My father became Liverpool supporter in the 70s. Because of Shankly. Because of the Liverpool Way. Because of his views on socialism in footbal. And thats why I support LFC. And yes, you are right, I would ditch LFC the very same second if/when a dictatorial autocrat (like your owner) or an oligarchical kleptocrat (like Abramovic) would come to rule it because ownership by such scum would, for me, spell the end of LFC and the end of the Liverpool Way or to put it more bluntly: it would be the end of the club mr. Shankly, in many respects, started and the club I proudly support. My high standards? You mean my standards of wanting the club to operate in a way similar to the vision of the man who established the clubs core ethos and modus operandi?
Well, I guess they are high standards. We are Liverpool after all, not some small team from Manchester. So yeah. I would not forsake my morals for shiny new toys. You stay a 'fan' of your club and its billionaire dictatorial autocrat, Ill support Liverpool thank you very much. I'm many things but not a hypocrite.
- Oh and LFC fans were not hypocritical to stand by Suarez during the farcical Evra episode. That is what LFC is all about. But its clear to me that you just simply don't get this.
- Oh and if the bit In bold is correct then.. Well then you are not only a self-admitted hypocrite but also a bad human being if you think in that way.
Where do I start with this?
First of all, I suspect your father's main motivation was the fact that Liverpool were a very successful team, rather than their socialist principles. Having been a season ticket holder at City since the early 1970's, I don't recall Liverpool being run as some sort of socialist collective. Shankly was as autocratic as any Emir. They charged us money to get into Anfield (and not on a 'pay what you can afford' basis). When we were being chased through Stanley Park, it wasn't just the middle class fans they chased. You didn't escape a good kicking if you could establish your socialist, working class credentials. They made money and presumably paid dividends to the shareholders.
The money that sustained Liverpool and made up the fortune of the family that controlled both Merseyside clubs came from gambling and charging people excessive amounts to buy goods on credit. Usury in other words. Was your father a Muslim? If so, did that fact trouble his conscience for a fleeting moment?
And even if we put all that aside, you could say that the continuance of what Shankly built started to die when Ronnie Moran was overlooked in favour of Gerard Houllier. With that, and the subsequent sale to Hicks & Gillett, Liverpool became just another club, being run as a business by men who had no link to the past and no allegiance to the ideals of men like Shankly or Paisley. Would those two have meekly soldiered on under Hicks & Gillett? I somehow doubt it. For the last 6 years, you've been a fan of a club run by foreign businessmen, for their profit. And while not as much as my club's owners have, they have pumped money into it. Yet you still support the club. And that's what it's about. Supporting the club. Not owners, managers or players but the club.
Hence my comment that I was more concerned about what Thaksin did to my club than what he did to Thailand. The problems of Thailand aren't my problems. As concerned as I might be about the future of democracy there it doesn't keep me awake as night as it doesn't affect me in any material way. Neither do the problems in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Malaysia, etc. There are enough human rights issues in my own country to worry about. In Manchester recently, an unarmed man was tasered to death by a policeman despite already being restrained by other officers. Just over 8 years ago, an innocent man was shot to death on a tube train by police officers. And I'm sure you don't need reminding that 96 innocent people died in 1989 and the police conspired to cover up the circumstances of that incident.
As for the Suarez incident, the way it was dealt with made you a laughing stock which would not have happened under Shankly or Paisley. They would have dragged Suarez into the boot room, given him a verbal blasting and told him never again to put the club in a position where he could be perceived to have dragged the good name of Liverpool through the mud. Then they would have come out and said "Yes he said the wrong thing. He didn't understand the significance of what he said at that time but he does now and wishes to apologise to all concerned. He has assured us it will not happen again."
But we're all football fans and more often than not, the love of our club, just like the love we have for our family, blinds us to their faults. Personally I don't think that makes either of us "a bad human being" but it does make us human.
And as I've already said, the authors of this press release have hypocritically used Manchester City to get a far wider audience than it would otherwise have got. But I've also said that if our owner wants to use us to project a certain favourable image, then he has to accept that it can also be used against him. And that definitely is my last word on this particular matter.
Now, what time is this Audi Cup match, hopefully on a decent pitch? Oh hang on. Auto Union were Nazi collaborators so maybe I'll send my season ticket back.