That wasn't my point. Did you read the quote? If you did, why this response? It makes no sense. It's like you want to answer a different point altogether
I read it, but I apologise for not being clear. I mean that I don't really see the exclusivity which it claims. The emotional meaning that a sports team provides is not an exclusively English thing in its depth.
My point is that for all the meaning and signficance of a football club to the everyday life of the fans, its legal status is completely different. Under the laws of the land, which is what these clubs are operating by, the relationship is simply one of paying for 2 hours of entertainment. Moral obligations have no weight, and are assigned no significance by the owners, in particular American ones used to the idea of getting public tax money to build stadiums, and moving clubs literally thousands of miles for more lucrative markets.
The relationship assumed to exist by the fans, and the legal basis on which ENIC owns THFC are not equivalent. I am not saying that is right, but I think it is a reality that should be acknowledged.
I think that if fans want to change that reality, invective-filled social media screams at the club aren't going to accomplish anything. Nor are banners, or protests or a Supporter's Trust which assumes it has the right to talk transfer policy with the club. If fans want ENIC to listen, they need to actually put some cash on the table and buy some influence by owning a chunk (or ideally all) of the club. All the rich prose on the cultural meaning of football have no bearing on the situation. Power, and how to acquire it does.
I am sorry if that was unclear initially, or that it doesn't make sense following on from what you said. I was replying on the basis of what I understood the conversation to be about, taking into account the conversation which you had quoted. Apologies for the confusion.