Topic: Guardian interview with John Henry - now updated with Part II

[royhendo]

However the one disgusting continuing trend with this ownership group -- 

How is it a 'trend' if it's happened once?

[Billman]

Can't believe they sent David Conn on a plane to Boston for those two underwhelming articles. There's not even that many quotes in them. Guardian pissing their money away.

[nutmegger]

However the one disgusting continuing trend with this ownership group

Soxfan you have been listening to too much talk radio.  Henry, Werner and Lucchino had nothing to gain by releasing that crap about the coach. Maybe someone in management or a player told the journo.  F**kin Boston media stirring the pot. As for Torres and Meireles, do you think Henry or Werner were spinning the transfer news? Or that section 4 of the FSG "best practices" manual handed to Comoli and Ayre called for floating disparaging rumors about departing players and coaches to gain public support?  Let's get a grip. 

[Corkboy]

Why did he keep talking about Henry knowing "virtually nothing"?

[Bastion Of Invincibility]

Nice to see they've spun a nothing article into a snidey, wummish 'Kenny has overspent' headline. I wish we'd stop giving exclusives to the Manc Guardian.

[MolbyLovesGravlax]

Snidey little article. Did they not put him up in a nice enough hotel, or comp him the good food at Fenway?
I am sure everyone on RAWK is as baffled as the reporter at why we not consider doing a groundshare with Everton.

[Stussy]

Yeah, that is amazing by David Conn.

It was, therefore, baffling that Werner last week stated publicly they would not consider a shared stadium, an obvious potential solution, because, he said, fans would not stand for it. With Everton, a mile across the park, also wanting a new ground, the income from two clubs' matches and events, and any contribution Everton might make to the construction, could make the difference. Fenway have conducted no poll of fans, nor boldly set out any arguments for a shared stadium, but based this dismissal mostly on already-fixed opinions on fans websites.

David Conn is a good journalist and I respect him, but this is laughable ^^^

[mercury]

The articles are more about what David Conn think than telling us anything which we do not know. 

I don't care he does not think the owners are as shrewd or systematic as thought. Why can't he just let Henry & co speak and let us make that judgement?  It just badly written.

 

[soxfan]

How is it a 'trend' if it's happened once?

It hasn't happened once in Boston. It has happened many times.

Again, I need to emphasize that on the whole FSG are great. They've markedly improved the Red Sox on the field, did a masterful job renovating Fenway Park, etc.  But there is this one quirk/weakness that has repeated itself for years.

From 2006, a variety of www.sonsofsamhorn.net forum comments: "Theo on ESPN 890 right now saying that in the past the Red Sox have provided too much information to the press both on and OFF the record... and now that is going to change on an organizational level. SO... some of the leaks were intentional. Not surprising... but candid." 

"There's also a cumulative effect at work here. They can get away with leaking this stuff to the press for only so long before other teams tire of it and become way of dealing with the Sox. If the deal for Crisp falls through, in part because of the leaks, then the constant blabbing to the press has bit them square in the ass."

"The constant leaks from the front office this winter resembled behavior one might see from a chronically insecure child. Are the Red Sox afraid we'll forget all about them if they don't give us hourly, daily and weekly updates on their most intricate workings? Do they give fans no credit for having normal attention spans? It's getting to the point where it's borderline insulting."

"There are purely malicious leaks that promote rivalries or factions within the Sox. Those are the ones that torpedoed Esptein/Lucchino's talks. Those are the ones that pushed the Manny wants to be traded talks. They serve no redeeming purpose other than gossip, or promoting a factional organizational viewpoint as getting the Manny talks going. I have no problem with saying those leaks into the internal goings on should and must be plugged."

From 2008, same source: "My assumption is that this played out like many situations I've seen over the years:

    * Popular player X is behaving like a petulant child on and off the field due to general displeasure with contract/playing time/relationship with managemet/etc.
    * Behavior begins to have a "negative impact" on the franchise. This could be real or it could be perceived. But at some point, it is decided that the perception of open insubordination is eroding management credibility.
    * Management frustration with player X boils over into leaks to the press.
    * Leaks are reported by sympathetic sportswriters who don't need much prodding to do a hit job.

This may very well be a smoothly orchestrated smear campaign that takes advantage of the insane media environment in Boston. It may also be a few loose cannons in a large organization. I suspect that we'll find out more in the coming days, but we may never know for sure."

"Theo's leadership is kind of in question because either:

    * He authorized the leaks (poor leadership)
    * Someone else did, and he was either powerless to contain them (LL's puppet)
    * Indifferent to containing them (poor leadership), thus
    * devaluing a trade asset.

I don't usually agree with Yecul, but there really aren't any other options. Theo definitely helped screw the pooch here. "

From this week, same source: "What a load of subterfuge motivated crap. I'm sorry but to me this reeks of management trying to distract from Epstein leaving. Completely classless on the part of the management sources to air malicious rumors about Tito after he spent so much time and energy keeping stuff in house and dealing with that accompanying stress. What a travesty."

"The stuff about Tito's personal life is despicable and shouldn't have been published. If this organization wants to talk about class, loyalty, and proper conduct, ownership should lead by example. If this shit didn't leak during the season then it shouldn't come out now."

"The only failure here, if some of the information was indeed leaked by high-ranking members of the front-office, is that it makes current Sox management look awful. At this point, the only thing that the Sox could do to save some face here is to find out who shared the personal stuff about Francona with Hohler and then fire them. It won't happen but it might go a long way toward quelling this story and setting a better tone going forward. "

I realize the above comments were handpicked by me, and they come from upset fans of the baseball club. And there are certainly people who disagree with the tone exhibited. My point is that it was very easy for me to google Red Sox smear leak unnamed and find a plethora of "smoking guns" dating back years. These owners have been fantastic overall (I would not trade them for anybody!) BUT if for example Reina/Suarez/Gerrard ever decide to leave, lots of very ugly previously-unknown shit will fly from the mouths of mysterious people in the LFC towers to the ears of local football reporters with the intent of destroying the player's reputation on the way out, whether it is fair or not. There rarely are happy endings with LFC when someone important decides to go somewhere else.

[MolbyLovesGravlax]

We have just ended an era when various people within LFC used their own journos to leak what they wanted. With the return of Kenny we saw the return of the Liverpool way, and have seen the exact opposite of what apparently is happening with the Sox. It would have been easy to really smear Torres for instance, but for the most part there was nothing but dignified silence from the club.
Not saying it could never happen, but I doubt the owners would feel in any way emboldened right now to try those tactics when it would obviously be the opposite of what Kenny (who is the face and voice of the club to 99% of the fans) is preaching.
I get the impression the Sox management staff is bigger and with longer in their positions than LFC is working with. Right now at Liverpool there is a real sense of newness (even if Kenny is a very obvious link to the past) with everyone determined to lead the club back to where it should be. Maybe it was more like that in the Sox during the time from their takeover to their first World Series?
In my experience any new group of people work better at the start, when there is a sense of common purpose and self-sacrifice. Over time people get resentful of being overlooked or feel they are underpaid and the sense of team ebbs away. Which is another reason the bootroom was so amazing, not an ego or a ruffled feather in sight. At least not as far as anyone outside would ever know.

[mercury]

Yeah, that is amazing by David Conn.

David Conn is a good journalist and I respect him, but this is laughable ^^^

Yeah.  The bit you quoted on ground share actually prompted me to send them an email, asking David Conn to do some research, starting from Everton's finances in which RAWK could help  -- he's a bit condescending on us, isn't he? 

Guardian is normally better than this.

Criticising this piece however is not to say our owners are perfect.  He has a few points worth keeping our eyes on, especially how they will deal with the sox's first real challenge under this ownership after years of success.

However, we know the owners are new to football.  We know they will make mistakes.  We must give them - Kenny and Comolli - time.  The importance is the overall scheme of things under them -- that we have to be doing the right things, moving in the right direction, a continuous improvement on and off the pitch.  Early days but I am hopeful.

[mercury]

I realize the above comments were handpicked by me, and they come from upset fans of the baseball club. And there are certainly people who disagree with the tone exhibited. My point is that it was very easy for me to google Red Sox smear leak unnamed and find a plethora of "smoking guns" dating back years. These owners have been fantastic overall (I would not trade them for anybody!) BUT if for example Reina/Suarez/Gerrard ever decide to leave, lots of very ugly previously-unknown shit will fly from the mouths of mysterious people in the LFC towers to the ears of local football reporters with the intent of destroying the player's reputation on the way out, whether it is fair or not. There rarely are happy endings with LFC when someone important decides to go somewhere else.

I can appreciate what you are saying really about them being mean with people wanting to leave or they want to let go. Let's see whether this streak would happen / ingrain here.

[El Campeador]

That's very interesting. The discrediting of Torres and Meireles in the fans' eyes seems similar. I suspect both were forced to put in transfer requests.

Why do you say that?

[steveeastend]

That's very interesting. The discrediting of Torres and Meireles in the fans' eyes seems similar. I suspect both were forced to put in transfer requests.

Sorry but this makes no sense at all. I know that thereīs a lot possible in football business but this is bullshite. Why should a player be forced to put in a transfer request if he wanted to leave anyway? So they were "forced" to make the move they want? 

I wouldnīt have let them go, both of them, but thatīs another story.

[Feorax]

I realize the above comments were handpicked by me, and they come from upset fans of the baseball club. And there are certainly people who disagree with the tone exhibited. My point is that it was very easy for me to google Red Sox smear leak unnamed and find a plethora of "smoking guns" dating back years. These owners have been fantastic overall (I would not trade them for anybody!) BUT if for example Reina/Suarez/Gerrard ever decide to leave, lots of very ugly previously-unknown shit will fly from the mouths of mysterious people in the LFC towers to the ears of local football reporters with the intent of destroying the player's reputation on the way out, whether it is fair or not. There rarely are happy endings with LFC when someone important decides to go somewhere else.

I take a bit of issue with this. The only times you will see anger like Torres and Meireles is when a player that is well respected in the club leaves for a direct competitor. In that instance, the fans are going to need to incentive from anyone else to be pissed off at the situation.

We let go a massive number of players in the summer, such as Poulson, Ngog, Konchesky, Kyriakos, Degen, El Zhar, etc. All of these, even if they weren't that well liked, were wished success and well being by both the club and the fans. I definitely don't agree that it's rare to see a player leave LFC in happy circumstances.

[royhendo]

My God Soxfan - you sound like me!

If I had my way Henry would never open his mouth to the press, let alone invite David Conn on a 3 day PR jaunt. Yesterday's comment on "wanting to be seen to be spending money" in my view stank to high heaven. But I've been asked by a few posters to stop whinging so I say nowt about it now.

[Cassiel]

It hasn't happened once in Boston. It has happened many times.

Again, I need to emphasize that on the whole FSG are great. They've markedly improved the Red Sox on the field, did a masterful job renovating Fenway Park, etc.  But there is this one quirk/weakness that has repeated itself for years.

From 2006, a variety of www.sonsofsamhorn.net forum comments: "Theo on ESPN 890 right now saying that in the past the Red Sox have provided too much information to the press both on and OFF the record... and now that is going to change on an organizational level. SO... some of the leaks were intentional. Not surprising... but candid." 

"There's also a cumulative effect at work here. They can get away with leaking this stuff to the press for only so long before other teams tire of it and become way of dealing with the Sox. If the deal for Crisp falls through, in part because of the leaks, then the constant blabbing to the press has bit them square in the ass."

"The constant leaks from the front office this winter resembled behavior one might see from a chronically insecure child. Are the Red Sox afraid we'll forget all about them if they don't give us hourly, daily and weekly updates on their most intricate workings? Do they give fans no credit for having normal attention spans? It's getting to the point where it's borderline insulting."

"There are purely malicious leaks that promote rivalries or factions within the Sox. Those are the ones that torpedoed Esptein/Lucchino's talks. Those are the ones that pushed the Manny wants to be traded talks. They serve no redeeming purpose other than gossip, or promoting a factional organizational viewpoint as getting the Manny talks going. I have no problem with saying those leaks into the internal goings on should and must be plugged."

From 2008, same source: "My assumption is that this played out like many situations I've seen over the years:

    * Popular player X is behaving like a petulant child on and off the field due to general displeasure with contract/playing time/relationship with managemet/etc.
    * Behavior begins to have a "negative impact" on the franchise. This could be real or it could be perceived. But at some point, it is decided that the perception of open insubordination is eroding management credibility.
    * Management frustration with player X boils over into leaks to the press.
    * Leaks are reported by sympathetic sportswriters who don't need much prodding to do a hit job.

This may very well be a smoothly orchestrated smear campaign that takes advantage of the insane media environment in Boston. It may also be a few loose cannons in a large organization. I suspect that we'll find out more in the coming days, but we may never know for sure."

"Theo's leadership is kind of in question because either:

    * He authorized the leaks (poor leadership)
    * Someone else did, and he was either powerless to contain them (LL's puppet)
    * Indifferent to containing them (poor leadership), thus
    * devaluing a trade asset.

I don't usually agree with Yecul, but there really aren't any other options. Theo definitely helped screw the pooch here. "

From this week, same source: "What a load of subterfuge motivated crap. I'm sorry but to me this reeks of management trying to distract from Epstein leaving. Completely classless on the part of the management sources to air malicious rumors about Tito after he spent so much time and energy keeping stuff in house and dealing with that accompanying stress. What a travesty."

"The stuff about Tito's personal life is despicable and shouldn't have been published. If this organization wants to talk about class, loyalty, and proper conduct, ownership should lead by example. If this shit didn't leak during the season then it shouldn't come out now."

"The only failure here, if some of the information was indeed leaked by high-ranking members of the front-office, is that it makes current Sox management look awful. At this point, the only thing that the Sox could do to save some face here is to find out who shared the personal stuff about Francona with Hohler and then fire them. It won't happen but it might go a long way toward quelling this story and setting a better tone going forward. "

I realize the above comments were handpicked by me, and they come from upset fans of the baseball club. And there are certainly people who disagree with the tone exhibited. My point is that it was very easy for me to google Red Sox smear leak unnamed and find a plethora of "smoking guns" dating back years. These owners have been fantastic overall (I would not trade them for anybody!) BUT if for example Reina/Suarez/Gerrard ever decide to leave, lots of very ugly previously-unknown shit will fly from the mouths of mysterious people in the LFC towers to the ears of local football reporters with the intent of destroying the player's reputation on the way out, whether it is fair or not. There rarely are happy endings with LFC when someone important decides to go somewhere else.

Soxfan - the end of sporting eras are always messy. In a town like Boston (or Liverpool), doubly so. Journos sniff around searching out dischord and disharmony and after a collapse like that, in a town like that, some bad shit is going to spill out, and the more nefarious will have a field day whispering behind their hands. No one knows for certain who whispered about Tito. It was terrible, whoever it was. But it doesn't mean that we'll have rumours of Carra having shagged Andy Carroll's mum when he's eventually shipped out to player-manage Scunthorpe (though I bet he has, the bastard.)

But, while the furore is understandable, the sniping about the ownership seems preposterous from where I sit on the other side of the Atlantic. We of all people know what bad ownership looks and act like. Anyone who follows baseball need only look at the McCourts. These lot aren't in the same league, but the hysteria and pitchfork-wielding masses may well lead Henry and his boys to think twice about whether its worth the hassle and the cash. Then the Red Sox will be fucked.

Henry shouldn't have invited Conn anywhere near him though. The bloke is a snide c*nt who drapes cloaks himself in sanctimony and virtue. But it's a learning process. I don't mind, and quite like, the sarcastic tweets Henry goes in for - it's refreshing and necessary. But he needs to think twice abut letting smart-arse hacks anywhere near without good reason. There was no reason for this.

[stevedo]

Strange article really. There's too much of "here's what I think" from the reporter, especially with regards to groundshare, the club being no better off under H&W.

Expected better from The Guardian

[DonkeyWan]

Strange article really. There's too much of "here's what I think" from the reporter, especially with regards to groundshare, the club being no better off under H&W.

Expected better from The Guardian

I guess it was supposed to be 'Conn goes to Boston and comes back with his impressions' so I can understand why he adopted that approach. The problem as I see it is that the article is too brief and the interesting questions left unsaid. Its like Conn has only a very small amount of material to work with after 3 days of tootling around Boston. What strikes me is that he doesn't ask the difficult questions and attempts to fill in the answers with his own impressions. Take the groundshare issue for example. He makes a disingenuous comment that the owners seem to have dismissed a workable idea on very little evidence... but why not address this question to them? Why not ask, "hey, why don't you guys consider groundshare?" and when they offer an answer, grill them a little more thoroughly.

I have noticed this about a lot of Conn's articles... he's just not a very good investigative journalist. His strength lies in disentangling knotty accounts, not in questioning individuals.

[Corkboy]

John W Henry, the principal owner of Liverpool, has acknowledged he knew "virtually nothing" of English football or the football club before his Fenway Sports Group took over at Anfield a year ago this Saturday. Tom Werner, the chairman of Fenway and now of Liverpool, said he too had barely heard of the club, but was aware of the "EPL" – English Premier League – and its popularity, and "certainly knew about Manchester United".

Asked what he knew about English football, and Liverpool, before an email from a Fenway Park employee alerted him to the Merseyside club's financial difficulties last August, Henry replied: "Very little. We knew virtually nothing about Liverpool Football Club nor EPL."

Werner said before that meeting with Inner Circle, who would become Fenway's financial advisers on buying Liverpool, he knew very little of the club:

Henry acknowledged that, a lifelong American sports fan aged 60, he knew "virtually nothing" of Liverpool or the Premier League before buying the club. 


Henry knew "virtually nothing" about the world's most popular game before buying one of its greatest names

This really is weak stuff. I mean, Henry and Werner give him honest quotes and he rides them for all they're worth. Lazy.

[lamonti]

That's very interesting. The discrediting of Torres and Meireles in the fans' eyes seems similar. I suspect both were forced to put in transfer requests.

They probably were, purely because they both requested transfers. Completely fair game in my opinion.

The second part of this xenophobic hatchet job is actually worse than the first.

[Smug Cassandra]

Overall not totally impressed with the tone of the interviews and the fact we are nowhere nearer a bigger stadium.

Of course this could be the journalists spin though.

[No666]

My God Soxfan - you sound like me!

If I had my way Henry would never open his mouth to the press, let alone invite David Conn on a 3 day PR jaunt. Yesterday's comment on "wanting to be seen to be spending money" in my view stank to high heaven. But I've been asked by a few posters to stop whinging so I say nowt about it now.

Sorry, mate, but if anyone has a right to express their opinion on the new ownership it is you. I'd be interested to hear your views. As it is, the pr jaunt has backfired somewhat, because, as I see it, Conn felt the need to demonstrate his independence by trying to sit on the fence, always a clumsy pose to adopt.

For myself, I have some reservations about the FSG stance so far, to do with PR and supposed transparency - nothing major, nothing that stops me seeing what an immense improvement they are on the previous incumbents - but I don't see why those reservations can't be aired. Weren't we supposed to be holding the owners to account these days rather than generating yet another cult of the individual?

[steveeastend]

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/media-watch/henry-i-was-going-to-appoint-younger-man

Interesting that.

To me it confirms that the one and only risk we have with our owners is the fact that they know nothing on football and heavily rely on every opinion they could possibly get.

And thatīs one big risk and gamble, evenmore for themselves, which will only have no negative impact on us in case they are willing to put their mistakes right as quick as possible. And this will cost them money, a lot of money. 

[stevedo]

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/media-watch/henry-i-was-going-to-appoint-younger-man

Interesting that.

To me it confirms that the one and only risk we have with our owners is the fact that they know nothing on football and heavily rely on every opinion they could possibly get.

And thatīs one big risk and gamble, evenmore for themselves, which will only have no negative impact on us in case they are willing to put their mistakes right as quick as possible. And this will cost them money, a lot of money.

They don't need to personally know everything, but have people who they trust who are suitably knowledgeable.

If he 'gets' what the club is about over his time as an owner then great. It helps with the connection to the fans but its not the be all and end all. Is he expected to have intimate knowledge of the construction industry before he can make a new stadium decision?

[Red Beret]

Frankly I don't give a shit about so-called smear campaigns.  Rafa was undermined and shat on from the day he walked through the door by the British press, and Cecil 'unnamed senior source' Purslow was constantly briefing against Rafa.  Hodgson was equally guilty of smearing Rafa also imo.  It happens at all levels in the PL - look at the shit Comolli had to contend with after leaving Spurs.

The only thing that really leapt out at me in that article was this bit:

In baseball, the teams are franchises, their income is taxed by MLB and shared, to maintain reasonable competition between big city teams like the Red Sox, and smaller teams.

To my mind, if we can't reign in big clubs spending through FFP or through wage caps, then "taxing' clubs" earnings as a percentage of, say for example, their gross transfer spending in a given year, might be the way to go.

[ziggyy]

They don't need to personally know everything, but have people who they trust who are suitably knowledgeable.

If he 'gets' what the club is about over his time as an owner then great. It helps with the connection to the fans but its not the be all and end all. Is he expected to have intimate knowledge of the construction industry before he can make a new stadium decision?

The scary thing was at the beginning, he was getting advice from that piece of shit...

We are now assuming people at the club advising him are honest enough and will put the best interest of our club first... With the exception of Kenny, I trust no one... not even the senior players...

[steveeastend]

They don't need to personally know everything, but have people who they trust who are suitably knowledgeable.

If he 'gets' what the club is about over his time as an owner then great. It helps with the connection to the fans but its not the be all and end all. Is he expected to have intimate knowledge of the construction industry before he can make a new stadium decision?

This has been the counter argument many times but it really isnīt enough to convince me (and others).

The reality in football shows that the more owners know about football the better it is. Exceptions to the rule of course.

But maybe thatīs again something very different in England compared to Germany or Italy. In Germany you could see over the years how much of a difference it makes if the board knows the game. HSV as a negative one. Bayern, Bremen as a positive. Dortmund is a pretty good example as well, the new board shows very down to earth football knowledge and instinct and was the reason for their recent success, taking part in a lot of decisions concerning the squad.

To me, and I mentioned this right at the beginning of their take over last year,  it would have been the perfect solution if Kenny had been brought in earlier, right after their take over and then being given a role within the board, as CEO, together with Ayre f.e. Just like Beckenbauer and Scherer for many years. Together with a manager like Vilas Boas f.e. there wouldnīt be any need of a DoF like Comolli, which is too much of power for someone having almost no backround in a daily role in football IMO, maybe as a chief scout.

[royhendo]

All he's achieved in inviting Conn over is to raise doubts over:

- the purity of their motives for investing (the reliance on FFP)
- their stance on the stadium
- the resilience of their backing for the manager
- their reasons for spending on players "to be seen to be spending".

All of which could have been avoided by guess what?

[stevedo]

All he's achieved in inviting Conn over is to raise doubts over:

- the purity of their motives for investing (the reliance on FFP)
- their stance on the stadium
- the resilience backing for the manager
- their reasons for spending on players "to be seen to be spending".

All of which could have been avoided by guess what?

After reading the two articles, are any Liverpool fans going to say "well, I used to think FSG were alright, but now.....".

[royhendo]

After reading the two articles, are any Liverpool fans going to say "well, I used to think FSG were alright, but now.....".

I'd guess more than if there were no articles at all. That's my point.

[stevedo]

I'd guess more than if there were no articles at all. That's my point.

Fair enough. 

Long term (for them) can't see why the guardian did such a crap job here to be honest.

Anyway, there's more important things to worry about. Like tomorrow. Yes, will LeBron get on the hallowed turf.

[royhendo]

Yeah. BBC fellas going over to see Hicks on his own patch did us no harm in the long run. It did Hicks some harm though. Say what you like about the Glazers, but they're well advised.

[Upinsmoke]

Really embarrasing article. Not familliar with the journo but won't be going out my way to read any more of his work lfc related or not.

Jwh, werner and all of fsg have been nothing but upfront. Yes we knew they didn't know much but they made efforts to listen and acknowledge what the fans thought and so forth.

[steveeastend]

The Glazers may did a couple of things right, especially in the P.R. department, but at the end of the day it only matters if their commitment is 100% to the club itself. They (Glatzers) werenīt willing to spend in the same way as they used to in the recent years, thatīs obvious, and it will finally end their dominating status.

So as much as I think that it would be very good for owners to have a down to earth, grown knowledge on football, as much I think itīs probably even more important for a club that owners act like some sort of a clever sugar daddy when necessary. And I think Henry will, and if itīs only for saving their reputation and investment, it still will be good for us.

I just do hope that some of their decisions (Comolli, Carroll) wonīt give them a tough and costly lesson right from the beginning as itīs clear now what the Carroll transfer was all about.

Henry himself though stated that appointing Comolli was a gamble, and I rather have him saying that than being 100% convinced of his actions so far. Itīs just shows that he is very closely watching every step of the people in charge and being very critical in evaluating his own decisions.

[Uhoh AureliOs]

Ayre rubbishes media report

Ian Ayre has rubbished a newspaper report claiming Principal Owner John Henry suggested Fenway Sports Group may have overpaid for Liverpool players.

The Reds Managing Director insists Henry's quote was not regarding the club's transfer business and was instead referring to baseball.

Ayre told LFC TV's Friday Night Live: "I have actually seen the transcript. It was John answering questions via email, rather than in an interview. I have seen his comments he replied with.

"What he was essentially talking about in the first place was baseball. He was talking about the comments people have been making about a big signing they (Boston Red Sox) made, Carl Crawford.

"He made the point they may have overspent on players, but at the same time a month or so ago, before the Red Sox got into trouble, people were saying the Red Sox were maybe the best team they've ever had.

"He just drew the comparison, but it wasn't actually related to Liverpool in anyway.

"The other thing that comes out from that, and I was talking to Tom (Werner) about it today, is how do you ever gauge what you've spent on any player until the end of his contract?

"It's a long time playing for a club, and not everything happens on day one. For Carl Crawford or anyone else, it's all about what you get from that player across the life of his contract.

"We've seen players come to football clubs, baseball clubs and other sports clubs and some have a brilliant start and some have a slow start and they're just different. It's all about what you extract as value.

"He definitely didn't relate it to Liverpool. I don't know if it was a mis-quote - I think his quote was right, but it was just taken out of context."

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/ayre-rubbishes-media-report

[steveeastend]

"He definitely didn't relate it to Liverpool. I don't know if it was a mis-quote - I think his quote was right, but it was just taken out of context."

By the english press? No, really?

[nutmegger]

Here is an interview with Henry and the Boston press.. The media guy Felger is a real shit.

http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/thebuzz/2011/10/audio_john_henr.html

[TSC]

To me, and I mentioned this right at the beginning of their take over last year,  it would have been the perfect solution if Kenny had been brought in earlier, right after their take over and then being given a role within the board, as CEO, together with Ayre f.e. Just like Beckenbauer and Scherer for many years. Together with a manager like Vilas Boas f.e. there wouldnīt be any need of a DoF like Comolli, which is too much of power for someone having almost no backround in a daily role in football IMO, maybe as a chief scout.

Thankfully it wasn't you making the decisions then as Kenny wouldn't have got the managers job.

[MolbyLovesGravlax]

I just do hope that some of their decisions (Comolli, Carroll) wonīt give them a tough and costly lesson right from the beginning as itīs clear now what the Carroll transfer was all about.

Henry himself though stated that appointing Comolli was a gamble, and I rather have him saying that than being 100% convinced of his actions so far. Itīs just shows that he is very closely watching every step of the people in charge and being very critical in evaluating his own decisions.

The risk with Comolli was in that they went on a recommendation of someone they trusted in Beane, rather than starting a long process to identify someone. Kenny was a gamble because they went with what the fans were screaming for over their original plan of finding a young stats minded guy who could spend decades at the club.
In both case they now believe they did the right thing. He is just pointing out it was not guaranteed. Kenny's time out of the game might have created too big a gap to bridge, as the media was insisting. Beane could have been wrong about DC being 'likeminded to Beane and Henry himself'.
As to you Carroll dig, what the deal was about? It was about giving Kenny the striker he wanted to build the next 5 or more years around. You can argue about what we paid but lets not rewrite history because certain people do not like Carroll for whatever reason. Kenny and DC decided on Carroll as the guy they wanted, and the owners backed them. That is what you want owners to do. It is why Kenny is comparing them to the guys who ran the place during his first stint in charge.