Liverpool FC Forum

With a return to the Champions League secured within 42 months of acquisition, the FSG master plan for Liverpool is very much taking shape, writes Si Steers.



It isn’t just about the success on the pitch which has been rapid under the guidance of Brendan Rodgers; it is the top to bottom transformation of the club that has been so impressive.

Let’s be clear, it hasn’t all been plain sailing since FSG’s arrival. There was a steep learning curve in the early days, and with the lack of both the prestige and finance that the Champions League provides player recruitment hasn’t always been easy.

But the club is now at a point where the foundations are well set for both long term stability and success, which isn’t down to luck, it is down to the execution of a vision and long term plan that has been developed and tweaked since October 2010.

42 months sounds like a long time, and it is, but when you are building a football club sensibly and sustainably you don’t see progress overnight. When you look at a snapshot of all areas of the club at this moment it presents a picture of a football club where everything is pointing towards progress.

The summer window



The transfer committee has taken a great deal of criticism in previous windows, as high profile targets have slipped through the net. But when you are recruiting and negotiating from a position of weakness (no Champions League) it has a major impact on your ability to recruit your number one targets, especially when gazumped by rivals who can offer what you cannot.

That doesn’t mean we haven’t learnt things in previous windows, there has been a question mark about how the committee operate, and our ability to negotiate value both in and out of the club. But, this window has been a major success for the committee structure, with the vast majority of our primary targets being recruited at what appears to be good value (aside from perhaps Lallana and Lovren that come with an ‘English’ premium’).

Ian Ayre deserves credit for his role in getting so many deals over the line, the refusal to buckle to Sevilla’s demands on Moreno paid huge dividends. The signing of Mario Balotelli for just £16m could well be the best bit of business the club has done since signing Suarez.

On Suarez, the way in which the club managed his exit was professional. Barcelona tried to use the ‘bite’ incident at the world cup to negotiate a lower price, but the club refused to buckle, and demanded the full £75m (reported) release clause. That was a brilliant deal in so many ways; Suarez will turn 28 in January – at the very peak of his powers for possibly 2 more years – and he wouldn’t have been available to play for us until November.

With the money we have received from Suarez we have been able to rebuild the squad for a relatively small net spend overall. That doesn’t mean the club hasn’t spent, but the dealings in and out of the club will have had a significant impact on our finances which have been in recovery since the arrival of FSG – helping us towards FFP compliance which is something that the club are committed to abiding by.

The departures of Reina and Agger is two more players that were on ‘pre-FSG’ contracts – Agger did have a renewal under FSG, but the baseline salary will have been determined by the previous regime, so will likely have been way out of kilter with the value to the team.

It is always sad to see the departure of players that care so much about the club – and Reina and Agger fall into that category. Both have been great servants, but both will benefit from a new challenge.

The finances



The wage bill is now likely to be far more in line with that of our rivals. FSG inherited a toxic wage bill that was running at 70% wages to revenue, with our (self-sustainability) rivals such as United, Arsenal and Spurs closer to 50-60%. Moving on players that are being paid more than they are worth is almost an impossible job, and it has taken time to shift those ‘bad contracts’ – there is a line of thought that some players became too complacent on big money contracts – with no incentive to push the limits on performance. Those days are over.

Ian Ayre has been on record saying that player contracts will now be incentivised, so that good performance is rewarded, and players that push the limits will be paid to recognise that effort. That is exactly how we should want our club to be run.

The return to the Champions League also opens up the Pandora’s Box of Champions League revenue, which if you can sustain it, can push us towards financial competitiveness. In the short term the return to the Champions League should help our balance sheet to look a bit healthier, which has posted losses every year since FSG’s arrival. In the long term, if we sustain Champions League qualification, it can and will improve our ability to stand toe to toe with the other European powerhouses on recruitment.

But it isn’t just the Champions League, the movement of players and a realignment of the wage bill that is contributing to our financial performance; it is also our impressive work in the commercial side of the club.

The lucrative tour to the USA was another brilliant way into the Holy Grail of the US market. ‘Soccer’ is growing so quickly that there is huge opportunity for English clubs to be a part of the revolution. FSG know this, and have Liverpool positioned right at the heart of it.

The new TV deal in the UK is a massive increase in revenue for all clubs, but in the US the club could potentially own its own TV rights which could be huge. There are new sponsors and partners being announced regularly, that all add to the bottom line. They also go further than that, they all add to the global reach of the club.

The clubs digital strategy is probably as advanced as any club in the Premier League. There is a hugely impressive digital set up at the club – the reach through social media continues to grow impressively through dedicated accounts – the club has done a great job of engaging its global support through social tools.

All of this commercial activity bodes well for the clubs future – it’s always going to be success on the pitch that matters to supporters, but money matters in football, and it’s important that we can sustain ourselves.

The stadium



One of the key parts of FSG’s master plan was a commitment to a long term stadium solution. This is an issue that has been going around in circles for two decades, and is likely a primary reason that the club slipped backwards during that time.

You can argue the whys and wherefores of a new stadium v’s redevelopment all day long – in an ideal world, a new stadium that can fit in 70-80,000 supporters in Stanley Park would be great. But it’s not an ideal world – so you have to look at the options available and the resources you have to find a solution that offers the best possible outcome for the club. And that solution, with those barriers, is redevelopment.

It is impossible to look into the future and understand how many seats you might need to fill demand, when redevelopment is complete Anfield will have close to 60,000 which won’t be enough, but where do you stop?

The cost of redevelopment will likely be in the region of £150m – which is a huge amount of money – but isn’t a barrier to a new stadium becoming an option in 15-20 years’ time if the club decides they want to go in that direction.

Redevelopment is an option that works for the club right now, it will increase capacity to allow 15,000 more fans in every game, and it will upgrade an out dated stadium with out-dated facilities. It has worked well at Fenway Park, and it will work well for Anfield.

On the pitch

All of the activity that happens off the pitch only matters if it translates to success on it. And all of the signs are that the incredible progress we saw last season wasn’t a one off.



We still have the core of the side that finished second, and we have added real quality to the squad in a number of positions. It isn’t just the quality we have recruited, it is also the age. Rickie Lambert and Adam Lallana are the only two recruits out of 9 that you would think are anywhere near peak. The likes of Manquillo, Moreno, Markovic, Can, Origi and Balotelli all have the best years ahead of them. Add that to Sterling, Coutinho, Henderson, Sturridge and the squad has so much potential.

There is work to do defensively, Lovren and Sakho are both still relatively young for centre backs who tend to mature a bit later in careers, but both have the talent. Mignolet will need to cement his role this season if he is to be our long term keeper, he needs to be more dominant and command the defence. But, the early signs the fullback roles could finally be sorted.

Going forward we are still outstanding when we click. The key to our game is pressing high and moving the ball quickly and incisively through our front players. When we do it well, we are unstoppable. The movement of our forward players is a joy to behold.

The beauty of this team is that it is still so young, we have very few ‘senior’ players, so the vast majority of this group will grow together – there is a very real prospect that these young players can go on to achieve something special.

The architect of whatever this team achieves will be Brendan Rodgers, who continues to grow into a very special manager. He has the aura and presence of a man that knows exactly where he wants to go. His ability to develop and grow players is at the heart of the entire model at the club – his idea that the team is the star is absolutely in line with what Liverpool Football Club is about: the collective.

He now has a team at the academy, led by the impressive Alex Inglethorpe that share the same ideas and philosophy about how Rodgers wants the game to be played, but also the development journey that players need to the first team. The transition from the academy to the first team is going to be an important feature of how the club progresses.

The plan

When you look at the snapshot of where the club is at right now, all of the pointers suggest that the only way we are going is forwards. It might not always translate into success on the pitch, as football is never that predictable, no matter how well set you are, but the one thing that is beyond question is we are here now because there is plan that has come together.

This has not been widely reported, but watch this space, the Owners may sell up in 2017 - increase in TV revenue etc will make it attractive to sell (i'll try and get more info on this soon)

The first phase of the Anfield rebuilding work will most probably get sorted, but not the second phase, if they decide to sell up!!

Fans have to remember that the Owners brought the Club with their own money. Right now, moving the Club forward, its run on debts, and lots and lots  of it, and their own money. The Club, in its current state is actually worth less than what they paid.

Discussions around the PAN European breakaway league is still going on, but from what I hear, LFC are not in these discussions at the current time. 2022 may be when it is introduced, however, some Clubs what this new league to be brought in sooner, some want it later.  When it does happen, leagues across Europe will likely be restructured including EPL, and run differently then is being done right now.

Ok, lets remember one thing, the fans have very little insight into the politics and economics of football. Why are more Americans eyeing EPL clubs? Soccer is fast growing in the US as the Mexican hispanic population grows creating a new, alternative, national sport with massive income, sponsership and tv rights potential to compete with and eventually outgrow basketball, baseball and US football. It is their only true access to a global opportunity. The aim of US owners is to establish brand loyalty in the EPL within a virgin market where loyalties can be quickly and profitably established and from that tv revenues can be leveraged. In our own case, the Boston Red Sox arew a mature brand ina  very mature market, there will be limited forward growth. LFC on the otherhand despite our best efforts to play cr@p, can quickly grow a profitable brand business in the US + very profitable tv rights once the passion grows as well as continuing to grow our Asia revenues. Warrior came on board for the Stateside potential and global coverage. The owners have held of selling stadium namking rights waiting for a deal that matches their expanded global rights estimation. So you might summaise the LFC business plan has far more growth potential than the Red Sox plan.

Will the owners sell in 2017? Of course they might, they're not stupid! They've invested their own cash and if either the club is incapabale of success or the numbers don't work out as predicted then of course the owners will say they could make more money opening a restaurant chain... that's business. The club has to grow it's business, generate revenures and create profits, do that and FSG will keep them for a hundred years and Rodgers will have a job for life.

Folks love a conspiracy theory when in reality business is quite straight forward.

Good post

Ian Ayre: Fenway will not sell Liverpool FC

Liverpool FC chief executive Ian Ayre has dismissed any suggestion that club owners Fenway Sports Group (FSG) could be interested in selling the club.

With the club off-loading several high-earning players in recent months - reducing their cost base - and starting work on the new Main Stand at Anfield - bringing a possible major income boost - some observers have suggested the bottom line of the club could be being improved to prepare for FSG to possibly sell up.

But Ayre is adamant the US owners will be staying put at Anfield.

In an interview in the new edition of FC Business magazine, he said: "Fenway are not going to dispose of the club as they are clearly demonstrating".

That was a reference to the investment in the new stadium which is being funded through an interest-free loan from the owners of £115m which Ayre revealed should be paid back within five or six years.

The new Anfield stand, with an extra 4,000 seats and another 4,500 hospitality places on top of that, will generate additional revenue of around £20m a year.

It appears initial thoughts that a Main Stand sponsor would be worth £1m a year also appear to have been upgraded to around £5m a year.

Ayre said: "If we had increased capacity by 8,500 general admission seats only, it would have taken a ridiculous time to pay back the investment, meaning revenues into the team would have been affected.

"But the large corporate increase means we will pay the debt back quickly and not be saddled with debt, while quickly increasing revenues into the playing squad."

And on the possible naming rights deal for the Main Stand when it opens in the summer of 2016/17, he added: "The commercial department is in talks with various people. We didn't think that looking for a naming rights deal on a stadium as iconic as Anfield made sense, but there are real value and benefits to be had around a naming rights deal on the new stand.

"It is not just a question of how much a deal is worth, but more about which deal would allow the club and partner to enjoy the most benefit."

Construction work on the Main Stand was started in December by Carillion with further expansion in the Anfield Road expected after its completion, bringing capacity close to 59,000.

Liverpool owners {FSG} have arrived in Liverpool. Sterling & Henderson contracts. Top agenda.

BR being replaced by Redbeergoggles?

Reg » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:11 pm wrote:BR being replaced by Redbeergoggles?

 

Reg » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:11 pm wrote:BR being replaced by Redbeergoggles?

would certainly be a very positive move and could well be the kind of change that would secure 4th place and maybe even 3rd with a FA Cup victory parade to top it off...

cardiff-red » Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:38 pm wrote:Liverpool owners {FSG} have arrived in Liverpool. Sterling & Henderson contracts. Top agenda.

In the 5th year of their ownership I doubt very much John Henry and Tom Werner are involved in player contracts. I can understand when they first joined they would want to be involved in the details so they could get a better understanding of how a football club is run but I imagine by now they are only involved at a strategic level (hiring and assessing key staff such as the manager, setting overall budgets for transfers and payroll, infrastructure projects like the stadium, etc.).

Confirmation from UEFA of yesterday's news that LFC cleared of any breach of FFP rules.

Reg » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:11 pm wrote:BR being replaced by Redbeergoggles?

Maybe not ,but he would certainly fucking  benefit from occasionally looking through said eyeglasses.
As right now we would be less of a laughing stock throughout Europe if we employed Timmy fucking Mallet 

Paul Joyce - Liverpool will announce a first profit in seven years when their accounts are released on Monday.

FSG have been nothing short of excellent. We have the right owners and thanks to them the right manager as well.

Bit of a read this but it does provide an insight into Fenway and how they operate.

http://tomkinstimes.com/2015/04/fsg-the ... um=twitter

This post is on baseball, the Red Sox and FSG – without getting into things about FSG like patience, financial knowledge and an intuitive understanding of the relationship in professional sport between team financials and on field product and results, and assorted permutations thereof.

Long term TTT subscriber Jeff has repeatedly advised that the best guide to how FSG are going to approach things in Liverpool would be to look and see how they approach things in Boston.   It is clear that for the most part, the understanding here about how they approach things in Boston is at best incomplete.

It is remarkable how often posts here offer pronounced assured opinion as to how FSG is thinking or will act at Liverpool – and often citing FSG’s behaviour and “preferences” in Boston as basis for that opinion – evidence an absolute ignorance of that behaviour and those exhibited “preferences”.

Brendan Rodgers holds essentially the equivalent of the General Manager and Manager positions in the world of baseball.

1) GENERAL MANAGER

a) FSG in their history have hired two GMs.

b) They have never fired one.  (This alone ought give anyone pause when predicting Rodgers’ demise as a result of transfer dealings.)

c) Neither GM hired by FSG had any previous experience as a GM.

Theo Epstein:

The first GM FSG hired was Theo Epstein in 2004 – age 28 at the time of his hire.  Per his bio, his athletic experience in college was not as a player, but as the Sports Editor of the Yale University paper.  He started out in baseball with the Padres in the late 1990s – in public relations.  While with the Padres, he also went to law school.  He worked for Lucchino in San Diego and followed him to the Red Sox as an assistant.  He was appointed GM after Henry failed to lure Billy Beane from Oakland.

Think all you want that FSG are “hands off” owners, but you can be pretty damn sure that John W. Henry – after buying a minor league club in 1989, then a share of the Yankees in 1991, then becoming sole owner of the Marlins in 1999, and finally trading that for FSG and the Red Sox – did not in 2004 flip the keys of the kingdom to Theo (with next to no professional experience of ANY kind) and say “have a go at it kid”.

I have detailed this elsewhere – but there is no “baseball” person above the GM in the Red Sox hierarchy.  All the other “baseball people” report to him.  But Theo was not writing the playbook. Theo was given a playbook and told to follow it – and the newly appointed youngest GM in the history of baseball was not about to argue.

By the end of the decade, Epstein had collected numerous executive awards as a result of the success of the Sox and it would seem felt somewhat constrained by the limitations put upon him by FSG.  He even quit once before coming back. There is a school of thought that when he came back, FSG gave him his head and freed the reigns so to speak.  Whatever the actuality – the end result was 2011 – the massively overpriced and ill-disciplined roster, the historic September collapse from top of the league to out of the playoffs, and Theo’s departure for greener pastures to become President of Baseball Operations for the Chicago Cubs.

The Cubs have gone 61-101 (win-loss), 66-96 and 73-89 in the three years Theo has been running the show there.  He is still only 41 years old – younger than Brendan Rodgers.

Ben Cherington:

Theo’s replacement, both during his hiatus and then again when he left for good, was Ben Cherington.  A year younger than Theo, he started with the Red Sox as a scout in 1999 at age 24 and though taking a more traditional baseball path – his career training has basically been under the FSG system with the Red Sox.  At age 40, in his 4th year on the job – he’s is still very young for a GM.

In his three seasons, the Red Sox have finished last, first, last.  He was second in command in the GM’s office as the 2011 roster was built.  There has never been even the suggestion that his job was in any danger.  He too is executing the plan he has been given.

2) MANAGER

a) FSG has hired four managers.  They have fired three.

b) Aside from Bobby Valentine, none of the hires ever had a winning season as a manager in MLB when hired by FSG to manage the Sox.

Grady Little:

The first manager hired by FSG was Grady Little.  Prior to getting the Sox job, his MLB managerial experience was zero.  Forget about winning anything in the majors, he had never managed anything in the majors.

At the helm of the Sox, he went 93-69 and 95-67.  In his second year the Sox were famously 5 outs away from the World Series when Little did not go to his bullpen to replace a tiring Pedro Martinez.

Folklore suggests this was the reason Little was fired – but he was in a no win here if the Sox lost.  Pedro, the most dominant pitcher in baseball in his era, was at the peak of his career.  Little didn’t trust his bullpen – for good reason.  When Little went to mound, Pedro said he was fine and wanted the ball – and still says he was fine:

“I say he did what he felt was right for him to do. I would say that I still had stamina and I had good enough stuff to get them out. I would stick to that and I believe that. What you have to do is give those guys on the Yankees side credit for making it happen. I made some great pitches. I don’t think Grady has anything to be blamed for. ”

Little’s actual biggest sin as I recall it was that he refused to implement the closer-by-committee bullpen plan laid out by FSG.  Instead he specifically set up his bullpen contrary to their stated wishes.

Press coverage at his successor’s appointment –

“Even Little’s detractors said he was deft at handling a combustible clubhouse, dealing with Manny Ramirez when he called in sick for a key series and keeping Pedro Martinez happy and productive. Little averaged 94 wins over two seasons and took the Red Sox to the playoffs this year for the first time since 1999. They came back from a 2-0 deficit against Oakland, winning three in a row to take the best-of-five, first-round series and play the Yankees for the right to go to the World Series.

Boston led New York 5-2 in the seventh inning of the decisive seventh game, but Little opted to go with tiring ace Pedro Martinez instead of a recently rehabilitated bullpen. Martinez blew the lead, the Yankees won 6-5 on Aaron Boone’s 11th-inning homer off Tim Wakefield and Little was let go after the season.

Red Sox management insisted that Little’s fate wasn’t determined by one loss. Instead, the Boston brass had grown frustrated by his lack of preparation and willingness to wing it rather than trust the statistical analysis they thought was the solution to the team’s 85-year championship drought.”

So whatever the specifics, Little was fired because he wouldn’t buy into the FSG plan – something his successor therefore would have certainly had to agree to do.

Terry Francona:

Little was replaced by Terry Francona, an ex-player who was also the son of an ex-player.  Although in contrast to Little when hired, Francona did have prior MLB managerial experience – none of it was good.  From 1997-2000 with the Phillies he was 68-94, 75-87, 77-85 and 65-97.

So FSG, when replacing their manager who had averaged 94 wins per season and posted a better than 58% win rate, selected a manager who for his career had averaged 71 wins with a less than 44% win rate.  (… also the only one on the list of candidates interviewed that had even one full season of MLB experience)

Francona may now be a celebrated World Series hero in Boston, but when he arrived and was handed a team that the previous year had been 5 outs away from the World Series – he was absolutely not a “big name” hire who had “won things”.  In fact, he had experienced nothing but failure as a major league manager to that point, and not even that for the previous three years.

The questions when he was hired seemed to be:

a) was the clubhouse too big for him with its galaxy of stars  –  The son of a ballplayer, Francona played 10 seasons for five major league teams — he signed with a sixth but never made it back to the majors — and was Michael Jordan’s manager at Double-A Birmingham during the basketball star’s aborted attempt to play baseball. “I had a lot of experience, early on, dealing with the biggest star,” Francona said.

b) could he handle the pressure of Boston “Think about it for a second: I’ve been released from six teams. I’ve been fired as a manager. I’ve got no hair. I’ve got a nose that’s three sizes too big for my face, and I grew up in a major league clubhouse,” Francona said when asked if he was prepared for the pressure of being the new Boston Red Sox manager, “my skin’s pretty thick,” he said. “I’ll be OK.”

c) did Curt Shilling get him the job?

“Schilling said one incentive for him to sign in Boston was word that Francona was “a slam dunk” to be the new manager.  But he insisted that he did not make Francona’s hiring a condition of the deal, nor did the Red Sox promise it.  “I think Schill just wants to pitch opening day,” Francona joked. “I love Schill. I don’t think he’s responsible for getting me the job.””

More general commentary at the hire.  “”I always felt like if I put the players and the organisation first and myself second, things would work out,” he told reporters. “And you know what? I’m sitting here in front of you guys today. I feel like it’s worked out.”

Francona said he wasn’t afraid to be a players’ manager, but that he also knows he needs to lay down the law at times.  “The players will know that I care about them more than anybody ever cared about them before. And they will know that I respect them, hopefully more than anybody’s ever respected them before”. But, before hiring him, Epstein wanted to make sure that Francona wouldn’t be too light of a touch in a clubhouse that always seems on the verge of controversy. “It’s so hard not to like him,” Epstein said. “In doing my follow-up research, I was very satisfied that he has a tough side to him and can draw the line and show the authority that is sometimes necessary.”

Terry Francona implemented the plan Little wouldn’t– and it didn’t work.  Backed with that evidence, Francona and Epstein went up the chain of command and got the plan changed.

I go into all of this detail because only looking at his exit from the Sox, which history tends to do, leaves a rather distorted view of the actuality of the situation.  This was a guy very thankful to get another shot managing who was going to go along with whatever his bosses wanted.  And his bosses wanted him to follow their plan and keep control of the clubhouse.

Nine years later in his autobiography he had changed his tune and clearly lost his way.

“They come in with all these ideas about baseball, but I don’t think they love baseball,” he said. “I think they like baseball. It’s revenue, and I know that’s their right and their interest because they’re owners … and they’re good owners. But they don’t love the game. It’s still more of a toy or a hobby for them. It’s not their blood. They’re going to come in and out of baseball. It’s different for me. Baseball is my life.”

From the Globe:

“IN “FRANCONA, the Red Sox Years,” Terry Francona, with the aid of Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy, has given us his version of his eight years in Boston. They were very successful years for the team — two World Series victories, six trips to the playoffs. Presumably, Francona should get at least some of the credit for this success, though it is not clear how much.

The problem for Francona is that it all ended with the September swoon in 2011 and many seem to blame him. Francona, after all, reportedly had a wild year — a marital separation, a painkiller problem, and then the incident reported by Bob Hohler in the Globe of Jon Lester, John Lackey, and Josh Beckett drinking beer, eating fried chicken, and playing video games in the clubhouse during games. The inevitable, and seemingly reasonable, inference was that Francona had lost control of the team.

“Francona, the Red Sox Years’’ appears to be the manager’s roundabout effort at self-vindication. The narrative is that the world was collapsing around him. John Henry and Tom Werner with the Fenway Sports Group had bought Liverpool FC, the legendary franchise in the English Premier League. They got distracted and, besides, they didn’t really love baseball anyway, nor understand the intricacies of the game. They did naughty things like commission a 100-page marketing study to better understand why NESN ratings were falling and then, picking up on one thought in the study that suggested it might help if the Red Sox had sexier players on the team, went out and signed Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford. (Please raise your hand if you find either of those men sexy.)

This narrative is as unconvincing, as it is, at points, nasty, petty, inaccurate, and unfair. Let’s begin with the question of why Francona was able to work so productively with these deficient owners who didn’t love or understand baseball for the first seven years. Did something dramatic suddenly change in 2011? The one obvious suspect is Liverpool. But think about it: Why would Liverpool distract the owners, but not the purchase of 50 percent of Rousch Racing, or John Henry’s hedge fund, or Tom Werner’s television production company? The answer is that all these things can distract owners, but that good and bad owners throughout professional sports have outside business interests. The key for owners is not to spend every moment at Fenway Park or Anfield (Liverpool’s home stadium); it is rather to hire effective front-office personnel to run the team on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis, and to set long-term team strategy as well as make the major financial decisions. Owners who are at the ballpark 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year face ridicule for being meddlesome and counterproductive.”

“Francona is a baseball guy, not a businessman, so perhaps he can be forgiven his basic misapprehension of baseball economics. When revenues fall, there is less money available for players.

In fact, the Sox owners have ploughed all profits back into the team since 2002. There have been no profit distributions to the partners. The team payroll has been the second highest in baseball in recent years, despite the team being in Major League Baseball’s 21st largest TV territory and ranking approximately 10th in overall market size. The owners have invested nearly $300 million of their own money to preserve and renovate Fenway Park, rather than tearing it down and spending hundreds of millions of public dollars on a new ballpark, as the previous owners wanted.”

Much like Theo, Francona seemed to come to view the organisation’s success as something that he was personally responsible for rather than something that was planned for and that he had a role in in terms of executing that plan.  Likewise, when in the end he failed to execute his role, he blamed FSG.  How he managed to square blaming the owners for having “all these ideas about baseball” (which they implemented and he won two World Series with) while later complaining that Liverpool distracted their focus from the Red Sox (while the Sox were adding Crawford, Gonzales, etc.) is unclear.  Did he want the owners more involved or less involved? Can’t have it both ways.

By the time he was let go, Francona was no longer buying into the plan nor was he in control of the clubhouse – and it showed on the field.

Bobby Valentine:

Bobby Valentine is the outlier hire by FSG.  The experienced “Big Name” Manager” who has “Won Things”.

“Bobby Valentine has been named the new Boston Red Sox manager and will be announced as so on Thursday.  He is the 44th different manager in the team’s history. It’s going to be an interesting 2012 in the A.L. East, to say the least.”

“Bobby V. is known for both his baseball acumen, wacky behavior and polarizing nature.  Love him or hate him, he brings a lot to the table.  … His MLB lifetime regular season managing record is 1,117-1,072 (.510).  For NPB, he is 494-450-23 (.523).”

“Valentine managed the Texas Rangers and the New York Mets, taking the Mets to the playoffs twice and the World Series once (overmatched by a New York Yankee dynasty in 2000).  He had more success in Japan, where he served two terms (1995 and 2004-2009) as the manager of the Chiba Lotte Marines of the Nippon Professional Baseball‘s (NPB) Pacific League. The Marines play out of Chiba City.  The NPB is Japan’s equivalent of MLB. One notable difference is that Japanese baseball allows ties.  During the regular season, if the game is still tied after the 12th inning, it’s a tie. Valentine went to the playoffs twice with the Marines, and won it all – the Nippon Series – in 2005.”

He lasted only one year in Boston as the Red Sox recorded their worst record since 1965.  I am of the belief that that was all that was ever intended – at least by FSG.  I’ve discussed why I believe that previously.  Valentine was the anti-Francona thrown into that out of control clubhouse like a hand grenade. “Bobby V. is known for both his baseball acumen, wacky behaviour and polarising nature.”  It was not his baseball acumen but his “wacky behaviour and polarising nature” that he was hired for.  He gave the Sox cover to deconstruct the team.

John Farrell

The last manager hired by FSG is current Red Sox skipper John Farrell.   Farrell had only two years of MLB managerial experience before being hired and was without a winning season going 81-81 in 2011 and 73-89 in 2012 with Toronto.

His first season with the Sox, they won the World Series.  In his second season, the Sox posted their second worst record since 1965.  There was not even a peep that he might be fired.  Why?

To re-quote Jeff:

“Simply put, among the many sins of Bobby Valentine was he would not follow the play book outlined by FSG and he lost his job in Boston. John Farrell follows the blueprint and he has in three seasons won the World Series, finished dead last in his division, and in the third season after a handful of games is managing one of the three or four best clubs in baseball. He follows the plan and keeps his job. ”

Screen Shot 2015-04-24 at 09.08.17

Summary

To believe that Rodgers’ fate is bound up in league position or specific win/loss results or somehow hangs in the balance of these last six games, is to believe that FSG will act one way in Boston and another way in Liverpool.

To believe that FSG would even consider replacing Rodgers because a perceived “upgrade” has come available is again to believe that FSG will act one way in Boston and another way in Liverpool.

To believe that if Brendan Rodgers dropped dead tomorrow FSG would look to replace him with a “big name” who “has won things” is once more to believe that FSG will act one way in Boston and another way in Liverpool.

With one glaring exception, not only have FSG not hired a manager who had previously had much experience or ANY success managing at the big league level, they have never even considered one.  Moreover, the only manager with a losing record during his time with the Sox is that glaring exception… and the closest football analogy I can think of to that glaring exception is Brian Clough to Leeds (except as I continue to say – done on purpose).  If Brian Farrell dropped dead tomorrow, there is no reason to expect his replacement’s resume would read any different than Little’s or Francona’s or Farrell’s did before they were hired by FSG.

To believe that FSG would even consider firing Rogers over the transfer dealings which have transpired is to believe that FSG will act one way in Boston and another way in Liverpool.

To believe that FSG’s “preference” is to have a strong and experienced DOF over Rodgers making football decisions is to believe that FSG will act one way in Boston and another way in Liverpool.

If Rodgers gets himself fired – it will be due to a straining of the working relationship with FSG, not due to on the field results – at least if FSG follows its Boston form.  There is nothing I have seen publicly to suggest that that has happened.