Interesting article of relevance to the Kraft rumors: The Soccer War: What happens when an American tries to buy the world's most beloved soccer team? By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2004, at 12:56 PM PT http://slate.msn.com/id/2110765/
I was suprised the article referenced Glazier's 'jewishness.' I'm sure that's mainly hyperbole by the author, but isn't Kraft also jewish?
What struck me most about the article was that the Kraft bit at the end seemed very disingenous, conveying that Kraft's involvement with Liverpool is just the same as Glazer's. Even if you view both men as NFL owners out to make even more bucks, you know the investment bids are being handled quite differently. One is one man's hostile takeover attempt of a club that is not hurting for investment or facilities; the other is a group of investors, some with existing ties to the club, looking to purchase a club who's in more red than just player kits and sorely in need of upgraded grounds. Kraft might not be fronting cash just to be an altruist, but he's also not going at it alone. That's not an insignificant distinction between him and Glazer.
In the context of the article, the author is indirectly suggesting that the Brit's are anti-semitic. The Magpie
Yes. I understand that. At least he is suggesting that Britsih football fans are anti-semetic. It hadn't occured to me that'd be the case, which is why I imagine it to be purely editorializing on his part. However, am I wrong in thinking Kraft is jewish? I believe he is.
It would be a reasonable supposition that the Krafts are jewish since they are renowned for their generosity to jewish charities. There was that curious spectacle of someone in Israeli officialdom asking everyone to root for the Patriots in the superbowl to reward RK. I question the relevance of the Krafts' jewishness to the discussion, however. It was a cheap shot by Nick Louth, the author of the Slate article, to raise the straw man of British anti-semitism, only to half-heartedly knock it down by blaming anti-american snobbery. UltraPeanut - Where did you see a reference to the Krafts?
Historically, Chelsea was as anti-Semetic as they come (in England anyways). They seem quite happy with Abramovich, however. Although I'm sure some distinguished posters will disagree, I think the EPL fans' distrust of American ownership is cultural, rather than sectrarian. They understand that their team's success is created and maintained by hi-risk competetive investment in expensive players. As fans, they want someone committed to spend in the pursuit of championships, not a caretaker who will keep them afloat waiting for franchise value appreciation. They want and will only trust someone whose priority is winning, not income return. They don't want a conservative absentee owner (i.e., Kraft) anymore than Bruin fans do, anymore than Red Sox fans would, and anymore than Rev fans should. And, yes, if Liverpool looks at Leeds fate, they might do well to reconsider their resistance to conservative owners, but that's another discussion.
I don't think that European anti-semitism (even in Britain, which is culturally becoming more and more like the US) is a straw man. The US attitude (even as it is) towards Jewish people is very different than the European attitude. I think there are very strong arguments to be made that Europeans did not in general disagree with the Nazi approach to their Jewish population (along with other "undesirable" groups: expatriation, ghettoization, experiments in sterilization, and then ultimately extermination), but that they did disagree with the Nazi approach to other nation-states territory rights. What support European states provided to the state of Israel can to some degree be chalked up to a desire to see Jewish people go elsewhere. I don't fully understand why this attitude emerged in Europe (perhaps one aspect is that Jewish people tend to retain their allegiance to their community and culture ... you can see the same sort of attitude in Europe towards other non-integrating communities now ... see North African moslems in France or Turks in Germany), but in the US things are quite different. Even though there is some degree of latent hostility toward Jewish people, it seems to be largely covered over by the appreciation of people who are self-made businesspeople etc. As far as Chelsea goes, I don't think any but the most radical racists and bigots are able to hold onto their opinions regarding specific individuals who would normally fit one of their preconceived opinions when they find that their interests coincide.
Agreed. To be a bit more accurate, there is a perception of this: an understanding that "hi-risk competetive investment in expensive players," is necessary for a club to be competitive in the pursuit of championships. That being understood, there are also examples of clubs that have managed to find success by being more prudent in their spending on high-priced players. To which I assume you're suggesting Kraft would be a caretaker investor who cares less about the pursuit of championships and more about the appreciation of the bottom line? Again, I read this as saying Kraft's first priorty should he invest in Liverpool would be "income return," and not "winning." The question is this: would Kraft truly be a "conservative absentee owner" with respect to Liverpool? That's an assumption based on... what exactly? His dealings with the Revolution, his approach to the Patriots, what exactly? Also... Jeremy Jacobs owns the Bruins. John Henry, Larry Lucchino, and Tom Werner own the Red Sox. Robert Kraft owns the New England Patriots, and along with his son, are investor/operators of the New England Revolution. Liverpool, in contrast, is owned by the shareholders, at this point a combination of club Chairman David Moores (51%), smaller and individual shareholders (34%), Granada (9.9%), and Steve Morgan (5.5%). So, if the Krafts were to buy into Liverpool as reported, and for a controlling stake in the club, it would be part of a multi-party consortium. As such, the Krafts are less likely to treat Liverpool as a personal chew toy since there's greater accountability, both to the club, and fellow investors. The very nature of the club means that the whomever owns it, will have to take some active role in order for it to not only be successful on the pitch, but off it. I.e., Kraft can't be an absentee investor and expect the club to do well financially. That being said, Kraft need not necessarily be involved with the club on a day-to-day basis, or otherwise engage in micro-management for the club to be successful. Leeds' fate was cemented through a combination of horrible business practice (spending way above their means, racking up millions in unsecured debts) and soft-headed investors who did little to change this (at least for the better), let alone put money back into the club. Leeds was a case of bad people making bad choices backed by bad investors, and are only guilty of being conservative in overall enthusiasm to immediately and effectively address the club's problems. That's a different variety of conservatism than Kraft has demonstrated in his approach to the Patriots and/or Revolution. Kraft, shall we say, is "prudent." Alowing a club to self-destruct on your watch is not prudent, and that's what happened to Leeds.
He is Jewish. Some beleive that anti-semitism played a role in Krafts failure to secure a South Boston site for his new stadium. "Winning" = "income return" as far as a Liverpool investment is concerned. Kraft is doing this because he and his advisors see the possibility of elevating Liverpool up to the stratosphere of clubs like Man U, Real Madrid, etc who have global followings and make huge amounts of cash from replica sales and TV rights. Kraft isn't doing this to Jeremy Jacobs Liverpool.
As I said, lack of context for the Kraft reference suggests both NFL owner investment attempts are the same, which we know not to be the case.
You're convinced of that, huh? Based on what evidence? You think Kraft is looking to go toe to toe with Abramovich on player acquisition? You think Kraft will spend "whatever it takes" for "as long as need be" to bring back Liverpool's past glory and reap secondary merchandising rewards? Based on what? And please don't cite NFL superbowl success. It has nothing to do with pouring money into an underskilled team in a high risk endevour to compete with richer and better stocked teams. That's a fool's game as NHL, MLB, and most EPL owners can testify. And spare me the "superior management skills" line. Remember, for every Belichek/Pelosi there's a Carroll/Grier.....not to mention the Revs management misturns. Look, Kraft is no fool. He is a smart conservative investor. So is Jeremy Jacobs. Kraft is much more like Jacobs, as evidenced by his approach to the MLS (even though some pundits claim that is meaningless), than like Abramovich or Steinbrenner. He's more likely to turn Liverpool into Charlton Athletic (a nice safe profitable business) than Chelsea FC (do they even make money?). Any interest Kraft has in Liverpool is PROFIT based, not ego based. Do you have information to the contrary? What evidence do you have that he'd risk profit to gain championships? What sign is there that he shares Liverpool's passion for their team? Why such Kraft worship anyways?
You seem to be assuming that the Abramovich method is the only one that could lead to that kind of success. A dubious assumption at best. The key to the Patriots' success is in making the best use of the resources available, not in outspending (or being outspent by) your competitors. I see know reason why that approach wouldn't translate to the EPL. Only an idiot would argue that MLS as a business is in any way similar to owning an NHL team. Also, Kraft has shown significant ambition for as long as he's been a public figure; Jacobs appears to have no ambitions at all beyond collecting the profits on his businesses. Kraft didn't get to the position where he could buy the Patriots by failing to see potential. Charlton is probably at the peak of its potential; Liverpool is not. To turn LFC into a safe and profitable business would be to ignore its potential. Do you have evidence for your contention? In any case, I would suggest that when you get to the level of professional sports team owners, it's not possible to parse out motives. If you've already got a billion, ego is the only reason to make another billion. How about Gillette Stadium? The way the NFL is set up, he could have kept turning a modest profit into the forseeable future by staying in the old building. On the other hand, 300 million dollar privately financed construction projects aren't exactly low risk. Acknowledgement of his considerable business success over the years does not equal worship. On the other hand, your apparent dislike for him seems based on ignorance and misinterpretation of the facts.
NER already answered better than I. Successful people tend to find a formula that works, than repeat it. The Pats are his formula. Working within a salary cap situation, he has taken a franchise worth about 100 million initially to one worth almost a billion. Chelsea may well be the 49ers of the NFL. Kraft wants to make Liverpool the Patriots.
I have nothing but admiration for Kraft's business accumen. I've never met the man so I don't know if I like him or not, but he seems like a decent guy (and I am aware of his considerable charity work). I'm very thankful he took the plunge to bring professional soccer to New England. I think he is an ideal NFL owner. On the other hand, I am disappointed about his current level of interest in the Revs and think he should receive a share of the blame for the team's declining attendance, a fact which makes me worried about the sport's future in this area. I do not think he is the ideal owner for an ambitious EPL team such as Liverpool, particularly given their sorry roster (who other than Gerrard would start for Chelsea, ManU, Arsenal, or Real Madrid?) and their need for massive player investment to catch up with their competition at home and in Europe. I do not think he is the ideal owner for the Revolution at this point either, although I agree a disinterested owner is better no owner at all.
Dr Jay, The bumper sticker schtick is rather weak, surely you can do better...........something about chromosone counts perhaps?
OK, 2 things. First, you're asking for proof of why someone has a different perception or expectation than you have, but what proof do you have? Different people will interpret events differently, because they differ in rating how important different factors in the events. Unless anyone here has sat in with him on his planning sessions, nobody will have any proof of what Kraft will do until after he does it. Second, what does Abramovitch have to do with this? As has been said, are you honestly saying his is the only model for success? Getting a guy who has the proverbial 'more money than god' just throwing money in all directions, an saying that if it doesn't work, we'll just spend more, is the wave of the future, and fans should distrust anyone who doesn't come in with that approach? Well a) every team would love to get such an owner, there aren't many such people out there; b) as I've already read a few times, what happens when Abramovitch gets bored with his toy, if he gets hit by a bus, or gets into major legal trouble back home, as there seemed some risk of happening? Is there not some risk that he might actually leave the team in huge ammounts of debt? Would it not be good to get an owner who's "just" filthy rich, who would come in and set up a solid organization that can take care of itself, rather than having to depend on a super duper rich benefactor? As I said previously, Kraft may have just gotten lucky with how well Bellicheck's approach has done, but even if he didn't know before hand (I don't know, but it's at least debatable, considering what Kraft had to go through to get him), do you not think that Kraft might have learned from this and might try to translate that into a soccer situation. To me Bellicheck's model appears to be this: pay more attention to the value of a player's skills vs the cost, and how that player's skills and attitude fit into the team, rather than how big of a name that player has. For exampl (this is only my perception btw) I don't think that Bellicheck would ever want a Peyton Manning as he is now, because he would just cost too much, and that money could be better spent if it were spread out a little more. Obviously American football is very different than the Association version, and the NFL is VERY different than professinoal soccer, but I would think that there are basic themes that could carry over.
Well, he's misplaced the formula when it comes to the Revolution. The Patriots are a flagship of the NFL; the Revolution are now an anchor in MLS. The only thing they have in common is the owner's name. There are many successful business people that have major failures on the side or along the way. Donald Trump and Ted Turner to just name two of the more high profile ones. They've made billions, and lost billions, but they've made more billions than they've lost so they are very successful. Kraft has an admirable track record overall, but he also didn't a go of it in MLS in San Jose and his first sport franchise folded. So while he has made an unquestionably huge success of the Patriots, his ownership of sports franchises is not perfect. My guess is that when all is said and done, that Kraft will be too smart to get involved in an overseas sporting venture, and if he did and had a similar level of interest as he has in the Revolution, then Liverpool would more likely become the New Orleans 'Aints of the EPL.
It would seem that Liverpool F.C. Chief Executive Officer Rick Parry has drafted a letter to club shareholders (having been received by some, today, December 9th), confirming that the L4 Group has officially approached the club with an indicative proposal for investment in or for Liverpool F.C.. The approach has been made through Hawkpoint Partners Limited, the financial advisors representing Liverpool F.C. According to this letter (apparently re-published in part in the Liverpool Evening Post), discussions as to the proposal are apparently underway. Through Hawkpoint, the Liverpool Board of Directors will evaluate the L4 Group proposal, and should the Board find it attractive, it will apparently be put forth to the club's shareholders for consideration. It is rumored that former Liverpool player Kenny Dalglish is working with the L4 Group, acting in an advisory role in an effort to bring the two groups closer together towards reaching some agreement on this proposal. I'll do some digging in the U.K. press tomorrow to see if there's anything to add to this. FYI, The Magpie
Yea, you're probably right, but it gave me a chuckle this morning. I'm missing the reference about chromosomes, however. Is that something to do with Kraft not having enough ? Or maybe too many ?
I assume you mean that you are disappointed in the way that the Revs are being run, which may or may not be a function of Kraft's 'current level of interest'. On the whole, I don't disagree with you, but what makes you think that the Revs are a useful predictor of how he would act as the principal owner of an EPL team? The Revs must be viewed as either a start-up or a write-off; Liverpool FC is obviously neither of those things. Another point to consider: It wasn't all that long ago that most people figured Kraft was making a mess of the Patriots. If we all learn from our mistakes, then Bob Kraft is a well educated man, but that's the thing: he has shown the ability to learn from his mistakes. Otherwise, the Patriots would be losing as many as they win....in Hartford. It does not seem logical to me to assume that he would cast aside the lessons of his business career now.
Now that I think about it, this whole Liverpool thing is a great idea. It will allow us to transfer JMM at a profit, maybe Llamossa too. Then we can move the old Anfield to Foxboro, sell the naming rights to Red Bull, promote S Nicol to president and bring Howey back to coach all our new Brazilian players in our own SSS. Dammm, Kraft IS a shrewd businessman. My bad.
Okay, one clear example: Everything looks rosy with the Patriots now, but one momentous decision set them on that path. Robert Kraft had the JUDGEMENT to realize that Bill Belichick was the perfect guy to run his organization. He had the WILL to do whatever it took (a precedent-setting compensation agreement) to get the guy he wanted. And he had the INTELLIGENCE to let his guy run the show.