OWNERSHIP - short term gain but long term ?

 By Howard Borrell

As I write the take over of Liverpool FC is in the process of being finalized and the Dubai consortium looks set miss out after advanced discussions broke down and the way opened for the third US Premiership takeover. Tycoons George Gillettt and Tom Hicks, both sports owners in their own right, have now confirmed their £450m offer that will allow Liverpool's new stadium to be fully funded and avoid the need to consider ground sharing with Everton, as the Dubai group had been proposing.

So what you may argue, does it matter that there's hardly a week goes by without one of the top clubs being linked to a wealthy foreign purchaser who has no natural association with the club he covets and considers the purchase to be more of a branding exercise than a chance to revitalize an ailing part of history. West Ham fell prey recently and allowed the popular (not) Terence Brown to walk away with £33m, Newcastle's elite (that managed to create an £80m debt while bringing no success) look like being the next Dubai target ensuring a £68m windfall as a reward for their incompetence and even deadly Doug Ellis at Villa managed to pocket a handy  £20m from Randy Lerner.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out why - TV money.

These investors - if that's the right word as few actually put in their own money - can see that if costs are kept down (not easy with the Premiership salary levels, recently blown apart by John Terry's latest deal) and with in excess of £30m per year  per club guaranteed from the latest  national and international deals deal it's not too difficult to siphon off some cash -nothing illegal of  course. Freddie Shepherd's £530,000 pa salary at Newcastle may not have been  illegal but it was very definitely immoral.

Just a generation ago individuals got involved with football because they wanted to help their local club, of course they enjoyed the trappings that went with it but really there was little in their mind other than keeping the club's head above water.

Spurs and Manchester United started the PLC route that triggered off the explosion. A bit like the privatisations of Margaret Thatcher's time when  we were told that we'd notice the improvement and the trickle-down effect of wealth. We're still waiting !Look at the railways - which is now  subsidised four times as much as pre-privatisation and the trains run more slowly !. So in football -  TV money, grants to rebuild stadia and extortionate ticket prices have  enabled many wealthy (and some not so wealthy) to spot the opening and take the money and run.

When the concept of the Premiership was sold to the FA and the public we were told it would improve the fortunes of the England team, forget that  for a promise but it has certainly improved the fortunes of too many nobodies that put nothing into football but took plenty out.

Right from the start of the "greed is good" league the haves have been favoured at the expense of the poorer brethren, the top clubs have dictated terms to ensure their income grows unabated but the rump of football (the Football League) have effectively been cast adrift  with the FA a guilty accomplice.

Once Martin Edwards had privatised Manchester United and pocketed £93m the writing was on the wall and others would copy (and let's face it it's a pretty tempting model to copy !).

Football is our national sport and should be as protected as our  national monuments. Football binds communities, creates local pride, dreams  and ambitions and if this avaricious trend doesn't soon stop so too may the enthusiasm of the football fan for spending their last penny on clubs  (sorry owners) that see them as a means to an end.

Could anyone imagine Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich or AC Milan being bought up in this manner - of course not. As a result of a mix of complex ownership structures and national laws it wouldn't be allowed. About time  we adopted some of the more positive aspects of European outlook if we are to save English football as we know it!