Neither of us actually know Werner or Henry and how they react to pressure. If they demand time to make a decision then there's nowt Ayre can do about it. It's not just the technology.
I don't know them either, but it seems doubtful that they would have achieved any success in business unless they were able to make correct decisions quickly (most of the time).
Sorry saint I don't agree with you the best CEOs I've come across have all taken the Drake approach - "time to finish the game and still beat the Spanish". That is they refuse to be spooked when there are serious decisions to be made.
TBH dave the best CEO's could be lucky. See Fermi's comment on great generals. P.S. I apologise for any comment s tonight. I'm on Wood's old navy rum and more than slightly tipsy.
Love it, Dave. My favourite spirit is dark rum and Wood's is a fair price, tastes great and it's 57%. Got a 1L bottle for x-mas and I've just started it and had about >1/4 of it. Can't complain.
My favourite rums are Angostura 1824 for a golden rum and Mount Gay Extra Old for a dark rum. But Wood's is right up there.
Never had the angosturra 1824, but then I don't actively go for the golden rums. I've had Mount Gay loads of times (It is quality) but never had the dark variety (I've always had the golden). My motto is any rum is better than most other spirits, but Dark>Golden>Clear/White.
Dithering is not leadership. Having all of the facts before making a decision is, in most cases, virtually impossible. Read any ex CEO's biography (and I've read a few) and they'll talk about this in great length; about the ability to make a difficult decision without the relevant info; 'from the gut', so to speak. That said, I don't think FSG dither. It's more a case of risk aversion US corporates are commonly very risk averse, especially in troubled economic times. Not a bad thing for stability....not great for finishing in the top four or for a football club with aspirations either.
If you look again you'll find that I did not even infer that either Werner or Henry were guilty of dithering! There's a hell of a differences between that and "keeping your head when those around you are losing theirs!". Today the imperative is that decisions are made swiftly. It's a lie.
What's a lie? That today, decisions have to be made swiftly? Of course they have to be made reasonably swiftly. The competition doesn't stand still. Are we to just stand back and let them cherry pick what players they want and then make a move? Only to end up with our third or fourth choices! It's a basic case of supply and demand that we don't seem to have grasped. If we don't 'play the game' like the others, we'll get what we deserve. In modern times, if we drag our feet, an agent can have a players CV on the desk of every decision maker in every club in Europe in seconds......and the game changes. So, let's be clear, a degree of swiftness/quick decision making is critical in the modern world! The real question is 'did we drag our feet on Salah for another reason?', perhaps a better, more needed option? 3 days and we'll know.....a long 3 days that is!
Executive decision making is no more and no less time constrained today than it was yesterday or 20 years ago. Technology may have speeded up the implementation but a bad decision made in haste will be with you for a very long time! As I said earlier, I am not prepared to just accept an agents remark on face value. We lost the player (if we actually needed him) because Chelsea outbid us and they can offer higher wages and higher profile than we can (in this instance CL does not apply I think). If we don''t get anybody then we will manage with what we have. There's no guarantee that our results would have been enhanced. But it's more likely that in rushing we might jeopardise what we've got
I totally disagree. Executive decision making is much more time constrained than before. Being first to market is much more important, as is, for example, deciding on where to prioritise spend. In whatever industry you are in, the channel to market is infinitely bigger, riskier, more changeable and faster than it was 20 years ago. What has changed is that so much more information is available to an executive to make a faster, more informed decision. But faster it definitely has to be....or the 'opportunity' or 'risk' whatever that may be, is lost. So while the decision making process is similar, including appropriate due-diligence, it is and has to be faster...much faster than 2 decades ago!
Just to chip in here but is this possibly why so many monumental **** up's keep happening in the modern world?
More information + More technology + More competition = Complex decisions happening faster. Sometimes too fast for their complexity, pushed so by competitive pressures. If Committee hands FSG a half-baked report/recommendation, then I wouldn't blame FSG for sending it back full of sticky notes with question marks. I would blame FSG though, if they did not bash the committee leaders (Ayre/Fallows) in the head with the binder and didn't tell them "Don't do this again, as you're costing us precious time. Come down with a complete report and will make an offer to your player immediately at this pound range". FSG appears to be lenient with them, as the committee seems to be resting on their Sturridge/Coutinho laurels.
I totally agree that the present system is not working as seamlessly as it should. For me, not having Tom Werner in Liverpool for the majority of the time is a major flaw.
