Leaving aside questions over other clubs owners, I'm not sure how you can argue that Liverpool's are bad owners. Financial guys who want to maximise value of their investment, fair enough, but under their ownership we've seen increases in stadium capacity (with more planned), greatly increased revenues and reduced debt, and an obvious improvement in playing performance. Certainly they have so far proved the opposite of asset strippers.
I'm certainly not accusing them of asset stripping, and the same can be said for the others.
How on earth are they 'worse' than either of those?
Maybe I could have made it clearer, my post was in relation to 'spygate' and football as a whole. That said, their attitude to their own club is part of that and is still worth considering.
Some owners (eg Glazers) may be milking their club and be hated by their fans, but generally they don't seem to actively engage with any shenanigans unless the opportunity drops in their lap. Of course, there are others at the clubs who are more actively engaged judging by what little of what we know in relation to the PL and UEFA etc, but it doesn't appear to be part of the m.o.
I can't say the same for JW Henry. From the way the club was bought, to actively getting involved in spats with other clubs, the boasting about tricking Suarez into staying, the reaction to the Suarez 'racism' fiasco, the Sterling backstabbing, the way they've treated the locals in the ground extensions, the jibes on twitter... There are other things but you get the idea. He is
actively involved in this kind of thing, with (I'll admit, my interpretation) a kind of corporate cocky bullshit attitude.
The obvious counter is 'look what they've done for the club', and what is being suggested raises them above the others. Fair point, but again it's down to interpretation so let's explore just one avenue. Have they increased capacity because it's the in the long term best interests of the club, or to maximise the profits they can take? The lack of season tickets implies it's not for the fans. And why ditch all those plans to build a new stadium? Because it would cost too much? I'm not convinced when compared to everybody else's plans. It definitely smells of optimum r.o.i. from the owners viewpoint.
I'm certainly not suggesting they are so much worse overall than so many other owners (and some we've had!) but they are, to my mind insidious in a way the others are not.
I've no axe to grind, I'm not a Liverpool hater, but as time has gone by I've seen the way he acts and come to the conclusion he's worse than the others. Whether United or Arsenal fans agree is another thing!
Edit: Meant to put something about how much would they have spent (and on what) without the Suarez/Coutinho money, but forgot. Ah well...
