FSG - Time to give them some credit?

[Coro]

She just got sick of having to iron it every morning before he went out.

Now he has to hang it up properly in the airing cupboard every night.

 

The hilarity.

 

Knocking elbows with some of the grimmest whoppers on here these days, aye PaddyB.

[Tom R]

No amount of medium level signings and spending will ever allow me to forgive them for the way they hung Kenny and Luis out to fucking dry. Cunts

 

They can go fuck themselves. Forever. I don't care if we go on to win back to back league and Champion's League doubles, I will forever hate those cunts til the day I day.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

<snip> Usual misplaced nonsense </snip>

 

You, Trucker Paddy and a few others had the villagers running for their torches and pitchforks a while back, so I found the need to refute your ipse dixit dipsy bullshit, but the corner has been turned and you look like paranoid, obsessed mentalists. I no longer feel the need to debate it with you, nor be drawn in by your out-of-context 'reminders' any more than I need to remind people about the time you said the owners are more responsible for on the pitch matters than the manager.

 

Until people start to be persuaded by your nonsense, I don't feel the need to debate the only subject you post about. You're welcome to your little obsession.

[Coro]

You, Trucker Paddy and a few others had the villagers running for their torches and pitchforks a while back, so I found the need to refute your ipse dixit dipsy bullshit, but the corner has been turned and you look like paranoid, obsessed mentalists. I no longer feel the need to debate it with you, nor be drawn in by your out-of-context 'reminders' any more than I need to remind people about the time you said the owners are more responsible for on the pitch matters than the manager.

 

Until people start to be persuaded by your nonsense, I don't feel the need to debate the only subject you post about. You're welcome to your little obsession.

 

Another semi flounce. There have been so many from you. Here's some facts - you continually quote me or refer to me at times to debate or, when details get in the way, you revert to these weak arsed attempts of marginalising. You've a lot in common with FSG, you're both really out of your depth when it comes to footballing matters.

 

The only subject I post about? I feel as if I'm being stalked. Am I 2nd on the list behind Code?

 

Where's the paranoia, James? Let's be specific here.

 

Once again, for your consideration -

 

 

Two years of FSG - the report card (*)

 

« on: September 17, 2012, 10:39:49 AM »

 

 

 

No better place to start than with a quote from Ray Osbourne (Shanklyboy.) It was 16th October 2010, the day after our club was finally wrestled from the rigor mortis-like grip of Hicks and Gillett, the horror flick extras who wanted to take us with them to the grave. “Think back to our delight at getting a SaveLFC banner shown for a millisecond at the World Cup,” Ray wrote in a pm, “Now think about us sitting drinking coffee with the new owner of Liverpool six months later.”

 

It all started so well. Here was an owner prepared to meet with the supporters as a priority and demonstrably listen. After their breakfast meeting, the pms from the three representatives of the RAWK-based protest movement SaveLFC who had met John Henry were overwhelmingly favourable. The impression conveyed was of an engaging man who asked relevant questions. He seemed surprised and gratified when the lads talked enthusiastically about the academy set-up, remarking it was the only good news he’d received about the club. SaveLFC was placed in abeyance. Prepare to talk about the football, chaps.

 

Martin Broughton had made clear the criteria governing the sale at the start of the process: "What's best for the club is somebody build the new stadium, make sure that the club is properly financed and that there is enough money available to take the club forward.” On the issue of a new stadium, he added, “There is an overwhelming financial logic to any buyer to proceed. They wouldn't get to be the winning bid without that commitment."

 

The deal valued the club at £300m and removed the outgoing owners’ leveraged buy-out debt. “They had thought about using some debt to purchase the club [presumably for tax reasons],” SaveLFC’s SmithdownAndy reported after meeting John Henry. “This had been decided against by FSG.” This was sensible. FSG needed to differentiate themselves from Hicks and Gillett quickly and decisively. A club free of ‘a mortgage’ is the minimum we should expect from them. As MD Christian Purslow wearily pointed out, that financial model simply did not work. “I cannot stress enough: the burden of running a football business with acquisition debt on it is extraordinarily difficult.” So they deserve no excessive gratitude for not being Hicks and Gillett. But by the same token, FSG deserve no special ire for happening to be American capitalists.

 

FSG’s first official statement was full of jargon-rich waffle but little detail. The mantra Henry and Werner repeated was “to under-promise and over-deliver.” But there was a promise made, even if it was largely lost in the avalanche of carefully-phrased rhetoric, and it is one against which to measure them. Werner stated unequivocally: “In five years we want to be able to show you a consistent, successful, winning club.’ And John Henry told the official TV channel, “We will provide [LFC] with the resources and the commitment to win in the near future.”

 

One of the key strategies was clear. “It is a global football club and with the financial fair play rules it is going to be revenue that drives how good your club can be in the future.” The window for buying success through over-spending was closing year by year. Henry and his co-directors bought Liverpool because they thought they had the perfect skill set to exploit the opportunities afforded by change. They thought they were smarter than the average football club owner.

 

Their history with the Red Sox, of course, displayed the expertise they were confident of employing. John Henry told the Boston Globe that same history won FSG preferred status in the bid process. “There were other higher dollar figures. But...they felt we were the best buyer because of our track record.’’

 

“We don’t rest,” John Henry explained in another interview. “We’ll look at stats no-one else will look at, employ scouting in a way that has a compelling organisational context, question everything and everyone and ensure we have the best player development curriculum and protocols. Everyone is fixated on [us relying on] sabermetrics but football is too dynamic to focus on that. Ultimately you have to rely on your scouting.”

 

Henry talked about “care” and “focus.” Werner promised FSG would “find the very best people in football.” Henry gave us the vision he’d sold Martin Broughton, how he’d gone toe to toe with the big spenders when outwitting the New York Yankees in the MBL, how they’d identified “the right manager, the right general manager, the right CEO.” It sounded good.

 

Two and a half weeks later, they inflicted Damien Comolli upon us. The Frenchman was appointed Director of Football Strategy on the recommendation of FSG’s baseball-mate Billy Beane and promoted to Director of Football in March 2011. Comolli certainly began an ongoing process to extract better value from the wage bill and it is one positive of his tenure. But was this really the man to mastermind the Anfield revolution? The first problem was the manager in situ: that Werther-chewing advocate of the 4-4-2, while the Academy and Reserves were learning 4-2-3-1. In Hodgson we had a disciple of caution even as FSG spoke fervently of the relentless attack of the Liverpool teams of the 80s. What was required was the necessary impetus to remove the man who so clearly deviated from the vision. Neither FSG nor Comolli provided it. Indeed, Comolli became so friendly with Hodgson that he argued for patience. Two and half months were lost to Roy’s sideline face-rubs.

 

Comolli’s fatal and incomprehensible misunderstanding of his role was on display from the first interview, when he talked about the fundamentals of his job. “What does the manager want? What sort of player does he like? What type of organisation has he got on the pitch? Does he play 4-3-3, does he play 4-4-2?...Obviously the manager's opinion, coaching philosophy and playing philosophy is what we need to look at and it's up to me to say 'Roy, the way you like to play is that way, your philosophy is this one, we think this player fits perfectly into your philosophy.’” Had a tail ever wagged a dog so vigorously?

 

FSG’s “clarity of thought has been obscured by poor choices in employing the men to implement it,” The Times’s Football Editor, Tony Evans, wrote recently. “But FSG believes it was the person [Comolli] rather than the policy that was flawed.” True. But questions remain: why did it take them so long to realise? Last summer, why did no one in either Boston or Liverpool challenge our DoF”s bountiful philanthropy towards the rest of the Premier League?

 

Blithely ignoring his function to impose an identity on Liverpool, before his April 2012 dismissal Comolli bought a squad crafted to implement the style of a manager FSG had never wanted to appoint in the first place. Inevitably, when FSG sacked Dalglish and finally imposed an on-pitch vision from the boardroom, the squad was not fit for a new man’s purpose. As Brendan Rodgers pointedly observed, “There’s no point paying millions if they can’t play football.”

 

“I wasn’t convinced when we arrived that Kenny should be back managing,” Henry said a year ago. “I wanted things to work with the manager we inherited.” It’s hard to believe Henry saw Roy Hodgson as a long-term solution. FSG simply wanted Roy to soldier towards mid-table and the summer of 2011 when they would replace him with the young dynamic manager of their dreams. Dalglish’s relative success in the Spring of 2011 and his hold on the supporters’ affections caused a deviation from the script. Again, it was a display of weakness – though understandable - when ruthless strength was required.

 

Henry, soon after the takeover, had given us a vow, an identity statement: “We would like to say to our fans that we are honest.” Yet how did that accord with their actions in sacking Dalglish? After Comolli’s April departure, Werner immediately declared: “We've got great confidence in Kenny...he enjoys our full support.” A month later he was gone. The “very poor second half” to the PL season lost Dalglish his job, his dream. At roughly the time Werner was formulating his statement, Liverpool had gained only eight points from 12 games. Are we to believe they were not discussing this form and its implications at that stage? And as we later learned, an FA Cup Final win would have changed nothing, except that the principal owner might not have snubbed his manager’s hand so publicly during the presentations. This was not John Henry’s finest hour. Did Werner have an alternative to the dreaded vote of confidence? Arguable. But it damaged trust nevertheless. Werner is the main culprit in deviating from the “under-promise” axiom, especially in his hyperbolic, “We certainly have the resources to compete with anybody in football.” As a result, even before the shambles of August 31 this year, the warm trust established initially was chipped and peeling.

 

19 months after the takeover, they hired Brendan Rodgers, another risky appointment but an imaginative and coherent one. Before that, they appointed a global executive search firm to find us a new CEO but ended up promoting the under-educated Ian Ayre to Managing Director. The DoF model was bigged up last Spring and binned a few months later at the request not just of Rodgers but other managerial candidates. Rodgers also refused to work with a technical director, leading to the club losing Pep Segura.

 

In place, though, we will have a promising new technical committee which is expected to finally deliver the FSG vision. Rodgers will chair the group, which consists of Michael Edwards, Head of Analytics (a man who had a key role in Spurs’ successful transfer policy and is highly valued by FSG); the Head of Development (academy); the Head of the Medical Department; a negotiator of transfers/contracts (still to be appointed); and Dave Fallows as Head of Scouting and Recruitment. Fallows joins in October from Manchester City - via his garden - bringing with him Barry Hunter, who covered Italy and Russia for the blues. Another of the new recruits specialises in Portuguese and South American football. All the recruits are well-versed in the use of statistics, analytics and technology. The challenge set them by FSG - that excites them - is to get Liverpool to the pinnacle of English and European football by outsmarting the opposition rather than outspending them. The idea is the expected one: to find youthful value in the market, to buy Suarez at the age of 20 from Groningen rather than four years later from Ajax. Rodger’s “death by football” is the blueprint for the whole club (and dovetails pretty neatly with the born-in-Spain philosophy in our nurseries.) Going forward, Rodgers is expected to pick his preferences from a list provided to him by the four new scouts. FSG have also told the new scouting team they will top up the squad with occasional ‘marquee’ signings (providing they still provide value to the club) as a fillip to the brand, fans and team.

 

Rodgers agreed to all this before joining. FSG believed their man would be at ease working via consensus although there were suggestions in early August that Rodgers was resistant to the scouts’ suggestions. Then, on August 31, our hierarchy provided a masterclass in ruining an otherwise excellent transfer window. Rodgers (I am told) surprised everyone by dismissing all candidates suggested to him for our vacant front line. FSG surprised him by stubbornly refusing to wreck their blueprint for the 29-year-old Dempsey. Miscommunication or power play? With Rodgers’ comments about the ‘honesty’ of the owners at his recent press conference, we hear the slurp of a hearty kiss and make-up. But has the structural fault line been repaired?

 

‘We will be visible at Anfield,’ Werner proclaimed on October 15 2010. Certainly, there has been dialogue. FSG gave us the supporters’ committee and their appointee Jen Chang introduced ground-breaking access for fan sites such as ours to the manager. Ginsberg, the money man of the set-up, has been over here frequently. Yet our Chairman has been so noticeably absent Spirit of Shankly publicly called for a Chief Executive in situ. Tony Evans points his finger at a plaid-shirted culprit: ‘Ian Ayre is a pygmy even in an area that has few giants.’ This is before we even touch on the giant botch job known as the Suarez affair. (We all know the depressing catalogue of errors.)

 

So – by Broughton’s sale criteria: how have FSG measured up? They have “properly financed” the club in the sense of removing extraneous debt. They have provided funds to move the club forward only in the form of a £30m interest-free loan last summer. On this, Henry has always been consistent, his buzz words here being “Arsenal model,” and “sustainable.” In a nutshell: “We intend to strengthen this club annually but that doesn’t mean we will deficit spend. It’s up to us to strengthen revenues.” But at the commercial department we have seen a familiar FSG pattern: a fan-fared appointment (Graham Bartlett) who has fallen by the wayside. The replacement Commercial Director (Billy Hogan) is another internal promotion and yet another based in Boston. And how can our own department compete with Manchester United’s 70-strong force, split between London and Manchester? The delay on a stadium decision rankles with many supporters yet FSG were upfront on the timescales required. In November 2010 they briefed the Echo that they might take two years to weigh the options. The informed opinion is that Broughton was wrong about the watertight case for a new stadium and that an expansion of Anfield makes better financial sense. (The stadium board on RAWK provides a meaty analysis of the hows and whys, thanks to the contributions of Peter McGurk and AlanX.) On the other hand, we believe the enviable agreement that trades a part-sale of Inter Milan with a new stadium construction was sitting invitingly on a table in L4 earlier this year.

 

Two years ago, Henry and Werner presented themselves to Broughton and to us, the supporters, as savvy sports operators. They pointed to their record - since gone moobs up - with the Red Sox. In the last week, stories in America (denied by Henry) suggest FSG are mulling the sale of the Red Sox ten years ahead of their 20-year plan (‘we do everything long-term’) to concentrate on LFC. Back in 2010, we were too relieved to be rid of Hicks and Gillett to pay attention to the small print: something about past performance not being an indication of future results. We always knew we would need patience to recover from a convergence of oafish double-acts: Parry and Moores, Hicks and Gillett. But FSG need to learn lessons more swiftly and acknowledge they are over-stretched, especially if they do not bale out of Boston. Next April will mark the halfway point in FSG’s self-declared five-year plan for consistent success at LFC. We cannot afford more mistakes. We cannot afford a return to internal politics. They told us Dalglish went because they wanted to see annual progress. We yearn for it, John and Tom - we yearn.

 

 

*I would like to thank to Royhendo for ‘doing n’owt’ and Zeb for advice in compiling this and a number of RAWK sources who wish to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.

 

*This article refers to FSG throughout for clarity, although they were known as NESV until March 2011.

 

*The £30m loan mentioned in the copy relies on the last accounts. Since filing it may have been converted into equity or even been paid back. The next accounts will reveal this.

 

*For more detail on the value in the wage bill as at last March, have a look at: http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2012/0...r-own-billing/

 

For more info on the Red Sox mooted sale see:Boston.com

 

*This article has largely avoided analysis of the financial aspect because a further article will attempt to explain these in a simple and accessible fashion. - Or so I hope.

[Coro]

Plus, I'd say when the owners hire a DoF, replace a manager with someone on temporary basis and introduce moneyball/soccernomics, then yes, they do have a greater influence.

 

The corner has been turned? I'd ask you, James, to be more specific but then you can't.

 

Just more bluster from you.

 

Go on, restrain yourself.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Yes, it's somebody's one-sided opinion. Great. As I said, confirmatory bias. You seem to be presenting it as a scientific document.

[Coro]

Wow, dismissed in a sentence.

 

Objectivity. Keep up those appearances, the cavalry might be along soon.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You and your copy and pasted substance is too much for me. I never offer a real opinion, like in a 4000 word posts on here. Oh, wait...

[Coro]

You seem to be presenting it as a scientific document.

 

Assume all you like. Don't let it get in the way of what I'm sure will be a considered and detailed rebuttal. Seeing as though it is so one sided you'll have no problems.

 

L to the O to the L

[Coro]

You and your copy and pasted substance is too much for me. I never offer a real opinion, like in a 4000 word posts on here.

 

Oh, wait...

 

Yes, keep up those appearances. Let's really believe you've offered anything beyond the subjective, hocus pocus, cross your fingers oh wait you've another gut feeling.

 

Yes, you're long winded.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

That is not a report. That is someone from RAWK who considers themselves to have some sort of high level importance.

 

I agree with Tom's post as well, the Suarez affair and the way they handled Dalglish was nothing short of abysmal.

[Coro]

That is not a report. That is someone from RAWK who considers themselves to have some sort of high level importance.

 

No flies on you, aye Flash.

 

ffs

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Don't let it get in the way of what I'm sure will be a considered and detailed rebuttal.

 

Why on Earth would I offer you a rebuttal? It's some other poster's opinion from a different forum; if I want to discuss their post, I'll get in contact with them.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

No flies on you, aye Flash.

 

ffs

 

This is you when nobody agrees with you.

 

[Yozzer]

Anyone want to sum this up for me? (And Mark if he should descend on this thread)

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Anyone want to sum this up for me? (And Mark if he should descend on this thread)

 

Nobody's perfect.

 

Coro sees himself as some caped crusader of the greater good. But keeps getting his cape stuck in the door when it closes behind him.

[Coro]

Why on Earth would I offer you a rebuttal? It's some other poster's opinion from a different forum; if I want to discuss their post, I'll get in contact with them.

 

You said you didn't want to debate with me so I'm offering you an alternative which articulates far better than I could the concerns of many.

 

In reality, you can't but you gotta keep up those appearances, anyhow.

 

Means so much to you this forum, goddammit.

[njackets]

I don't think either FSG or Rodgers are the right people for the jobs they are in. They will both keep us at the level we are at now, upper mid table, however I worry even that won't last forever once Gerrard retires, and Suarez inevitably moves on.

 

It's ok saying we're building for the future, but what about the present?

The way we are going we will end up just becoming a selling club, some would argue we already are.

 

We need a big investment in players that can come in straight away and improve our team. Not players that can't get in Chelsea's team or Inter Milans team, but players clubs

don't want to sell.

 

Unfortunately this takes the sort of money we don't have, which means we will languish where we are for the foreseeable future, especially because we have a manager who seems to have no knowledge of European leagues. Even Newcastle and Swansea are making better recruitments than us, with smaller budgets!!

 

In my opinion we are just making the same mistakes all over again albeit on a smaller scale, and without risk of the club going under.

 

Saves me thinking of anything to type, completely agree.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

I don't trust them one bit. They have zero ambition and nothing will prove to me that they do until they start work on the stadium. The delay isn't entirely down to them, but I stick by what I've been saying for months - they didn't have the first clue how expensive football was when they took over and wouldn't have got involved if they'd known.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You said you didn't want to debate with me so I'm offering you an alternative which articulates far better than I could the concerns of many.

 

In reality, you can't but you gotta keep up those appearances, anyhow.

 

Means so much to you this forum, goddammit.

 

That's some interesting logic. I care so much about my appearance on the forum, yet I evade the opportunity to appear... whatever. Ah, yes, it's because I 'can't do it'. Turns out the 'I bet you can't give me your lunch money' approach doesn't work with me.

 

Saves me thinking of anything to type

 

Yes, he already didn't bother thinking for the both of you.

[Guest San Don]

Yes, it's somebody's one-sided opinion. Great. As I said, confirmatory bias. You seem to be presenting it as a scientific document.

 

LOL! One sided opinion? Hmmm. I think there are other sources in the article. And its foolish to dismiss a person's thoughts and comments as one sided. That would apply to everyone else except yourself, would it?

 

Having read the whole piece (did you?), I wouldnt say there was anything outlandish or blind sided syndrome. Its a very lucid article set out in a matter of fact way. Sure the author's opinion may have come through but you're off your trolley if you think any meaningful article can be written totally without it.

 

As the article says, we are halfway through this 5 year plan (which Houllier got ridiculed for despite it being coco's brainchild) and frankly, I havent seen any headway made this season. Last season we at least got to two finals.

 

Oh well, only another 2.5 years to wait to see if there is any upturn at all.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Yes, it's a one-sided. Yes, it's an opinion. I agree with some of it. Quite what your second paragraph is all about has nothing to do with me. I've not slagged off, nor commented on that particular forum post at all.

[VladimirIlyich]

Another semi flounce. There have been so many from you. Here's some facts - you continually quote me or refer to me at times to debate or, when details get in the way, you revert to these weak arsed attempts of marginalising. You've a lot in common with FSG, you're both really out of your depth when it comes to footballing matters.

 

The only subject I post about? I feel as if I'm being stalked. Am I 2nd on the list behind Code?

 

Where's the paranoia, James? Let's be specific here.

 

Once again, for your consideration -

 

 

Two years of FSG - the report card (*)

 

« on: September 17, 2012, 10:39:49 AM »

 

 

 

No better place to start than with a quote from Ray Osbourne (Shanklyboy.) It was 16th October 2010, the day after our club was finally wrestled from the rigor mortis-like grip of Hicks and Gillett, the horror flick extras who wanted to take us with them to the grave. “Think back to our delight at getting a SaveLFC banner shown for a millisecond at the World Cup,” Ray wrote in a pm, “Now think about us sitting drinking coffee with the new owner of Liverpool six months later.”

 

It all started so well. Here was an owner prepared to meet with the supporters as a priority and demonstrably listen. After their breakfast meeting, the pms from the three representatives of the RAWK-based protest movement SaveLFC who had met John Henry were overwhelmingly favourable. The impression conveyed was of an engaging man who asked relevant questions. He seemed surprised and gratified when the lads talked enthusiastically about the academy set-up, remarking it was the only good news he’d received about the club. SaveLFC was placed in abeyance. Prepare to talk about the football, chaps.

 

Martin Broughton had made clear the criteria governing the sale at the start of the process: "What's best for the club is somebody build the new stadium, make sure that the club is properly financed and that there is enough money available to take the club forward.” On the issue of a new stadium, he added, “There is an overwhelming financial logic to any buyer to proceed. They wouldn't get to be the winning bid without that commitment."

 

The deal valued the club at £300m and removed the outgoing owners’ leveraged buy-out debt. “They had thought about using some debt to purchase the club [presumably for tax reasons],” SaveLFC’s SmithdownAndy reported after meeting John Henry. “This had been decided against by FSG.” This was sensible. FSG needed to differentiate themselves from Hicks and Gillett quickly and decisively. A club free of ‘a mortgage’ is the minimum we should expect from them. As MD Christian Purslow wearily pointed out, that financial model simply did not work. “I cannot stress enough: the burden of running a football business with acquisition debt on it is extraordinarily difficult.” So they deserve no excessive gratitude for not being Hicks and Gillett. But by the same token, FSG deserve no special ire for happening to be American capitalists.

 

FSG’s first official statement was full of jargon-rich waffle but little detail. The mantra Henry and Werner repeated was “to under-promise and over-deliver.” But there was a promise made, even if it was largely lost in the avalanche of carefully-phrased rhetoric, and it is one against which to measure them. Werner stated unequivocally: “In five years we want to be able to show you a consistent, successful, winning club.’ And John Henry told the official TV channel, “We will provide [LFC] with the resources and the commitment to win in the near future.”

 

One of the key strategies was clear. “It is a global football club and with the financial fair play rules it is going to be revenue that drives how good your club can be in the future.” The window for buying success through over-spending was closing year by year. Henry and his co-directors bought Liverpool because they thought they had the perfect skill set to exploit the opportunities afforded by change. They thought they were smarter than the average football club owner.

 

Their history with the Red Sox, of course, displayed the expertise they were confident of employing. John Henry told the Boston Globe that same history won FSG preferred status in the bid process. “There were other higher dollar figures. But...they felt we were the best buyer because of our track record.’’

 

“We don’t rest,” John Henry explained in another interview. “We’ll look at stats no-one else will look at, employ scouting in a way that has a compelling organisational context, question everything and everyone and ensure we have the best player development curriculum and protocols. Everyone is fixated on [us relying on] sabermetrics but football is too dynamic to focus on that. Ultimately you have to rely on your scouting.”

 

Henry talked about “care” and “focus.” Werner promised FSG would “find the very best people in football.” Henry gave us the vision he’d sold Martin Broughton, how he’d gone toe to toe with the big spenders when outwitting the New York Yankees in the MBL, how they’d identified “the right manager, the right general manager, the right CEO.” It sounded good.

 

Two and a half weeks later, they inflicted Damien Comolli upon us. The Frenchman was appointed Director of Football Strategy on the recommendation of FSG’s baseball-mate Billy Beane and promoted to Director of Football in March 2011. Comolli certainly began an ongoing process to extract better value from the wage bill and it is one positive of his tenure. But was this really the man to mastermind the Anfield revolution? The first problem was the manager in situ: that Werther-chewing advocate of the 4-4-2, while the Academy and Reserves were learning 4-2-3-1. In Hodgson we had a disciple of caution even as FSG spoke fervently of the relentless attack of the Liverpool teams of the 80s. What was required was the necessary impetus to remove the man who so clearly deviated from the vision. Neither FSG nor Comolli provided it. Indeed, Comolli became so friendly with Hodgson that he argued for patience. Two and half months were lost to Roy’s sideline face-rubs.

 

Comolli’s fatal and incomprehensible misunderstanding of his role was on display from the first interview, when he talked about the fundamentals of his job. “What does the manager want? What sort of player does he like? What type of organisation has he got on the pitch? Does he play 4-3-3, does he play 4-4-2?...Obviously the manager's opinion, coaching philosophy and playing philosophy is what we need to look at and it's up to me to say 'Roy, the way you like to play is that way, your philosophy is this one, we think this player fits perfectly into your philosophy.’” Had a tail ever wagged a dog so vigorously?

 

FSG’s “clarity of thought has been obscured by poor choices in employing the men to implement it,” The Times’s Football Editor, Tony Evans, wrote recently. “But FSG believes it was the person [Comolli] rather than the policy that was flawed.” True. But questions remain: why did it take them so long to realise? Last summer, why did no one in either Boston or Liverpool challenge our DoF”s bountiful philanthropy towards the rest of the Premier League?

 

Blithely ignoring his function to impose an identity on Liverpool, before his April 2012 dismissal Comolli bought a squad crafted to implement the style of a manager FSG had never wanted to appoint in the first place. Inevitably, when FSG sacked Dalglish and finally imposed an on-pitch vision from the boardroom, the squad was not fit for a new man’s purpose. As Brendan Rodgers pointedly observed, “There’s no point paying millions if they can’t play football.”

 

“I wasn’t convinced when we arrived that Kenny should be back managing,” Henry said a year ago. “I wanted things to work with the manager we inherited.” It’s hard to believe Henry saw Roy Hodgson as a long-term solution. FSG simply wanted Roy to soldier towards mid-table and the summer of 2011 when they would replace him with the young dynamic manager of their dreams. Dalglish’s relative success in the Spring of 2011 and his hold on the supporters’ affections caused a deviation from the script. Again, it was a display of weakness – though understandable - when ruthless strength was required.

 

Henry, soon after the takeover, had given us a vow, an identity statement: “We would like to say to our fans that we are honest.” Yet how did that accord with their actions in sacking Dalglish? After Comolli’s April departure, Werner immediately declared: “We've got great confidence in Kenny...he enjoys our full support.” A month later he was gone. The “very poor second half” to the PL season lost Dalglish his job, his dream. At roughly the time Werner was formulating his statement, Liverpool had gained only eight points from 12 games. Are we to believe they were not discussing this form and its implications at that stage? And as we later learned, an FA Cup Final win would have changed nothing, except that the principal owner might not have snubbed his manager’s hand so publicly during the presentations. This was not John Henry’s finest hour. Did Werner have an alternative to the dreaded vote of confidence? Arguable. But it damaged trust nevertheless. Werner is the main culprit in deviating from the “under-promise” axiom, especially in his hyperbolic, “We certainly have the resources to compete with anybody in football.” As a result, even before the shambles of August 31 this year, the warm trust established initially was chipped and peeling.

 

19 months after the takeover, they hired Brendan Rodgers, another risky appointment but an imaginative and coherent one. Before that, they appointed a global executive search firm to find us a new CEO but ended up promoting the under-educated Ian Ayre to Managing Director. The DoF model was bigged up last Spring and binned a few months later at the request not just of Rodgers but other managerial candidates. Rodgers also refused to work with a technical director, leading to the club losing Pep Segura.

 

In place, though, we will have a promising new technical committee which is expected to finally deliver the FSG vision. Rodgers will chair the group, which consists of Michael Edwards, Head of Analytics (a man who had a key role in Spurs’ successful transfer policy and is highly valued by FSG); the Head of Development (academy); the Head of the Medical Department; a negotiator of transfers/contracts (still to be appointed); and Dave Fallows as Head of Scouting and Recruitment. Fallows joins in October from Manchester City - via his garden - bringing with him Barry Hunter, who covered Italy and Russia for the blues. Another of the new recruits specialises in Portuguese and South American football. All the recruits are well-versed in the use of statistics, analytics and technology. The challenge set them by FSG - that excites them - is to get Liverpool to the pinnacle of English and European football by outsmarting the opposition rather than outspending them. The idea is the expected one: to find youthful value in the market, to buy Suarez at the age of 20 from Groningen rather than four years later from Ajax. Rodger’s “death by football” is the blueprint for the whole club (and dovetails pretty neatly with the born-in-Spain philosophy in our nurseries.) Going forward, Rodgers is expected to pick his preferences from a list provided to him by the four new scouts. FSG have also told the new scouting team they will top up the squad with occasional ‘marquee’ signings (providing they still provide value to the club) as a fillip to the brand, fans and team.

 

Rodgers agreed to all this before joining. FSG believed their man would be at ease working via consensus although there were suggestions in early August that Rodgers was resistant to the scouts’ suggestions. Then, on August 31, our hierarchy provided a masterclass in ruining an otherwise excellent transfer window. Rodgers (I am told) surprised everyone by dismissing all candidates suggested to him for our vacant front line. FSG surprised him by stubbornly refusing to wreck their blueprint for the 29-year-old Dempsey. Miscommunication or power play? With Rodgers’ comments about the ‘honesty’ of the owners at his recent press conference, we hear the slurp of a hearty kiss and make-up. But has the structural fault line been repaired?

 

‘We will be visible at Anfield,’ Werner proclaimed on October 15 2010. Certainly, there has been dialogue. FSG gave us the supporters’ committee and their appointee Jen Chang introduced ground-breaking access for fan sites such as ours to the manager. Ginsberg, the money man of the set-up, has been over here frequently. Yet our Chairman has been so noticeably absent Spirit of Shankly publicly called for a Chief Executive in situ. Tony Evans points his finger at a plaid-shirted culprit: ‘Ian Ayre is a pygmy even in an area that has few giants.’ This is before we even touch on the giant botch job known as the Suarez affair. (We all know the depressing catalogue of errors.)

 

So – by Broughton’s sale criteria: how have FSG measured up? They have “properly financed” the club in the sense of removing extraneous debt. They have provided funds to move the club forward only in the form of a £30m interest-free loan last summer. On this, Henry has always been consistent, his buzz words here being “Arsenal model,” and “sustainable.” In a nutshell: “We intend to strengthen this club annually but that doesn’t mean we will deficit spend. It’s up to us to strengthen revenues.” But at the commercial department we have seen a familiar FSG pattern: a fan-fared appointment (Graham Bartlett) who has fallen by the wayside. The replacement Commercial Director (Billy Hogan) is another internal promotion and yet another based in Boston. And how can our own department compete with Manchester United’s 70-strong force, split between London and Manchester? The delay on a stadium decision rankles with many supporters yet FSG were upfront on the timescales required. In November 2010 they briefed the Echo that they might take two years to weigh the options. The informed opinion is that Broughton was wrong about the watertight case for a new stadium and that an expansion of Anfield makes better financial sense. (The stadium board on RAWK provides a meaty analysis of the hows and whys, thanks to the contributions of Peter McGurk and AlanX.) On the other hand, we believe the enviable agreement that trades a part-sale of Inter Milan with a new stadium construction was sitting invitingly on a table in L4 earlier this year.

 

Two years ago, Henry and Werner presented themselves to Broughton and to us, the supporters, as savvy sports operators. They pointed to their record - since gone moobs up - with the Red Sox. In the last week, stories in America (denied by Henry) suggest FSG are mulling the sale of the Red Sox ten years ahead of their 20-year plan (‘we do everything long-term’) to concentrate on LFC. Back in 2010, we were too relieved to be rid of Hicks and Gillett to pay attention to the small print: something about past performance not being an indication of future results. We always knew we would need patience to recover from a convergence of oafish double-acts: Parry and Moores, Hicks and Gillett. But FSG need to learn lessons more swiftly and acknowledge they are over-stretched, especially if they do not bale out of Boston. Next April will mark the halfway point in FSG’s self-declared five-year plan for consistent success at LFC. We cannot afford more mistakes. We cannot afford a return to internal politics. They told us Dalglish went because they wanted to see annual progress. We yearn for it, John and Tom - we yearn.

 

 

*I would like to thank to Royhendo for ‘doing n’owt’ and Zeb for advice in compiling this and a number of RAWK sources who wish to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.

 

*This article refers to FSG throughout for clarity, although they were known as NESV until March 2011.

 

*The £30m loan mentioned in the copy relies on the last accounts. Since filing it may have been converted into equity or even been paid back. The next accounts will reveal this.

 

*For more detail on the value in the wage bill as at last March, have a look at: http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2012/0...r-own-billing/

 

For more info on the Red Sox mooted sale see:Boston.com

 

*This article has largely avoided analysis of the financial aspect because a further article will attempt to explain these in a simple and accessible fashion. - Or so I hope.

 

The fella who wrote this has passed away,if its the same fella I am thinking of.

 

I'm pretty sure it is and although he was a well meaning guy he wasnt somebody whose opinion was any more well informed than the rest of us.

[Johnny Cougar]

The hilarity.

 

Knocking elbows with some of the grimmest whoppers on here these days, aye PaddyB.

 

What is up with you these days lad? You've gone from being one of my favourite posters to a hybrid of Wrong Islander and Ratcatcher, spitting and snarling all over the place.

I fuck off and leave you for a bit and this happens.

Calm yourself down Comrade.

Being compared to WI and Ratcathcer isn't a good thing.

[Coro]

What is up with you these days lad? You've gone from being one of my favourite posters to a hybrid of Wrong Islander and Ratcatcher, spitting and snarling all over the place.

I fuck off and leave you for a bit and this happens.

Calm yourself down Comrade.

Being compared to WI and Ratcathcer isn't a good thing.

 

I think alls that's changed is you don't agree with my opinion in this particular instance. I''ve snapped and snarled just as much as anyone else, including yourself but now I maybe snapping at the wrong people in your eyes.

 

People can try to marginalise me or anyone else but the points will remain.

 

When threads like this pop up I'm happy to play the repetitive cunt.

 

The likes of numero cunt just wanna be right, regardless but it's a bit of tough shit they're having.