Spirit of Shankly: FSG - We Still Need Direction

[SpiritOfShankly]

Following recent events including John Henry's open letter we have released the following statement asking once again for direction from FSG:

 

FSG - We Still Need Direction - Spirit of Shankly

 

Spirit of Shankly

[Neil G]

They will no doubt get slagged off to high heaven by some on here, but apart from the bit about selling shares to the fans which is pie in the sky, that's a very good statement.

 

 

 

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.

[xerxes]

I think that SOS are right to highlight FSG’s uncertain, and at times contradictory, start.

 

Should a manager with one year’s PL experience be unequivocally backed when fronting a £180m a year business? Or should the management structure be more robust?

 

SOS seems to question the latter, i think they are right to do so.

 

Calling out Tom Werner seems pointless. He is our part time Chairman based 3000 miles away with scant football knowledge. I don’t need him in front of a baying crowd to understand his shortcomings.

 

Who is accountable is a much more interesting question. Neither Werner nor Henry, individually, or collectively, are majority shareholders. They have been put up by the others to run the show, no more, no less. So what questions are the others shareholders, who ARE the majority asking? Who are the influential parties ? Di Benedetto with his football and property expertise? Seth Klarman, the author of Margin of Safety: Risk-Averse Value Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful Investor a book on value investing perhaps?

 

The last paragraph is a little confrontational and wide of the mark for my tastes.

[Neil G]

I think that SOS are right to highlight FSG’s uncertain, and at times contradictory, start.

 

Should a manger with one year’s PL experience be unequivocally backed when fronting a £180m a year business? Or should the management structure be more robust?

 

SOS seems to question the latter, i think they are right to do so.

 

Calling out Tom Werner seems pointless. He is our part time Chairman based 3000 miles away with scant football knowledge. I don’t need him in front of a baying crowd to understand his shortcomings.

 

Who is accountable is a much more interesting question. Neither Werner nor Henry, individually, or collectively, are majority shareholders. They have been put up by the others to run the show, no more, no less. So what questions are the others shareholders, who ARE the majority asking? Who are the influential parties ? Di Benedetto with his football and property expertise? Seth Klarman, the author of Margin of Safety: Risk-Averse Value Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful Investor a book on value investing perhaps?

 

The last paragraph is a little confrontational and wide of the mark for my tastes.

 

 

I think it's fine myself. As I see it, it's essentially saying the same thing as you are about accountability. Werner should speak on behalf of the shareholders and answer questions, including about who they actually are and what their involvement is.

[Gym Beglin]

My gut instinct is to back the letter, but my head tells me that FSG could quite understandably tell us to go fuck ourselves because they released a shit load of money last year for transfers, and paid a fortune in getting rid of players this Summer, and also brought in Allen, Borini and Sahin.

 

Ok, the money was raised by transfers, but it's never a given that income from transfer fees is fed back into the club. Just ask United fans after they sold Ronaldo for £80m. They didnt see all that back. There's been substantial pay-offs to Hodgson and his staff, to Kenny and his staff, and to Swansea for Rodgers and his team. We're talking a lot of money.

[TheHowieLama]

I Neither Werner nor Henry, individually, or collectively, are majority shareholders. They have been put up by the others to run the show, no more, no less.

 

Henry is the majority shareholder - probably to the tune of about half.

[bouncebrigade]

The big question I would ask them that is not included in the letter is the following:

 

Why back an interim manager (as Kenny was in their eyes) to the hilt with bucket loads of transfer fees and wages but then as soon as their man is appointed they get watery and start holding back?

 

Aside from being unfair to the fans, it makes no business sense. Bring in your man, then back him to the hilt (or at least as much available resources will sensibly allow), no?

[RedPaul]

My gut instinct is to back the letter, but my head tells me that FSG could quite understandably tell us to go fuck ourselves because they released a shit load of money last year for transfers, and paid a fortune in getting rid of players this Summer, and also brought in Allen, Borini and Sahin.

 

Ok, the money was raised by transfers, but it's never a given that income from transfer fees is fed back into the club. Just ask United fans after they sold Ronaldo for £80m. They didnt see all that back. There's been substantial pay-offs to Hodgson and his staff, to Kenny and his staff, and to Swansea for Rodgers and his team. We're talking a lot of money.

 

Such is modern day football. They signed up to it, now it seems they are running scared of the financial implications of failing to achieve their set goals (i.e. 4th place). If they are not looking to sell, then they are clearly seeking to consolidate, settle for mid table or higher at a push (hopefully our thin squad is not depleted by injury or we will struggle to attain even that), and build long term using young talent. Not much young talent makes the grade though and as others have rightly pointed out, once we are mid-table we are at risk of losing any "gems" we uncover. I personally like the statement, it says it how it is and I presume reflects what a lot of the fanbase are thinking about various issues.

[xerxes]

Henry is the majority shareholder - probably to the tune of about half.

 

This is not true.

 

NYT, pre disposal were the majority shareholder with 17.75%. Their disposal was to multiple buyers ( presumably the remainder of FSG in all or part), not to Henry.

 

NY Times sells last of Fenway shares - FT.com

[xerxes]

I think it's fine myself. As I see it, it's essentially saying the same thing as you are about accountability. Werner should speak on behalf of the shareholders and answer questions, including about who they actually are and what their involvement is.

 

Fair comment Neil about Werner being the point man for the operation.

 

I see little merit though in scapegoating Werner when there are forces at play which we do not understand who are wielding the power behind the scenes.

[TheHowieLama]

This is not true.

 

NYT, pre disposal were the majority shareholder with 17.75%. Their disposal was to multiple buyers ( presumably the remainder of FSG in all or part), not to Henry.

 

NY Times sells last of Fenway shares - FT.com

 

At the time of purchasing the club Henry and NYT were the only shareholders with more than 10% and it was acknowledged that Henry was the majority shareholder - allegedly to the tune of twice NYT stake. Many of those involved own less than a single percent - some of it given as salary incentive/bonus for Sox employees. Alot of this is based on the Red Sox ownership records from NESV days.

[WaltonRed]

If you dont want to back the manager then you're in the wrong sport and for at the wrong club

 

Sure we've made mistakes but because Evans, Houllier, Benitez, Kenny, Woy all wasted money it doesnt mean you shut the cheque book or you come up with a committee to run the rule (because lets face it they all bought well at some point, maybe not woy...)

 

you back the boss, its what footie's about

[TheHowieLama]

If you dont want to back the manager then you're in the wrong sport and for at the wrong club

 

Sure we've made mistakes but because Evans, Houllier, Benitez, Kenny, Woy all wasted money it doesnt mean you shut the cheque book or you come up with a committee to run the rule (because lets face it they all bought well at some point, maybe not woy...)

 

you back the boss, its what footie's about

 

There may be a misconception about the backing though - seems they put the same amount in under Kenny and Rodgers to me. Pretty much what they said they would, round about 30mil with transfer fees and wages.

Whether that is enough is a different question.

[xerxes]

At the time of purchasing the club Henry and NYT were the only shareholders with more than 10% and it was acknowledged that Henry was the majority shareholder - allegedly to the tune of twice NYT stake. Many of those involved own less than a single percent - some of it given as salary incentive/bonus for Sox employees. Alot of this is based on the Red Sox ownership records from NESV days.

 

I am trying to dig out the links- leave it with me.

 

Some of the confusion hinges on these phrases. "The majority shareholder", "the major shareholder" and "A major shareholder", some of which are reported loosely and inaccurately.

 

My understanding, and recollection, was that no-one had a majority stake ( they could outvote the rest 51%). NYT was the major shareholder at 17.75%, and that JW was a major shareholder, but with less than NYT originally.

 

In April 2010 it was reported that NYT had sold stock to JW turning him from a major shareholder, to the major shareholder, but not the majority shareholder. Subsequent NYT disposals were not exclusive to JW.

 

If I am wrong, and you can source it , I am happy to be corrected. I will see if I can dig out my sources when I have a bit more time.

[WaltonRed]

There may be a misconception about the backing though - seems they put the same amount in under Kenny and Rodgers to me. Pretty much what they said they would, round about 30mil with transfer fees and wages.

Whether that is enough is a different question.

 

It was never going to be enough

 

Even if we'd of finished 4th under Kenny we'd of still needed a big money injection, the fact we finished 8th and wasted money means we need even more putting it

 

I'm all for cutting the wage bill and getting people out but we could of had a forward if they hadnt of had ayre dealing with around 5m. Had they given him 20m we'd of gotten someone even better but they didnt.

 

all this Dempsey didnt fit the plan, fine, cough up more then for someone who does. Its quite simple

 

We've no no.9 for the 1st time ever, its a joke and it happened on FSG's watch whatever they say

[xerxes]

If you dont want to back the manager then you're in the wrong sport and for at the wrong club

 

Sure we've made mistakes but because Evans, Houllier, Benitez, Kenny, Woy all wasted money it doesnt mean you shut the cheque book or you come up with a committee to run the rule (because lets face it they all bought well at some point, maybe not woy...)

 

you back the boss, its what footie's about

 

I guess it's a question of degree.

 

I thought, and think, that FSG were wrong to authorise the Carroll purchase on deadline day, and should have advised that we count to ten.

 

The purchase of a £6m player to help with a specific goalscoring problem on modest wages should be within Rodgers remit to fuck up/ triumph with.

[thompsonsnose]

The big question I would ask them that is not included in the letter is the following:

 

Why back an interim manager (as Kenny was in their eyes) to the hilt with bucket loads of transfer fees and wages but then as soon as their man is appointed they get watery and start holding back?

 

Aside from being unfair to the fans, it makes no business sense. Bring in your man, then back him to the hilt (or at least as much available resources will sensibly allow), no?

 

Quite.

Said so myself a few days back.

He's supposed to be "their guy" right?

Pathetic leadership.

They have no idea what they are doing.

Other than making toe curling tv docs, and trying to shove Agger out the door.

[Russ Atmosphere]

The big question I would ask them that is not included in the letter is the following:

 

Why back an interim manager (as Kenny was in their eyes) to the hilt with bucket loads of transfer fees and wages but then as soon as their man is appointed they get watery and start holding back?

 

It's not too different. They gave Dalglish a bit of cash + sales. They're doing the same with Rodgers. They're seemingly scaling back the wages massively with Rodgers team as they're looking to either

run a steady business/pennypinch before selling (delete as appropriate).

[Torvald Utne]

How embarrassing.

[Kevin D]

Hope SOS follow this up by requesting a meeting with FSG, as I'm pretty sure they'll be in town for the game with the Mancs. Grandstanding letters are only useful alongside action.

[zigackly]

Wait, everyone stop complaining, fungus is embarrassed, poor lamb.

[Ranxerox]

Hope SOS follow this up by requesting a meeting with FSG, as I'm pretty sure they'll be in town for the game with the Mancs. Grandstanding letters are only useful alongside action.

 

What kind of a reception do you think they'll get?

[Guest ShoePiss]

Well said SOS.

 

I don't think the final paragraph is too strong at all, they may not like reading it but it's fucking true. The Chairman should be held accountable, just like others in key positions making decisions in the organisation.

[Kevin D]

What kind of a reception do you think they'll get?

 

At Anfield? Hard to say. I don't think we're at outright hostility yet. I imagine they'd smooth things over beforehand with some impressive interviews and a nice photo op with Rodgers. Not to mention we'd be too distracted by our confrontation with real cuntery on the pitch.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

If I am honest over the letter your sending then imo big mistake.

 

For a start it reads like SOS run the club and there asking there hirelings about wjat is going on.

 

It also stinks of total mistrust of FSG and in a way the mistrust is akin to the Aids and Cancer mistrust.

 

So I would not be surprised if they either dont answer or tell you to go and fu-k o--.

 

These guys are nothing like the cowboys and are well liked and genuine buissness people.

 

The way the letter sounds it makes SOS mistrusting of them.

 

So basically doubting there capabilities to run a club.

 

They have already explained they wont get rushed into a deciding over the stadium issue and also it isnt a main priority for them.

 

Although I do agree with what SOS say about one of the conditions to buying us.

 

They have admitted they have made mistakes and the letter your sending is wanting what are they doing to change things.

 

I a lso agree with SOS about the need for them to base someone here to deal with situations.

 

On the other hand it sounds like your telling them how to run us.

 

Theres to many - to + things with the letter.

 

If you wanting to send a letter then imo would be to take a different approach to the letter.

 

Dont be asking or telling what to do or there doing and why not offer them your help or ideas to make things run smoother.

 

Offer them alternatives to things there doing that are wrong or could be done better.

 

Say to them your not trying to undermine them or tell them how to run us.

 

Make it clear that SOS only want to throw ideas into the pot and maybe one or two off them will appeal to them.

 

Explain you want them to be successful here as much as they do as the club is a major part of you.

 

At least doing it this way there alot more likely to want to meet up with you and then you can find out stuff you need to know.