http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/live...erpool-based-chief-executive-100252-31765028/ LIVERPOOL FC supporters union Spirit of Shankly have released a statement calling for American owners Fenway Sports Group to increase their presence on Merseyside and appoint a Liverpool-based chief executive. The club face playing half the season with only two senior strikers after failing to replace loaned-out Andy Carroll before the end of the transfer window and principal owner John Henry yesterday wrote an open letter to supporters explaining the club's transfer policy and admitting to 'mistakes' made in the owners' first 23 months in charge. The statement reads: Following yet another summer where off the pitch activities at Liverpool Football Club have dominated the headlines, we once again find the club ownership attempting to explain away business decisions that have overshadowed footballing matters. Spirit of Shankly reiterates its stance that the position of manager at Liverpool Football Club should be supported with all of the resources at the club’s disposal. However, events of last Friday and the subsequent “open letter” from the club’s Principal Owner, John W Henry, indicate that almost two years into FSG's ownership of the club this is not yet the case. As pointed out by the union in May, there remains no ownership presence on this side of the Atlantic. It is our opinion that this situation has led directly to the "mistakes" alluded to in Mr Henry's open letter. Should the club’s absentee owners not wish to establish a full-time base in Liverpool, it remains imperative that they appoint a Chief Executive of a calibre commensurate with the club’s global status, to act with the full authority of the owners in their absence. Without this Chief Executive, it is far from sufficient for a club of Liverpool’s stature to have a part-time Chairman, based on another continent, with various other interests, and from whom little or nothing of consequence is seen or heard. In case FSG need reminding, they are now employing their third manager, have already dispensed with the services of their Director of Football and now accusatory fingers are pointing in the direction of their Managing Director. The questions posed of FSG by Spirit of Shankly during the close season remain unanswered. If the board is based in Boston, why has no Liverpool-based Chief Executive been appointed to oversee the club’s affairs? It is almost two years since Liverpool Football Club was sold to FSG, with the stadium development being a condition of the sale, yet still no decisions have been made and still communication with fans and neighbouring residents alike remains patchy at best. Commendably FSG will not sanction the spending of money the club has not got, but why not increase the money available to the club through selling shares to supporters? There comes a point at any football club where the Chairman has to step forward on behalf of the board and be held accountable for decisions that they have made and strategies that they have implemented. With key questions continuing to go unanswered, Spirit of Shankly suggests it is time for Tom Werner to be held accountable as Chairman of Liverpool Football Club. After all, the buck stops with him, not with those acting with his authority and not with people no longer at the club
I suspect the real reason they want a Liverpool based CEO is because it is easier to threaten violence against someone local. There are definately benefits to executives being local to Liverpool, but if SOS are demanding that... I almost want them to pick a foreigner.
To be fair, it makes sense. No doubt the American owners will have constant communication from across the seas but nothing compares to living in the city where you can see and hear the fans, their reactions, the media response etc ....
Absolutely agree. A number of factors exist though. Being in touch locally with face to face contact with other club officials is a big thing too. Communication via phone or email is never as good as being there in person. Not the only factor but should be a very important consideration.
I may be slightly confused by the definition of the roles but isn't Ian Ayre supposed to be this type of figure? (As Managing Director)
It makes a lot of sense. It would improve the communication process. As much as I think that Ian Ayre was dithering in a way similar to what Rick Parry used to. He can only do so much when the owners are 6,000 miles away. Its either the owners give Ian Ayre free reign on financial decisions without restriction or they send over one of their own men to the UK permanently and give them free reign on decisions.
fsg own LFC..... they can do what they like. henry put warner in as chairman.. it aint going to change unless they sell up. Ayre is a commerical man. not a football club secretary or specialist in signing players. i think some fans want to get thier Fing head out of their hairy asses and stop abusing ayre who's a real red actually DOING SOMETHING for the club. the real facts here are that FSG talked big about CEO's stadiums, funds etc and two more years have past and NONE of those things have been done... hmmmmmm... yet SoS are just talking chairman.
MITO, the first 2 statements that you made are factually incorrect. FSG are an investment company, they have attracted money from outside on the basis of their ability to make profit for a number of shareholders, The money to buy Liverpool did not come from the pockets of John Henry and Tom Werner alone. They therefore cannot just do what they want. Neither you nor I know the terms that were offered to their investors and if those monies were specifically related to FSG's purchase and management of LFC or spread across their portfolio of companies. These investors are not shareholders per se in LFC so the number of them and the size of their investment does not have to be made public. However, singularly and in union they do have the power to influence FSG decisions regarding LFC. With the stroke of a pen Henry can change the chairmanship of LFC any time he wants. Werner's background is in media and it would therefore be both easy and palatable to announce that Werner was taking charge of NESN as of tomorrow. That would leave the chairmanship of LFC open for another of the FSG hierachy or an appointed 'outsider'. Having been involved in some large international acquisitions, it does not surprise me that this hiatus in the executive function has occurred at LFC. It has little to do with LFC as an entity or even the fact that it is a football club. It does have a lot to do with the amount of time and effort that needs to be expended by the executives of the new owners in truly getting to know the new acquisition and working continually to change it to fit the style and culture of the new owners. In my experience this cannot be done trans-atlantically. You can have all of the video conferencing facilities you want but you still need a senior executive of the parent on the ground. This executive needs to be immersed in the day to day activities of the operation (to a far greater degree than would be the case in a domestic acquisition) so that they can truly fight the acquisitions corner in the executive decision making processes of the parent. Hence I totally agree with the focus of Spirit of Shankly.
Most big business have a General Manager or CEO why should a Football Club be any different, especially as the owners are so far removed. Its agreed then we need someone 'in charge'
You are totally right. At the moment for LFC, Ian Ayre is that man. BUT Ian Ayre is not an FSG executive. He does not have the background understanding of how FSG works and has no power base there from which to influence their decisions. He only has Tom Werner and Werner is not on the ground so to speak. I don't know Ian Are and cannot comment upon his capabilities. He may be very good at putting proposals together but if he does not have the knowledge of how to influence FSG decisions and has no 'clout' with which to pursue them then he's on a hiding to nothing. SoS are right, we need somebody senior from FSG to be based in the club who has the ability to make executive decisions and assist the operational management.
Good post Dave. I think we do need a Liverpool based CEO, but I don't want anyone associated with SoS to do it either (not that they're really proposing it currently). They seem to let emotion run a lot of their PR work, which (while good for supporters) is not beneficial in the long term to a club's financial health. (Generally) It should be someone who is a) very knowledgable in football. b) experienced with working with footballers/football clubs and c) someone who is a leading figure. Werner doesn't exactly strike me as someone who can inspire the players on a losing run before a cold rainy night in Stoke. He's got to be someone who can be relatable to the players and the manager. He needs to be someone who says to BR: "Listen, the fans over on not606 are pointing out some tactical flaws in "____'s" game and the suits in America agree wholeheartedly with their impeccable logic. Do you think it's a concern and can you fix it?" Not just "Uhhh... how much $ do you need?". That type of CEO leads to miscommunication between the directors and the footballers. He's got to be someone who can identify scouts, physios, trainers, etc. BR (while I trust him) should be able to take the CEO's word in footballing terms as well. That's something you don't really see. Managers (BR too) often don't like being told by corporate how to play the game but if the CEO is a footballing genius then it would be easier to communicate the managers needs to the players, sponsors, and corporate (and vice versa). Personally, I recommend KPR.
I was shot down when I suggested we needed a DOF before Rodgers was appointed and even more so when I criticised the u-turn when he was given reign over his own aquisitions. Surely this is exactly the sort of bridge between the board and manager that has been sadly lacking? All the problems that SOS are talking about can be fixed with a DOF, somebody who knows football, can work to budgets, is aware of the psychological aspects of picking players, can negotiate with other clubs and between board and manager! Imagine for example a Cruyf was DOF and he knows how important Dempsey is to Rodgers plans. He could have spoke directly with Henry/Werner and communicated just how crucial adding a striker was to the squad and he could also have explained how ridiculous the policy of only buying young players is in REALITY. For someone like Cruyf(or Dein) to impart their knowledge and explain the reasons why experience needs to be added to compliment the youth could have made the difference of the 1-3mil that swayed the deal! As an addition for me the importance of the DOF is as much about sustainability between managers as anything else, well as much as you can have that. With our stricy budget and frugal playing investment for me the DOF is the ONLY way our policy makes ANY sense at all! What the DOF brings is a meta-analysis of the targets that a manager proposes; so for instance Rodgers may say look Johan I really need a striker and here is 3 that I am interested in, can you try to get me one of them. What Cruyf would then do is make a decision on what is best for the club long term within those choices, for instance he would with the meta-view take into account the style of football, his age, his adaptability, budget etc... but CRUCIALLY he would also perhaps take into account the longer term perspective of the players attributes ACROSS DIFFERENT MANAGERS!
danilo, Yeh, Lord preserve us from a member of SOS! - though I don't think that, even in their widest dreams they are even contemplating that!! I understand your profile and if we were dealing with owners who knew football and were even European then I would agree. However, it is vital that a senior FSG executive is placed inside LFC. He does not need football knowledge - there are enough people within the club who do. But he has to be both a champion for the club in FSG executive meetings and an enabler within the day to day activities, Somebody to whom Ayre, Rodgers and the others can turn for an interpretation of what is both said and written actually mean. For instance the striker fiasco. The budget limitations were probably the true sticking point. Nobody at LFC had the authority to say that necessity demanded that the rules be broken. Because of the time lags, nobody was able to pinpoint that a potential disaster was looming and pressurise people into fixing it - hence everybody did what they were tasked to do and no more! So eventually Ayre phones Fulham with only £4 million in his budget. We couldn't have KPR as Chairman - the whole budget would be spent on court fees fighting libel cases with United.
Sorry Shanks I disagree. To make this work it's not a DOF you need. it is somebody who has intimate knowledge of the FSG decision making process and is senior enough to influence it. That same person needs to be able to act as the oil between the varying elements of the management of LFC. This is truly a management problem and not a football one.
I respect your opinions Dave and actually just posted a new thread on it. I think it depends on who the DOF is though to be fair, its obvious the board are taking advice from consultants and perhaps that is part of the problem because they are not directly employed by the club. Whilst some of the poor decisions I would agree are management related, some I feel are not and could be solved with a DOF, perhaps there is a need for both!
That's so not fair Shanks my issue with a DoF is the potential for interference. I think it's one of those roles where if you get the perfect candidate and their is an excellent relationship with the manager then it way well solve a lot of the issues we all know exist. The problem comes when times are hard, the DoF has overruled the manager on a couple of his main targets and then the tension between manager and DoF can escalate at the expense of focusing solely on team matters. What with FSGs recent track record in employing the right people I'm not sure how confident I am that this position would be filled to the benefit of the team (see Damien Comolli). In a way I think the same could be said of a CEO role as well. It may well be as good if not better than a DoF...but I guess both are dependant on getting the right man in. I'd probably have more faith in FSG being capable of identifying a good businessman for the role but then I have little confidence they wouldn't always just be looking after the FSG interests rather than the clubs. Going off what we've seen so far I actually think KPR might well have done a better job at least he'd have fought our corner (like a pitbull) on Suarezgate.
