by big al » Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:36 pm
Some good threads here but I think Stu raises a very valid point that requires some more indepth response so let me try.
Once when league football was in its infancy the big clubs were little clubs. They were church teams and working mens team who played football for pure satifaction. The players were happy to compete in what in the words of the great Danny Blanchflower ' Was the greatest Democracy ever concieved' Football was and at grass roots is still the most democratic passtime ever invented. 25 men or women take to the pitch and play out a game by which the outcome is arrived at by 90 mins of tactics, skill, technique, commitment, hardwork and creativity. What working man who slaved down the mines or stood on freezing ship yards of factory floors, would,nt want a little bit of that democracy. Moreover if you played with peers you could be the equal of Bobby Moore of Geordi Best or Emlyn Hughes. Because football is all relative. The best play with the best, medium with medium etc.
Anyway as I was saying people played and still do because as a sport football is unrivalled. In the olden days people followed local teams with local players and paying to watch teams was not an issue. Fans were local and loyal often cheering on their mates or relatives. Well that was then.
Today top flight football is no longer local its Global, the Premiership with 20 clubs has 368 non British or Irish players, getting local lads in your team is rare. The local fans still support their team but it is no longer their team alone. TV the media and the ability to travel vast distances in a short time (unless your Denis Bergkemp) is made Liverpool a Global team. Anyone and I mean anyone (Even the Michael Howard, Tory Leader) identifies and supports Liverpool. Even the definition of supporter has changed, once it meant those who paid in week in week out now it means something totally different. (go Figure) We no longer have only local players or only local fans. In fact some clubs have global ownership (Man U). What does all this have to do with it I hear you ask Stu.
Well simply Stu, the fans never changed Liverpool, the media, evolution, money ( not least Wages bills) merchandising but more importantly success changed Liverpool. For success is in essence its own master. With the success Shankly brought to Liverpool, he also brought legions of non Liverpudlian fans (people like me). That success not only changed the following of Liverpool it changed the standards of Liverpool. Those standards would not longer be determined by local people they would be determined and measured against that success. You get angry Stu and frustrated by people continually barracking Liverpool FC, you attacck non Liverpudlians, you want absolute loyality (no bad thing) but Stu thats the past your living in. Your still searching for democracy in a dictatorship. That dictatorship is success. Those of us who will not and cannot accept mediocrity speak with the authority of that success. Liverpool is not a Sunday league team, its now one of the greatest sporting clubs in the World. The democracy lies no longer with managers and players they are professionals(paid to preform) the fans pay their wages. Its a simple formula Stu
Fans+Money= get best players= Win Trohies titles=Succes= Fans+Money
Your spot on Stu we have good players they are underacheiving they are nervous and they looked strained. You think its the fans causing this, Most of us thinks that its Houllier so lets be truly democratic about this lets wait and let Success be the judge.
"Football Is the greatest democracy of all, That's providing your not Italian and pay the referee" Big al 2006