ROBOT CAMEL JOCKEYS

As ever, no use turning to BBC’s Alan Green. His insight into Liverpool’s financial travails equated to don’t know, don’t care. “I’m no financial expert,” confirmed the commentator who regularly has to ask Graham Taylor what’s going on.

But despite the forests laid waste by its media coverage, the Liverpool saga is simple. Two Americans borrowed money to buy Liverpool, borrowed again to repay the loan and will make Liverpool repay that loan. OK?

The sub-plots have provided the complexities…and the entertainment. And if the borrowers are as irony-free as many Americans appear, these sub-plots will be lost on them. The major irony is that Liverpool fans had the choice of serial borrowers or human rights de-activists, after months decrying…er…serial borrowers (Glazer) and human rights de-activists (Thaksin), leaving die-hard Scouse militants supporting a Dubai dictatorship’s takeover-plan.

Some revelations about Dubai’s ruling Maktoum family would sit comfortably in a Chris Morris spoof (and I’m convinced Morris is behind them). The Economist’s ‘index of democracy’ has Dubai two notches below Zimbabwe. And allegations of mass exploitation of migrant-workers have been trumped by those of child-abuse relating to the family’s camel-racing interests. Child camel jockeys (yes!) have been banned as a result and replaced with…ROBOT…camel jockeys. Hilarious, if it wasn’t so awful. The borrowers’ financial-creativities are trifles besides.

Hicks is so distrusted (Gillett’s recent silence being top-notch PR) that you half-wonder if the ‘O’ in ‘Thomas O. Hicks’ is a clumsy (Al)Fayed-style affectation to appeal to Liverpool’s Irish affinities. Not that unpopularity phases him – even if Gillett HAS voted ‘go now’ in some local-paper polls.

He certainly has no Liverpool affinities, what friend of George W. Bush would? He funded Dubya’s election campaigns for Texas governor and leader of the free world. And his 1999 purchase of Texas Rangers baseball team netted minor investor Bush $15m – the club’s value increasing in part due to its new, taxpayer-funded, stadium. Hicks also benefited from $50bn-worth of debt-led takeovers before Liverpool (not always benefiting the companies).

The danger signs for Liverpool were immediate. Dallas Morning News sportswriter Tim Cowlishaw warned: “He knows nothing about soccer…he will view it as an investment.” “Work to start the new stadium in 60 days” (Gillett, February 2007) became work to start breaking promises in 60 days. And six months ago, Hicks’ deal with investment bank Goldman Sachs to ‘roll’ their loans into one – secured against Liverpool’s assets – foundered on Goldman’s insistence on increased personal investment. This one loan was sixteen times Liverpool’s operating profits. Twice as large as Glazer’s loans-to-operating profits ratio.

Critics were muffled by PR-machines, Champions League success and £26m on Torres. And some dealt with themselves. One American supporters-club member was withdrawn from a SKY interview after “telling the producer Hicks and Gillett were two-bit hustlers. It wasn’t the narrative the PR agency paid for.” No kidding.

“AFC Liverpool” notions foundered on lack of protest experience among fans. FC United and AFC Wimbledon’s founders had years of it – their clubs’ continuing success a testament. So ‘Shares Liverpool FC’ was a positive. The idea of fans organising and funding large buy-outs needs testing. Finding 100,000 Liverpool fans with £5,000 spare each IS a test. But they can’t have better leadership than Rogan Taylor, who has spoken more football-sense than I’ve had hot dinners, since the post-Heysel formation of the Football Supporters AssociatioN.

Many clubs, from Real Madrid to Rushden, are mutually-owned, with one shareholder, one vote a common practice. And the shares non-tradeable. “Enormous potential” was the Supporters Trust movement’s take on SLFC. One practical problem, though. Hicks says the club is not for sale (and who would doubt his word?), even at the £500m which would ‘earn’ him ten times more this year than the most over-paid Premier League prima-donna).

The startling number of Hicks-apologists among football fans (i.e. ANY) would doubtless disapprove. On the Guardian’s web-site, of all places, someone asked: “Do people want Hicks to use his own money (to buy Liverpool)?” The response “Why not?” was deemed “moronic.” That near-billionaire Hicks shouldn’t offload costs onto fans or should be judged on his benefit to football not his bank balance was dismissed as quaint.

“You borrow money to buy a house” they cried, presumably someone else paying their mortgages. Which reminded me of a joke. An old man complaining: “£3.50 for a cup of tea??” A young man answering: “Well, I didn’t INVITE you, Grandad.” Supporters’ money funds core club activities NOT their takeovers. But if the Guardian is a guide, such takeovers could become the new orthodoxy. (With better timing than the actual tackle, Jamie Garragher’s penalty-giveaway at Upton Park landed Liverpool outside the European qualification places. Should they end the season there, whither the borrowers’ business plan? The question remains rhetorical).

Because “football is a business and these financial requirements will introduce better management into football…it will be in everybody’s interests to have a well-run club.” Liverpool undeniably required such discipline. Despite the Champions League runs, the borrowers inherited debts of at least £44.8m (reference to which does nothing for CEO Rick Parry’s cascading popularity-rating, Parry already painfully-perched “on the horns of a dilemma” after his support for the borrowers brought them to Anfield instead of DIC).

But that quote came from 1997, ‘justifying’ stock-market flotation. And while, on an abacus, the theory had legs, in the ‘real world’ Hicks-apologists bang on about, it got taken out at the knees. The uncertainties which provide football’s major appeal proved too much for a certainty-hungry stock market.

And they will for American billionaires “building the value of the brand.” Because the brand could be Man Yoo (and no sane person can rely on Michael Dawson every week, speaks an angry Spurs fan)…or Derby. “There’s no reason why we can’t make Derby an iconic worldwide brand” declared new owner Andy Appleby, ignoring the league table.

The borrowers’ charge-sheet extends beyond the above. Gillett’s ignored, Glazer-esque statement that the new stadium’s “upgraded supporter experience” would be “factored into ticket costs” (an upgraded spending experience?). Hicks’ mid-summer nod to his domestic audience: “People are worried I might take money from Rangers to go to Liverpool. But it’s the reverse.” And his breathtaking financial misjudgement: “Liverpool is going to throw off lots of money.” He was right to wonder why Liverpool “threw off” £26m for Torres and dropped him every fortnight, but still…

Not to mention their original offer document’s ‘assurance’ (too late) that debt-interest payments “will not depend to any significant (my italics) on the business of Liverpool.” On one’s definition of ‘significant’ hangs the view that Hicks planned all this all along.

It’s ending in tears already. When a plan involves “the richest club in the world” (Man Yoo) sucking up to Saudi Arabia BECAUSE…THEY…NEED…THE…MONEY…, that plan is NOT working. Hell awaits.

WHICH NEEDS NO FURTHER COMMENT:

Despite he not having kicked a competitive football in four months, David Beckham’s non-inclusion in Capello’s first England squad was deemed more newsworthy than Robert Green’s (how many Villa games DID Capello watch?).

So fortunately, there was considered opinion to hand when the media went looking on Thursday: “He’s a strong character, he’ll bounce back. He’ll get his 100^th cap,” said one.

And the source of this insight? Elton John.

Which needs no further comment.

‘MotorMurph’ is written by Mark Murphy

Entry Filed under: MotorMurph Column

© The Right Result 2008

Resources | Terms & Conditions | Contact Us