“What would Shankly do?”
He’s been dead for 41 years, but when Liverpool fans don’t know what to do, the opinion of their greatest manager is still sought.
Whether tricky or trivial, a hardcore still tries to imagine how the great sage would have handled things – even in jest.
Such was the impact he made on the red half of Merseyside.
So now that their beloved club has been put up for sale, they’re unsure of what to wish for, what kind of new owners they want.
Deep down, they know what socialist Shanks would have thought of the likely suitors – sovereign wealth funds, oligarchs and equity companies.
It was he who harnessed the power of the people and put Liverpool, then languishing in the second tier, on the path to greatness.
The template he laid enabled it to ultimately become one of the top three or four most valuable football institutions in the world.
Now expected to sell for US$5 billion, according to Forbes magazine, the big question is: does it mean the end of any remaining pretence to being a “people’s club”?
Would new owners silence the voice of its most influential fan group?
A group that calls itself the Spirit of Shankly, no less.
On the other hand, would selling to a wealth fund, an oligarch or an equity company mean that Jurgen Klopp could buy the players he wants?
And enable the Reds to compete at the same “no ceiling” stratosphere as state-owned Manchester City, Newcastle United and Paris Saint-Germain?
The present “make ends meet” situation is one he complained about last week.
Like Klopp, Shanks had no qualms about asking rich owners to fork out huge sums for players.
It may come as a surprise, but the Scot was one of the prime movers in the early escalation of transfer fees half a century ago.
Breaking the club record no less than seven times, he took it from low five figures to six, making Alun Evans the first £100,000 teenager.
Sadly, the boy was a rare failure.
Shankly’s simplistic view was that money should be shared around.
And he believed there was no better way of helping the working man than giving him a successful football team to brighten his week.
He spoke of a holy trinity between players, fans and manager. Directors? “They’re only here to sign the cheques,” he rasped.
Klopp has broken the world record for a goalkeeper and defender, and could smash the club record again if Darwin Nunez earns all the add-ons agreed with Benfica.
But this year, he could have used another chunk when there was a crying need to refresh the squad, especially midfield, in the window.
But Fenway Sports Group (FSG) wouldn’t spare the cash and Liverpool have paid the price with an inconsistent start.
The penny-wise pound-foolish approach could come back to haunt them: a place on board next season’s Champions League gravy train is in serious jeopardy.
Carelessly dropped points mean they face an almighty slog to qualify.
And this week’s draw pitting them against Real Madrid with the second leg in Spain has made winning it (and thereby qualifying) a little less likely.
The fans are understandably split over the news about FSG. Despite the criticisms of the Americans, they know they could have done a lot worse.
You only have to mention Hicks and Gillet to bring some perspective. John Henry & Co saved them from the cowboys’ clutches and possible oblivion.
They brought in Klopp, remained at Anfield, which they are impressively rebuilding, and have won everything, presiding over one of the greatest eras in the club’s history.
But they’ve also had their moments: the worst was the Super League; before that the Big Picture, both of which were unforgivable betrayals of the club’s ethos, the Liverpool Way.
Other faux pas were the £77 ticket price, the furlough scheme and the attempt to trademark the name of the city, all of which led to grovelling apologies and U-turns.
But compared to their predecessors, they’ve been angels.
The worry now is that compared to their successors, they might still appear to have heavenly wings.
After all, no owners listen to their fans more.
There are some hard-nosed operators out there who will never have heard of Shanks.
And would see Liverpool as a means to make money and/or sportswash. Nothing else.
Many fans wouldn’t want that even if it meant signing Kylian Mbappe.
FSG were motivated by profit but they had a certain decency and actual faces. Mike Gordon, who ran the club for Henry, and Klopp became good mates.
They got lucky with the German boss but, in the end, didn’t have enough cash to compete with countries.
But even in left-leaning, socially-minded Liverpool, there are those who wanted the club bought by a nation state.
Before Hicks and Gillet, when it was owned by David Moores, the owner himself almost sold to Dubai International Capital.
It was after Roman Abramovich had landed at Chelsea and Moores knew he couldn’t compete with the Russian.
Pretty soon Liverpool fans may not even have a choice: they will have to lump whoever FSG sell to.
There will be the usual promises about heritage etc. Some zillionaire may even claim he supported the club as a boy.
But the Liverpool Way? Forget it. It’s hard to be a people’s club and a mega-rich brand or sportswashing state at the same time.
The next owners will do more than sign the cheques.
But Shanks would have made sure they signed some pretty big ones.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.