It's just football, for sure, but...
...still, in principle, I'd have to say that local ownership of a football team is a fairly important issue -- especially if it's a British "footie" team owned not only by Americans, but _ugly_ Americans, apparently.
For over thirty years, we in Washington, DC went without a baseball team -- that's right, no team playing the American Pastime in the capital of the USA -- but when we finally got one a few years ago, it was as part of an agreement that sealed a sweetheart deal on taxes for developers and the bulldozing of most of an entire neighborhood in order to build a new stadium -- because, apparently, the 40-year-old, entirely-serviceable and with no obstructed sight lines RFK Memorial Stadium just wasn't good enough -- so that the Montreal Expos, who were sucking at the time, could move to Washington DC, become the Nationals, and continue to play shitty ball in a spiffy new stadium, at a cost of nearly a billion dollars to city taxpayers. Needless to say, I'm not entirely happy about my city having a baseball team again.
But, aaaa-aaanyway... on general princple I'd have to come down in favor of the fans owning the team -- especially Liverpool, as I've heard so many stories about their fans. I mean, do they still carry knives to the game? For god's sake, let 'em own the team, already.
Pint of beer icon, because you can't watch football without one.