Has Ayre gone? anyone know?

[FanchesterCity]

You can't say 'we don't know what's actually going on day to day inside a club, and who is doing a good job and who isn't' to mitigate the collective state of a company.

 

The CEO is ultimately at the helm.

 

It's true that few are privy to the real detail, and it may well be that person A is doing a great job, and person B is doing a lousy one, but the public face of the company is the CEO and he's responsible for the overall status.

 

Again, it's down to three core functions of the CEO:

 

1) Generating profits

Admittedly, a football club is an usual form of business and doesn't behave in a traditional business manner. Verdict 7/10

 

2) The product (results)

Bang average at best despite a great title push two seasons ago. Verdict 4/10

 

3) PR

Liverpool's PR is a mixed bag, but I'd argue on the whole it's been poor during Ayre's tenure.

Some of the bad PR (the Evra fiasco) wasn't necessarily down to LFC, but it still has to be managed when it raises its head.

Stuff is leaking out of Liverpool in a manner they'd never have entertained in the past.

Verdict: 5/10

 

If it was my business and my CEO was pulling in those verdicts, I'd be looking for a better CEO.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

 

If it was my business and my CEO was pulling in those verdicts, I'd be looking for a better CEO.

 

Yep, that is unless the CEO had restricted responsibilities, and a large part of those issues were of your own making. Then you'd be happy with a figure who received the majority of the flack but never kicked up a fuss because of an affinity for the club.

 

It was weird when our worldwide hunt for a top man ended in appointing the bloke who was already in the room, and it still reeks of a move designed to cover for our owners not wanting to appoint anyone with much footballing pedigree. Everyone in the chain is followed by someone with less ability to question their superiors.

[ritchie]

Some of the bad PR (the Evra fiasco) wasn't necessarily down to LFC, but it still has to be managed when it raises its head.

And Ayre left Kenny to deal with that on his own and allowed it to fuck up our season and Kenny's reign in charge, yet he was the only one who actually saved his skin after that debacle. Everyone else was sacked and that smarmy little twat got his 1.3 million a year promotion and publicly explains Kenny's sacking with the 'cups don't matter'.

 

When there's a chance to get his photo taken he's like flies around shit, but when the shit hits the fan he's nowhere to be seen. Boss leader, boss CEO, another boss appointment by these fucking frauds.

[FanchesterCity]

Yep, that is unless the CEO had restricted responsibilities, and a large part of those issues were of your own making. Then you'd be happy with a figure who received the majority of the flack but never kicked up a fuss because of an affinity for the club.

 

It was weird when our worldwide hunt for a top man ended in appointing the bloke who was already in the room, and it still reeks of a move designed to cover for our owners not wanting to appoint anyone with much footballing pedigree. Everyone in the chain is followed by someone with less ability to question their superiors.

 

Well, that's a fair point, if he's really little more than a stooge to do the owners' bidding - which he may well be. CEO in name only?

 

If he is CEO in name only, then that raises the question - who IS running things? Obviously, FSG ultimately own the club and call the ultimate shots, but there has to be a day to day running of a club. It's essentially FSG's European arm isn't it? If they are using him as a stooge, then that's a problem (imo) as they need someone with a genuine finger on the pulse and genuine ability to act and react rapidly.

 

Can you imagine if Ayre has to call back to the states to double check on a transfer, and has to wait until early morning in Boston, whilst he's out in Russia, or Italy trying to secure a deal?

Obviously, I'm speculating hugely there, but is it far fetched?

[magicrat]

Ayre will be set targets for results and profits with a budget to work to and a return on capital invested number to hit.Big ticket items such as new players coming and going will need main board approval

 

The day to day running of the club will be left to him.

 

I don't know for sure this to be the case for Liverpool but they won't be different from other businesses that are operated by venture capitalists, which is all FSG are if you strip away the veneer.

 

Its a model that's fine for the owners with the PL money flooding in but it will never meet the supporters aspirations because the exponential extra expenditure need to assemble a squad like Chelsea and City have is way beyond their comfort zone. The end result is we get fed this bullshit about buying young talent that can develop into great players.

It's bollocks and all we end up with is that our best players fuck off and we are left with an array of average shite.

 

We will never win the league with these owners. Last year we had a winning lottery ticket in Suarez but that won't happen again

[TheHowieLama]

Ayre will be set targets for results and profits with a budget to work to and a return on capital invested number to hit.Big ticket items such as new players coming and going will need main board approval

 

The day to day running of the club will be left to him.

 

I don't know for sure this to be the case for Liverpool but they won't be different from other businesses that are operated by venture capitalists, which is all FSG are if you strip away the veneer.

 

 

 

What does the venture capitalist part have to do with the bolded bits above?

[FanchesterCity]

Ayre will be set targets for results and profits with a budget to work to and a return on capital invested number to hit.Big ticket items such as new players coming and going will need main board approval

 

The day to day running of the club will be left to him.

 

I don't know for sure this to be the case for Liverpool but they won't be different from other businesses that are operated by venture capitalists, which is all FSG are if you strip away the veneer.

 

Its a model that's fine for the owners with the PL money flooding in but it will never meet the supporters aspirations because the exponential extra expenditure need to assemble a squad like Chelsea and City have is way beyond their comfort zone. The end result is we get fed this bullshit about buying young talent that can develop into great players.

It's bollocks and all we end up with is that our best players fuck off and we are left with an array of average shite.

 

We will never win the league with these owners. Last year we had a winning lottery ticket in Suarez but that won't happen again

 

Is that a 'fault' of the owners though?

By that, I mean, let's say they simply don't have the money to compete with the billionaires, and they bought the club (saved them?).

Are people unhappy because they aren't rich enough, or that they're not competent, or a little bit of both?

[magicrat]

What does the venture capitalist part have to do with the bolded bits above?

Nothing directly but others have speculated he is just a puppet that can't wipe his arse without permission . I'm saying he will have quite a large degree of autonomy .

[ritchie]

Well, that's a fair point, if he's really little more than a stooge to do the owners' bidding - which he may well be. CEO in name only?

 

If he is CEO in name only, then that raises the question - who IS running things? Obviously, FSG ultimately own the club and call the ultimate shots, but there has to be a day to day running of a club. It's essentially FSG's European arm isn't it? If they are using him as a stooge, then that's a problem (imo) as they need someone with a genuine finger on the pulse and genuine ability to act and react rapidly.

 

Can you imagine if Ayre has to call back to the states to double check on a transfer, and has to wait until early morning in Boston, whilst he's out in Russia, or Italy trying to secure a deal?

Obviously, I'm speculating hugely there, but is it far fetched?

Ayre was MD and then CEO. He was the man in charge but is that useless in terms of leadership and football acumen that he makes it look like he couldn't possibly be in charge of anything. So you had situations like Henry coming over to firefight over Suarez wanting to leave in 2013 (plus the Evra stuff in the end was dealt with from Boston) when they were paying Ayre to run the club. Now they've left Gordon to try and run things. All because they wouldn't employ a proper CEO in the first place.

[FanchesterCity]

I think the problem is that they aren't really about competing, they're about investment (with a view to a financial return). Success on the pitch might be an aid to that, but it's the not end goal, and that's always going to dictate policy.

 

With the increased TV revenues, FSG might eventually hope to make a profit on their overall investment, but historically with most clubs, the TV revenue's gone right through the club, and into the hands of the players. At the moment, clubs are starting to be profitable again (due to the TV money), but it MIGHT simply be a small window / lag until the players grab their whack again.

 

If they sold tomorrow, it'd almost certainly be at a loss. If they can keep expenditure down, and bank the extra TV money, they might move into real profit eventually, but they're stuck in the same vicious circle as almost all other owners are... the value of the club is linked to CL, and to be in the CL club as a PL team, you're likely to have to spend a lot, thus killing your profits.

 

Arguably the PL is the worst, because there's so much money in it, and two sugar daddy clubs too, that to get a top 4, a LOT of money is involved. In Spain, Italy, or Germany, there's usually a couple of slots for CL entry on a budget.

[magicrat]

Is that a 'fault' of the owners though?

By that, I mean, let's say they simply don't have the money to compete with the billionaires, and they bought the club (saved them?).

Are people unhappy because they aren't rich enough, or that they're not competent, or a little bit of both?

 

I was there in London the day FSG bought Liverpool. In the melee even sneaked into Slaughter and Mays office with all the hacks past the security and saw Henry give his little victory speech. " Were here to win " was the quote and I even have the telegraph sport from the next day with the banner headline and his big beaming boat splashed across.

Can across the thing the other day and immediately had a famous Who song running through my head.

I'm unhappy because they aren't here to win . If they win whilst making money that's a happy accident so on that score Henry is a lying cunt.

Whether or not they have they financial muscle to compete at the top who knows but its as clear as it can be they are not going to ,

[FanchesterCity]

I was there in London the day FSG bought Liverpool. In the melee even sneaked into Slaughter and Mays office with all the hacks past the security and saw Henry give his little victory speech. " Were here to win " was the quote and I even have the telegraph sport from the next day with the banner headline and his big beaming boat splashed across.

Can across the thing the other day and immediately had a famous Who song running through my head.

I'm unhappy because they aren't here to win . If they win whilst making money that's a happy accident so on that score Henry is a lying cunt.

Whether or not they have they financial muscle to compete at the top who knows but its as clear as it can be they are not going to ,

 

Won't get fooled again?

[ritchie]

Most Liverpool fans know that FSG aren't about competing they're about making a profit on their investment. Ideally they wanted to be like Arsenal to get regular CL football (which would mean us competing) and increase that investment. The problems for us have been two fold:

 

1) They don't need to win trophies or even be in the CL to make a profit on us because of the ever increasing TV deals and the extremely low price they bought us for.

 

2) Their absolutely appalling staffing choices in key footballing positions hitherto (and CEO) have really halted on pitch progress.

[Russ Atmosphere]

Pinball Wizard?

[Tyler Durden]

Is that a 'fault' of the owners though?

By that, I mean, let's say they simply don't have the money to compete with the billionaires, and they bought the club (saved them?).

Are people unhappy because they aren't rich enough, or that they're not competent, or a little bit of both?

Well you can get away with being incompetent when your loaded can't you? They were all about being 'smarter' and doing things 'better' then the richer teams, there is less margin for error but for me they have made lots of errors, most recently thinking they can drag negotiations out for fucking months on end, be it contracts or transfers, while thinking the rest of the football world stands stil

 

If you fuck players about with contracts or clubs over fees then it shouldn't come as a surprise when other options present themselves to the players/clubs thereby leaving you looking stupid

[Ranxerox]

That's a bit rude. He's offering a different side of the debate. Rightly or wrongly it's better than reading recycled jokes about the manager/coaching staff/FSG for the 1,000,000th time.

 

How so? His argument in defense of Ayre is boring and dull. Essentially boils down to "no one knows what he does so he's not responsible". He's CEO, by definition he has a share of the responsibility for affairs at the club. 

 

His argument offers nothing insightful, or interesting, hence vapid.

 

BTW some of the jokes are funny, and thus not vapid.

[ritchie]

How so? His argument in defense of Ayre is boring and dull. Essentially boils down to "no one knows what he does so he's not responsible". He's CEO, by definition he has a share of the responsibility for affairs at the club. 

 

His argument offers nothing insightful, or interesting, hence vapid.

 

BTW some of the jokes are funny, and thus not vapid.

He's the CEO of Liverpool FC earning 1.3 million a year in salary (pushing 30 grand a week for fuck sake). If he's not responsible then there should be an inquiry into why he's paid what he is and why he's got the title he has.

[Arl arse]

I was there in London the day FSG bought Liverpool. In the melee even sneaked into Slaughter and Mays office with all the hacks past the security and saw Henry give his little victory speech. " Were here to win " was the quote and I even have the telegraph sport from the next day with the banner headline and his big beaming boat splashed across.

Can across the thing the other day and immediately had a famous Who song running through my head.

I'm unhappy because they aren't here to win . If they win whilst making money that's a happy accident so on that score Henry is a lying cunt.

Whether or not they have they financial muscle to compete at the top who knows but its as clear as it can be they are not going to ,

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[magicrat]

Won't get fooled again?

In one

[magicrat]

Most Liverpool fans know that FSG aren't about competing they're about making a profit on their investment. Ideally they wanted to be like Arsenal to get regular CL football (which would mean us competing) and increase that investment. The problems for us have been two fold:

 

1) They don't need to win trophies or even be in the CL to make a profit on us because of the ever increasing TV deals and the extremely low price they bought us for.

 

2) Their absolutely appalling staffing choices in key footballing positions hitherto (and CEO) have really halted on pitch progress.

On here most people are painfully aware of our owners aspirations as for the wider LFC fanbase I don't think they do look too long at the way the club is structured and operates .

Of course they're pissed off at lack of trophies but I would say most blame the players and increasingly the manager. They see us spending squllions and think the owners are supporting us .

[The Guest]

You can't say 'we don't know what's actually going on day to day inside a club, and who is doing a good job and who isn't' to mitigate the collective state of a company.

 

The CEO is ultimately at the helm.

 

It's true that few are privy to the real detail, and it may well be that person A is doing a great job, and person B is doing a lousy one, but the public face of the company is the CEO and he's responsible for the overall status.

 

Again, it's down to three core functions of the CEO:

 

1) Generating profits

Admittedly, a football club is an usual form of business and doesn't behave in a traditional business manner. Verdict 7/10

 

2) The product (results)

Bang average at best despite a great title push two seasons ago. Verdict 4/10

 

3) PR

Liverpool's PR is a mixed bag, but I'd argue on the whole it's been poor during Ayre's tenure.

Some of the bad PR (the Evra fiasco) wasn't necessarily down to LFC, but it still has to be managed when it raises its head.

Stuff is leaking out of Liverpool in a manner they'd never have entertained in the past.

Verdict: 5/10

 

If it was my business and my CEO was pulling in those verdicts, I'd be looking for a better CEO.

 

This is all just guff that means nothing.  The club isn't on it's arse.  It's just finished 6th in the premier league and got to 2 semi finals after qualifying for the champions league the year previous.  It's not where any of us including the staff at the club want us to be but it's where we are.  I'm sure the club made plenty of money this year.  Had the manager made some other decisions throughout the year or had Sturridge stayed fit/Suarez stayed we could have easily finished in the champions league spots.  We weren't that far away.  If that had happened I imagine there would be fuck all whinging about Ayre going on and under your parameters he would have been doing a great job when in reality he wouldn't have done anything different.

 

I'll say it again you don't know what Ayre does or how well or badly he does it so you can't cateroically say he deserves to be sacked.  It's that simple.  If the club performs badly on the pitch you don't know if that has got anything to do with him.

[The Guest]

How so? His argument in defense of Ayre is boring and dull. Essentially boils down to "no one knows what he does so he's not responsible". He's CEO, by definition he has a share of the responsibility for affairs at the club. 

 

His argument offers nothing insightful, or interesting, hence vapid.

 

BTW some of the jokes are funny, and thus not vapid.

 

I'm not saying he's not responsible.  I'm saying you don't know what he's responsible for.  For all we know he may not have any input on whether to hire or fire the manager and he may not have any input on what players we sign and for what money.  If that is the case how can he be held responsible for it?  He can't.  You or I don't know what he does.

[russ1979]

From reports Ayre seems like a decent enough guy but he's clearly punching above his weight

[FanchesterCity]

This is all just guff that means nothing.  The club isn't on it's arse.  It's just finished 6th in the premier league and got to 2 semi finals after qualifying for the champions league the year previous.  It's not where any of us including the staff at the club want us to be but it's where we are.  I'm sure the club made plenty of money this year.  Had the manager made some other decisions throughout the year or had Sturridge stayed fit/Suarez stayed we could have easily finished in the champions league spots.  We weren't that far away.  If that had happened I imagine there would be fuck all whinging about Ayre going on and under your parameters he would have been doing a great job when in reality he wouldn't have done anything different.

 

I'll say it again you don't know what Ayre does or how well or badly he does it so you can't cateroically say he deserves to be sacked.  It's that simple.  If the club performs badly on the pitch you don't know if that has got anything to do with him.

 

You can only measure on what's happened, not on 'if Suarez had stayed / had the manager made better decisions / Sturridge been fit - things would have been better'. That's just ludicrous.

 

It wasn't news that Suarez was looking to move on - Ayre had at least 1 year's prior knowledge.

Rodgers was brought in as a relative rookie - so it can't be a shock if he's made mistakes.

Sturridge's injury troubles were a concern before he was bought - it's not a surprise they've resurfaced. Those were foreseeable risks and poorly mitigated.

 

If it's not Ayre's responsibility, then it surely can't be Pascoe and Marsh's either, can it?

 

You end up with a 'it's nobody's responsibility' situation and two blokes at the bottom of the pile pay the price (scapegoats).

Ayre is paid handsomely to accept responsibility (even if it's nominally). He's accepted none of it though.

[ritchie]

On here most people are painfully aware of our owners aspirations as for the wider LFC fanbase I don't think they do look too long at the way the club is structured and operates .

Of course they're pissed off at lack of trophies but I would say most blame the players and increasingly the manager. They see us spending squllions and think the owners are supporting us .

People complain about Ayre, Rodgers, Comolli, Pascoe, Marsh, the transfer committee, the players, Mighty Red. The buck stops entirely with the owners who appoint all these staff.