Jump to content

Graham Smith

Registered
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    807

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Graham Smith

  1. Graham Smith
    There was no accountability - contact with the owners on the day to day matters had virtually ceased twelve months before (source: C Purslow). Broughton was interested in selling the Club and securing its long term financial future and had no remit or interest on the football side (source: M Broughton). Purslow had free rein and instead of relying upon football people (K Dalglish for one) he ignored a football man and went on his merry way. You don't ignore a doctor's advice when your leg is hanging off and think "I've seen ER on the telly, I can sort this". That isn't "less worldly wise" that is a fair summary of what was going on football wise with Purslow last Summer. He did run amok in the toyshop. And it is common knowledge that he decided to ignore the person who is now putting the Club back together on football matters.
  2. Graham Smith
    Why didn't he leave at that point?
  3. Graham Smith
    That's not what we kicked off about - you have to get the facts right otherwise people will think the Union are a bunch of self serving, uber fan, Rafa lovers and that wouldn't do would it? What we actually asked Broughton was in common with the Purslow situation - what is your role? Especially after his early press conferences when he made it clear he was here just to sell the Club and would be gone as soon as he had done that. The Club never answered the question openly over that Summer as to who had what role. And it is this which allowed non football people or those who were only going to be around for a few months (and have no long term interest in the football side of things) to make major decisions and not just keep the place ticking over until the sale took place.
  4. Graham Smith
    But that isn't true. It wasn't in his remit, ever. He said in the February meeting with us that his only role was to secure investment. There was a search going on for a CEO all the time. It was never announced or confirmed that this was within his remit. In fact he was challenged continually by the Union on this point (remember the proposed doorstepping at the event that got cancelled in town?) with requests for him to confirm what his role was and what he was doing. Nothing. Silence. While you might say he didn't owe the Union an answer he owed the supporters an answer so we could find out what was going on. He stepped into the vaccuum without qualifications and while the search for a CEO was going on - there was no announcement and no explanation and simply because of this no accountability or warning that he suddenly had the control.
  5. Graham Smith
    Patsy? No way. Purslow gambled on his centimetre depth of knowledge of football and thought the appointment "safe". Cock up not conspiracy. I happen to think that FSG are probably harder nosed than we think and that it would have been their way or the Steve Heighway for Benitez if he didn't buy into their approach and deliver on the pitch pretty quickly.
  6. Graham Smith
    Respect your views but I'd still say that with no money and a change of ownership imminent it wasn't a burning requirement to get rid of the manager at that time unless you got someone better. Even ignoring hindsight Purslow made the error of getting rid when leaving it as it was for the change of ownership would have been the right thing to do. Another reason to wait is that whoever was sitting in the seat when new owners were coming in was not the new owners appointee and as such history shows you don't last beyond your first blip because the new owners always get the first one for free.
  7. Graham Smith
    I can assure you I'm not a star struck Benitez disciple but at a time of turmoil like we had last Summer the last thing you do is add to it. What you do is reduce the turmoil. I'll accept that if the replacement manager being brought in was an upgrade then that would have had a chance of reducing the turmoil and giving the Club a lift at a time when it was desperately needed. For instance, announcing Dalglish in July as Benitez's replacement would have reduced the turmoil, but guess what? Purslow picked Hodgson. The minimum you do (especially bearing in mind last Summer's context) is get a better manager. You don't appoint a safe pair of hands because this is a football club and needs the best manager possible because what we do is football and players can see through an imposter quicker than us. If there was no one available (but there was - Dalglish) then you sit tight until someone better comes along. On top of all of this you pay a fortune to get rid of a bloke who was clearly going to walk into another top job and you pay silly money to spring a below average manager to come in. You get sacked in other jobs for this sort of performance (and I haven't even gone into Cole, selling players lists etc). I'd stress again Benitez leaving in July or leaving in January would have made little difference in the scheme of things and that isn't hindsight, it's something that anyone with half an idea could see. And I won't have the losing the dressing room argument - if someone wants to go because of the manager staying then see yer lad, players don't run this Club. If the house is on fire you don't throw more petrol on - you throw water on. Purslow reached for the bucket of water but through his own negligence picked up the petrol can.
  8. Graham Smith
    In actual fact it needed a bit of a better explanation. What he actually said at the meeting (bravado maybe?) was (actual quote follows): CP - It is not a given that £100 million will buy 25%. I need to find £100 million, and if this is for 1% or 100% I don't care. Clearly he wasn't being serious but it underlined the fact that he hadn't either agreed with Hicks and Gillett what £100m would acquire (and therefore been able to say to them they were living in cloud cuckoo land) or he got the offer they wanted but they backed away. On any terms unless the rug was pulled from under him, and he has never said it was, he failed to raise the investment he was tasked to bring in. By the time of the NESV offer Hicks and Gillett were sidelined and it was a race for Broughton (who was managing the process with Barcap) to get the best deal they could. Purslow (fair enough again) had his misgivings but ultimately luct have come on board for it as he voted for it. "Purslow didn't do too badly at all"? I've no concern about the manager being sacked but when you do change you trade up not down. Hodgson was trading down for this Club on any analysis. The right decision would have been to leave Benitez and see where we went once new owners were in and if he didn't fit in with the new owners ethos and attitude get rid then. The player acquisitions and the infamous list of those going out (confirmed by Hodgson) plus the public politicking (in which Benitez participated as well) was an investment banker thinking he knew about football. Leave aside his treatment of his "mate" over getting the job and in my view "didn't do too badly" can't be sustained as a credible position.
  9. Graham Smith
    Pretty much - there was a suspsicion at the time that HE was an RBS placement to obtain investment. He was supremely confident in that February that he would secure investment by Easter (in the previous September he had said by the new year 2010). To be fair to him he might well have got the offer of £100m but the terms were not acceptable to the owners. That's a failure as his brief (from the owmers) would have been get £100m but on acceptable terms. His loose tongue in the February didn't get him the sack (the owners might be kicking themselves in retrospect now that they did not) which might have been more about retaining RBS confidence (with a refinance date looming) than anything else. I don't think we can underestimate that the owners were managing only the big picture for the Club. Purslow made it clear in our meeting that telephone board meetings would be short, centred on the investment search and when they turned to this new contract or that new contract they would ring off. The problem was that this created a vaccuum which was filled by the investment banker morphing into a combination of Shankly, Alan Sugar and Alan Hansen.
  10. Graham Smith
    Quite agree. Time for the Club to heal itself, which is happening. My posts on here were just a reaction to Purslow's role being represented as something between Joan of Arc and the Terminator when in reality he failed in almost everything he touched at LFC.
  11. Graham Smith
    Ayre and Purslow were lobby fodder once Broughton was brought in. The crucial, absolutely crucial, moment was when RBS put the owners' arms up their backs and forced Broughton upon them. Broughton's terms were so solid that he knew that he could control the sale of the Club no matter what Hicks and Gillett said. It can be said that Purslow and Ayre supported Broughton (and that would be fair and they should get recognition for that) but realistically what choice did they have? By late Summer the Club was looking at one of three scenarios - sale, refinance or administration. Broughton knew refinance was just delaying the implosion of the Club so he and the two other UK Directors took legal advice about voting against this on the terms put to them (again credit all round). Once they had the legal advice then a sale was the only option - that happened to be to FSG and it was a given that the best offer had to be voted for by the UK Directors. Firstly, if they had not we might not have been sold and secondly the result of that would have been administration. Broughton controlled the sale and at the end of the day Purslow or Ayre had little choice but to allow it through. If either had voted with the owners then they would have not been able to show their faces in Merseyside again. Broughton's control of the Board's membership was the crucial factor as it allowed him to block the sacking of Ayre and Purslow - their support for no refinance and the sale to FSG, while creditable, was a no brainer.
  12. Graham Smith
    I never heard that being said but as the meeting broke up Werner and Henry were speaking individually to the four of us who went in and it was obviously said to one of the others. What Henry did say to us all though was what I mentioned above. For the record, all those who did something to get Hicks and Gillett out were responsible for the supporter pressure. Not one group or individual. That formed an atmosphere within which the financial pressures became the dominant and more relevant reason they lost the Club. Back on Purslow, it was funny to see him as we left that meeting in the reception area full of fake bonhomie.
  13. Graham Smith
    Al, Torres's agent has said that Purslow met with Torres over the summer to discuss him staying. Purslow's role was to get him to stay for this season which he achieved (well at least till Christmas) by setting out the Club's vision going forward. What he said we don't know but presumably Purslow's selection of Hodgson and our playing style (and time Torres thought it might take to rebuild) led to him leaving. Torres seems to have stayed for the start of the season due to what Purslow said to convince him to stay. I don't actually think that has much relevance to Purslow's overall performance though.
  14. Graham Smith
    I agree with this save for the fact that when Henry met SOS (about 45 minutes after Al) he made a point of saying "Spirit of Shankly". Presumably wanting to play to his audience?
  15. Graham Smith
    I'm responding before reading any posts below yours. The Academy meeting was a chance meeting last spring, not the 2008 meeting. Purslow knew our meeting was on the record (ironically a result of criticism of the 2008 Benitez meeting not being on the record) so your suggestion he was talking off the record is rubbish. He got told at the meeting in September and then again a few times before and at the February meeting (it was me that did it) that it would all be on the record. The Standard Chartered deal was done by Ayre before Purslow had his feet under the table and by his own admission he was here to secure investment (not sponsorship). He sailed through the vaccuum that existed and is in the debit column for the summer that he ran our football side. His Torres coup involved another set of bullshit to keep the lad here when it was clear we were a spent force for the time being.
  16. Graham Smith
    You need to get your facts right. The day Benitez was sacked we took great pains NOT to get involved in any demonstration. That had nothing to do with the Union. We continued with our policy of keeping out of these issues. You will find loads of evidence here and on other sites to back that up. As I say, the 2008 meeting was before my time so I can't comment (I appreciate that is a cop out from me) but i'd ask you (or anyone) again to justify this "Spirit of Benitez" crap with anything more than a meeting with him the best part of four years ago.
  17. Graham Smith
    Don't think that is right. The version that was published by us was toned down in terms of his manner and quotes as how he actually projected himself was hugely embarrassing. I don't actually think the true version (our version) made him out to be "in trouble" as was evidenced by the fact that nothing happened to him and he was still there until they went. I wasn't on the Committee in 2008 but I do know subsequent to that meeting it was agreed that any meetings with the Club had to be on the record as far as possible. And I don't think any record of that meeting was ever published. You might be confusing it with a chance meeting with Benitez in Spring last year at the Academy when some Union members were there. The "war" as you style it was created by him. He effectively made out that our version was incorrect when the reality was the other way around (especially as we had a recording that we never disclosed despite the abuse and allegations of lying we received afterwards). All we did was put the facts forward that there were 15 of us at the meeting who recalled our version of the minutes being accurate. Yeah, Socialist Workers Party us. The group otherwise known as The Illuminati no doubt. I'm afraid the truth is far more boring and prosaic. We just didn't like being labelled as liars or twisters of the truth.
  18. Graham Smith
    Shit, forgot that meeting where the resolution was passed by the Committee to process as one from the Solly to Caldy to put that up. :yes: Seriously, is that real and not photoshopped? Obviously, it had nothing to do with the Union.
  19. Graham Smith
    As the great man Purslow used to say "Bingo!" That's exactly what happened.
  20. Graham Smith
    Al, Broughton was put on board by RBS. There is no way he was a Hicks idea. You only have to see the terms he worked under to see that. His appointment effectively signed the Club over from Hicks and Gillett.
  21. Graham Smith
    And I know a few who did. But the point is personal opinions about the manager never spilled to influence the actions taken by the Union. The same way that nothing happened about Hodgson. The Union has no role in selecting or getting rid of the manager. The allegation is that a pro-Benitez Committee bias somehow influenced the work done by the Union. It didn't exist.
  22. Graham Smith
    No, you are completely forgetting RBS's role. The Board could have had Father, Son and Holy Ghost on it pre-Broughton. RBS insisted on Broughton and Broughton insisted on the terms he negotiated. If he felt he didn't have the "numbers" on the Board before he was appointed he wouldn't have taken the job. Broughton knew that sale, refinance or administration were the options. Voting against refinance was a no brainer for everyone and avoiding administration through a sale was the game. Broughton and the Board delivered the sale. Blackstone's proposed refinancing was much later in the day, after Broughton hasd come on board. It was part of Hick's last throw of the dice to avoid the epic swindle.
  23. Graham Smith
    One Committee member made that comment and probably regrets it now as it was irrelevant to the rally. The context of the comment has to be seen in light of the timing - a view held by many is that Bascombe and Maddocks only changed their tune once Benitez had gone. And you haven't addressed or produced the pro-Benitez evidence of an SOS love-in. Because there isn't any.
  24. Graham Smith
    No, not right. Broughton was brought in because of RBS, no other reason. That would have always happened.
  25. Graham Smith
    That doesn't stack up. Broughton got appointed through RBS pressure and Hicks and Gillett (presumably reluctantly) agreeing to the terms of his appointment. The terms of his appointment put Broughton in virtual complete control of the bigger picture. From that point administration, refinancing or sale were the only options. Broughton appointed Barcap and they trawled the world for buyers - some credible, some not. RBS were putting pressure on for a sale or administration and the Owners were seeking refinancing. Purslow will have played a part in this and where he should get credit was voting against a refinance. But frankly that would have been a no brainer and been the longest suicide note in history if he had voted with the Owners against Broughton and Ayre. Once refinancing had gone as an option then it was a matter of picking the best and most credible buyer. He had his doubts about NESV (and I don't blame him for that) but ultimately they were the best game in town.
×
×
  • Create New...