Liverpool are paying the price for a lack of leadership
Tony Barrett
For a club who place so much emphasis on their own history, Liverpool have somehow allowed themselves to be drawn into a situation in which they all too easily rubbish their own past.
It is something which has been happening since the removal and subsequent unnecessary public criticism of Kenny Dalglish as manager and it was writ large in John W. Henry’s letter from America with its conspicuous reference to “the errors of previous regimes”.
Depending on your preference, that particular dig was aimed at Dalglish and Damien Comolli, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, Rafael Benitez, Roy Hodgson or Christian Purslow. Whoever the target was doesn’t really matter, particularly as Henry himself was unwilling to name names, but the implicit message was that Fenway Sports Group (FSG), Liverpool’s owner, is clearing up a mess that is of someone else’s making.
There was at least an element of mea culpa about Henry’s open letter to the Liverpool fans: he did, after all, admit that the problems FSG inherited upon buying the club almost two years ago “have been compounded by our own mistakes”. Again, though, this was all in the past tense, and while the belated holding up of hands to accept a degree of responsibility is welcome, there was no indication of what FSG will do to ensure such mistakes are not repeated in the future.
For a club that have spent much of the past five years lurching from one crisis to another the apparent lack of direction and leadership is an increasing concern. It is no coincidence that Liverpool’s cack-handed and ultimately self-harming attempt to defend Luis Suarez against allegations of racial abuse has been followed up by a shambolic conclusion to the transfer window.
On the surface, the two instances may seem totally unconnected and it is unquestionably true that the Suarez case was on a different plane altogether when it comes to importance and gravity, but the link that binds them is a chronic failure of clear leadership from within the club who have been without a chief executive since Rick Parry quit the role three and a half years ago.
In itself, the lack of a chief executive is remarkable for a club of Liverpool’s size and stature. Manchester United have David Gill, Arsenal have Ivan Gazidis, Chelsea have Ron Gourlay, Everton have Robert Elstone and Manchester City recently appointed Ferran Soriano to what has long been regarded in football as a key role, one which can define a club’s ability to compete on the pitch and their effectiveness off it.
Liverpool, whose decline now appears increasingly entrenched and who are yet to come up with a solution to their long-running stadium issues, have no-one. All they have is the over-burdened Ayre and a hotline to Boston which did not appear to be in good working order either on transfer deadline day or when the crisis surrounding Suarez was at its peak.
This failing was not caused by “previous regimes”. FSG bought Liverpool on October 15, 2010 and just five weeks shy of their second anniversary as owners they are still to appoint a chief executive despite having a chairman, Tom Werner, who is based in the US rather than on Merseyside. The lack of local leadership is most evident on match days when Ayre is often the only senior figure from the club’s hierarchy present in the directors box.
Towards the end of last season, Dave Whelan alluded to the problem when he claimed that Liverpool “had no heart beating” after being shocked by the lack of directors present at Anfield during Wigan Athletic’s shock win over Dalglish’s side.
Apart from the ever-present Ayre and their then director of communications Ian Cotton, the majority of Liverpool’s board of directors – namely Henry, Werner, David Ginsberg, Michael Gordon and Jeff Vinik – were nowhere near Anfield on the day of the game, they were in the US.
Absentee owners are not necessarily a problem of course. It’s not as if Manchester City needed Sheikh Mansour to be ever present at the Etihad Stadium last season for them to win their first league title since 1968. But a presence is an absolute necessity because, as Liverpool have found out to their cost, without one it is far too easy for dysfunction to set in and for problems that could be resolved, easily or otherwise, to lurch out of control.
That, it is safe to presume, was one of the reasons why Liverpool ended the transfer window with its left hand not knowing – or worse, not trusting – what its right hand was doing. There was no joined up thinking, just a conflict created by divergent and incompatible philosophies which spiralled because there was no-one ready, willing or able to coax management and ownership to reconcile their strategic differences for the good of the club.
Just as they did after the Suarez saga, Liverpool are now paying a heavy price for the absence of such an individual.
It was almost one hundred years ago that Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the USA no less, stated that “the best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
Having failed to do the former by appointing a top-class chief executive, Henry also found himself unable to do the latter as his restrictions prevented Brendan Rodgers from completing a deal to sign Dempsey on the grounds that he has no interest in “quick-fix” signings who “only contribute for a couple of years”.
As Henry, Rodgers and Liverpool might discover to their cost in the weeks and months to come, though, a quick fix is, by its nature, better than no fix. Maybe that is one of the reasons why Liverpool have become so obsessed with castigating those responsible for the failings of their immediate past – they are increasingly concerned about what the future has in store.
But whatever their worries on the pitch, the reality is that they need a top-class chief executive as much as they are crying out for a top-class goalscorer. To lack one for any length of time might be an acceptable risk but to have neither is at best a huge gamble, at worst outright negligence.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/foo ... 50a10e294e
by