to the latest issue of 442, Hicks’ value actually increased due to the rise of Liverpool’s value, Gillet not so much. If anything what we could be seeing now is Tom Hicks solidifying his position at Anfield, and given the time he could very well turn the club into the financial equal of Man U.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:01 am
I can’t let that last sentence hang in cyberspace without comment any longer (with all due respect to the contributions of Smoorsboili).
1. Tom Hicks is a businessman with little or no passion for whatever the commodity is. His Prime Directive is maximizing return on investment.
2. Becoming the financial equal of World Champions ManUtd is not in any way consistent with the Prime Directive. United appears more in line with a long term holding, leveraging debt to grow a brand, discover new sources of revenue, and ensure on-field supremacy. Hicks’ failure to even secure the financing to upgrade Anfield from a(nother) disaster waiting to happen is at least partly due to a lack of present market viability.
3. Liverpool, the town, is a place in permanent recession. Not to say that other BPL cities like Manchester or Birmingham or Newcastle are booming with success, but relatively speaking there is a local economy that can absorb cost increases in each of those. While Liverpool earns a greater revenue through it’s brand and national/international advertisers, the local populace can’t withstand the large pricehikes necessary to support a newer/bigger/pricier Anfield.
4. Consistent with the Prime Directive, what I took away from the 442 article is that Hicks will be able to maximize resale value by owning Gillette’s share. Fractional ownership carries an inherent devaluation that has prevented the two heads from getting an offer from DIC or some other consortium that reaches their desired returns.
In short, there’s no way that Hicks turns Liverpool into the equal of ManUtd. What’s his incentive to spend money on better players or improve the depth of the squand? They’re good enough to finish in the top 4 and qualify for the Champions League, advance fairly far in Europe, and limp through most of the domestic cups. Spending 40-50m sterling for two more midfielders, three backs and another striker, plus their wages, to build a team deep enough to consistently win (first place) for the next ten years won’t come close to paying for itself on the balance sheet, and thus it won’t happen.
Could be worse though, they could be Arsenal.