Topic: Letter to FSG:Recent Events

[liverpoolfcmike]

what would you call these:
 (trying to make Ayre look hypocritical by cherry picking his quotes and praise for winning the CC, when actually there's nothing contradictory at all here)
 ("Dear SOS, Yes, that is our plan exactly")
 does SOS honestly believe that the twitter message was for advice? What is adding in this bit about a tweet from some rando at LFC supposed to accomplish other than to insult them?
 



No I did not say 50% of the fans, I said that if they halve the fanbase on every issue they'll end up with a very small niche. It's not about trust or naivete, it's about being reasonable. What are you "trusting" SOS to do exactly? It seems like some like Tony Evans have an agenda; they decided these owners weren't good enough months ago and now are trying to get everyone on board with the hysteria so they can romanticize us back into 1983 and cleanse us of the evil outsiders. There's certainly more naivete being bandied about by fans going on about the Carling Cup being more important than the CL and how making money is distinct from being successful than I've seen from FSG. They've sacked an underperforming manager, that's their prerogative. If all you want to do is make snide comments about being so naive as to hire a DoF on the suggestion of a baseball guy then why should they engage you at all?

Agree with you here.

Also that rubbish about LFC.tv asking the fans for their input on their manager choice... It was quite clearly just an exorcise by .tv; one which they do often, just to gauge public opinion. They've done it many times. An article I saw put three of .tv's tweets up - two of them looked slightly suspicious and the third, for me, ruled out the possibility of it. Just rubbish.

[LiverBirdKop]

What good does it do to call the only buyers naive? The only buyers were incredibly naive to act at the suggestion of a baseball guy. Better?

I think you just deleted what you had written Boston...

PS. Ask me a year from now again if I'd preferred...."the manc from Hong Kong" or something to that effect I believe you called him. 

[BostonScouse]

What good does it do to call the only buyers naive? The only buyers were incredibly naive to act at the suggestion of a baseball guy. Better?

I think you just deleted what you had written Boston...

PS. Ask me a year from now again if I'd preferred...."the manc from Hong Kong" or something to that effect I believe you called him. 

sorry, yeah I deleted because there was a post in between. Anyway, there's a difference between being naive and still learning. From the start when they took over they were up front about the learning curve and neither of them pretended to be football experts.

I would have thought that in saving the club from administration it was understood that they'd be afforded some leeway in the process of moving the club forward, being the only buyers (besides the Hong Kong Manc  ) and former successful sport owners, but apparently not; their decisions at the start are now forever reflective of their decisions moving forward and their knowledge is completely static.

So they are not just learning but "naive" and the plan is to keep reiterating this point until what? they sell? Hire Kenny back? It's just an outburst of anger under the guise of "dialogue." Oh and we want things kept in house too, except when we don't.

[anil]

"Liverpool exists to win trophies"

Hey look, its that Moores quote again.

[anil]

And Kenny Red has been ace in this thread.

[Limbo]

I mentioned it earlier but I thought I will just ask again.

Why did SOS decide to send the letter directly instead of using the committee that is currently in place?

Wouldn't that have been more in line with the "keep it behind doors" spirit instead of potentially raising bad PR at a time when we need it least?

Was it because SOS felt that the committee is impotent? Or does SOS have some direct channel that bypasses the committee?

[LiverBirdKop]

Anyway, there's a difference between being naive and still learning. From the start when they took over they were up front about the learning curve and neither of them pretended to be football experts.

Semantics. How much did they know when they actually decided to bid? I'm pretty sure they had been "briefed" by experts and if they really didn't know anything about the club or the sport it makes them look even more like bargain hunters. Buy low, sell high. Klinsmann wasn't available? I'm glad we didn't go into administration. We're still alive and we almost ended up winning two cups this year. I'm sure that counts for something right? 

I would have thought that in saving the club from administration it was understood that they'd be afforded some leeway in the process of moving the club forward, but apparently not; their decisions at the start are now forever reflective of their decisions moving forward and their knowledge is static. So they are not just learning but "naive" and the plan is too keep reiterating this point until what? they sell? Hire Kenny back? It's just an outburst of anger under the guise of "dialogue." Oh and we want things kept in house too, except when we don't.

Now you're just being hyperbolic. "Reiterating this point until what". I've said it once before this discussion started ffs. So if not naive, what is it if you're consulting a baseball guy to hire a Department of Football guy, or did they just take his unrequested advice. You're right, naive may not be the best word. 

They are going to sell. There is no question about that. How far forward we are before they decide to do so is the question. If we're gonna end up without a new stadium and with just Anfield covered in jumbotrons, plastered with sponsor's signs and billboards and sky high tickets prices to go with a managerial turnstyle hoping for a miracle to be competitive every year then what? I'm sure you'll blame the fans or SOS or come up with other excuses.

If you think my posts were "outbursts of anger", you're either a hyperbole lover or pretty thin skinned. All this from me saying I saw nothing wrong with the SOS letter. 

LIsten, for the love I have for this club I hope FSG prove me wrong. Until then, a few things will have to happen for me to stop thinking this is going to end up badly. (or this sin't going to end up well).

[BostonScouse]

Semantics. How much did they know when they actually decided to bid? I'm pretty sure they had been "briefed" by experts and if they really didn't know anything about the club or the sport it makes them look even more like bargain hunters. Buy low, sell high. Klinsmann wasn't available? I'm glad we didn't go into administration. We're still alive and we almost ended up winning two cups this year. I'm sure that counts for something right?  Now you're just being hyperbolic. "Reiterating this point until what". I've said it once before this discussion started ffs. So if not naive, what is it if you're consulting a baseball guy to hire a Department of Football guy, or did they just take his unrequested advice. You're right, naive may not be the best word. 

so let's play the cynical game; they buy low and sell high. And why would this be a bad thing? I don't suppose that with the selling high comes some incidental on field improvements? financial health? This archaic principle that making money off the club makes them evil is more naive than anything else I've seen. What's the model then? Benevolent sugar daddy? we didn't get any of those offers.

Yes, part of a story was about how they were turned onto Commolli at least partially by Billy Beane's recommendation. In lynch mob language that now means they hired him exclusively from the word of Billy Beane, and not only was that their starting out point, it's now all we need to know about everything they've done and plan to do.

They are going to sell. There is no question about that. How far forward we are before they decide to do so is the question. If we're gonna end up without a new stadium and with just Anfield covered in jumbotrons, plastered with sponsor's signs and billboards and sky high tickets prices to go with a managerial turnstyle hoping for a miracle to be competitive every year then what? I'm sure you'll blame the fans or SOS or come up with other excuses.

If you think my posts were "outbursts of anger", you're either a hyperbole lover or pretty thin skinned. All this from me saying I saw nothing wrong with the SOS letter. 

LIsten, for the love I have for this club I hope FSG prove me wrong. Until then, a few things will have to happen for me to stop thinking this is going to end up badly.

The "outburst of anger" comment was directed at the letter. You took issue with my criticism of the letter so that's what I'm focused on; the letter. You've chosen to throw in the gratuitous stuff about Comolli and "naivete" so I've responded to that too. Now you've gone again with your own hyperbole claiming that because of the manager they inherited, that the fans demanded they sack, and the manager that the fans demanded they hire in his place that they're running a "managerial turnstyle." Not to mention the usual xenophobic cliches about tacky American commercialism.

Sorry, but this style of critique rings hollow to me because it isn't backed by any kind of coherent FC philosophy other than "things were better in the old days." Nowhere in the latest wave of outcry is any realistic view on what a non-sugar daddy ownership group is meant to do in the modern age of football, just absolute claims about them wanting money and vagaries about how LFC is too special for this or that.

So ultimately what you are saying is that you've decided as a default that FSG is going to ruin the club and until they prove otherwise it's perfectly reasonable to vocally espouse that viewpoint.

[LiverBirdKop]

Now you've gone again with your own hyperbole claiming that because of the manager they inherited, that the fans demanded they sack, and the manager that the fans demanded they hire in his place that they're running a "managerial turnstyle." Not to mention the usual xenophobic cliches about tacky American commercialism.

You forgot to mention they fired that other manager as well. "Xenophobic"? Good God. I've been fortunate to attend a few games at Fenway. Those jumbotrons flash ads all game long. There's billboards all over the park(as with most baseball parks). Fans have complained about missing live action because of so many commercials on NESN and radio. I've read the complaints on the Boston Globe website and another forum or two. FSG are good at it and believe me they'll be bringing all that to Anfield.

Sorry, but this style of critique rings hollow to me because it isn't backed by any kind of coherent FC philosophy other than "things were better in the old days." Nowhere in the latest wave of outcry is any realistic view on what a non-sugar daddy ownership group is meant to do in the modern age of football, just absolute claims about wanting money and vagaries about how LFC is too special for this or that.

We'll see if the managerial turnstyle doesn't materialize. It may not, but the last 18 months have been a good start unless 2 managers in less than 2 years is what you call stability. I honestly don't understand why you're so defensive about FSG to the point where you're using words like xenophobic when I'm merely pointing out facts. They've earned praise for their commercialism and that's a fact so why so defensive about it? Are you a part of FSG? Strange.

And yeah, this is a forum where people come to express their opinions. I have mine and I've stated it's not set in stone. So if I feel like sharing, I will. If anything remotely critical of FSG bothers you so much, then maybe online forums are not for you.

[BostonScouse]

You forgot to mention they fired that other manager as well. "Xenophobic"? Good God. I've been fortunate to attend a few games at Fenway. Those jumbotrons flash ads all game long. There's billboards all over the park(as with most baseball parks). Fans have complained about missing live action because of so many commercials on NESN and radio. I've read the complaints on the Boston Globe website and another forum or two.

Of course you have . Fans have complained about missing live action in baseball? that doesn't even make sense.

FSG are good at it and believe me they'll be bringing all that to Anfield.
 
I honestly don't understand why you're so defensive about FSG to the point where you're using words like xenophobic when I'm merely pointing out facts. They've earned praise for their commercialism and that's a fact so why so defensive about it? Are you a part of FSG? Strange.

So they're bringing it here which is a bad thing, and they've been criticized for it, but they've been praised for it so why defend it? You should be praised for your ability to speak out of both sides of your mouth, honestly, don't get defensive about it.

And yes, it smacks of xenophobic anti-American sentiment since they've done none of that thus far and Fenway last I checked is not named "Pepsi arena" and the Red Sox don't play with Standard Chartered stamped on their chests. It's also silly (read "naive") because again, a non-sugar daddy ownership group is supposed to do what exactly to finance the team competing with the likes of Chelsea, Man U and City?

And yeah, this is a forum where people come to express their opinions. I have mine and I've stated it's not set in stone. So if I feel like sharing, I will. If anything remotely critical of FSG bothers you so much, then maybe online forums are not for you.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying, no one should express their opinions. And I work for FSG of course because I think many of the criticisms and the way they've been presented are wrong. Ad Hominem and a lovely straw man, well done.

My opinion is that yours is flawed and SOS's letter serves no constructive purpose, and I'm expressing that on a forum. Seems like I'm not the one who's lost the plot here.

[LiverBirdKop]

Of course you have . Fans have complained about missing live action in baseball? that doesn't even make sense.

Seriously? Do I really have to explain this to you??  Wow. Judging by this, I think I'm gonna stop after this since this is such ridiculously simple stuff. 
Let's say you're watching a game on NESN. Between innings, they go to commercials and they cram so many commercials that by the time they come back to live action, they've missed the first pitch of the inning. In fact I remember reading that happens quite frequently even for the first pitch of the game. 

So they're bringing it here which is a bad thing, and they've been criticized for it, but they've been praised for it so why defend it?

Boy, now you're really confused. You chose part of something I wrote and have just kept going about it. Plot lost...a long time ago. Have fun in Boston. I hope your team misses the playoffs on an even worst and painful meltdown than last year. 

[BostonScouse]

Seriously? Do I really have to explain this to you??  Wow. Judging by this, I think I'm gonna stop after this since this is such ridiculously simple stuff. 
Let's say you're watching a game on NESN. Between innings, they go to commercials and they cram so many commercials that by the time they come back to live action, they've missed the first pitch of the inning. In fact I remember reading that happens quite frequently even for the first pitch of the game.  Boy, now you're really confused. You chose part of something I wrote and have just kept going about it. Plot lost...a long time ago. Have fun in Boston. I hope your team misses the playoffs on an even worst and painful meltdown than last year. 

Yeah, this is a routine production error in a game like baseball where the game stops and starts suddenly and commercials are difficult to time, anyone who says anything like that doesn't really understand wtf they are talking about. There are rules about how many advertisements can be in an MLB broadcast as well. Also, the Red Sox don't own the radio station, WEEI, so they aren't in control of advertisements there at all.

And be more petty please. 

[LiverBirdKop]

And be more petty please. 

lol  The game doesn't "stop and start suddenly" between innings or half innings. 

Glad I was able to explain it to you though. Good bye and good night.

[BostonScouse]

lol  The game doesn't "stop and start suddenly" between innings or half innings. 

Glad I was able to explain it to you though. Good bye and good night.

Yes it does, because the ump times it on the field in his discretion and different pitchers warm up for different amounts of time. And between innings or half innings is not the only commercial break.

You've done a great job witteling the conversation down to this btw, it's very revealing of how your preconceived notions and biases color your "criticism" especially in light of the fact that as of yet none of this nightmarish commercialism has manifested itself with LFC. But yeah, it's coming, naivete and advertisements. Maybe even advertisements for naivete!

Thanks.

[Danny_]

Yes it does, because the ump times it on the field in his discretion and different pitchers warm up for different amounts of time. And between innings or half innings is not the only commercial break.

You've done a great job witteling the conversation down to this btw, it's very revealing of how your preconceived notions and biases color your "criticism" especially in light of the fact that as of yet none of this nightmarish commercialism has manifested itself with LFC. But yeah, it's coming, naivete and advertisements. Maybe even advertisements for naivete!

Thanks.

I don't know about others but I'm getting a little bit tired of hearing about the Red Sox and moneyball bollocks.  Baseball is not football and moneyball is not going to work for it.   There are numerous reasons for this but I'm not bothered getting into them.  I thought SOS' letter was spot on and quite respectful given the circumstances.  And, if anyone isn't concerned that the new owners have not done anything whatsoever (that we know of) to create a new stadium, then I suggest you cast your mind back to the start of the previous regime when we were all talking about G&H in glowing positive terms and expecting that there would be investment made.  Yes, FSG may have wiped out the debt (except for 35 million of it) but THEY HAD TO DO THIS in order to buy the club.  They got LFC in exchange for doing this and there were other suitors at the time.  So, I'm glad that SOS might be getting in early this time.  They need to know that we aren't going to stand idly by and let them run roughshod over our club and traditions (which they clearly know nothing about). 

[BostonScouse]

I don't know about others but I'm getting a little bit tired of hearing about the Red Sox and moneyball bollocks.  Baseball is not football and moneyball is not going to work for it.   There are numerous reasons for this but I'm not bothered getting into them.  I thought SOS' letter was spot on and quite respectful given the circumstances.  And, if anyone isn't concerned that the new owners have not done anything whatsoever (that we know of) to create a new stadium, then I suggest you cast your mind back to the start of the previous regime when we were all talking about G&H in glowing positive terms and expecting that there would be investment made.  Yes, FSG may have wiped out the debt (except for 35 million of it) but THEY HAD TO DO THIS in order to buy the club.  They got LFC in exchange for doing this and there were other suitors at the time.  So, I'm glad that SOS might be getting in early this time.  They need to know that we aren't going to stand idly by and let them run roughshod over our club and traditions (which they clearly know nothing about).

I think it's very fair to raise questions about the stadium. I think it's worrying that they haven't said anything about it recently, and I do think they need to be more up front about where that's going if it's going anywhere at all.

Has the word "moneyball" come out of anyone at FSG's mouth at all since they took over? Did it ever come out of Comolli's? Have they ever claimed the sports were similar? The only place I've seen "moneyball" mentioned in relation to LFC and football in general is people using it as a term to describe Comolli's statistical approach in this forum. I think it's safe to say they aren't exactly embracing Comolli's approach at this point are they.

And I pointed out in a few of those threads that the term "moneyball" doesn't even mean anything in baseball anymore, nor is it used by anyone, certainly not FSG in a football context. The Red Sox are not and have arguably never been a Moneyball team either.

What club traditions have they "run roughshod over?"

[Wingman]

Well rightly you are free to air your opinion.

If you are not a paid-up member, this thread has nothing at all to do with you to be honest.

Don't put it on RAWK -  where there are several thousand non-members - then.

A thread on RAWK is for RAWK members not the exclusive use of SOS

[Suspect Package.]

Kudos, I opened this thread expecting a self-entitled "Dear FSG assholes, why you no?" sort of pitch.

Instead it was a very reasonable and considered letter.

Agree with both the sentiments and the tone. Well done.

[Suspect Package.]

Well rightly you are free to air your opinion.

If you are not a paid-up member, this thread has nothing at all to do with you to be honest.

This kind of attitude is exactly how to alienate people.

[Wingman]

Obviously you can't tell every fan as there will always been some don't have certain types of media. As for how they communicate it that was just a suggestion, the first thing that came to mind. They could send a correspondence out, they have the e-mail addresses of all the member card and season ticket holders.

Maybe you should stop typing the first thing that comes into your mind.

[Wingman]

... Guillem Balague, a man more in the know than any one on here ...

Seriously now, pack it in.

[Kenny Red]

That might be one of th most ridiculous posts i have ever read on here.

Its a long standing scouse turn of phrase.

Turning Gangster =  turning nasty.

Clearly lost on you.

[Liverbird 2010]

." Oh and we want things kept in house too, except when we don't.

By inviting Bobby Martinez for an interview for the Liverpool job? That was kept in house wasnt it?

[Wingman]

By inviting Bobby Martinez for an interview for the Liverpool job? That was kept in house wasnt it?

We can't control what motor-mouth Whelan says can we? And we can't stop Swansea from announcing that their manager has turned down an approach from us. In fact we'd want to know as much if it was our manager being chased by another club.

I'm pretty sure others have been invited for interviews that we haven't heard about

[rob1408]

By inviting Bobby Martinez for an interview for the Liverpool job? That was kept in house wasnt it?

It didn't come from our side.  What are we supposed to do, put a sack over their heads and throw them in the back of a van ?

We have to approach clubs to get permission, if said club wants to go public there's fuck all we can do.

[BostonScouse]

By inviting Bobby Martinez for an interview for the Liverpool job? That was kept in house wasnt it?

what does this even mean

[Wingman]

what does this even mean

I think it means they allow PC time at the asylums now

[Suspect Package.]

By inviting Bobby Martinez for an interview for the Liverpool job? That was kept in house wasnt it?

I'm not sure we can criticise John Henry for Dave Whelan having a big mouth.

[Liverbird 2010]

It didn't come from our side.  What are we supposed to do, put a sack over their heads and throw them in the back of a van ?

We have to approach clubs to get permission, if said club wants to go public there's fuck all we can do.

Doesnt matter who's side it came from the simple fact is they sacked kenny and are wanting to interview 2 fella's that shouldnt be anywhere near Liverpool football club as a manager, they have both won fuck all oh that doesnt matter anymore I forgot 

Bobby Martinez LFC manager god fucking help us !!!

[Wingman]

Doesnt matter who's side it came from the simple fact is they sacked kenny and are wanting to interview 2 fella's that shouldnt be anywhere near Liverpool football club as a manager, they have both won fuck all oh that doesnt matter anymore I forgot 

Bobby Martinez LFC manager god fucking help us !!!

That's not the point you were making though is it?

By inviting Bobby Martinez for an interview for the Liverpool job? That was kept in house wasnt it?

That was your point.

And it was, erm .... wrong

[rob1408]

Doesnt matter who's side it came from the simple fact is they sacked kenny and are wanting to interview 2 fella's that shouldnt be anywhere near Liverpool football club as a manager, they have both won fuck all oh that doesnt matter anymore I forgot 

Bobby Martinez LFC manager god fucking help us !!!

Well thats a completely different argument to your first inane post isn't it ?  You intimated that we weren't doing things in the 'Liverpool Way' as Martinez became public, even though it wasn't our fault.

Personally, I'm going to wait to see who gets the job before I piss and moan.

[Skrtels Head]

I take it there has been no response to the letter....... Yet?

[Kenny Red]

Doesnt matter who's side it came from the simple fact is they sacked kenny and are wanting to interview 2 fella's that shouldnt be anywhere near Liverpool football club as a manager, they have both won fuck all oh that doesnt matter anymore I forgot 

Bobby Martinez LFC manager god fucking help us !!!

Tell you what. How about we wait till he actually gets the job before kicking off - not that this would help either the team, him or club in anyway like, though each to thier own I suppose.

Last time I looked no one had been appointed yet.

I've heard of premature ejaculation, but never premature kicking off.

It appears some people have crystal balls that are able to see into the future. Can someone give me the link to web page that sells them? I think I'd like one meself.

A lot of this does just come across as looking for excuses to kick off over Kenny's departure rather reasoned and justified concern. A lot of people are hanging their hats on something that hasn't even happened yet, and then dragging up everything they can muster to try and justify that stance.

[Liverbird 2010]

Well thats a completely different argument to your first inane post isn't it ?  You intimated that we weren't doing things in the 'Liverpool Way' as Martinez became public, even though it wasn't our fault.

Wasnt our fault? Neither was the Twitter account who we want as a new manager, its all very unproffesional from top to bottom!
Even Hicks & Gillett wouldnt have said winning trophys doesnt matter.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me !!!

[Wingman]

Wasnt our fault? Neither was the Twitter account who we want as a new manager, its all very unproffesional from top to bottom!
Even Hicks & Gillett wouldnt have said winning trophys doesnt matter.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me !!!

I think you've made a fool of yourself more than twice in this thread alone

[hedger]

Tell you what. How about we wait till he actually gets the job before kicking off - not that this would help either the team, him or club in anyway like, though each to thier own I suppose.

Last time I looked no one had been appointed yet.

I've heard of premature ejaculation, but never premature kicking off.

It appears some people have crystal balls that are able to see into the future. Can someone give me the link to web page that sells them? I think I'd like one meself.

A lot of this does just come across as looking for excuses to kick off over Kenny's departure rather reasoned and justified concern. A lot of people are hanging their hats on something that hasn't even happened yet, and then dragging up everything they can muster to try and justify that stance.

So you are totally behind the strategy of firing everyone and then asking for permission to speak to third rate managers?

[hedger]

I'm not sure we can criticise John Henry for Dave Whelan having a big mouth.

  you think he shouldnt speak about his manager speaking with another club? Why should whelan stay quiet? It is our stupid process of having a list with 10,11,12 managers on it that is causing the hysteria

[Wingman]

you think he shouldnt speak about his manager speaking with another club? Why should whelan stay quiet? It is our stupid process of having a list with 10,11,12 managers on it that is causing the hysteria

So we should only have managers who are currently unemployed on the list then?

[Suspect Package.]

you think he shouldnt speak about his manager speaking with another club? Why should whelan stay quiet? It is our stupid process of having a list with 10,11,12 managers on it that is causing the hysteria

Please put the effort in and read what I actually wrote, because I didn't say that .

Don't straw-man me.

All I said was simply that it's wrong to criticise our owners for things Dave Whelan has said.

[Kenny Red]

So you are totally behind the strategy of firing everyone and then asking for permission to speak to third rate managers?

I'd prefer to see the outcome first, then make a judgement on how to react then and only then, rather than knee jerking before we know the outcome.

Seems quite reasonable in my eyes.

Hypothetically, lets say we appoint a very very good manager? A very plausible outcome in my opinion. There are going to be a lot of people looking like tits would you not agree?