Page 125 of 248 FirstFirst ... 2575115118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132135175225 ... LastLast
Results 1,241 to 1,250 of 2478

Thread: Coronavirus and the impact on football

  1. #1241
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    23,096
    Quote Originally Posted by eggy81 View Post
    The strain starting to show on some threads on here ha.
    Yep - just goes to show that a high fibre diet doesn’t necessarily make things easier.

  2. #1242
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    23,096
    From the indy

    Liverpool’s owners failed the club and their fans – changing their minds doesn’t change that

    The club have reversed their decision to furlough staff but backing down does not whitewash their actions. They have been caught with their hands in the till and putting the money back should not absolve them

    Those who watch Fenway Sports Group closely are not surprised at their backtracking over putting Liverpool’s non-playing staff on furlough. Anfield’s owners have a history of making rash decisions and changing their mind because of public or private pressure.

    Four years ago they were forced into a climbdown over ticket prices. A walkout by fans in a Premier League match against Sunderland caused the club to abandon plans to charge a top price of £77 for tickets.

    John W Henry, the principal owner, has been known to be flexible and take advice to overrule decisions made on Merseyside. Seven years ago, before the Hillsborough inquests, the club refused to put flyers appealing for witnesses to the 1989 disaster that caused 96 deaths on seats for a game against Fulham. The excuse was that it would cause too much litter in the surrounding area. Henry was alerted to the situation and a U-turn was performed within two hours.

    The owners have struggled to understand the culture of the club, even after a decade in charge. There are many examples of this. When they sacked Kenny Dalglish as manager in 2012 they failed to comprehend the emotional impact the Scot has on fans. No one could complain about the football decision they made but they were happy to sever ties with Dalglish. The absence on matchdays of the most important living figure in Anfield’s history left a gaping hole at a ground that prides itself on tradition. This was pointed out to Henry and he accepted it was a mistake. He went to great lengths to rebuild connections between Dalglish and FSG and brought the former manager back on the inside.

    Bad decisions have frequently been blamed on the lack of communication between FSG’s Boston headquarters, the London operation and the Merseyside offices. It has allowed the club to wriggle out of negative situations and back down. In reality this often signified a lack of real leadership. It is hard to believe that the idea to put the staff on furlough was not rubberstamped in Boston. There is no wriggling out of it.


    There will be widespread praise for FSG in the wake of their rethink. Is it deserved? The news will be greeted with relief by the majority of match-going fans but it shows that in the boardroom Liverpool have not matched the advances that Jurgen Klopp has gained on the pitch.

    It is no longer acceptable to excuse FSG’s actions by saying that they are still learning about the history and philosophy of Anfield. They learnt enough to milk the ghost of Bill Shankly for marketing purposes. Only last year, Peter Moore, the chief executive, was waxing lyrical about how the club’s core principles were based on socialism. “When we speak about business questions, we ask ourselves: ‘what would Shankly have done? What would Bill have said in this situation?’”

    This was part of the justification for the ‘This Means More’ promotional campaign. The club wanted to tell the world ‘we are different; we are better.’ When the moment of crisis came, they proved that Liverpool were no better than Daniel Levy and Tottenham. Backing down does not whitewash their actions and make things right. They have been caught with their hands in the till and putting the money back with a guilty look does not absolve them.

    Trust and leadership are crucial for supporters. Shankly and Dalglish were rarely found wanting in either department. Both men’s greatness is based on something more than mere footballing ability and winning trophies. For FSG’s legacy to be cemented it will take more than delivering the Champions League trophy or the first title in 30 years. They have to protect the club’s integrity and sense of self.

    The two Scots did not just spout meaningless words like ‘this means more,’ they earned trust by their actions. Shankly found the team and supporters in the doldrums and made them the talk of Europe. He was accessible and played a huge part in civic life. People would come to him for help and advice. He felt a responsibility to everyone around him.


    Dalglish became the face of the club and city during two crises. In his first week as a manager he had to respond to the Heysel Stadium disaster. Four years later he took on too much of the burden of Hillsborough. It had a detrimental effect on him personally but he did not buckle under pressure when the families of the dead, survivors and a mourning city needed him.

    People are judged by how they react in a crisis. Dalglish grew in stature. He let no one down.

    This week, Liverpool’s owners and senior management have failed their employees and have brought the club into disrepute. They have undermined what the chief executive only last year claimed were core values. Nothing changes that.

    They need to rebuild their reputation. FSG have damaged Liverpool with their decision to furlough staff but most of all they have damaged themselves. They have real work to do to reinstall belief.
    Last edited by Steveo; 7th April 2020 at 02:24 PM.

  3. #1243
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,997
    I think the owners just made a basic error which made sense from a business point of view. The fact that they totally owned up to their mistake in judgement and immediately reversed their decision shows a kind of strength of character and that they know indeed that the fans and the general public opinion in Liverpool as a city is paramount. it is something you probably wouldn't see in an american based sports franchise. So fair play to them. Aren't we talking about a million pounds in money. If that is true then it's peanuts to them, especially compared to the good will of the club, the players, ex players and most of all the world wide fan base.
    Look at Levy at Tottenham. How would you feel if you were a Tottenham fan and continually see him putting finances before everything else.

  4. #1244
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    26,730
    Quote Originally Posted by faridtoxteth View Post
    I think the owners just made a basic error which made sense from a business point of view. The fact that they totally owned up to their mistake in judgement and immediately reversed their decision shows a kind of strength of character and that they know indeed that the fans and the general public opinion in Liverpool as a city is paramount. it is something you probably wouldn't see in an american based sports franchise. So fair play to them. Aren't we talking about a million pounds in money. If that is true then it's peanuts to them, especially compared to the good will of the club, the players, ex players and most of all the world wide fan base.
    Look at Levy at Tottenham. How would you feel if you were a Tottenham fan and continually see him putting finances before everything else.
    Is it only the Jewish owner levy that is concerned with finances before everything else. Seems to be the choice of several posts.

    Surely some Tories own football clubs too.

  5. #1245
    Isn't it ironic

  6. #1246
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    26,730
    Quote Originally Posted by dicko1969 View Post
    Isn't it ironic
    I'm not sure if it is ironic, it's not a word I've mastered. I'll get back to irony later with a question on its appropriate use.

    It seems inaccurate and rather lazily ventured which so often happens imo when people grandstand on shaky ground or loose soils.

    Since Klopp joined us till the present date....

    1 Spurs have invested more in money on transfers than lfc. A Bigger net spend.
    2 Their capital investments exceed our own significantly, granted they might have needed a bigger stadium moreso
    3 The only area we outspent them is on wages.

    3 areas of big investment for a club. Rather comparable.

    I think a lot of spurs fans will be proud of their progress under levy.
    Successive top4 finishes and cl excursions.
    A good enough brand of football.
    A new and seemingly quality stadium.
    Financially prudent and whilst everything else (whatever that entails) might seem important also, you are going nowhere in top flight football without sound revenue and financial stability.

    I'd wager a few other teams might actually prefer to be in spurs position with levy that their own.

    The other 19 pl owners are hardly that different. There are different strategies for the variety of clubs and a reality of how soundly an owner can approve spending.

    They lost poch whose cycle might have being coming to an end anyway, or may have had his head turned and lost the dressing room from bigger clubs offers.
    Levy could have sanctioned some big additions to secure or revitalise poch, but he was planning the new stadium and having to be mindful that they might not be able to count on cl/top4 revenue every year. After all we are performing much better off the field and there are a few richer than spurs clubs with owners with deeper pockets.

    Football is about succeeding and winning, amidst their progress they've not won any silverware of note so that can be their only disappointment.
    I've consistently put them second to us in the top6 for best performing club.

    Would it be ironic if a researcher investigating the effect of subtle but valid racial cues to trolley-tests (hypothetical scenarios) found that those whose party/members/voters/twatters scream racist the most, found that those people displayed more unconscious/conscious racial prejudice than their political rivals they scream racist at ?
    In freudian/psychoanalytic terminology this would fall under the term projecting.

    To the extent that papers were titled kill whitey and the reason is treason, owing to the effect being that lefties were more willing to justify the deaths of whites to save lives and the deaths of western civilians as collateral damage than their right counterparts would.
    On the kill whitey, Pizzaro said really the righties aren't differing that much whether they'd sacrifice a white or black life in the same scenario. Whereas the lefties demonstrated how they'd kill a white but not a black in the same scenarios.
    That would be ironic imo.

  7. #1247
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    offaly
    Posts
    16,957
    Everyone knows irony is when you have 10000 spoons and all you need is a knife.

  8. #1248
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Teesside
    Posts
    14,894
    Quote Originally Posted by eggy81 View Post
    Everyone knows irony is when you have 10000 spoons and all you need is a knife.
    I thought it was like raiyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyn on your wedding day?

  9. #1249
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    12,007
    Quote Originally Posted by teesred View Post
    I thought it was like raiyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyn on your wedding day?
    Haha.
    If you're not sure what to do with the ball, just put it in the net, and we'll talk about the other options later... Bob Paisley.

  10. #1250
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    In a glass case of emotion
    Posts
    1,787
    Ironically none of the examples she used were ironic.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •