TSC

This is off the Mirror site ahead of tomorrow - but can't post URL unfortunately as I've less than 15 posts. Liverpool legend Bill Shankly must be turning in his grave over betrayal by George Gillett and Tom Hicks By Michael Calvin Published 21:42 24/10/09 There used to be a football club at Anfield. It was a shrine to working-class heroes and a game of intoxicating simplicity. Now there’s a shell, an empty tomb desecrated by grave robbers from an alien culture. The Liverpool of Shankly, Paisley and Dalglish is an illusion, a hologram created for the 21st Century nostalgia industry. Anfield is, like the Cavern Club and Penny Lane, a relic of Beatlemania. Roll up, roll up, for the Magical Mystery Tour. Appearances will deceive this lunchtime. Flags will be unfurled. Familiar anthems will shake the old ground to its foundations. The world will sit back and watch, enthralled, as toe-curling romanticism collides with teeth-baring rivalry. Nothing will change, even if Manchester United win by a cricket score and Gary Neville pees on the goalposts in a voodoo ritual enacted for the benefit of the Kop. Sacking Rafa Benitez would be pointless. Liverpool cannot become a club again until it is rid of George Gillett and Tom Hicks. You’ll know the story, understand the reasons behind today’s protest march by supporters infuriated by their insignificance. They’re a pair of ugly Americans, linked by mutual loathing and a lust for a fast buck. They’ve betrayed a legend, hawked a sporting and social heritage around the bazaars like a sullen slave. They don’t understand football as a communal crusade. They couldn’t care less about its glorious irrationality. It is a corporate asset to be traded like so many pork bellies. It’s easy to mock the afflicted, to pour scorn on Scouse sentimentality. But your club might be next. If Liverpool can be hijacked and forced to pay the masters’ mortgage, it can happen to anyone – even United. The Manc nation, which stretches from Chertsey to Kowloon, might care to dwell on the priorities of Joel Glazer. He will be at Wembley this afternoon watching his asset-stripped NFL franchise, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Anfield is nowhere near his agenda. His type views such landmarks as the 50th anniversary of Bill Shankly’s installation as Liverpool manager, on December 1 1959, as mere marketing opportunities. Shankly will be portrayed as a man of the people, a cross between Che Guevara and Clarence Darrow. It will not do him justice. One of my most treasured mementoes is an autographed double album of him talking of his life and times, recorded just before his death in 1981. Best to let him speak for himself, from beyond the grave. This was what he said when asked how he would wish to be remembered: “That I’ve been basically honest in a game in which it is sometimes difficult to be honest. I’d like to think that I have put more into the game than I have taken out. “I was interested in only one thing, success for the club. “That meant success for the people. I wanted results for the club, for the love of the game, to make the people happy.” Inspirational stuff. Like listening to the last survivors of the Somme, it reminds us of what we have lost, tossed aside in the name of progress. Ironically, the exaggerated emotions of allegiance to a football club have shielded greedy men like Gillett and Hicks from retribution. The Royal Bank of Scotland couldn’t afford the fall-out from pushing Liverpool into administration by refusing to re-finance their loans. Shankly didn’t have to deal with braying bigots on the phone-ins, or charlatans in the boardroom. He had an uncluttered set of priorities: “At a football club, there’s a Holy Trinity – the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don’t come into it.” Read that, Liverpool fans, and weep.

This all smacks of a bit of the proverbial storm in a tea-cup. Dalglish in backing manager shocker. Anyway on deeper analysis maybe he's indirectly putting presure on the owners by stating (albeit slightly covertly) that they support the manager. Makes it a bit difficult for them to subsequently criticise Rafa - although given their form they prob wouldn't give a fuck like what anyone's perception of them may be. I'm not saying Rafa's above criticism like but they would simply use criticism of Rafa to deflect attention away from their disastrous ownership of the club, as opposed to actually giving a toss about the team in the way supporters do. In terms of one or two comments that Dalglish should not have gone back and should have stood away and criticised the owners from outside etc. Well sometimes it's best to manoeuvre yourself inside to a position of influence and then to begin chipping away. In this case better in than out from a Dalglish perspective. We should be glad he's in there. If the worst scenario should happen and we have a car crash of a season and rafa either walks or is pushed then I'd rather have Dalglish in the wings than whatever 'yes' man tool they'd appoint. Obviously hope that scenario doesn;t materialise.

Not surprised at this story to be honest. It's the eve of a game against the mancs and it originated in the rag we all love. Best ignored just like the rag. Stories such as this re the better players inc Gerrard may well resurface post end of season depending on how we shape up at the end, and may appear in news papers other than Murdoch's shite. At that point it may be the time to take such stories seriously, given the perilous state of the club re finances and the form of the two owners. As for now it's the usual shit stirring on the eve of a big game by the rag. Expect similar re Torres when we come up against the Arse for example.

Never watched QT but guesed rightly it would be stage managed nonsense. Seemed like the BBC rented in a hate mob for the night and amongst all the verbals to NG from all, inc Dimbleby, the panel missed a great chance to focus on the BNP policy, and quiz him in a professional manner on areas such as education, benefits, economy, privatisation, environment, etc, etc. This would've showed NG up as a political bufoon or someone with a bit of nous. I'd predict the former. Instead by all accounts the beeb delivered a freak show which appears to have played right into BNP hands through depicting NG as a bullied victim. Now that's not surprising from the rent-a-mob audience, but idiots on the panel and indeed Dimbleby should hang their heads. Also reference to the rise of the nazis and the fact hitler got into power with only 33% of the vote miss a crucial point. The nazis rose due to a political vacuum created by extreme sanctions against Germany post ww1 under the Weimar republic. Totally different scenario. Also in those days of course there were no means of modern communications which led to 'ignorance' among many German people of the Nazi atrocities. Nowadays if a politician does anything wrong its put on you tube or similar for the world to see. Having said that I'd agree that the only way they'll (BNP) continue to pick up votes will be due to increasingly low turnouts at the ballot box, which says more about the state of mainstream politics in this country than it does about any increase in support for the BNP.

Sacking Rafa would be like worrying about getting rid of your cold while totally ignoring the growing cancerous tumour until it becomes inoperable. Let's say he goes. What decent manager would want to come here with no money for transfers and two idiots as owners who not only don't get on but oversee a shambolic structure which appears to be riddled with internal politics. Notwithstanding the fact that they'd be starting off as 'unpopular' with many simply because they'd have been appointed by the current owners. Not saying no-one would be interested. You could prob take your pick from Allardyce, McLaren et al, or some foreign coach who would be a yes man to the owners. This isn't a big defence of Rafa as it would be fair to expect a better nucleus of players after 5 years than we currently have, and I think he's let a few decent players go while giving the benefit of the doubt to 'average-to-poor' players. Just don't see the point of sacking him while the current owners remain. He may well want away anyway given the current situation, but prob won't walk if contractually he misses out on a pay out. It's all looking a bit pear shaped to be honest.