• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

the new york times article that prompted FSG into action

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48672.msg1482522#msg1482522 date=1329214814]
So you don't think any business ever compromises improved profits to keep staff happier, healthier or safer unless the law demands it? You know that isn't true.

I simply believe all businesses should operate in a fully ethical & social responsibility sense & maximise profits within that framework.

People complain about public services & the staff therein but they employ many people who are excluded from jobs elsewhere, unions ensure it, as a result thousands of people dont claim benefits & actually contribute to society.
[/quote]

On a slight tangent, a politician in Ireland, when asked if he was going to put up the signs with his face on it on every lamp post in the country(as others had suggested not doing this due to the waste of money, as well as littering problems), said: "There are a lot of people in the printing business that are depending on this business, and I'm doing my best to keep them in jobs".

The logic in that was ridiculous, to me anyway.
 
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48672.msg1482522#msg1482522 date=1329214814]
So you don't think any business ever compromises improved profits to keep staff happier, healthier or safer unless the law demands it? You know that isn't true.

I simply believe all businesses should operate in a fully ethical & social responsibility sense & maximise profits within that framework.

People complain about public services & the staff therein but they employ many people who are excluded from jobs elsewhere, unions ensure it, as a result thousands of people dont claim benefits & actually contribute to society.
[/quote]

i absolutely think that's true! you think a company like Unilever or BP foregoes profit to keep staff happy etc just to keep staff happy etc? they do it out of commercial interest, either because that interest would be damaged by the repercussions of breaking the law or because staff demotivation/high turnover/absenteeism/whatever would involve or risk invlving a greater loss of profit than the alternative staff-pleasing measures.

why do they act out of commercial interest? because that's the only interest they have.

i think your opinion that business should act within a moral/ethical framework is reasonable, as far as it goes. i don't think it's reasonable to expect business to do that independently because it's amoral and is completly oblivious to moral and ethical considerations; the framework must (and has been, to some extent) created by the government and then imposed upon business.

i don't want to go too much into the public sector thing in this reply, except to say i think you might have unwittingly scored an own goal by referring to the employment of thousands of people excluded from work elsewhere! one might wonder why they couldn't find gainful employment in the private sector, and whether them being employed at the behest of unions is really substituting one type of benefit for another. reminds me of a great line from the economist Milton Friedman, who on visiting some benighted socialist state back in the good old days, was asked to look at all the people put to work digging at the side of the road, so that everyone had a job. As Friedman said: 'why not use spoons instead of shovels?'
 
There's a difference between employing people to do jobs that need doing to employing someone to dig pointless tunnels as Williamson did for example.

The government employ a greater number of disabled people than any other large organisation in the world. Their output is usually lower than that of their able bodies counterparts. However they are capable of work & don't want to live off benefits.

If no one employs those people then society is worse off both financially & morally.

Business has a social responsibility that goes beyond paying taxes.
 
aren't we straying from the point a bit now?

namely, that i think business and the free market is an excellent thing that produces many brilliant results, but that it can never be moral or immoral because it isn't consientious.

for it to act ethically requires interference. i don't see how anyone could disagree with that!
 
Surely the operation of the market is an aggregate of decisions by individual people and there is scope for individual conscience to guide those decisions.
 
Because many businesses don't require it.

John Lewis provides staff with a profit share. They don't have to, & I'd be amazed if you or anyone else could prove staff worked harder there than elsewhere, but they do it.

I know a business that employs staff & works certain hours to fit into a policy of employing single parents where possible as they were one. in sure both these businesses care about profits but they could undoubtedly make more doing otherwise.

Aldi pay their staff much more than other supermarkets on an hourly rate, again I'd be surprised if their staff worked any harder for the money.
 
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=48672.msg1482547#msg1482547 date=1329217251]
Surely the operation of the market is an aggregate of decisions by individual people and there is scope for individual conscience to guide those decisions.
[/quote]

absolutely, and business would (and do, frequently) react to such trends in consumer conscience.

why? because it's in their commercial interest.


[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48672.msg1482548#msg1482548 date=1329217348]
Because many businesses don't require it.

John Lewis provides staff with a profit share. They don't have to, & I'd be amazed if you or anyone else could prove staff worked harder there than elsewhere, but they do it.

I know a business that employs staff & works certain hours to fit into a policy of employing single parents where possible as they were one. in sure both these businesses care about profits but they could undoubtedly make more doing otherwise.

Aldi pay their staff much more than other supermarkets on an hourly rate, again I'd be surprised if their staff worked any harder for the money.
[/quote]

i should perhaps have made clearer that when i say it's impossible for business to act ethically i'm referring to Plc's, because their ownership and management are completely separate. they're just money-making machines.

in theory it's possible for owner-managed or owner-influenced businesses to act other than just for profit - that much is obvious, because a single or small group of co-operating minds could practically decide to indulge other goals. but a big corporation, run by a board with a constant eye on share prices and all those other vastly arrayed financial performance indicators i forget, on behalf of thousands, if not millions of different shareholders? impossible.

John Lewis i believe has quite an unusual ownership structure, doesn't it? presumably that was laid down by an individual or small group of individuals: it's not a result of economic decision-making.
 
There's far too many big words in this thread.

From now on can we please stick to Monosyllabic words.

thanks.
 
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=48672.msg1482524#msg1482524 date=1329215100]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48672.msg1482522#msg1482522 date=1329214814]
So you don't think any business ever compromises improved profits to keep staff happier, healthier or safer unless the law demands it? You know that isn't true.

I simply believe all businesses should operate in a fully ethical & social responsibility sense & maximise profits within that framework.

People complain about public services & the staff therein but they employ many people who are excluded from jobs elsewhere, unions ensure it, as a result thousands of people dont claim benefits & actually contribute to society.
[/quote]

On a slight tangent, a politician in Ireland, when asked if he was going to put up the signs with his face on it on every lamp post in the country(as others had suggested not doing this due to the waste of money, as well as littering problems), said: "There are a lot of people in the printing business that are depending on this business, and I'm doing my best to keep them in jobs".

The logic in that was ridiculous, to me anyway.
[/quote]

Gerry, you should never expect logic in discussions about how Irish politicians waste money
 
KENNY Dalglish’s management model for his second reign at Anfield has been part Bill Shankly, part Sir Alex Ferguson. The returning hero has endeavoured to revive the cult of the leader at a club run in large measure by remote control from America.

The spiritual grandeur of the Shankly years preceded the Bob Paisley-Joe Fagan era in which Dalglish achieved immortality as a player. If this template was still in his head when he returned as manager in January last year, it was Ferguson’s autocratic power he most envied in today’s game.

There have been days over the past 13 months when King Kenny looked a fair bet to reduce John W Henry and his coterie to passengers on their own Mersey-built ship. That possibility expired with Sunday’s flurry of statements
after Luis Suárez had reneged on his promise to shake hands with Patrice Evra at Manchester United.

The Suárez apology and the moral lashing administered to the player by managing director Ian Ayre (“he was wrong to mislead us”) left marks on Dalglish’s authority, as did his own apology for snapping at Sky’s Geoff Shreeves when challenged over the Suárez incident. “I did not conduct myself in a manner befitting of a Liverpool manager,” Dalglish conceded.

This was the first real moment in 13 months when he could no longer present himself as the boss, the unchallengeable heartbeat of the club. His gamble of mobilising the whole institution and red half of the city against the Football Association and behind Suárez presupposed that the player would repay him by obeying team orders and would pledge himself to the cause.

That betting slip was torn to shreds when Suárez exposed Liverpool to more vilification with his rejection of Evra’s outstretched hand. The supportive T-shirts, the circled wagons and the faith in Suárez’s character all came back to torment Dalglish as the club’s owners opted for unqualified contrition to protect their investment.

The Kop’s greatest hero is now caught in the middle of this. As supreme leader he takes the blame for conceiving the relentless defence of Suárez, which was founded partly on objections to the evidence laid out against him but also on the more pragmatic hope that sticking up for him now would yield goals and points in the future.

Plainly, Fenway Sports Group went along with the us-against-the-world stance up to the point when Suárez blew the party line sky high with his antics against United on Saturday. Rather than admit to a collective corporate failure, Fenway heaped their indignation on Suárez and left Dalglish to seek forgiveness for his mistake in trusting the player to behave.

When the banks start weighing in with moral cudgels you know you have a problem. Yesterday Liverpool’s sponsors, Standard and Chartered, let it be known that they had “concerns” over this latest episode. This is boardroom code for: 'You have embarrassed us. If you do this again you will have Crown Paints back on your shirts.’ The aftershocks from racist conduct – real, perceived or alleged – have brought the England manager’s resignation, a cloud over the future of Liverpool’s one big hit in the transfer market (Suárez) and now uncertainty about Dalglish’s hold on power.

For Liverpool fans, unhappiness with Roy Hodgson switched instantly to euphoria at Dalglish’s return. His stewardship up to the end of last season was calm, shrewd, assured. The restoration of old Liverpool values set the stage for a huge wave of summer transfers, some of it conceived by Damien Comolli, the director of football and recruitment specialist whose presence is the biggest obstacle to a restoration of the Shankly-Paisley model.

It took John W Henry and co almost five months to offer Dalglish a long-term contract. One reservation is said to have been the fear that he would seek to run Liverpool the way Ferguson manages United, extending his power across all areas. In that mission, Dalglish may have overlooked Ferguson’s political skill in ceding ground to the Glazer family where expedient and generally not taking them on.

Most Liverpool supporters would feel safer as citizens of a Dalglish dictatorship than as mere consumers in a world run by absentee speculators.


However significant the damage inflicted on the manager’s office by Suárez, the biggest test is whether the vast sums spent on Andy Carroll, Stewart Downing, Jordan Henderson, Charlie Adam, Luis Enrique and Sebastian Coates have made any difference to Liverpool’s prospects of breaking back into the top four, much less winning the league for the first time since 1990.

Suárez was a star buy in strictly footballing terms but has been a PR disaster. To this point, Carroll, Downing, Adam and Henderson are nowhere near the status of title-winning catalysts. Craig Bellamy, a free transfer, remains the best single piece of business.

Liverpool are now 21 points behind Manchester City but only four points off Arsenal in fourth-place. The Carling Cup final serves up Cardiff City as comparatively easy meat and the club are still in the FA Cup. So there are enticing targets still to aim for.

Dalglish’s clan-loyalty to Suárez has exploded on him and weakened his bargaining position with the owners, who may expel the cause of all this agitation in the summer. Yet the initiative remains with the manager – tantalisingly, for him. One or two cups and a fourth-place finish ahead of Arsenal, Chelsea and Newcastle will render him impregnable once more to American anger.
 
Fuck me, the media at large are completely ignoring Rory smiths article on this. He has great sources & states it was Ayre, kenny & two other staff members how decided to do this, with no contact from fsg whatsoever.

I suspect cos the times is pay walled it's denting the impact it may have ha otherwise.
 
Daily Mail's Charles Sale too.

Fenway Sports Group, Liverpool’s absent American owners, have kept a back-seat again during the flurry of apologies from Anfield over Luis Suarez’s unacceptable behaviour in snubbing Patrice Evra’s handshake.

Instead, the driving force in Liverpool finally accepting responsibility for the damage to their worldwide reputation is understood to have been managing director Ian Ayre.

The word inside the club is that Ayre realised Liverpool needed to publicly clarify their position over Suarez as soon as the unseemly incident took place on Saturday lunchtime. He waited until Sunday afternoon before acting to take the emotion out of the situation.

Ayre discussed with Dalglish what had to happen after the match and told chairman Tom Werner on Saturday night what the club would be doing. The statements were sent to FSG in Boston before being released. No wording was altered or influenced by the Americans.

Dalglish’s statement is said to have been prepared with the club’s media chief Ian Cotton
, after the manager had seen the contents of the Suarez and Ayre apologies.

FSG, despite Liverpool’s hopeless handling of the Suarez affair, have allowed Ayre and Dalglish to run the club with minimal interference.

However, the Americans would have demanded action if Ayre and the all-powerful Dalglish had not belatedly come to that conclusion themselves.
 
[quote author=Skullflower link=topic=48672.msg1482720#msg1482720 date=1329242065]
honestly, ph, you should travel back to the victorian era with your views on free market capitalism.
[/quote]

i honestly don't know what part of that is meant to be controversial, though! i mean, i know you probably don't agree that the market is the best way of allocating resources and creating wealth, but you'd be seriously pushed to find a mainstream economist who'd question that. it's certainly not an outlandish opinion.

i think the only other thing i said is that PLCs and other large corporations have no concept of morality. now, i'd strongly deny that that's a left-wing stance, per se, but it's hardly a rabidly pro-business message, either!
 
[quote author=Binny link=topic=48672.msg1482722#msg1482722 date=1329242236]
Daily Mail's Charles Sale too.

Fenway Sports Group, Liverpool’s absent American owners, have kept a back-seat again during the flurry of apologies from Anfield over Luis Suarez’s unacceptable behaviour in snubbing Patrice Evra’s handshake.

Instead, the driving force in Liverpool finally accepting responsibility for the damage to their worldwide reputation is understood to have been managing director Ian Ayre.

The word inside the club is that Ayre realised Liverpool needed to publicly clarify their position over Suarez as soon as the unseemly incident took place on Saturday lunchtime. He waited until Sunday afternoon before acting to take the emotion out of the situation.

Ayre discussed with Dalglish what had to happen after the match and told chairman Tom Werner on Saturday night what the club would be doing. The statements were sent to FSG in Boston before being released. No wording was altered or influenced by the Americans.

Dalglish’s statement is said to have been prepared with the club’s media chief Ian Cotton
, after the manager had seen the contents of the Suarez and Ayre apologies.

FSG, despite Liverpool’s hopeless handling of the Suarez affair, have allowed Ayre and Dalglish to run the club with minimal interference.

However, the Americans would have demanded action if Ayre and the all-powerful Dalglish had not belatedly come to that conclusion themselves.
[/quote]

I'm happy enough with that TBH. I'd be interested to know if Standard Chartered's contact with Ayre helped effect their decision, but I doubt it makes much difference really.
 
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48672.msg1482736#msg1482736 date=1329245745]
[quote author=Binny link=topic=48672.msg1482722#msg1482722 date=1329242236]
Daily Mail's Charles Sale too.

Fenway Sports Group, Liverpool’s absent American owners, have kept a back-seat again during the flurry of apologies from Anfield over Luis Suarez’s unacceptable behaviour in snubbing Patrice Evra’s handshake.

Instead, the driving force in Liverpool finally accepting responsibility for the damage to their worldwide reputation is understood to have been managing director Ian Ayre.

The word inside the club is that Ayre realised Liverpool needed to publicly clarify their position over Suarez as soon as the unseemly incident took place on Saturday lunchtime. He waited until Sunday afternoon before acting to take the emotion out of the situation.

Ayre discussed with Dalglish what had to happen after the match and told chairman Tom Werner on Saturday night what the club would be doing. The statements were sent to FSG in Boston before being released. No wording was altered or influenced by the Americans.

Dalglish’s statement is said to have been prepared with the club’s media chief Ian Cotton
, after the manager had seen the contents of the Suarez and Ayre apologies.

FSG, despite Liverpool’s hopeless handling of the Suarez affair, have allowed Ayre and Dalglish to run the club with minimal interference.

However, the Americans would have demanded action if Ayre and the all-powerful Dalglish had not belatedly come to that conclusion themselves.
[/quote]

I'm happy enough with that TBH. I'd be interested to know if Standard Chartered's contact with Ayre helped effect their decision, but I doubt it makes much difference really.
[/quote]

Standard Chartered should shut the fuck up. They were actually enjoying the twist beetween H/G and FSG as the publicity given and exposure in the papers were enourmous. Well they were not a big fun for us!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom