Topic: When Ian met Tom (Long, long feature!)

[gazzalfc]

http://www.spiritofshankly.com/documents/101220_memo_to_nesv_a.pdf

And the reply.

http://www.spiritofshankly.com/documents/sos_letter_a.pdf?1

Didn't agree with that back then and that hasn't changed. The tone of the letter was all wrong and the manner in which it was delivered was even worse.  It was a major slip up by SOS and certainly a very poor first impression.

It pretty much said.

Hi. thanks for getting rid of the last lot. Now when can we take over the club and get rid of you.

I have had clear opinions on SOS in the past and they haven't changed. I would not want a co-op running our club and fan ownership is not the right model here. SOS should stick to helping the fans link with the executive level of the club (which will in all honesty be made redundant when the supporters committee launches) and sorting cheaper away travel arrangements for fans.

I know that sounds harsh with all the work put in protesting the cancers. But that war is over.

But back on topic it was a fun and very interesting interview. Felt a bit more low key compared to flying a SSN team over and forcing the kids into LFC shirts.

[Eeyore]

that is a bad example given the way that letter was written. As the long thread that discussed it went on about over and over.

I was more askin what specific questions have they been dodging that you'd like to see answered?

Personally I would like them to answer the following questions.

1. Who are the current partners of FSG and what are their current holdings in the Company.

2. Why did they lie to the Premier League about Henry and Werner being the only partners with a 10% or more holding in the Company when the NYT had 17.6% and then have to amend the Clubs website accordingly.

3. They stated that debt would not be loaded on the Club but may be placed further up the organisation, has that happened or do they intend to do it in the future.

4. Will a new ground or redevelopment of Anfield be funded by the partners of FSG or will they be looking to borrow the money.

5. Why have they said that both Craven Cottage and Anfield reminded them off the Red Sox Stadium when it suited their purpose.


Surprisingly Werner and Ayre didn't ask each other those type of questions during the FSG party political broadcast. I haven't got a clue if FSG will be good owners or not, they have made a promising start and are infinitely better than the last lot but I just don't buy all the gushing we have fallen in love with the Club nonsense.

Henry and Werner are hard nosed businessmen charged with increasing the value of FSG by it's shareholders not some lovestruck Sports fans living out a dream.

[Mutton Geoff]

Sorry AL but your mind is made up now  it seems, they are dammed if they do and dammed if they dont! This is how it seems from your constant carping and calling foul when they have not made a retrograde step yet!

To me you're a bit like the guy who cried Wolf  and if they ever go wrong and you highlight it people may just ignore your warning!

Nothing personal Al but that is the way your repeated negative posts about FSG come across to me in here, i am all for more vigilance this time, but also give em a bit of leeway to get it right as well,  up to now they have earned it in my opinion.

[Eeyore]

Sorry AL but your mind is made up now  it seems, they are dammed if they do and dammed if they dont! This is how it seems from your constant carping and calling foul when they have not made a retrograde step yet!

To me you're a bit like the guy who cried Wolf  and if they ever go wrong and you highlight it people may just ignore your warning!

Nothing personal Al but that is the way your repeated negative posts about FSG come across to me in here, i am all for more vigilance this time, but also give em a bit of leeway to get it right as well,  up to now they have earned it in my opinion.

Sorry mate my mind is far from made up in fact the exact opposite is true, I don't think we know anywhere near enough about FSG to even scratch the surface of having an opinion on them. The problem is that there are plenty of people who have already decided that they are fantastic owners with a deep and genuine love for the Club.

The problem as I see it is that people are already turning on SOS and any dissenting voices, why can't we let things pan out before we pass judgement. There are plenty of people already lauding FSG as great owners when we don't even know who FSG are for me that is absolutely crazy.

To me we are a group of fans badly treated by the last owners who are jumping into bed with this lot on the rebound before we have even found out who they are or what they are like.

[WheelerLFC]

Great read

[shelovesyou]

Live interview on Sky Sports tomorrow.

[Breitner]

Interesting comments which could potentially cause a riot on here 

Said the usual stuff about a new stadium on SP, blah, blah, blah, and then said they haven't ruled out a groundshare but he thinks it's a non starter because the fans don't want it. Think he's right not to rule it out if it's a viable option, personally I believe we should have done it years ago

[CraigDS]

Interesting comments which could potentially cause a riot on here 

Said the usual stuff about a new stadium on SP, blah, blah, blah, and then said they haven't ruled out a groundshare but he thinks it's a non starter because the fans don't want it. Think he's right not to rule it out if it's a viable option, personally I believe we should have done it years ago

Thankfully you're not running the show 

[Trada]

Interesting comments which could potentially cause a riot on here 

Said the usual stuff about a new stadium on SP, blah, blah, blah, and then said they haven't ruled out a groundshare but he thinks it's a non starter because the fans don't want it. Think he's right not to rule it out if it's a viable option, personally I believe we should have done it years ago

How would Everton pay for their half of the stadium?

Would they want half the naming rights money they will be just dipping their hand into our pockets.

A none starter for me.

[Breitner]

How would Everton pay for their half of the stadium?

Would they want half the naming rights money they will be just dipping their hand into our pockets.

A none starter for me.

I assume they'd be banking on some sort of public or private funding

[Finn Solomon]

How would Everton pay for their half of the stadium?

Selling off all of their squad.

[Eeyore]

How would Everton pay for their half of the stadium?

Would they want half the naming rights money they will be just dipping their hand into our pockets.

A none starter for me.

The naming rights is the key, Companies pay hundreds of millions because you want to be associated with a global brand like Liverpool. You don't pay hundreds of millions if the jealous down at heels bastard half-brother is going to tag along as well.

Who in there right mind would want to put their name to a Stadium in which the two owners absolutely detest each other.

[Eeyore]

Selling off all of their squad.

We aren't going to get much of a Stadium for thirty quid. Who's going to build it Lego.

[Vulmea]

We aren't going to get much of a Stadium for thirty quid. Who's going to build it Lego.

Al 555 I dont necessarily agree with the inquisitional approach but you definately have the right ask, and I agree we dont have to be all pink and fluffy about the owners - the fans do have some genuine questions going forward.

The last pair of shysters have left a stain on the soul of the club thats for sure - I doubt anybody will be welcomed as openly again but its always possible that what fsg is pedalling is true and if we let whats gone before cloud our ability to enjoy that then its us thats the poorer for it, isn't it.

Can't agree with gazza's view that this club shouldn't be fan owned - its the most appropriate club in the world to be fan owned - when the likes of Madrid, Barca, Munich indeed every club in Germany are all fan owned the idea it can't work is ludicrous - fan ownership doesn't turn the club into the wheeltapers and shunters club run by some local committe - Munich is run by a group of the most powerful businesses in Germany -

fan ownership is less about the operating model and more about recognising clubs are community assets, they are part of the fabric of an area and group of people and should not be subject to the whims and winds of those who do not have the interest of that community at heart.

There is certainly no contradiction between fan ownership and fsg's reported approach - if they are to be believed they are the benevolent tyrants  that we all needed but they could equally be the benevolent custodians empowered by fan ownership to run LFC as well as it can be. The two dont have to be mutually exclusive. I can see fsg undertaking some sort of share scheme in the future because I can see a voice for it from the fans and I can see why it makes sense financially. I can see it working particularly around investment in a new stadium. Whatever fsg are they are not stupid.

[Trada]

I assume they'd be banking on some sort of public or private funding

I thought the banks have told them they won't lend them any more money. How would they service a say 200m debt when they have a problem with a 40 million one.

Also will they fill the size of stadium we would want, last weekend they had their lowest attendance for I think 8 years for a home Premiership game.

It won't surprise me if we had to guarantee any loan they took out if we had a shared stadium. 

[Eeyore]

Al 555 I dont necessarily agree with the inquisitional approach but you definately have the right ask, and I agree we dont have to be all pink and fluffy about the owners - the fans do have some genuine questions going forward.

The last pair of shysters have left a stain on the soul of the club thats for sure - I doubt anybody will be welcomed as openly again but its always possible that what fsg is pedalling is true and if we let whats gone before cloud our ability to enjoy that then its us thats the poorer for it, isn't it.

Can't agree with gazza's view that this club shouldn't be fan owned - its the most appropriate club in the world to be fan owned - when the likes of Madrid, Barca, Munich indeed every club in Germany are all fan owned the idea it can't work is ludicrous - fan ownership doesn't turn the club into the wheeltapers and shunters club run by some local committe - Munich is run by a group of the most powerful businesses in Germany -

fan ownership is less about the operating model and more about recognising clubs are community assets, they are part of the fabric of an area and group of people and should not be subject to the whims and winds of those who do not have the interest of that community at heart.

There is certainly no contradiction between fan ownership and fsg's reported approach - if they are to be believed they are the benevolent tyrants  that we all needed but they could equally be the benevolent custodians empowered by fan ownership to run LFC as well as it can be. The two dont have to be mutually exclusive. I can see fsg undertaking some sort of share scheme in the future because I can see a voice for it from the fans and I can see why it makes sense financially. I can see it working particularly around investment in a new stadium. Whatever fsg are they are not stupid.

Personally I don't see how FSG and fan ownership could co-exist. As far as I can tell FSG is an investment fund in which rich people hand over their cash and let JWH and Werner make all the decisions. The members of FSG aren't interested in making decisions they are just silent partners with JWH and Werner according to reports having the only voting rights.

The members of FSG are interested in making a long term business investment in which they expect JWH and Werner to grow the business and in the process make their investment more worthwhile.

As a fan I certainly wouldn't be interested in putting money into the business without any representation or any say in what happens. Likewise I couldn't see the investors in FSG allowing a situation to occur in which they have no say over what happens but a group of fans in one of the businesses that comes under the FSG umbrella do.

To paraphrase why would we agree to taxation without representation. The fans wouldn't be looking for a long term investment they would be looking to have a stake in the Club and a say in how it was run. As much as I would love to see it I really cannot see fan ownership working whilst FSG own the Club.

[subroc]

Of course this article was published to get the fans more behind the owners and the managemetn of the club - but all the same, the club is in such better hands than it was under the previous "administration", that there are no words to describe the difference, really.

[Vulmea]

Personally I don't see how FSG and fan ownership could co-exist. As far as I can tell FSG is an investment fund in which rich people hand over their cash and let JWH and Werner make all the decisions. The members of FSG aren't interested in making decisions they are just silent partners with JWH and Werner according to reports having the only voting rights.

The members of FSG are interested in making a long term business investment in which they expect JWH and Werner to grow the business and in the process make their investment more worthwhile.

As a fan I certainly wouldn't be interested in putting money into the business without any representation or any say in what happens. Likewise I couldn't see the investors in FSG allowing a situation to occur in which they have no say over what happens but a group of fans in one of the businesses that comes under the FSG umbrella do.

To paraphrase why would we agree to taxation without representation. The fans wouldn't be looking for a long term investment they would be looking to have a stake in the Club and a say in how it was run. As much as I would love to see it I really cannot see fan ownership working whilst FSG own the Club.

have you looked at the Bayern model? Some of the biggest hitters in the German/European economy are on the board but its a fans owned club.

we had 6000 small share holders under Moores who had little to no say in the running of the club - I'm not proposing a similar model because thats far too exclusive a set up but the idea remains that being a part of the club is a powerful idriver.

Once set up how that fan ownership is excercised is the key,  Barca do it by proxy they elect a president and empower that individual to act on their manifesto, Bayern have their board structure, we could and would I hop have our own model one more representative of the socialist traditions of the club

If by fan ownership though you are looking for a fan council/committee running the show, crossing t's and dotting i's and second guessing everything from a position of distrust and paranoia - for me thats just a recipe for disaster - it would somehow need to be united be a strong lead - it would take time and the time and experience needed would more than likely see it fail - not out of any lack of intelligence or high intentions - we saw how quickly things can go south an dit'd take a long time to bed in.

the only way a global business is going to work is with top level business acumen - that would mean empowering people with top busines acument to lead  the show - the role of the fans would be to provide the continuity of ownership - a referral point on key strategic decisions - there would have to be clear Board level representation but not leadership.

in terms of fsg then at the moment the fans council just looks like a market research group - no real role other than comms - there is no reason that could n't be extended though to at first a non exec role and then if it proves its worth to a full voting role but even then you'd be talking about an elected rep not 20 odd people - and that elected rep is going to need to be savvy - fsg's ethos is supposed to be management by consensus - identify top people get them pointed in the same directiona nd achieve more than teh sum of their parts - I dont see why fans are excluded from that



I dont think it will happen, I just dont think it can't happen.

[Eeyore]

have you looked at the Bayern model? Some of the biggest hitters in the German/European economy are on the board but its a fans owned club.

we had 6000 small share holders under Moores who had little to no say in the running of the club - I'm not proposing a similar model because thats far too exclusive a set up but the idea remains that being a part of the club is a powerful idriver.

Once set up how that fan ownership is excercised is the key,  Barca do it by proxy they elect a president and empower that individual to act on their manifesto, Bayern have their board structure, we could and would I hop have our own model one more representative of the socialist traditions of the club

If by fan ownership though you are looking for a fan council/committee running the show, crossing t's and dotting i's and second guessing everything from a position of distrust and paranoia - for me thats just a recipe for disaster - it would somehow need to be united be a strong lead - it would take time and the time and experience needed would more than likely see it fail - not out of any lack of intelligence or high intentions - we saw how quickly things can go south an dit'd take a long time to bed in.

the only way a global business is going to work is with top level business acumen - that would mean empowering people with top busines acument to lead  the show - the role of the fans would be to provide the continuity of ownership - a referral point on key strategic decisions - there would have to be clear Board level representation but not leadership.

in terms of fsg then at the moment the fans council just looks like a market research group - no real role other than comms - there is no reason that could n't be extended though to at first a non exec role and then if it proves its worth to a full voting role but even then you'd be talking about an elected rep not 20 odd people - and that elected rep is going to need to be savvy - fsg's ethos is supposed to be management by consensus - identify top people get them pointed in the same directiona nd achieve more than teh sum of their parts - I dont see why fans are excluded from that



I dont think it will happen, I just dont think it can't happen.

I think the Bayern model is absolutely fantastic with the Club using big business instead of the other way around. A fan owned Liverpool selling off a small percentage of the Club to fund a Stadium, a fan owned Liverpool having a raft of partners with the money being used to reduce ticket prices is my idea of nirvana.

We must look at the differences though Bayern was fan owned before the likes of Kenyon showed big business that Football had an intrinsic value and crucially legislation in Germany means the Clubs have to be fan owned.

Personally I think the way to go would be to have an elected board who ran the Club for a fixed period of say four or five years and then have elections. We would have a degree of accountability without the need for committee's and too much interference.

As for buying the Club I would love us to get big business to buy it for us. Have a raft of partners with say Barclays being the Club's banking partner they stump up a sum to become Liverpool official banking partner stump up the cash and we pay it back in a cashback co-operative sort of way.

In the way say Topcashback or Quidco work instead of getting a £100 quid for switching your bank, your energy supplier, your mobile contract etc that money goes to buying a share in the Club. Instead of having a Nectar card, or a Tesco clubcard you have a LFC card and everytime you spend money you get rewarded by gaining a fraction of the Club. Big business gets a whole new set of confirmed customers, gets it's investment returned and we get the Club.

A hundred big business stumping up £5m each in return for becoming a partner of one of the biggest brands in football for a fixed period of say ten years. Instead of big business taking advantage of us we take advantage of big business.

[Vulmea]

I think the Bayern model is absolutely fantastic with the Club using big business instead of the other way around. A fan owned Liverpool selling off a small percentage of the Club to fund a Stadium, a fan owned Liverpool having a raft of partners with the money being used to reduce ticket prices is my idea of nirvana.

We must look at the differences though Bayern was fan owned before the likes of Kenyon showed big business that Football had an intrinsic value and crucially legislation in Germany means the Clubs have to be fan owned.

Personally I think the way to go would be to have an elected board who ran the Club for a fixed period of say four or five years and then have elections. We would have a degree of accountability without the need for committee's and too much interference.

As for buying the Club I would love us to get big business to buy it for us. Have a raft of partners with say Barclays being the Club's banking partner they stump up a sum to become Liverpool official banking partner stump up the cash and we pay it back in a cashback co-operative sort of way.

In the way say Topcashback or Quidco work instead of getting a £100 quid for switching your bank, your energy supplier, your mobile contract etc that money goes to buying a share in the Club. Instead of having a Nectar card, or a Tesco clubcard you have a LFC card and everytime you spend money you get rewarded by gaining a fraction of the Club. Big business gets a whole new set of confirmed customers, gets it's investment returned and we get the Club.

A hundred big business stumping up £5m each in return for becoming a partner of one of the biggest brands in football for a fixed period of say ten years. Instead of big business taking advantage of us we take advantage of big business.

The elections thing leaves me a bit mmm, aaaa because as we see at national level it can lead to short term planning - if you know you've only get 5 years then your targets are going to be geared to that - if its not restricted you can set them as needed but without elections are are the leaders held accountable - the right to call an election for control of the board could be more appropriate with that right resting with the elected rep - not sure need to think about that

 on the financing thats exactly it really - I dont think there is anything that just says this can't happen - if people want it enough it can be made to work
but in the current climate I think only fsg are in a position to make it happen, the fan groups wont get enough momentum on their own

but from fsg's perspective if they opened up a 25% ownership option that proved successful , they've just recieved a huge lift to their cash flow - ok the current investors have taken a hit but if that money is invested in enabling a new stadium build then the current investors have probably taken one step back and two forwards - once on the board the fan rep could then move the agenda forward - whilst we have what appear to be benevolent owners - maybe be given first option on current investor options,  any return which could be taken would be turned into more fan ownership options etc - how those options can be taken up is a different matter.

[Eeyore]

The elections thing leaves me a bit mmm, aaaa because as we see at national level it can lead to short term planning - if you know you've only get 5 years then your targets are going to be geared to that - if its not restricted you can set them as needed but without elections are are the leaders held accountable - the right to call an election for control of the board could be more appropriate with that right resting with the elected rep - not sure need to think about that

 on the financing thats exactly it really - I dont think there is anything that just says this can't happen - if people want it enough it can be made to work
but in the current climate I think only fsg are in a position to make it happen, the fan groups wont get enough momentum on their own

but from fsg's perspective if they opened up a 25% ownership option that proved successful , they've just recieved a huge lift to their cash flow - ok the current investors have taken a hit but if that money is invested in enabling a new stadium build then the current investors have probably taken one step back and two forwards - once on the board the fan rep could then move the agenda forward - whilst we have what appear to be benevolent owners - maybe be given first option on current investor options,  any return which could be taken would be turned into more fan ownership options etc - how those options can be taken up is a different matter.

The problems as I see it are although allowing the fans a 25% stake would cement FSG's popularity it would also mean FSG would have to be far more open about their structure and crucially they would have to become answerable to some extent to the shareholders with things like AGM's being a very unnecessary evil.

Why make yourself open to large levels of public scrutiny when you can just get the faceless members of FSG to raise their ante or bring in another investor who is happy to let JWH and Werner run the show without interference.

The other thing is unless there was a commitment written in stone to allow the fans to eventually own a majority stake or an equal stake in the Club why would the fans hand over a £100m+ to FSG.

[Vulmea]

The problems as I see it are although allowing the fans a 25% stake would cement FSG's popularity it would also mean FSG would have to be far more open about their structure and crucially they would have to become answerable to some extent to the shareholders with things like AGM's being a very unnecessary evil.

Why make yourself open to large levels of public scrutiny when you can just get the faceless members of FSG to raise their ante or bring in another investor who is happy to let JWH and Werner run the show without interference.

The other thing is unless there was a commitment written in stone to allow the fans to eventually own a majority stake or an equal stake in the Club why would the fans hand over a £100m+ to FSG.

these are clever guys - they could wangle the membership scheme into an ownership scheme without too much difficulty - they could empower th fan council without too much danger by setting its remit around community issues - they could elect a fan rep onto the board without too much problem - they talk about building consensus - I'd have thought the fan rep would have gone native relatively quickly
- on the other side of that is the huge PR, imagine the image rights in China alone for the first Prem fan owned club - its not just about the money the fans would raise the spin off would be enormous - if we didn't have bidders falling over themselves for naming rights before we'd be fighting them off with a big stick afterwards

How much interference is a minority stakeholder going to have - of course there's a risk but its a small risk compared to the potential gain - and these guys are all about speculating to accumulate aren't they? Its the old do you want to own 100% of £10 or 49% of £100 - if the numbers stack up then its worth them doing it.

I dont necessarily think shareholder would be the right title because I'd expect fans wouldn't be looking for a return - it would be more of a cooperative/membership thing I'd guess with an elected rep - I'm going to go study the munich model to see how the hell they make it work before I tie myself in knots

the fact they haven't yet moved on it suggests the numbers dont work but hey there's a reason I'm not a billionaire business man