I think many here miss the key point - which is the impact of
debt leverage here. If Hicks and Gillette had paid in full from their own pockets for the club and not dumped massive amounts of addtional debt on their books those purchases would not have had the catastrophic finanical impact they have helped to have, but simply a catastrophic footballing impact because well, let's face it Benitez wasted a lot of money on shit players
If anything, and putting aside the issue of their actual motives in the operation of our club, one could say we are seeing a preview of Arsenal under a debt-leveraged ownership. At least a responsible debt-leveraged ownership. Liverpool has suffered like this because of irresposible debt-leveraged ownership. Debt-leveraged owndership never works out for the club but always for the owners, in the
best case scenario.
The point simply being while the spending by Benitez alone can be criticized because of how he spent it on shit players, I don't think it can be for the financial problems at Liverpool because they wouldn't exist relatively speaking without the additional budren of the leveraged debt.
Basically Hicks and Gillette said, "Money is NOT available to spend, but if the manager wants to we'll spend it anywey" something the Glazers did at Man U as well.
Typical.
