Topic: Exclusive John Henry Q&A

[The Crimson Pirate]

Good interview. He could have said absolutely anything and some people would have bitched and moaned.

I don't think there are any leaks and that is driving the supporters mad. The biggest problem FSG face is how badly we were burned with Hicks and Gilette. If we just read FSG and Henry's words rather than all the rumour bullshit and just see what happens, let's judge them on what they do.

They are going outside the box, I'm interested.

A good interview?
He's not been asked anything awkward or remotely interesting at this time when many of us are concerned, if not outright worried, about the immediate well-being of the club. FSG's absentee stewardship and pared-to-the-bone local administration is not inspiring confidence in any viable plan for LFC. Their wage-bill austerity and transfer parsimony should have us all  fearing another uninspiring league position. A healthier-looking balance sheet, maybe, but as for football? Forget it!

Tomkins is essentially a mouthpiece, very supportive of anyone at LFC who can give him an 'inside', or the appearance of being 'well informed and in-the-know'. Its part of FSG's strategy: use well-known internet 'fans' to form the debate and shape the landscape of discussions surrounding their tenure.

Another Jen Chang PR masterstroke!

[kermit^^]

A naming rights deal at Anfield could occur, I suppose, if the partner were right. We haven’t pursued it.

You don’t compete for money; you compete to win.

These are like pisstake coming from him.

[Lofty Ambitions]

Quite liked that myself too! Kudos for them for doing another open interview.

Fair play for Tomkins as well for creating the questions together with some of the authors on his site.

[anfieldanfield]

Used to enjoy reading John Henry's interviews, it gave me a sense of optimism. Now its just words on a page

[♠Dirty Harry♠]

Was he sent the questions in advance or was it a cold interview?

[stewy17]

Less and less interested in what him and his pals are saying and more interested in what they are (or are not) doing.

[eirwen]

What is the problem that they haven't pursued naming rights for Anfield? It is completely futile, no company in their right mind would pay anything more than a pittance for them, it will forever be known as Anfield, regardless, it would be a baseless and idiotic attempt at advertising on any companies part, especially for the figures we would need.

Wasn't it rumored that Emirates are offering RM 40m a year or something to change it to Fly Emirates Berabeu? If they are redeveloping Anfield, it is definitely something they should look into.

[eirwen]

Hypothetical:
With how the new TV deal money is split, with £100m going to the PL winners in the 13-14 season (as mentioned in the Q&A), how important will the CL money be? Maybe clubs will be happy just winning the PL title?

I know Europe is important to players.

The CL money will always be important regardless. You don't just walk away from 50m. And that is without mentioning the effect of expanding fan base.

[stewy17]

Wasn't it rumored that Emirates are offering RM 40m a year or something to change it to Fly Emirates Berabeu? If they are redeveloping Anfield, it is definitely something they should look into.

In your opinion.

There are a great many however who would very fucking strongly disagree with you, including myself, and believe that any attempts to rename anfield would be sacrilege.

"This is Emirates Anfield"

Nah, fuck that.

I'm glad they haven't pursued it, nor should they.

[CraigDS]

The CL money will always be important regardless. You don't just walk away from 50m. And that is without mentioning the effect of expanding fan base.

To get the CL money you need to do well in the PL though. So it's in United interest to break the spending being done by Chelsea and City. If they do that, given United's revenue, they could outspend them both easily for the best players. Once in the CL then even with certain PL only sanctions the English clubs could still bring in massive amounts of the CL revenue.

I can only think of Chelsea and City who wouldn't vote for PL only sanctions.

[Kochevnik]

The only way we could find a partner who would be right to "rename" Anfield wold be if there were a company out there called "AN" and we could just use "ANField" and keep pronouncing it the same way. 

Otherwise it's a ridiculous idea.

[eirwen]

To get the CL money you need to do well in the PL though. So it's in United interest to break the spending being done by Chelsea and City. If they do that, given United's revenue, they could outspend them both easily for the best players. Once in the CL then even with certain PL only sanctions the English clubs could still bring in massive amounts of the CL revenue.

I can only think of Chelsea and City who wouldn't vote for PL only sanctions.

Man Utd are in huge debt. I'm sure financial fair play or whatever regulation doesn't work that way so you can spend money as long as you earn it without any consideration to debt.

[CraigDS]

Man Utd are in huge debt. I'm sure financial fair play or whatever regulation doesn't work that way so you can spend money as long as you earn it without any consideration to debt.

I think the debt is organised in such a way that it meets FFP doesn't it? May be wrong about that but thought I remember reading that at current levels United would just about meet it due to revenue.

[paulrazor]

not bothered naming rights havent been looked into if we stay put

if we were all guns blazing for a new ground and it wasnt pursued then id be concerned.

i think his comments on not looking for it are only in relation to staying at anfield. thats ok, you saw the uproar last year over newcastles ground becoming the sports direct arena

[Bonaqua]

A good interview?
He's not been asked anything awkward or remotely interesting at this time when many of us are concerned, if not outright worried, about the immediate well-being of the club. FSG's absentee stewardship and pared-to-the-bone local administration is not inspiring confidence in any viable plan for LFC. Their wage-bill austerity and transfer parsimony should have us all  fearing another uninspiring league position. A healthier-looking balance sheet, maybe, but as for football? Forget it!

Tomkins is essentially a mouthpiece, very supportive of anyone at LFC who can give him an 'inside', or the appearance of being 'well informed and in-the-know'. Its part of FSG's strategy: use well-known internet 'fans' to form the debate and shape the landscape of discussions surrounding their tenure.

Another Jen Chang PR masterstroke!

Yeah. Right. Our owner gives a normal interview. But for you its all PR propaganda to hide an evil agenda and the fact that we stand on the brink of disaster? No wonder you're worried..

[gorgepir]

I like this part:

No. You don’t compete for money; you compete to win. Winning the Carling Cup last year was huge for the club just as making it to the final of the FA Cup was huge.

Our goal is to win the Premier League. It’s not going to happen this year, but that is what we are building for – first and foremost. That’s only going to happen if our league performance turns around substantially.

[Trada]

not bothered naming rights havent been looked into if we stay put

if we were all guns blazing for a new ground and it wasnt pursued then id be concerned.

i think his comments on not looking for it are only in relation to staying at anfield. thats ok, you saw the uproar last year over newcastles ground becoming the sports direct arena

I think that may be because it came right out of the Blue and calling it after his own company.

I guess it's a lot like turning up for the game tonight and finding out Anfield was now the FSG Anfield Stadium.

[sirjames]

I like this part:

Its a great part, untill you realise that they aim to win the premier league by cutting costs or transfer fees and wages just like the last winners city, i mean united or is it chelsea. No it must be arsenal. Only they didnt win it by shedding the wage bill. So where the fuck is he getting the idea that we will win the prem by paying smaller wages, smaller transfer fees and selling the better players.

We are signing bigger sponsership deals than we ever have before, but on the pitch we are spending less and less. In terms of wages.

[adamski29]

What if Anfield is kept as part of the name? Like emirates anfield?

How about still calling the stadium anfield as it will allways be refferd to anyway and calling the "arena" in other words the seating and pitch the Microsoft arena or some such. Seems a strange suggestion I know but could be a good compromise/sleight of hand approach. Is their any precedence for that kind of approach.
That way the kop and all the other stands could still theoretically keep there names also.
Or just keep the Kop as the Kop and sell naming rights for the other three sides together, might even draw extra attention to the sponsors given the unique nature of the arrangement.

[CraigDS]

Its a great part, untill you realise that they aim to win the premier league by cutting costs or transfer fees and wages just like the last winners city, i mean united or is it chelsea. No it must be arsenal. Only they didnt win it by shedding the wage bill. So where the fuck is he getting the idea that we will win the prem by paying smaller wages, smaller transfer fees and selling the better players.

Maxi, Kuyt, Aurelio, Jovanovic, Aquilani, etc. are the ones who have gone.

1. Since when have these been the better players you refer to?
2. When was the last time a team won the PL with players like those in the side?

[gorgepir]

Its a great part, untill you realise that they aim to win the premier league by cutting costs or transfer fees and wages just like the last winners city, i mean united or is it chelsea. No it must be arsenal. Only they didnt win it by shedding the wage bill. So where the fuck is he getting the idea that we will win the prem by paying smaller wages, smaller transfer fees and selling the better players.

We are signing bigger sponsership deals than we ever have before, but on the pitch we are spending less and less. In terms of wages.

That is what you are implying, not what he said. His quotes are exactly: "Our goal is to win the Premier League. It’s not going to happen this year, but that is what we are building for – first and foremost. That’s only going to happen if our league performance turns around substantially." Nothing about shedding the wage bill and selling better players.

[eirwen]

How about still calling the stadium anfield as it will allways be refferd to anyway and calling the "arena" in other words the seating and pitch the Microsoft arena or some such. Seems a strange suggestion I know but could be a good compromise/sleight of hand approach. Is their any precedence for that kind of approach.
That way the kop and all the other stands could still theoretically keep there names also.
Or just keep the Kop as the Kop and sell naming rights for the other three sides together, might even draw extra attention to the sponsors given the unique nature of the arrangement.

I think selling stands names (other than the kop) could be a great idea. Has it ever been done before?

[CraigDS]

I think selling stands names (other than the kop) could be a great idea. Has it ever been done before?

Loads of stands have been sponsored in the past.

Doesn't really bring in much as how often do you hear the name of a stand (other than the likes of The Kop) being mentioned?

[.Mike]

Its a great part, untill you realise that they aim to win the premier league by cutting costs or transfer fees and wages just like the last winners city, i mean united or is it chelsea. No it must be arsenal. Only they didnt win it by shedding the wage bill. So where the fuck is he getting the idea that we will win the prem by paying smaller wages, smaller transfer fees and selling the better players.

We are signing bigger sponsership deals than we ever have before, but on the pitch we are spending less and less. In terms of wages.

Bullshit. We've spent more than we have for a long time. Ive never seen a transfer window like last summer.

[stewy17]

How about incorporating the McNasty's arches into the liverbird? Or getting the Shankly Statue amended to wear a Ben Sherman Shirt? Or what about playing in Orange if Orange sponsor us?

Anfield, the name, is untouchable. I'm amazed that any Liverpool fan would even consider it.

[paulrazor]

I think that may be because it came right out of the Blue and calling it after his own company.

I guess it's a lot like turning up for the game tonight and finding out Anfield was now the FSG Anfield Stadium.

i do agree with you and them

i think if a deal was in place most would still call it anfield. id still refer to newcastles ground as st. james park.

to be fair i do call citys ground the etihad but theres no real history to that ground.

[soxfan]

Their wage-bill austerity and transfer parsimony should have us all  fearing another uninspiring league position.

2 clubs net outspent us on transfers last season. We were over 30M net.

Two of 20.

Assuming Allen comes in @ 15M, we're now at about 21M net. Borini 11 + Allen 15 - 5(Aquilani, Kuyt, Maxi, Aurelio pittances)  = 21. And Rodgers wants to bring in another at least. So we may be over 30M net again. 

So for this summer, again only 1, 2 or 3 clubs will outspend us, out of 20. 

Perhaps you like to inject some actual facts into your hysteria?

[CraigDS]

How about incorporating the McNasty's arches into the liverbird? Or getting the Shankly Statue amended to wear a Ben Sherman Shirt? Or what about playing in Orange if Orange sponsor us?

Anfield, the name, is untouchable. I'm amazed that any Liverpool fan would even consider it.

But they aren't suggesting any of that. In fact they aren't suggesting anything as haven't looked at it.

I think a lot of fans would be happy if Anfield was kept in the name (Boeing Anfield for sake of an example). You and me would call it Anfield. No doubt the press would still call it Anfield. But we'd have a nice sign on the outside (along with the many others we already do) and hopefully a decent pot of money to add to the coffers, which will hopefully aid getting the club back to where it should be (top of PL and winning the CL).

[scared_person]

Wasn't it rumored that Emirates are offering RM 40m a year or something to change it to Fly Emirates Berabeu? If they are redeveloping Anfield, it is definitely something they should look into.

How about incorporating the McNasty's arches into the liverbird? Or getting the Shankly Statue amended to wear a Ben Sherman Shirt? Or what about playing in Orange if Orange sponsor us?

Anfield, the name, is untouchable. I'm amazed that any Liverpool fan would even consider it.

I totally understand both points of view. Head goes with Eirwen's view, heart is totally wite Stewy's. This is the dilemma of the modern football fan. We all want football to mean more than just money, but in reality our club is just a business the same as McNasty's and Coca Cola, and we're only going to compete on the pitch if we match the revenues of the other big teams. I want Liverpool to be the best fucking team in the world, but I don't want to see that in the Pepsi Cola Anfield Dome where local supporters have been priced out.

i wish I had a convincing stance to take.

[The Crimson Pirate]

Yeah. Right. Our owner gives a normal interview. But for you its all PR propaganda to hide an evil agenda and the fact that we stand on the brink of disaster? No wonder you're worried..

Who said 'Evil'?

Try 'Bland' or 'Anodyne'. And that's as much the problem with the questions as it is with the answers.

[The Crimson Pirate]

2 clubs net outspent us on transfers last season. We were over 30M net.

Two of 20.

Assuming Allen comes in @ 15M, we're now at about 21M net. Borini 11 + Allen 15 - 5(Aquilani, Kuyt, Maxi, Aurelio pittances)  = 21. And Rodgers wants to bring in another at least. So we may be over 30M net again. 

So for this summer, again only 1, 2 or 3 clubs will outspend us, out of 20. 

Perhaps you like to inject some actual facts into your hysteria?

Well when we sell Agger to cover those costs, I'll get back to you.

[GBF]

would have wished that John's mate would have asked something about the football at least

[sirjames]

That is what you are implying, not what he said. His quotes are exactly: "Our goal is to win the Premier League. It’s not going to happen this year, but that is what we are building for – first and foremost. That’s only going to happen if our league performance turns around substantially." Nothing about shedding the wage bill and selling better players.

I am implying what hes implementing at the club.

[Cpt_Reina]

Fluff piece.

[gorgepir]

I am implying what hes implementing at the club.

You are implying what you think he has implemented. Not what has been implemented until now. Sold better players? Only Torres comes to my mind. Shed the wage bill? Doubt that has happened yet, maybe when Cole, Gerrard and Carras contract run out.

[sirjames]

You are implying what you think he has implemented. Not what has been implemented until now. Sold better players? Only Torres comes to my mind. Shed the wage bill? Doubt that has happened yet, maybe when Cole, Gerrard and Carras contract run out.

You dont think that by off loading maxi, meireles, kuyt, aurelio, aquilani and torres we have decreased the wage bill? It seems clear that the club is willing to let agger leave if the price is right.

[graaf_x]

would have wished that John's mate would have asked something about the football at least

Like what? John, what is your favourite formation, 4-3-3 or 4-4-2? Who would you like us to sign, Gaston Ramirez or Dempsey? Will we sell Agger? What's your stance on offside rule? Can Spain win tne next World Cup?
He's the businessman, not a football fan, and doesn't have much knowledge in football, which he himself admitted.

[firing squad]

I can't believe people are actually moaning about us not looking around to sell the name of the ground.  Against modern football!!!

[gorgepir]

You dont think that by off loading maxi, meireles, kuyt, aurelio, aquilani and torres we have decreased the wage bill? It seems clear that the club is willing to let agger leave if the price is right.

Not when we bought Downing, Henderson, Adam, Carroll, Coates, Borini, and Suarez (and then increasing his wages to Torres levels). The net wage reduction is not that high that you think it is.

And the club will let anyone leave if the price is right. No player is more important than the club. And regardless, they haven't let Agger go yet, so your jumping the gun.

[GBF]

Like what? John, what is your favourite formation, 4-3-3 or 4-4-2? Who would you like us to sign, Gaston Ramirez or Dempsey? Will we sell Agger? What's your stance on offside rule? Can Spain win tne next World Cup?
He's the businessman, not a football fan, and doesn't have much knowledge in football, which he himself admitted.

like when he will appoint someone to look at the overall aspect of the football, what is the target for the season....very easy questions