When magister militum Orestes refused the request of Germanic mercenaries in his employ for land, 476 AD, dissatisfied militia deposed the last Western Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus. The Western Roman Empire fell, troops sacked Rome and within a century the Germanic dominated both the populous and culture of the city.
Rome’s conqueror, Odoacer, pronounced himself King of Italy, continuing the Empire in name, if not the same identity. It took more than a century for Rome’s culture to dissipate. Indeed, historians have long argued that the true fall came anywhere from Rome’s demise in 476 to the destruction of Constantinople nearly a millennia later.
This brief lesson of history teaches that change is a slow moving beast, even if the precipitating cataclysmic event seems anything but. The true end of Rome came not because of defeat in war but the inevitable cultural change that military destruction ensured.
Football’s relatively short history dictates a greater pace of change.
It is now 20 years since Liverpool last claimed an English crown. An empire long since crumbled; if not forgotten. With pride, if no little conviction, Liverpool’s invading hoards have sought to reclaim an outpost, if not the Empire, only to fall to the greater power of their enemies.
If Liverpool’s empire finally fell in May 1993, when Manchester United claimed its first English title in more than 26 years, then the cultural destruction was complete 17 years hence. Anfield overrun by Carlo Ancelotti’s invading army, with barely arms raised in protest, let alone a fight to the death.
Out of the Champions League, beaten by Atlético Madrid in Europe’s second division, slain on all fronts domestically; Liverpool’s players lay prone and offered no last stand.
Anfield’s pride, if nothing else, dictates that Rafael Benitez time has come as Liverpool’s stubborn manager.
Time and history will dictate whether Chelsea’s almost inevitable Premier League title win next weekend is the fall of Sir Alex Ferguson’s empire too, or just another battlefield retreat. Ferguson has been here far too many times for outsiders to make grand predictions for the Scot’s side.
Regeneration is no easy task at Old Trafford though. Another year older, Ferguson will squeeze even less out of Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs, Edwin van der Sar and Gary Neville next season.
Transfer funds, limited by the Glazer family’s destructive ownership, dictate that Ferguson will shop at the bottom of the market this summer, if at all. Ferguson’s faith is now placed in the myriad of promising recruits as yet untested at any serious level.
In the end, United – burdened by overwhelming financial pressure and foes with ever greater resources – may implode from within but an Orestes moment has not yet come. It may never.
With a degree more certainly we can say that Liverpool’s end has arrived. Remarkably, following his side’s meek dismissal at Chelsea’s hands, Benitez joined the post match press conference in jovial mood. Perhaps he already knows something that we do not.
Steven Gerrard’s antipathetic performance, including the misplaced backpass that probably signaled the end of United’s challenge this season, said much of the midfielder’s state of mind. Totally anonymous as the Merseysider’s captain, nobody will be shocked if he once again seeks out pastures new.
Liverpool’s long proud history dictated local supporter rivalries were irrelevant, said players past and present. The professionals’ pre-match presumption found little evidence on the pitch and United supporters’ have every right to be shocked at the manner of Liverpool’s resistance.
As the Kop celebrated the visitors’ win, little of the club that once dominated at home and abroad remained. Supporters and seemingly players alike are now fully assimilated to the inevitability of mediocrity; and a last pleasure taken in a rival’s defeat, however distant.
With no Champions League football next season, manager, captain and leading players, such as the absent Fernando Torres, may defect. Boardroom finances have already led to the departure of chairman and shortly – if a bidder is found – the much hated owners.
The empire fell two decades ago; its cultural destruction finished yesterday.
What a BITTER, BITTER article, but so very true. Liverpool will beat UTD’s achievement of going 26 years without winning the title and by the time they do finally win it UTD will be well past 20 titles, possibly as many as 25.
I wonder what odds William Hill will offer for Pool to be relegated within the next 5 years?
Wow thats some over dramatic rubbish if I’ve ever read it
What a great article!! Historically accurate to, which is pleasing. However, I would refrain from making a later comparison of United to the Roman Decline as it is clearly more similar to that of the British Empires. Firstly, it was bigger and better than Rome’s – just like United’s is better than Liverpool’s. Secondly, if anything brings us down it will not be rivalling barbarians (City) but DEBT and BANKRUPTCY.
Here’s a thought for you. Rooney has played out of his skin this year. Unlikely to play any better ever arguably and all you have to show for it is a Carling cup. Knocked out of the CL at the quarter final stage, out of the FA cup in the 3rd round by a Division 1 side and a strike force of Berbaflop and Michael Owen.
No money to but any players due to the Glazers and Giggs, Scholes and Neville’s (and Maybe Van Der Sar’s) last season to come.
Likely to be outbid by City for any player of interest also.
Fall of an Empire indeed son!
Isn’t this about the 10th prediction regarding the fall of SAF’s empire over the last 20 years???
It isn’t did you read it?
“If Liverpool’s empire finally fell in May 1992, when Manchester United claimed its first English title in more than 26 years, then the cultural destruction was complete 18 years hence”
Didn’t the Leeds scum win the league in May 1992
Ooops! Typo, corrected
Sean, you make a good point. Man City are certainly on the rise; however, Buffon’s words regarding them will put a smile on the face of all united fans. I don’t think United are finished by any means because this is not the first time SAF has had to rebuild his team. Additionally, the debt problem is roughly 300 million less due to latest figures regarding United as the most valuable sports franchise on the planet!
It goes with out saying that we will not have hundred million pound spending sprees in the future, but we are more than capable of making a single 30\35 million pound purchase – the rest will be a few 5 to 10 millions pound buys. Both of which are already in the form of Smalling and ‘the mexican chap’. So this summer expect one expensive buy and maybe a mid price buy.
Have to disagree with you here.
This summer expect lots of rumours about Benzema coming and believe none of it.
M.Glazer will ensure that there is [empty] talk about big spending.
But we did it with youth before, didn’t we?
Sadly I think you may be right. Plus, I don’t think Benzema has the right attitude for the club – why would we chase someone who snubbed us once.
Let’s hope our rising stars can develop into a world class team – it may not be premature to suggest Nani could become something special. However, let’s equally hope we can bring in a solid mid fielder.
The whole thing with the spending issue is that we seem to be wasting money buying 3 squad players instead of 1 quality player.
Unless we are really are just another company i.e. 3 assets (players) are better than 1.
We don’t need any extra squad players as youth system can provide those.
For me the equation is buy Diouf, Smalling, Hernandez or David Silva. Surely the purchasing of the later is more advantageous.
Any cash difference could be made by the sale of Tosic and/or Fabio
While I agree with the most parts of your article I find the words about ownership and transfer spending a little bit premature or unfounded.
Didn’t we bid for Benzema but found him wanting to go elsewhere? Didn’t we buy Berbatov? Didn’t we spend a lot on Nani and Ando?
You can always argue that our net spending is low but a lot of it is due to the sale of Ronaldo. SAF will argue though, that the money from him is still there but there was no value in the market then. Do you think we should have a policy of buying just for the hell of it, even our manager thinks there are no players there ? Or do you think SAF is lying?
Moreover, it can be argued that this season could have been more successful with just a little bit of luck. We could have gone through to the semi-final in the CL if only Vida’s header had been slightly lower or if Evra had been more careful in the final seconds. This has nothing to do with transfer spending.
We are still able to win the league on the last day. We are no lower than second. Can you really blame SAF for not spending on over priced players that didn’t want to come here in the first place? I think he’s done a marvellous job again, trusting the players we had.
Furthermore, I agree the Glazers have raised ticket prices and introduced the cup scheme and thereby increased the overall cost for the season ticket holders. Other than that I fail to see how destructive their ownership has been.
I agree the debt levels are high, and to be honest I would have preferred them to be lower, but we have yet to see any clear cut problems with it yet. To say that we have not invested enough in players is pure opinion and it is not clear that we would have invested more in another (realistic) financial situation.
To the Glazers advantage it can be said that they have created bigger revenue streams, even apart from ticket prices revenues have increased markedly, and they have cut operational costs. This puts us in a better financial situation than before.
I am not saying that all of my my remarks here are the perfect truth, but to me, they put enough doubt into play to remain sceptical about all the negatives that are being said about all of this. I do think this has been blown out of proportion and I prefer to be neutral about it all.
Again, I did enjoy the article as a whole and I think we have a lot to learn from it as empires most often decline.
Thanks for your commitment Ed and keep writing.
Yergen
Not sure how in the long term or short term having the Glazers owning the club benefits on pitch performance.
Saddling the club with 700 million in long term debts usually doesn’t help increase the amount of money you spend on transfers.
The re-sale policy is totally flawed (read Anderson in particularly on this), and if United can’t cherry pick the best players to buy with the income they generate there is something seriously wrong.
Bill – I am of the opinion that ownership should focus on owning the club and leave operational issues to management. This goes especially for all on pitch related issues. A lot the clubs that have had real financial problems have had owners meddling with football issues.
The debt is only relevant to tranfers if you look at cash flows. Therefore, you would have to compare how much we spent as a plc on dividends (and interest payments) to what we know spend on servicing the debt. You would also have to take into account the difference in revenue between now and then. It is not clear whether where we are now, but as long our cash flow situation is good, we have no problems on the transfer side of things.
I think the re-sale policy is sensible. If you look at Berbatov, there are many who feel we should sell him this summer. We bought him for over 30 million, but what is his re-sale value? 15-20 at best? There is always the chance of a player being a hit and miss, so we should always, at least, consider his re-sale value. The above article shows that we have to be careful or else our reign will end. The purchase of Berbatov shows that there are going to be occasions when we buy players anyway.
I fail to see when we have been in a position to cherry pick previously. Nowadays, it is even harder to compete with all the super rich owners (City and Chelsea) and bank supported clubs (RM and Barca). Operationally, it is hard to say that these clubs are financially sound, so if/when they lose their support they will go down. Had we had owners like these I would be very worried. Moreover, players are humans and we cannot force them into choosing us. Berbatov chose us over money, whereas Benzema chose RM over us. How are we supposed to change his mind?
Operationally we are fine and I am proud of that. We are one of few clubs that manages to compete on the highest level without borrowing money to finance it. Our debt is purely financial (which, in itself, might be something to be less proud of). It remains to be seen if our strategy will work, but if it does not it will truly be a sad day for football as then the only way to compete will be through being owned by sheiks or russian oil barons.
Sorry for the rant.
Thanks for the post.
The bottom line is that if the Glazers hadn’t been allowed to buy the club in the first place then we wouldn’t have been saddled with all this debt. The club makes a profit without the Glazer debt and transfers, which is rare for a football club.
The buy-out was pre-credit crunch and i’d like to think that some economic lessons have been learnt between now and then. Not that this bothers the Glazers.
And on the note of cherry picking, how about Rio and Wayne? They were bought for 30 million pre-Glazer, which by todays prices is about 40-45 million. We simply are not in the market for those kind of players these days, thanks to the debt.
Finally the re-sale policy is flawed since nobody can truly know whether a player will fulfill his potential. Setting a preset philosophy in the boardroom is different than actually operating on the shop floor.
Deal with facts, Silva and Villa have performed at the top level for club and country (unlike Berbatov). They would immediate upgrade the playing staff, pre-Glazer we would have a chance of buying both, now we would not.
LUHG!