Ooohhh ... Liverpool

Everyone knows, John Henry bought Liverpool because he is confident the club's history a great potential, which is believed to be generated and exploited in the future. History in the sense of tradition and achievement.

He was not a Roman Abramovich or Sheikh Mansour who buy to start making history. This is not to say Chelsea or Manchester City have no history, as sick as any of this reality for supporters of both clubs, there are different degrees of historical achievement when compared with Liverpool.

Nor is it to say Abramovich or Sheikh Mansour does not expect each club will be able to support themselves and be profitable for them.

John Henry is more similar to the Glazer family at Manchester United's purchase. Although also not equal one hundred percent. Because even though Manchester United's history can be said is equivalent to Liverpool, Glazer bought Manchester United when the club was at the top of glory. Reflected in the price.

Of course the history of Liverpool is a great capital. Everyone knows, history is a magnet of its own. He is an attraction that makes people want to associate themselves with it.

The longer the good track record and tradition of success, the greater the likelihood people associate themselves with it. More and more people want to be part of that history. In other words, the greater will be his supporters.

Choose any club in the world who have good track records, can be guaranteed they will also have a lot of supporters. Although we also know performance factors are not the only cause someone to be supporters. But that's for discussion at another time.

Maybe John Henry feels lucky that he got a relatively cheap price for Liverpool with historical records such as Liverpool, 300 million pounds. Is not Tom Hicks and George Gillett have to pay around £ 435 million to buy it?

People say, John Henry can be cheap because Hicks and Gillett push debt payment is due and pay them is not strong.

The creditors are reluctant to believe in the American duo is because it considers both hard to believe. Are not they the beginning of the purchase of Liverpool Liverpool they say they reach for the purchase money of my own pocket and Liverpool will not be burdened with debt? Did not impress in the beginning, they are different from the Glazers who deliberately borrow money from Bank to buy Manchester United and then impose a personal debt to the club?

From the bawdy chaos that occurred in Liverpool later we know that Hicks and Gillett's behavior is not much different from the Glazers, only just a smaller scale. It's just that unfortunately, Liverpool revenues were far behind Manchester United. So even though their debt is smaller, still has problems they face become larger.

Hicks and Gillett are reluctant to sell Liverpool but circumstances, in this case through court judgments, forcing them to be submissive and off Liverpool. Technicality law they can not avoid.

But there is another impression, which if true, would be very stifling for Liverpool supporters. Why the club as good as Liverpool took one and a half years to sell it? Why is the price is only 300 million dollars? Declined to 135 million pounds from the previous three years.

Could Liverpool is a club that is growing down his achievement? The more down prominence? A "civilization" that was heading for ruin football?

Of course this is a temporary. But where it will move transience: deteriorating or improving. In front of his new owner, Liverpool slumped in position number two from the bottom of the Premier League standings after a 0-2 defeat of rival, Everton.

This is the beginning of Liverpool's worst competition since 1953/1954, the year when they were relegated. Someone must have whispered to John Henry will record this history. And maybe John Henry was 300 million pound sterling is not too cheap anymore.

Do not worry Liverpool ..! We are your fans around the world continue to pray and support you to bounce back.
"You'll Never Walk Alone."