The charges against the current American owners of Liverpool are many and several.

"We will build a new stadium" – They lied.
"We will not place debt on the club" – They lied.
"We will invest in the team" – They lied.
"We will act as suitable custodians for the club" – They lied.

It is possible that things might have been different had the world’s economy, and America’s in particular, not decided to wobble and fall over, but it seems that for all their early words and promises when Gillett and Hicks saw a possibility to buy the club all they saw were flashing dollar signs and a juicy profit.

‘It would be easy to view [DIC] as knights in shining armour, rushing to rescue the team that they have apparently supported all their lives’


It would have seemed an opportunity that they simply couldn't miss – one of the world’s leading 'brands', currently hugely under-performing compared to their rivals (in financial terms), with two clear routes to increasing the value of the investment. One was to simply increase the marketing activities undertaken by the club, and the second was a capital investment in a new stadium.

The returns from both were clear for anyone to see. One glance at the way Manchester United have performed commercially over the last 20 years shows the possibilities open to Liverpool, and both clubs are similar in terms of worldwide support. And, if any proof were needed of the benefits a new stadium would bring, you just have to look at the increase in Arsenal's turnover since they left Highbury.

The plan seems simple and one that has been used many times by many people across different industries before. Identify an under-performing company, buy the company and then use the company’s assets to secure both the cost of the purchase and the investment needed in order to minimise the risk to the investor. Then use the profits the company generates to service the debt it now 'owns'. As the company performs better and pays off the debt its value increases, enabling the investor to sell for a handsome return. It's easy money and a low-risk option, making it an attractive route for both the investor and the banks providing the finance.

In most industries this passes off without much comment. When Tom Hicks did a similar thing with Weetabix no one eating it would have stopped to think about what was going on in the boardroom. Football is somewhat different, though, and clubs have supporters that have very different ideas to Weetabix eaters!

Thanks largely to the credit crisis, it appears that Hicks and Gillett are unable to bring their plans to fruition and are now arguing publicly about the best exit strategy open to them. It appears that Gillett wants to sell and cash in on the profit open to him. Hicks wants to hang on, still believing he can extract a much bigger profit down the road.

In the meantime, waiting in the wings are DIC, and at a time when finance is hard to raise they seem to be the only buyers in town with the ability to purchase the club.

It would be easy to view them as knights in shining armour, rushing to rescue the team that they have apparently supported all their lives, and they are desperately trying to paint themselves as such through the media.

They are certainly quick learners in that regard, because failing to present themselves in such a light played a large part in them failing to buy the club just over a year ago. Then, their harder-edged business attitude left David Moores cold, especially compared to the warm rhetoric being spouted by the American suitors. It's important to remember that Moores is not and never has been a businessman, but an enthusiastic fan with inherited wealth, and it was his emotive response to learning about DIC's exit strategy that created the delay which allowed the Americans to move in.

It seems inevitable that DIC will ultimately be successful in buying Liverpool this time, though. The most likely scenario is that time will run out for Hicks stopping Gillett selling his 50 per cent to them, and once they own that they will be able to block any attempt to have the club borrow more money. This would leave Hicks with no room to manoeuvre, other than to accept DIC’s own money to fund the new stadium and possibly player investment. Ultimately, this would lead to his share of the club being watered down, leaving DIC in sole control.

The question is: Are DIC’s motives much different from Hicks’ and Gillett’s? Are they really interested in achieving sporting excellence or are they just seeing the potential profit they can make? And is their use of the media to sell themselves as suitable owners any better than the way Gillett and Hicks have used it for their own ends?

It would seem they can't be any worse than the American duo, but it is far too early to be holding them up as saviours of any kind, as they might not be too different from them either.

Hicks once asked to be judged on his actions, and the verdict is well and truly in. Any new owners deserve time and respect, but they should be subject to the same assessment before they are warmly welcomed through the Shankly Gates.