Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chewie

FSG Watch...

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Molby said:

Whoever you are, you speak the Pravda 

vodka? 

100 grams is enough for me, I am not a typical Russian😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So on one hand i think the club have came to the right decision, the reality is there is a lot of areas the club could have chosen to address first before going down this route.

We're in unprecedented times and its absolutely imperative that if we come out of the end of this that there are good businesses (of which LFC is one) that is able to employ and keep paying as many people as possible,

I've not been subject to furlough directly but so many people i know have been and the fact that the government has implemented this scheme means people are able to ensure that if 

1. They can't pay salaries - they can now

2. That when we come out of the end of this, there are still good jobs and thriving businesses to go to having been supported by the government to facilitate this.

Make no mistake - furloughing staff and having the ability to furlough staff at the moment is a good thing for businesses large or small. 

Football is going to change forever after this, salaries, TV rights, football I think will undergo a mini recession, wages will almost certainly be reduced, transfer fees I think will go back about 10 years from an inflation perspective.

It is also worth pointing out that all of this may indeed impact what we want Liverpool to be in 2-3 years time. I think its churlish to say that paying salaries for the next few months will have a detrimental affect upon the clubs ability to grow, but the longer this goes on the bigger effect its going to have.

The Nike kit launch for example alongside 19/20 premier league winning merchandise is almost certainly going to be a fraction of what it had anticipated to be and that in itself will impact us on the pitch absolutely no doubt.

Football won't be immune to COVID 19 and stands arguably to be the most financially impacted, but in the short term the club should have just waited and I'm glad they've made the decision that they have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, antona said:

The present and not the past. 30 years ago LGBT people also didn't have many basic rights in the West.

That’s a starting point, you think investment banking is clean you’re seriously deluded. Look at what they’re investing in .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RBM said:

That’s a starting point, you think investment banking is clean you’re seriously deluded. Look at what they’re investing in .

He didn’t say that 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two thoughts about this:

  • It was a very poor, initial decision. Can't have things like "This Means More" and "Liverpool Family" and then pull s*** like this. But I am glad that they finally came to the right decision, it was the right thing to do. I know the players are contracted etc (and I'm sure some of them do SOMETHING behind the scenes) but it would have been a huge gesture, even a token one, to all formally agree to take a paycut while this ends - every little bit helps. I guess the issue is - what is the right amount? You can't expect players to take ZERO pay either (regardless of what people want to say, players will have their own expenses too etc). And then the problem becomes what percentage is acceptable - because some t** will always complain that it's never enough. But honestly, even a token 5-10% from EACH senior player would have been HUGE in this instance towards paying non-playing staff.
  • However, to all of those, and ESPECIALLY the 'non-football' folk who have pillored this decision, if and when the time comes that a club like Liverpool (or similar - deepy ingrained in its society and tied to the city's culture) is indeed in the s***ter, the government needs to step in to help and assist. At that stage, no arguments about 'well they ran the business poorly' can be made. Precisely because clubs like these operate BOTH as a business and as so much more than that, and in times ilke these, also isn't EXPECTED to act simply like a 'business'. Because it isn't simply a business. No one gives two s***s what Walmart or Tescos does in a situation like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cam said:

But in the spirit of transparency we also be clear, despite the fact we were in a healthy position prior to this crisis, our revenues have been shut off yet our outgoings remain. And like almost every sector of society, there is great uncertainty and concern over our present and future.

It is an unavoidable truth that several of these scenarios involve a massive downturn in revenue, with correspondingly unprecedented operating losses. Having these vital financial resources so profoundly impacted would obviously negatively affect our ability to operate as we previously have.

We are engaged in the process of exploring all avenues within our scope to limit the inevitable damage 

 

So, redundancies and we're selling Salah. 

The statement is just trying to cover their ass for the huge PR f*ck up.

They admitted that the staff they were furloughing would cost the club around £1m. If the club cannot bear £1m of costs, then we are in a truly f*cked up financial position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kvarme Ate My Food said:

“This means more” was always. Load of marketing bulls***.

They should leave the club ethos to the supporters.

It's probably targeted more at Americand and rest of the worldwide fan base, who buy into it more than we do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hassony said:

It's probably targeted more at Americand and rest of the worldwide fan base, who buy into it more than we do

Probably yes, but it’s still s***e.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kvarme Ate My Food said:

“This means more” was always. Load of marketing bulls***.

They should leave the club ethos to the supporters.

It’s excruciatingly bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liverpool apology shows humility exists but PR humiliations are too frequent

By Simon Hughes  2h ago 17  

A couple of years ago, I interviewed Derek Hatton, the former deputy leader of Liverpool’s council, who was expelled from the Labour Party for belonging to Militant — a faction accused of being in breach of Labour’s constitution.

Liverpool’s unemployment rates were among the worst in the country during the 1980s, a defining decade in the city’s identity. As a consequence, its population almost halved. Meanwhile, there was a housing crisis, a heroin epidemic and some of the most violent rioting that Britain had ever witnessed.

By 1985, Hatton and Militant were attempting to solve some of Liverpool’s problems by ignoring spending caps set by the Conservative government. This led to a warning from the district auditor who said that the council must either cut its investment and use the courts to set a balanced rate or sack its 32,000 employees.

A game of bluff followed in which Hatton issued redundancy notices to all workers. On a covering letter, there was a note explaining the tactical move aimed at buying the council another three months to try and find a way forward.

Up until that point, Hatton had been one of the most popular politicians in the city’s history. He had stood up to Margaret Thatcher and landslide victories in local and national elections were recorded by Labour in Liverpool. This went against what was happening elsewhere in the country and contributed towards the feeling that Liverpool was a separate sort of place.

Yet this tactical move changed the mood. Hatton had achieved some good things for Liverpool in the most testing of circumstances. Yet this was viewed as him playing politics with people’s jobs and livelihoods, endangering the futures of families. The council’s decision had danced with vulnerability and heightened insecurities, inviting panic. “Maybe the way we communicated it was a mistake,” he reflected, which is quite an admittance because Hatton tends not to do regrets.

Sometimes the way things are done can matter more than what is done. Peter Moore is not another Derek Hatton but the apology from Liverpool football club’s CEO last night made me think of the way Liverpool as a city tends to respond when jobs are placed at risk by those who think they are protecting them by embracing schemes. However it needs emphasising that Liverpool city council were under far greater financial pressure then than Liverpool football club are now.

It is clear from Moore’s statement and by listening to those close to the situation that this is what Liverpool thought they were doing when the decision was taken to furlough almost half of their non-playing staff in a period where all revenues through Anfield have pretty much stopped. Nobody knows for certain how long this crisis might last, after all. Liverpool’s economic world is a real one and as Moore reminded at the end of his statement, coronavirus will “negatively affect our ability to operate as we previously have”. Somewhere along the line, whether its staffing levels on the club shop floor or the ability to sign the best players, something will have to give — though this will be a reality facing every football club on the planet providing financial fair play rules remain realistic. Staff at Liverpool, indeed, have echoed what other workers feel after being furloughed. There is temporary relief that they are being paid at least something for doing nothing before they start to compare themselves to those colleagues they have left behind. It is then they realise they are more expendable and therefore their futures are at risk.

In the new world, Liverpool will just have to work harder and think more imaginatively than ever before. In the current world, just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Considering the club’s local fanbase has a passion for the sort of Labour politics Hatton espoused, the idea of the football club they are equally as enthusiastic about being propped up by handouts from a government led by the Conservative Party proved to be an emotional own goal, especially as it was the Conservatives who proposed “managed decline” for Liverpool in the 1980s and left the city to rot, prompting figures such as Hatton into concocting drastic responses.

There is a tendency, in football particularly, to think of groups of people in absolute terms. The club represents the fans and by that measure, the fans are a part of the club, “the family”. Yet Liverpool supporters have railed against the club here, just as they have before and will do again if they think something is wrong. This leads me towards the conclusion that there is a disconnection between what the club is and what many supporters want it to be. Perhaps to some degree that is always the way it has been. Liverpool is maybe, therefore, one of the biggest dysfunctional families around and not the cult it is sometimes presented as.

Furloughing, indeed, gave rival fans an opportunity to stick the knife in that bit further than usual and justifiably question what Liverpool really stands for, with images circulating across social media by Saturday night of Jurgen Klopp touching the space where the old This is Anfield sign used to hang in the main stand, only the sign was replaced by a painting of Thatcher.

Liverpool’s owners are responsible and they are capable of far-sighted decisions. Their best? To stay at Anfield and build a new main stand. Not only has that generated the revenues that have helped push the club at least closer to their rivals while maintaining heritage, the development encouraged Klopp to join and without him I don’t think what has followed on the pitch would have happened.

It is a strength that they apologise for their mistakes. Not many club owners ever have or would. It suggests humility exists. Yet are they learning? It would improve the trust with its own fanbase if the frequency between PR humiliations reduced. It has been less than a year since a storm around the club’s attempts to trademark the name Liverpool. On that occasion, officials were unapologetic but they were in 2016 after fans reacted to a new ticketing pricing structure by walking out of Anfield en masse.

There are already figures employed by Liverpool whose advice the owners should heed, especially if the matter is likely to be a controversial one and impact on the way fans feel about their own club. Quite why they didn’t appreciate how the latest episode would all look remains baffling. In Moore’s apology letter, the Spirit of Shankly (SOS) pressure group were thanked for their co-operation over the last 48 hours and this has to be considered a step forward.

At the start of this health crisis, SOS had warned Liverpool that whatever strategic direction was taken by the club it remained their duty to pay staff their wages. Since that correspondence, the line of communication had gone cold until recent days. There are challenges with establishing a balance in such potentially awkward relationships but if mastered it would surely reduce the chances of negative chapters like this one feeling like the sort of tired repeats we now associate with lockdown television.

(Photo: Andrew Powell/Liverpool FC via Getty Images)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSG were completely wrong, but there are plenty of businesses that have much bigger turnover, have generated larger profits, and pay dividends to shareholders who also furloughed staff using the government scheme without a single bit of public criticism. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've also had to fall back on Atletico covering the 17k cost for refunding fans with tickets who couldn't attend the game at Anfield.

 

I think the only appropriate response here is to fire the person who took these decisions. Moore, your time is up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DecidedByPoll said:

FSG were completely wrong, but there are plenty of businesses that have much bigger turnover, have generated larger profits, and pay dividends to shareholders who also furloughed staff using the government scheme without a single bit of public criticism. 

 

Do they all pretend to be some sort of socialist utopia as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kid Klopp said:

We've also had to fall back on Atletico covering the 17k cost for refunding fans with tickets who couldn't attend the game at Anfield.

 

I think the only appropriate response here is to fire the person who took these decisions. Moore, your time is up.

And why should we pay for away fans who decided not to go? I don't get it. It was always Atleti"s responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kid Klopp said:

We've also had to fall back on Atletico covering the 17k cost for refunding fans with tickets who couldn't attend the game at Anfield.

 

I think the only appropriate response here is to fire the person who took these decisions. Moore, your time is up.

This is absolutely not on us. 

 

Atletico said they would refund fans before the match. 

 

All away tickets are handled by the away team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Jarg Armani said:

Do they all pretend to be some sort of socialist utopia as well

I don’t think the club does. 

It shows that the substance of the criticism from outside the club was never the actual concern, and rather that the desperation of those outside our fan base to cry ‘hypocrisy’ was a considerable driving factor in the public criticism when there are loads of worse offenders who didn’t/won’t top up the 80%.

And it shows (again) that despite getting things right in loads of ways, FSG are hard nosed business men who know how to monetise the club’s values, without ever really understanding (or caring about?)  those values. 

Barnesy aside (the real one, not the forumite!) I thought the response from fans/ex players etc (who are more defined as a socialist utopia) was perfect. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pearce thing from The Athletic.

 

Liverpool had not planned to make an announcement on Saturday afternoon regarding their controversial decision to utilise the UK government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. “Our hand was forced,” one senior club source told The Athletic.

The Anfield hierarchy believe details were leaked by another Premier League club after what Liverpool understood to be confidential discussions involving top-flight sides about how they intended to handle the effects of the pandemic.

Liverpool’s plan was to wait until Monday to release their statement to ensure that every impacted employee was made aware by the club directly via letter before any public announcement was made.

Little did owners Fenway Sports Group know that the publication of a hastily constructed statement on the club website confirming that some non-playing staff had been placed on furlough would trigger a furious backlash that culminated 48 hours later in a dramatic U-turn and public apology.

In an open letter to supporters on Monday, chief executive Peter Moore said the club was “truly sorry” for coming to the “wrong conclusion” after initially deciding to furlough about 200 employees. Liverpool will no longer seek taxpayers’ money to cover 80 per cent of the wages of staff who are currently unable to work with no matches going on. They would have been claiming about £500,000 per month.

The Athletic understands principal owner John W Henry, chairman Tom Werner (both pictured top) and FSG president Mike Gordon were “shocked” by the torrent of criticism and stung by what they regard as unfair accusations of greed. During a series of conference calls on Monday, they were in full agreement that back-tracking was the best solution to limiting the damage caused by the fallout.

Gordon, who is FSG’s second biggest shareholder after Henry, runs Liverpool on a day-to-day basis and is a popular figure at both Melwod and in the club’s Chapel Street offices. The Milwaukee-born businessman, who divides his time between Merseyside and FSG’s home in Boston, has the final word on everything from sanctioning transfer deals to making senior executive appointments.

Managing director Billy Hogan and Moore answer to him and the trio spoke extensively before the initial decision to furlough was taken last week. From a business perspective, they all felt it was crucial to help ease the current cash-flow issues. All revenue streams have dried up in the current crisis but overheads remain huge and even for a club the size of Liverpool that’s a major headache.

As well as an annual wage bill of £310 million, there are payments on previous transfers due in the coming months. There’s uncertainty over whether TV money will need to be repaid and if the next instalments from global sponsors will be forthcoming given that with no games being played Liverpool are currently unable to fulfil their side of the bargain.

The Athletic has reported there are significant fears that Premier League sides may yet need to repay £762 million to broadcasters should the 2019-20 season not be completed, while the determination to finish the campaign even led to one idea of taking games to China.

The collective commitment to find a way to complete the Premier League season when it’s safe to do so is good news for Liverpool, with Jurgen Klopp’s side on the brink of sealing the title. However, just when football will return remains unclear. Mid-to-late June, with matches initially played behind closed doors, is currently regarded as the most optimistic scenario. Meanwhile, the financial toll will keep growing.

Liverpool’s latest accounts may have shown a pre-tax profit of £42 million but FSG insists those figures are almost a year old and all money generated is reinvested into the club as it constantly looks to balance the books.

There has been no public announcement but The Athletic understands more than a dozen executive staff, including Hogan, Moore and chief operating officer Andy Hughes, voluntarily took a 25 per cent pay cut last week. It was kept quiet as they didn’t want to place the players in a difficult situation as their own discussions over wage reductions continue.

As a major UK taxpayer and one of the biggest employers in the city with a staff of around 800, FSG felt it was entitled to utilise the coronavirus fund to help safeguard jobs.

Bigger companies than Liverpool FC have turned to the government for help and they currently have hundreds of operational, hospitality and catering staff who have no work to do in the continued absence of Premier League football.

Liverpool had already promised to cover the wages of casual Anfield match-day staff for the postponed games in April, which will cost them about £250,000 per match.

The club hierarchy believed criticism of their furlough decision would be mitigated by the fact that, unlike Tottenham Hotspur, they would be topping up the 80 per cent coming from the government with the remaining 20 per cent to ensure that no employee would be left out of pocket.

They were wrong. And the backlash over the weekend was so toxic that The Athletic understands a number of other Premier League clubs who had intended to announce the furloughing of staff have since decided to shelve those plans.

“That kind of thing was almost expected of Daniel Levy and Mike Ashley but you don’t expect Liverpool to go down that same route,” one Liverpool staff member, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Athletic.

“We’re always told we’re part of a family here and that working for Liverpool is different. ‘This means more’ is the marketing slogan. Surely part of that is looking after your own rather than taking government money which would be better spent elsewhere with so many businesses struggling?”

Former Liverpool players including Jamie Carragher and Stan Collymore led the fierce criticism on social media and as one FSG executive in Boston admitted “the bullets really started flying”.

The fact that it became national headline news with government ministers wading into the debate as Liverpool took a battering led to a series of urgent trans-Atlantic calls and a swift rethink. It had been a decision driven by data but the emotion it triggered hadn’t been properly considered.

Influential supporters’ union Spirit Of Shankly (SOS) submitted an open letter to Moore via email on Sunday afternoon demanding a full explanation and expressing concern for “the damage this is causing to our club’s reputation and values”.

On Monday, Moore and Tony Barrett, Liverpool’s head of club and supporter engagement, conducted a series of phone discussions with respected figures in the community. Feedback was collated and then presented to Gordon. There were three separate conversations with Joe Blott, the chair of SOS.

“It wasn’t clear at that stage that the decision would be reversed but I genuinely felt they were listening,” Blott tells The Athletic. “They wanted to gauge where the fanbase was on this. We told them it went right to the heart of the values of the club. I’m thankful we got to this position in the end but it all could have been avoided if supporters had been involved from an early stage.”

Moore also rang the Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson and the region’s Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram as well as local MPs Ian Byrne and Dan Carden. Byrne, a lifelong Liverpool fan, tells The Athletic: “Peter asked me what I thought and I told him that I’m in favour of using furlough if it means retaining jobs, as the overriding priority has to be that staff members get paid.

“Everyone was delighted when British Airways went into furlough as it saved jobs but the reality is that football gets judged by a different set of rules. With football clubs, there is a moral side to this.

“If Liverpool were saying, ‘We’re going to furlough for three months, we’re going to get X amount from the government and then we’re going to pay it back further down the line’ — that’s a different argument. The shame for me was that this decision has overshadowed a lot of the great work the club is doing in the local community at this difficult time.

“Football is an easy target for the government and some people are always looking for a reason to give Liverpool a knock. The club gave them an open goal on this one. It’s caused some damage but they’ve done the right thing in the end.”

Manchester City and Manchester United subsequently announced they would not be furloughing staff.

Having assessed all the feedback from Merseyside and done plenty of soul-searching, Gordon sanctioned the U-turn on Monday afternoon as he concluded there had been “a misjudgment” which needed to be reversed. He fed back to Henry and Werner. It was decided that Moore would write an open letter to fans.

There are parallels with February 2016, when FSG scrapped plans to increase ticket prices after 10,000 supporters walked out of Anfield in protest during a game against Sunderland.

On Monday, Moore wrote that Liverpool would find “alternative means” to cover wages rather than furlough during this “unprecedented period”. In the short-term that means dipping into cash reserves but concerns within the club about the impact of this crisis going forward are genuine and growing.

A glaring mistake has been rectified and the damage done has been reduced if not erased.

It’s a fine line between running Liverpool FC as a business and embracing the principles and values that the club’s supporters hold dear. After a torrid 48 hours, FSG acknowledged they fell on the wrong side of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Athletic understands principal owner John W Henry, chairman Tom Werner (both pictured top) and FSG president Mike Gordon were “shocked” by the torrent of criticism and stung by what they regard as unfair accusations of greed.

Yes, heaven forbid that billioanires be accused of being greedy. Pricks.

Edited by kop205

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stanley Leisure said:

The Anfield hierarchy believe details were leaked by another Premier League club

Liverpool’s plan was to wait until Monday to release their statement to ensure that every impacted employee was made aware by the club directly via letter before any public announcement was made.

There has been no public announcement but The Athletic understands more than a dozen executive staff, including Hogan, Moore and chief operating officer Andy Hughes, voluntarily took a 25 per cent pay cut last week.

 

 

Paragraph 1 - bullsh*t.

Paragraph 2 - makes no difference to the bad decision.

Paragraph 3 - bullsh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, stressederic said:

The leaking club was Spurs wasn't it? They've avoided a lot of the criticism that came our way.

I think in part because everyone knows they are horrible tory c*nts.

They don't market themselves like we do, I can see why we're getting such grief for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...