Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Why Coakley Lost

A commenter on Balloon Juice nails it down tight.
Balloon Juice Blog Archive Like Deja Vu All Over Again: "And the reason this happened is very simple. The people handed the Democrats a tremendous amount of power and said “We want change.” And the Dems responded by saying that they like the status quo just fine so long as they’re in charge. It’s not surprising that they’re suffering consequences for this."


I'm reading a lot of "we lost because we're too liberal" from Democrats. That's bullshit. Coakley lost because in 2008 the American people said "Change please", and they didn't get it. They didn't get it from a lily-livered spineless Congress, and they didn't get it from Obama. Remember his slogan was "Hope"? Maybe it should have been "Wish" or "Pipe Dream".

Rafa or Hicks & Gillett

There are legitimate complaints about Rafa. His selections and substitutions often leave me mystified. We spent 20 million for Aqui to bring him in as a 80th minute sub?  We have by various estimates 47, 52, 62 or 913 senior level players, and what we saw against Stoke is the best line-up that we can produce regardless of injuries?  Not pretty.  Not pretty.  But, and this is huge, Rafa is not the one that forced Liverpool to use its profits to service its debts instead of buy players, and Rafa's not the one with the history of running sports clubs into the ground.  

Hicks and his company destroyed Corinthians in Brazil.  They went from a FIFA World Club Cup championship shortly after Hicks' purchased them to relegation and financial ruin before Hicks sold them.  The Texas Rangers are nothing special, but after Hicks defaulted on $525 million in loans to the Rangers and his NHL team the Dallas Stars, the Rangers couldn't even make payroll twice last year and MLB had to loan money to the Rangers just to pay the players.  Rangers fans want Hicks just as gone from their team as we Reds do from ours, and the Rangers stunk even before Hicks took over and okayed the single dumbest contract in sports history.  The Dallas Stars are the only team he's ever owned that's won anything well into his tenure as owner, and what do they have to show for it -- one Stanley Cup -- a single championship.  Outside of Liverpool Hicks has owned mediocre teams, and now that mediocrity is starting to show up at Anfield.  Hicks is one half the problem, and I bet you can guess what the other half is.

George Gillett until recently owned a franchise that is the Liverpool FC of its league.  The Montreal Canadiens are the most decorated franchise in NHL history.  The team has won 24 Stanley Cups.  They have won at least one Stanley Cup per decade every decade of the team's existence going back to the second decade of the twentieth century -- except for the last decade when they were owned from 2001 till earlier this year by George Gillett.  Since Gillett took over the Canadiens have missed the playoff three times and never made it out of the second round when they did qualify. If hockey had a table without conferences and divisions, Montreal would've finished in following positions:

08-09 -- 14
07-08 -- 3
06-07 -- 17
05-06 -- 15
04-05 -- (No season. NHL lockout)
03-04 -- 11
02-03 -- 22
01-02 -- 18

Save for the 07-08 season those are not inspiring finishes in a 30 team league and with those early playoff exits the Canadiens didn't get a whiff of the Stanley Cup during Gillett's tenure as owner. To be fair to Gillett those performances are actually an improvement  over the three previous years before Gillett took over (the club was at a historic low point); however, he certainly didn't get very far towards his "vision is to restore the franchise as the greatest team in hockey."  Does that remind anyone of a certain joint statement issued by Gillett and Hicks?  "This is truly the largest sport in the world, the most important sport in the world, and this is the most important club in the most important sport in the world... Liverpool is a fantastic club with a remarkable history and a passionate fanbase. We fully acknowledge and appreciate the unique heritage and rich history of Liverpool and intend to respect this heritage in the future."

We all know what happened next.  The most important club in the most important sport in the world proved no more important to these men then breakfast cereal.  The "blueprint of what not to do" as Hicks described the Glazers' purchase of ManU turned out to be exactly the plans used to purchase Liverpool.  Debt has mounted.  Not securing stadium financing before the recession has left the stadium in limbo for the foreseeable future.  And now the mediocrity that has been the hallmark of all previous franchises owned by Gillett and/or Hicks is starting to seep from the boardroom onto the pitch.

I may not agree with or understand some of Rafa's football related decisions, but I trust that he is making decisions that he feels are the best for Liverpool FC.  I trust the he is working his hardest at "coaching and training" his players, and doing his all to make certain that LFC puts the best football team it can on the pitch.  I certainly cannot say the same about the business decisions made by Hicks, Gillett, and the rest of the boardroom.  They've already proven that Liverpool is worth no more to them than a bowl of bland unsweetened cereal.  They'll do whatever they can to wring a dollar out of the brand, and if they happen to win while doing so so be it. If they don't, oh well...

A simple comparison of records -- Rafa's teams have won La Liga twice, the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Cup and the FA Cup during his tenure at the top of the bootroom.  Hicks and Gilletts' teams have in all sports have won one Stanley Cup and one FIFA World Club Cup between them at the top of the boardroom.  That World Club Cup came the same way our only success (CL Runner's Up) has come since they purchased the club... namely right after they did so, and before they could screw the club up.  Hicks and Gillett, not Rafa, brought mediocrity to Liverpool.  The longer that they stay the lower that we will sink regardless of who the manager is.