Spirit Of Shankly: Communication with John Henry

[Red Nick]

SoS were great but always liked to act above their station.

 

Monkey has played a blinder in this thread

 

Timing is everything and SOS picked their time extremely badly and as for Tone that was awful

[Coro]

SoS were great but always liked to act above their station.

 

Monkey has played a blinder in this thread

 

Timing is everything and SOS picked their time extremely badly and as for Tone that was awful

 

You just don't get it.

[dirk grout]

You just don't get it.

 

People do 'get it' and understand your point entirely. They just don't agree with you.

[piscinin]

they could have been far cuter with this.

 

We've a responsibility as supporters to ensure history doesn't repeat itself.

 

This is the long and short of it for me. We do need someone keeping an eye on things to make sure that the balance between shareholder and supporter interest is appropriately struck. But what we need now are skillful diplomacy, negotiation and win-wins rather than the bully boy stuff.

[RoboRiise]

I also thought the tone of it was excessively aggressive. I also thought that this:

 

We recognise that you have kindly responded to some of the “internet” groups who were formed (and have now disbanded)

 

came across as quite transparently sniffy.

 

They're gone, get over it...

[matfabian]

As a SoS member, I must say that I was disappointed with the Union's correspondence to FSG. I, like every supporter I imagine, wants only what is best for our club in the long-term. I agree that a dialogue needs to be maintained with the owners, albeit in reasonable doses that respect each sides commitments and schedules. I agree with all of that.... however, I don't agree with the tone of the communication that was sent.

 

I don't see what we have to gain by being so confrontational and aggressive. Firing off what essentially amounts to a list of demands is not the way to open and maintain a constructive discourse with our owners.

 

To me, the tone and manner of our correspondence should take into account the following:

 

1. That FSG have come in and spent £300m and in doing so have cleared us of all meaningful debt (besides those ones that make sense to keep - overdraft and stadium exp). They did not HAVE to do that.

 

2. FSG have done nothing to indicate that they are the same as H&G. Yes, we should not offer blind faith, but their actions thus far have ranged from good to impressive, and that deserves some recognition.

 

3. FSG and JWH have offered more open and honest dialogue in their short tenure than many owners do in their entire time at a club. Give them some credit for answering questions on RAWK, on LFCTV, etc. They're busy people, with all their interests and the massive job they have on their hands at LFC - which is, I am sure, one of the reasons they would like a singular fans council rather than individual contact with a variety of supporters groups.

 

 

I think that JWH's response definitely indicated that he was far from impressed with the tone, and I would be too if I were him. I can understand his desire to speak more about the future, and their plans for the club, than the past.

 

The best example I can think of is that of a new relationship. Let's say I had been wronged by a woman and after breaking up with her I had entered a new relationship. If I spent all my time speaking to my new girlfriend about all the ways I was wronged in the past, and constantly seeking reassurances that she wouldn't do the same, I can imagine that she'd get jack of that pretty quickly. I understand that the situation is different, however the principles are the same.

 

By all means, it was right to make them aware of our feelings about what transpired during H&G's reign, but once it has been said and they have acknowledged it has been said, move on. Keep a watchful eye on their actions, and ensure that they are sticking to their end of the bargain, but don't hassle them.

 

I think that we need to accept that the proposed supporters council (forget the official name) is a sensible idea. I know it won't necessarily satisfy each of the individual supporters groups, and I can understand that, but we need to be willing to share. The owners time is finite, and they are as busy as any of us. Between a variety of business interests and trying to rebuild LFC, I can only imagine that I get more hours to sleep than they do. The most workable solution for them is to have one big group where a reasonable cross-section of all stakeholders is represented. This allows everyone to have their say, equally, and for the process to be open and transparent for all supporters to see, whether they are a member of a union or not. I agree that any system is going to have it's flaws, but this is by far the most scalable solution for LFC.

 

So... If SoS want to ensure that they are represented on this council, it would probably be best to adopt a slightly more conciliatory tone, or a more respectful one at the very least.

 

I am sure than my opinion will differ with some, perhaps even those that wrote the letter...but then again, that's all it is - my opinion.

 

P.S. Bring on the Chavski's....

Edited February 4, 2011 by matfabian

[Coro]

People do 'get it' and understand your point entirely. They just don't agree with you.

 

My point is pretty straightforward - we have a responsibility as supporters, we need to recognise that and also what we've learned over the past 3 years. We have to try and establish a decent level of understanding and respect with these new owners.

 

We simply cannot leave it down to others, it's imperative we have a say in shaping a better future for our football club.

 

Difficult to see how anyone can disagree with that.

[Unrighteous]

Cringeworthy letter from SoS, and a pretty great response from Henry. I would have expected much less after reading what was sent to him.

[NLW2010]

Cringeworthy letter from SoS, and a pretty great response from Henry. I would have expected much less after reading what was sent to him.

 

Hate to say it but 3 more of those "letters" (more like ransom notes) and we will be looking for new owners again . SoS have no rights demanding to know the exact figure spent on buying the club, have all it's members declared to the club owners how much they spent on their homes, cars, mail order brides ?

There are ways of getting a good working relationship, that was an example of how not to do it .

[Antynwa]

My point is pretty straightforward - we have a responsibility as supporters, we need to recognise that and also what we've learned over the past 3 years. We have to try and establish a decent level of understanding and respect with these new owners.

 

We simply cannot leave it down to others, it's imperative we have a say in shaping a better future for our football club.

 

Difficult to see how anyone can disagree with that.

 

Yeah but surely there are ways and means of taking this approach. SOS just looked like an angry mob going by the tone of the letter.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

I also thought the tone of it was excessively aggressive. I also thought that this:

 

came across as quite transparently sniffy.

 

They're gone, get over it...

 

That to me says that they feel hard done by because it was the Kop Faithful campaign that actually played the biggest part in H&G not keeping hold of the club.

 

I seen this on twitter yesterday but never got a chance to read it. Having read it this morning, I agree it's aggressive, and it is more damaging to SOS than they actually realise.

 

I hate the way they represent the supporters, but only if your a member. And it would help if they didn't have a typical looking scally like Jay McKenna, I am sure he is a sound lad, as your vocal point. Image is everything, and SOS seem to be taking lessons from Jodie Marsh.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

My point is pretty straightforward - we have a responsibility as supporters, we need to recognise that and also what we've learned over the past 3 years. We have to try and establish a decent level of understanding and respect with these new owners.

 

We simply cannot leave it down to others, it's imperative we have a say in shaping a better future for our football club.

 

Difficult to see how anyone can disagree with that.

 

They don't. If you think that's the gripe here, then you've totally misread the situation.

[Graham Smith]

I wonder if SOS might in turn answer these questions:

1. has any Union money been spent on lawyers, either in composing this memo or in the legal letters sent to Martin Samuel and any other journalists SOS might have contacted? Or is this work done pro bono?

 

No payments have even been made for any legal work done by Committee members on behalf of the Union.

 

2. Why does SOS refer to itself as acting "on behalf of our members (the supporters)". That use of the definite article - THE supporters - clearly implies that the Union speaks for "the" supporters, and thus that you are only classified a supporter of LFC is you are a member of your Union. But there are other "supporters" who haven't bought into SOS, especially their confusion between the interests of the club and the interests of the former manager. Can you kindly stop pretending to speak for everyone?

 

Again, for the three hundreth time, the Union only seeks to represent its members. The document followed a consultation with its members about what they wanted asking.

 

And again, and you won't be able to show it, where is the evidence that the Union was pro-Benitez rather than pro-manager. Good luck with proving that, just join the line of people who have said this before and when asked can't show anything. The Porto march maybe? The sacking day demo? There's two to start you off.

[Graham Smith]

When are SOS gonna buy the club anyway?

 

This must be the tenth time I've personally responded to you on this issue but we'll try again....

 

The Union has no intentions of buying any part (or all) of the Club.

 

But carry on regardless.....

[Malarkey]

SOS should be renamed. To LOL.

[James Dean]

Henry should've just chucked it. Embarrasing.

[Block109'er]

Let's give NESV the benefit of the doubt for now and lets not let any residual anger and mistrust that was rightfully aimed at H&G taint our perception of the new lads.

 

So far they have done good and positive things for this football club in a small space of time and they clearly have lofty and honorable ambitions for us.

 

If I was to actively support SOS in the future (which for now I don't) then I would expect a more respectful and less agressive tone in their communication moving forward.

[Graham Smith]

These guys invited the document and welcomed it, we told them we wanted to engage on a variety of issues to their face and they were happy to receive the document to the extent that upon request we were given a personal email address. They also promised further meetings and concluded the original meeting by specifically thanking the Union for the work that was done by it and its members in saving the Club from the previous regime.

 

That sets a context for the approach.

 

Then you have the fact that they had already seen a document from us that introduced the Union and explained the various issues in brief that our members wanted to engage on.

 

These guys are experienced business people, they see beyond frippery and fudge in documents and want to see the meat so time isn't wasted. The document is not aggressive, it is businesslike and focussed. John Henry's "lawyer" comment is baffling in the context of having previous emails from that account and in fact offering his own address to that same email account.

 

The document was headed with the Union's logo and addressed from the Union as an attachment to a short polite and warm email.

 

There is no anger, militancy, campaigning or disgust about the response document from the Union Management Committee - these guys clearly aren't Hicks and Gillett.

 

But, the game has changed at L4 for everyone. A supporter base that has always been switched on will not accept that a cheque for £300m buys the Club, again, away from the supporters. We were here before Moores, Hicks and Henry and we will be here long after them all.

 

While that does not allow us to destroy our own Club, what it does mean is that any owner in the future cannot treat this Club like a fiefdom and pat supporters on the head. Happily these guys don't seem to be doing that.

 

However, engagement on issues like ticketing, the stadium and April 15th has to happen, the previous ownership has made the miskate in the past of thinking it reflected supporter opinion when it didn't ("numbers game" anyone?) and the potential for friction is likely to be where the clash between supporter opinion and financial advancement takes place.

 

It is entirely right and proper that there is an organised group endeavouring to represent a membership who have opinions on these issues and it is also right and proper that the owners have a proper, respectable enagagement with that same group either directly or through an effective, resourced and accountable supporters' committee.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

That to me says that they feel hard done by because it was the Kop Faithful campaign that actually played the biggest part in H&G not keeping hold of the club.

 

I seen this on twitter yesterday but never got a chance to read it. Having read it this morning, I agree it's aggressive, and it is more damaging to SOS than they actually realise.

 

I hate the way they represent the supporters, but only if your a member. And it would help if they didn't have a typical looking scally like Jay McKenna, I am sure he is a sound lad, as your vocal point. Image is everything, and SOS seem to be taking lessons from Jodie Marsh.

 

I agree totally. It's not the existence of a Union that's the problem - not that any fan should be able to dictate that to any other fan; if they want a Union, then it's up to those people - but it's the way they've gone about their business and representing 'the supporters' (this is where they respond with the 'only represent our members' line despite using terms like "all supporters" on their website, along with "the supporters" and talking about the power of the entire supporter base in their memo) that causes anguish. It's not just this; it's one thing in a long line of amateurish actions.

 

For a start, why would it be sent from a solicitors (Graham's work, I believe) rather than from an @spiritofshankly.com address? That's just weak. It was possibly an attempt to gain credibility on SoS's part. At least that what it looks like.

 

Regardless of the intent, which might well be far less sinister, the owners clearly didn't appreciate the way they went about it. Many of their own members seem to be speaking out against it, too. I wouldn't be surprised if the possibility that they're acting a little above their station is starting to dawn on SoS. Good intentions but ultimately bad execution. In my disposable opinion, of course.

 

Again, for the three hundreth time, the Union only seeks to represent its members. The document followed a consultation with its members about what they wanted asking.

 

And again, and you won't be able to show it, where is the evidence that the Union was pro-Benitez rather than pro-manager. Good luck with proving that, just join the line of people who have said this before and when asked can't show anything. The Porto march maybe? The sacking day demo? There's two to start you off.

 

Sheesh. Did you write that memo by any chance? If it's asked 300 times, suggesting that it's a concern for many of your fellow supporters, then why not use your head and put an FAQ on the website and direct people there instead of sharp tongued replies? I know you get frustrated, but it does you no favours.

[Jack the Sipper]

I've never doubted the good intentions of SOS for one minute but, to my mind, time and again they've shown themselves to be out of touch and lacking in political and diplomatic nous, something which they may well see as a virtue. It's not though, not when you have to put across a good representation of yourself if you expect to progress in your dealings with others. If SOS was a person he'd be diagnosed Autistic.

 

Take this letter. Leaving aside the content, the tone in which it was delivered was at best overly formal, at worst pithy, hostile, antagonistic, confrontational. Fucking hell, I'd imagine any writ served on Henry by Hicks would have more warmth about it. Did no-one have a look over this letter before it was sent? Pretty much everyone who's read the letter on the forums (including SOS supporters) has noted how poorly it was executed, surely there must be someone at SOS Towers with a bit of common sense. Unless, of course, I've read them all wrong, and their intention is to turn this into another 'us vs them' situation.

 

Actually, that would make sense, given how their whole indentity is wrapped up in their battles with the previous owners. Perhaps they just can't let go of that role. If that's the case then, IMO, they need to because FSG are not the previous owners, and thus far have done nothing to suggest they will behave in the same manner. On the contrary, in the short time they've been here they've displayed all the hallmarks of responsible and honourable custodians of the Club. Any more needlessly cold letters like this though and FSG might not only question their relationship with SOS, but with the fanbase in general, which has been impeccable so far.

[Albertini]

Graham

 

Can you explain the reason(s) why the Union had the letter delivered by a solicitor?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Graham

 

Can you explain the reason(s) why the Union had the letter delivered by a solicitor?

 

It seems that it was just from Graham's work. He works as or for a solicitor. Not big deal, but correspondence should be done via their own domain.

[Albertini]

It seems that it was just from Graham's work. He works as or for a solicitor. Not big deal, but correspondence should be done via their own domain.

 

Ah ok, fair enough but i agree with you. It can be read (and seems to have been by Henry) the wrong way.

 

It sets a confrontational and defensive tone from the outset, even before the contents are read, and i think the Union have not helped themselves in that regard.

 

It might be an oversight on their part but it strikes me as a bit of an own goal.

[captainharris]

Fucking hell SOS, that was a pretty awful letter to write. The tone was far too aggressive. If SOS want to continue dialogue with FSG then I'd suggest they write back apologising for their tone, If I owned the club I certainly wouldn't want to be spoken to in such a way. Giving a what comes across as essentially a list of demands will not work in your favour.

 

What needs to be remembered is these people are not G+H, they may turn out to be, but its THEN that we fight.

 

For christ sakes, they haven't even issued one set of report and accounts yet, that's when we'll ALL know what kind of a state the club is in.

 

In that letter you came across like Scrappy Doo.. aggressive, insignificant, spoiling for a fight and throwing lots of punches for no reason and missing with every one.

 

[Graham Smith]

Graham

 

Can you explain the reason(s) why the Union had the letter delivered by a solicitor?

 

I used my work email address. The document was an attachment and the email had a couple of lines of warm and polite greetings within it.

 

I had previously emailed his personal email address (that he had given to me) a couple of times from my work email address without any comment.

 

His comment is baffling.