Topic: Enemies of the club

[CraigDS]

Just checked dates and it seems Tyrrell joined at the same time Ayre became MD. (March 2010). Of course that doesn't necessarily mean he was acting on Ayre's instruction; this sort of thing was his standard MO.

Ayre became MD in March 2011, after FSG bought the club in Oct 2010 (think was acting MD between those two dates).

Martin Broughton, Purslow, Hicks and Gillett all had nothing to do with the club after Oct 2010, so this must of been done before that date.

EDIT - from this article (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-work-image-hiring-former-3361081) it appears he left in Sept 2011 after working for 18 months so must of started around March 2010, so guess this report was done sometime between then and H&G selling up in the following Oct.

[ManchesterBlue]

Ayre became MD in March 2011, after FSG bought the club in Oct 2010 (think was acting MD between those two dates).

Martin Broughton, Purslow, Hicks and Gillett all had nothing to do with the club after Oct 2010, so this must of been done before that date.

EDIT - from this article (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-work-image-hiring-former-3361081) it appears he left in Sept 2011 after working for 18 months so must of started around March 2010, so guess this report was done sometime between then and H&G selling up in the following Oct.

That makes sense. H&G would have been feeling the pressure so he tried to convince them the fans and journalists were just a whingeing bunch of ungrateful so-and-so's with an agenda.

He tried that at City with about as much success.

[CraigDS]

That makes sense. H&G would have been feeling the pressure so he tried to convince them the fans and journalists were just a whingeing bunch of ungrateful so-and-so's with an agenda.

He tried that at City with about as much success.

Purslow would of been just as worried about his own image as well as trying to protect H&G I'd guess, so even more reason for him to use Tyrell.

[Graham Smith]

The document was produced on the 26th June 2010, three weeks after Benitez was sacked.

[ManchesterBlue]

Purslow would of been just as worried about his own image as well as trying to protect H&G I'd guess, so even more reason for him to use Tyrell.

Thank you for jogging my memory. I was told that PT saw it as a major part of his role at City to promote the image of his CEO (who's now at Fulham). So much so that you rarely saw the words "Alistair Mackintosh" in the media without the prefix "highly regarded chief executive".

At the time Mackintosh was given the heave-ho from City (June 2008 ) Tyrrell was trying to link him with Liverpool at a time when Rick Parry seemed to be under pressure. It did strike me whether that was more about destabilising Parry than promoting Mackintosh. What was the situation with Parry at that time?

[CraigDS]

Thank you for jogging my memory. I was told that PT saw it as a major part of his role at City to promote the image of his CEO (who's now at Fulham). So much so that you rarely saw the words "Alistair Mackintosh" in the media without the prefix "highly regarded chief executive".

At the time Mackintosh was given the heave-ho from City (June 2008) Tyrrell was trying to link him with Liverpool at a time when Rick Parry seemed to be under pressure. It did strike me whether that was more about destabilising Parry than promoting Mackintosh. What was the situation with Parry at that time?

Parry's position was questioned once H&G bought the club I believe, even for them I think he was a bit of a simpleton, and he was ousted in 2009 I think it was, with Purslow taking over until they sold up in Oct 2010.

[Mutton Geoff]

The document was produced on the 26th June 2010, three weeks after Benitez was sacked.

so Ayre was around to help with that action for sure! So clearly as he was almost like Cecil's bagman,  he might have seen it, or might not?

[CraigDS]

so Ayre was around to help with that action for sure! So clearly as he was almost like Cecil's bagman,  he might have seen it, or might not?

He'd definitely of been around, and if this was presented to the board (probable) he'd of seen it along with the rest of them (Phil Nash, Broughton, etc).

Doesn't really tell you much more than that though.

[Mutton Geoff]

He'd definitely of been around, and if this was presented to the board (probable) he'd of seen it along with the rest of them (Phil Nash, Broughton, etc).

Doesn't really tell you much more than that though.

makes you wonder as it is so badly put together and Puerile, surely someone thought this fool has got to go!

It reads like a vengeful schoolboy trying to get his own back on the nasty big boys.

[Graham Smith]

He'd definitely of been around, and if this was presented to the board (probable) he'd of seen it along with the rest of them (Phil Nash, Broughton, etc).

Doesn't really tell you much more than that though.

No, doesn't tell you much more than anyone on the Board who allowed this sort of stuff is unfit to be on that Board.

I'd have a bit more respect if it was a bit more accurate. It's worse than Blair's dodgy dossier, without the WMD.

[CraigDS]

No, doesn't tell you much more than anyone on the Board who allowed this sort of stuff is unfit to be on that Board.

The board as a whole may not of known the work going on between PT and Purslow until it was presented to them (if it was). And you do not know the reaction it got when/if it was presented.

[Graham Smith]

The board as a whole may not of known the work going on between PT and Purslow until it was presented to them (if it was). And you do not know the reaction it got when/if it was presented.

You've just said it was probable that it went to the Board!

[CraigDS]

You've just said it was probable that it went to the Board!

Yes the report after.

Big difference between the board all sanctioning this report being done in such a fashion, and them seeing the results of Purslow having this report done.

[Graham Smith]

Yes the report after.

Big difference between the board all sanctioning this report being done in such a fashion, and them seeing the results of Purslow having this report done.

It doesn't work that way in corporate organisations as you know.

If you're suggested situation occurred then the proper thinking members of the Board act. And don't say he was gone shortly after. Because he wasn't.

If you see something like this in a proper organisation, you deal with it.

[CraigDS]

It doesn't work that way in corporate organisations as you know.

If you're suggested situation occurred then the proper thinking members of the Board act. And don't say he was gone shortly after. Because he wasn't.

If you see something like this in a proper organisation, you deal with it.

There is no reason a CEO couldn't or wouldn't have a report such as this composed without getting full board approval, or even discussing it with them, prior to it. In fact there is no reason what so ever it would need approval first.

As for what happens after, he probably should of gone prior to the Sept 11 he appears to of done so, I agree with that.

There is no defending this report, or the people involved in its composing. I'm just pointing out that other than Teyrell and Purslow who are clearly directly involved, we'd be guessing trying to implicate anyone else.

[Graham Smith]

There is no reason a CEO couldn't or wouldn't have a report such as this composed without getting full board approval, or even discussing it with them, prior to it. In fact there is no reason what so ever it would need approval first.

As for what happens after, he probably should of gone prior to the Sept 11 he appears to of done so, I agree with that.

There is no defending this report, or the people involved in its composing. I'm just pointing out that other than Teyrell and Purslow who are clearly directly involved, we'd be guessing trying to implicate anyone else.

Yeah, yet again common sense evades you and you hide behind the perfect Thomas defence.

[CraigDS]

Yeah, yet again common sense evades you and you hide behind the perfect Thomas defence.

It's nothing to do with common sense, its simple workings of a boardroom.

Anyway, there isn't really any discussion here, this whole thing is in defendable.

[Graham Smith]

It's nothing to do with common sense, its simple workings of a boardroom.

Anyway, there isn't really any discussion here, this whole thing is in defendable.

Ayre was appointed as a Director six months before this document was created. Ayre got rid of Chang for something similar.

If Ayre was in receipt of this document and did nothing about it, position tenable or untenable?

[Zeb]

Ayre was appointed as a Director six months before this document was created. Ayre got rid of Chang for something similar.

If Ayre was in receipt of this document and did nothing about it, position tenable or untenable?

To be honest Graham, it's such a risible piece of fantasy that if Ayre took much notice of it (and that's assuming he saw it) he should be sacked because I'd not trust him with the sandwich order if he had. 92A's post is about how I see it too. It's bollocks, it was aimed at Purslow directly ('you'), and infers more about Tyrell and Purslow, and likely more accurately, than it does about any of the people named. Unless Ayre had a hand in its preparation, and that's a stretch, there's better things to aim in his direction if you've the desire to.

[Graham Smith]

I'm really not arsed about its contents, although it libels a few decent people who probably won't let it lie.

I'm more exasperated about the quality of our administrators, past and present.

[Zeb]

You'll not get much disagreement about that from me. We do dysfunctional rather too well when we try hard enough. Sort of hoping that we're slowly moving past that now. I'd be surprised if we have.

[ManchesterBlue]

My interest in this dates back to Tyrrell's time at City and this was the way he worked then. Everyone was seen as 'the enemy'. People in the club who didn't agree with the way things were being done, journalists, fanzines, forums and individual fans who dared to express an opinion. All of them were targeted aggressively. It's entirely possible private detectives were used to help compile that document. Threats of legal action were made against fanzines and contributors at City.

He did the same thing with you and he's done the same at Everton, where a fan who has been arrested on trumped up charges for daring to voice an opinion.

So you could just say it's one individual who has the view that fans who care about their club are actually scumbags. But then you look at the things that Jen Chang did and the fact that none of  the clubs involved seem not to have been horrified at documents like that one. Plus it's happened at other clubs as well.

So the wider question should be whether there's a general attitude of disdain for fans among the football hierarchy. Is this just an extension of the sort of crap that's been thrown at Liverpool fans (and others) since April 1989?

[Zeb]

It's what you get when you hire someone like Tyrrell. Hire someone else, get another approach. He had the red Mancs stoning buses and you lot loved it. So it's swings and roundabouts at times on what comes out.

[Maggie May]

I've felt for a long time that club management sees supporters as a necessary evil.  To be tolerated because they provide a colourful backdrop and amuse the corporate boxes with their flags and songs.

It saddens me to say that for as long as I can remember (and I go back aways) the management of our club has been a fucking shambles - particularly since Davy Boy took over and teamed up with Coco. 

The foul lot down the M6 may be a nest of vipers but their organisation is superb.  I wish to God ours was a patch on theirs. 

Oh.  And I cannot see that it was possible for Ayre not to know about this. 

[ManchesterBlue]

Story now in The Echo with Hooton talking about legal action. "No  comment" from Tyrrell.

[Timeless Melody]

Good PR this.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leaked-list-compared-liverpool-fc-4025956

A leaked dossier allegedly drawn up by Everton FC’s director of communications during his former role at Liverpool compared prominent Reds fans to Cambodia’s notorious Khmer Rouge.

The document is claimed to have been drawn up by Paul Tyrrell at the height of antagonism between LFC supporters and the unpopular Anfield regime run by Tom Hicks and George Gillett in 2010.

It was leaked by the evertonarentwe.com fan website although it is not clear how the highly sensitive, internal report came into their hands.

The documents states that some Reds fans groups are “like the sporting version” of Cambodia’s 1970s revolutionaries, wanting to “get to Year Zero to start all over again and see the opportunity of furthering their general political beliefs through LFC”.

Journalists are also targeted and their allegiances and views identified, including former ECHO reporters Tony Barrett and Dom King.

Mr Tyrrell issued a firm “no comment” about the dossier today.

It is signed off PT and makes reference to how fans “regard the owners as evil pals of (George) Bush ... and the chairman (Martin Broughton) as Tory toffs and people such as me (with my family political background) as traitors.”

Mr Tyrrell’s dad was once a Labour mayor of Halton.

The Farm frontman and outspoken Reds fan Peter Hooton – who is referred to on the four-page list – said he was considering taking legal action over some of the claims about him in the dossier. Mr Hooton told other fans on web forums that he would be “getting his lawyers onto this”.

And Spirit of Shankly said it was disgusted to be compared to a “murderous genocidal regime” just for taking a different stand to the club’s management.

The SOS’s James McKenna told the ECHO: “To see this sort of confirms what we suspected, that there were briefings and dossiers and blacklists.

“You would think we were some kind of sinister political front. How can we be compared to a murderous regime committing genocide, and what is a ‘sporting version’ of a murderous dictatorship?

“If you look at what was happening in the summer of 2010, undermining the club didn’t come down to us.”

The fans are also accused of being happy to see the club plummet down the divisions, “effectively go bust and then reform in a pure Socialist form – run by a Supporters Trust”.

The dossier adds: “They failed in the past to take on the establishment in the form of the Conservative government in the 1980s ... and form a Trotskyist Independent People’s Republic.”

LFC sources said the club had been under a very different regime in the run up to the crisis of 2010 which saw Hicks and Gillett take the club to court during the ownership wrangle.

A spokesman added: “No-one from the club’s current management was involved with or had any knowledge of this document.”

[Maggie May]

Good PR this.

A spokesman added: “No-one from the club’s current management was involved with or had any knowledge of this document.”

Ain't it just.   

Nooooooo.  Of course not.  Like the "Easy Rider's" going to put his hands up.  They really must think we are stupid.  In any decently run business in the real world, Ayre was in a position to know about and most certainly should have known about this document. 

[Timeless Melody]

https://twitter.com/TheFarm13

TheFarm/PeterHooton ‏@TheFarm13 4h
"no idea if Ayre saw it but he was on the board at the time so he would've known about it as loads of LFC staff told me about it"

[Timeless Melody]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/data-protection-act-led-part-4028414#.UaYm00tRLic.twitter


A key part of a dossier which compared well-known Liverpool FC fans to Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge dictatorship was released by the club under personal data laws, the ECHO can reveal.

A censored version of the leaked document, allegedly written by Everton FC’s current director of communications Paul Tyrrell when he was employed by Liverpool, was obtained through the Data Protection Act. It is claimed it was prepared for a member of the club’s board as pressure grew on former owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett in 2010.

Reds supporter and journalist Jim Boardman formally requested the dossier’s release after being informed his name was on it.

Mr Boardman, who was among the founders of the Anfield Road website and popular Liverpool podcast the Anfield Wrap, said: “I first saw a version of it in December but there was no way to verify it.

“I found out how to submit a request under the Data Protection Act and eventually received a redacted copy just showing the parts referring to me.”

A full version of what is claimed to be the dossier, signed off with the initials PT, was leaked by Blues fan site evertonarentwe.

Journalists including Times football editor Tony Evans and former ECHO reporters Tony Barrett and Dominic King were among those named as being part of “a very small, yet highly motivated, group of agitators who are actively briefing against the club on almost every issue”.

The document says some supporters’ groups were “like the sporting version” of the 1970s revolutionaries, while Mr Boardman is described as having time on his hands as he “claims to have M.E”.

He said: “It is a real concern that someone at the club was apparently talking about an illness in this way. I am considering speaking to the supporters’ committee disability representative to raise this issue.”

A number of people named in the document, including the Farm frontman and Hillsborough justice campaigner Peter Hooton, are understood to be considering legal action.

Mr Boardman said: “It is an option I am looking at and I am getting advice on what my next step should be.”

Mr Tyrrell has refused to comment on claims surrounding the alleged dossier, while Liverpool FC said no-one currently at the club was involved with the document or had any knowledge of it.

Mr Boardman said: “There are so many problems with the document but a major thing is how it highlights the way communication appears to have been taking place at the club at the time.

“It has lots of inaccuracies in there, saying I am linked to people who I’ve never even met – it suggests tittle-tattle was being treated as fact inside Liverpool at a crucial time for the club.”

[oojason]

I imagine the club may be getting a few more requests for info the club has on individuals under the Data Protection Act...

[BUSHMILLS]

The document is obviously bollox but the outrage over the "khmer rouge" phrase is a bit over the top. He was drawing a comparison because he believed the fans wanted a 'Year Zero', not because he thought they were mass murderers. It was a poor and tasteless comparison, but the meaning is obvious.

[Mutton Geoff]

It's nothing to do with common sense, its simple workings of a boardroom.

Anyway, there isn't really any discussion here, this whole thing is in defendable.

Can i ask how many boardrooms you frequent?

[Mutton Geoff]

The document is obviously bollox but the outrage over the "khmer rouge" phrase is a bit over the top. He was drawing a comparison because he believed the fans wanted a 'Year Zero', not because he thought they were mass murderers. It was a poor and tasteless comparison, but the meaning is obvious.

And the referenced link to a journalist and Heysal can you explain that away as well as a nonentity?

If you are slandered you tend to react i find, like you would if i slandered you!

[BUSHMILLS]

And the referenced link to a journalist and Heysal can you explain that away as well as a nonentity?

If you are slandered you tend to react i find, like you would if i slandered you!

I specifically mentioned the "khmer rouge" reference, nothing else.

[Graham Smith]

The members of the Club still there who knew about this are in major difficulties I suspect, from quite a few sources.

This is bigger than Chang.

[Mutton Geoff]

I specifically mentioned the "khmer rouge" reference, nothing else.

its has to be taken in its entirety dont you think unless it was a cheap pop by you at the SOS guys.

[exiledintheUSA]

Paul Tyrrell is a proper c*nt.

[CraigDS]

Can i ask how many boardrooms you frequent?

Enough to make the sorts of comments I have - otherwise I wouldn't of done so.

[BUSHMILLS]

its has to be taken in its entirety dont you think unless it was a cheap pop by you at the SOS guys.

It wasn't a cheap po.....


....actually, do you know what? I can't be arsed. Believe what you want.

[ManchesterBlue]

Enough to make the sorts of comments I have - otherwise I wouldn't of done so.

It's highly unlikely that this would have been authorised and discussed at full board level. Far more likely that Purslow asked Tyrrell to prepare it or that Tyrrell did it off his own bat having been in a similar situation at Manchester City a few years previously.