What The Red Devils Can Learn From The Reds
As spring training rolled around, rumors surfaced that Tom Hicks was looking to sell his shares in the Texas Rangers. Now that they’re 3 – 0 to kick off the season, how does he feel?
What about his ownership in Liverpool … after the 3 – 1 shellacking they just received from Chelsea, is he still confident that he wants to stay vested in The Reds?
If he’s smart, the answers are who gives a shit and yes.
Who gives a shit because it’s baseball, the once awesome game which is dwindling down to power-hitting, one-skilled, no-team-play, roided-out a-rods, I mean a-holes, who barely go through the motions in the field for 152 games unless they’re in the pennant race in September. Remember when every pitch mattered?
And yes because Liverpool is still the bomb.
Let’s start with the shirt … Carlsberg. That’s right, the beer. From Denmark. The same country that gave us Helena Christensen.
Helena Christensen: If she doesn’t convince you, stop reading now.
The shirt may seem like an insignificant detail. It is not. Take Man U. Their shirt has the AIG logo plastered across the front.
A few weeks ago Man U was comfortably atop the Premiership, another league title apparently in hand. But since a 4 – 1 defeat to Liverpool a few weeks ago, their second loss to The Reds this season, they’ve been walking a slippery slope, clinging to a one-point lead.
Is their slide connected to AIG? Is wearing the logo of the crumbling insurance giant cursing their play? It would explain why the Red Devils are shopping a new shirt sponsor.
More on that in a minute.
Back to AIG. Putting their logo on the jersey cost around $100 million. As a US taxpayer who’s watching the US government shell out $152 billion to these a-holes (AIG, not Man U), I’m tempted to throw up in my mouth a little.
On the other hand, AIG recently doled out $165 million in executive bonuses, proving that the only good decision the inept butt-munch senior managers at AIG made was to spend a similar amount of money putting their logo on a world famous winner.
Just too bad for them they may not be able to keep it there. I’d like to say that’s because Man U is tired of brandishing such a looser company. Unfortunately that’s not true.
If it were true, they’d be seeking out companies like Apple or Volkswagen. Companies that make things people like and that have strong images. But no. Last I heard Man U was talking about shirt logos to Tata.
You never heard of Tata? They’re a car manufacturer from India. Pop quiz: can you name one Indian car you wanna drive?
Malcolm Glazer, what the F?! As the owner of the Red Devils you can do what you want, but you ARE American. If you’re gonna put a crap car company logo on your shirt, does it have to be Indian? Shit, pull an AIG – use the bailout money for Jeep and everyone wins.
In any case, Liverpool deserves props for more than just the shirt. Since Van Nistelrooy hit rehab, Liverpool’s Fernando Torres has been the most exciting striker in the game.
Memo to Luca Toni: Torres is proof you can score goals without diving like a pussy.
Plus, Zinedine Zidane recently said that Liverpool’s Steven Gerrard is the best midfielder in the game. You may not agree with the mad hatter, but understanding that midfielder Franc Ribery is a fellow Frenchie, that’s saying something.
Disagree with Zidane all you want … really, he’s a nice guy.
But in the end, the chance of Liverpool making it through to the next round is a bit bleak. Who do you support then? Chelsea/Samsung?Arsenal/Emirates?
I say Barca. Yes, they now sport a logo on their jersey too. But they aren’t paid for it. In fact, they donate $2 million a year to the company whose logo they bear: UNICEF.
Gotta problem with that?
For more Walter Gibson, check out http://www.dailyballbreakers.com/ (real guys holding sports accountable).
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?