Cafe Sports
Setanta
Asda
Next
GAME
Next

Home | Forums | Shop | Blog | Gallery | Arcade | Livescore | TLW Live | Travel
Go Back   The Liverpool Way > TLW Discussion forums > FF - Football Forum


View Poll Results: Full question below:
Yes 136 66.34%
No 69 33.66%
Voters: 205. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Sponsored Links
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 28th January 2008, 05:36 PM
Forumite
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15
vCash: 500
LFCSN is an unknown quantity
Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

Question 3:

Are you prepared to boycott any companies who currently have links with Liverpool FC such as Carlsberg and Adidas or any who institute links with Liverpool FC until Tom Hicks and George Gillett have left the club or until the companies in question cease their partnership with LFC?

Thanks again for all the support. Reading the thread here with all the ideas was terrific last week.

The polls will close Wednesday lunchtime.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 28th January 2008, 05:38 PM
zigackly's Avatar
zigackly zigackly is offline
You're ferpectly right.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: A small village of indomitable Gauls
Posts: 6,208
vCash: 500
zigackly rules harder than the Proclaimerszigackly rules harder than the Proclaimerszigackly rules harder than the Proclaimerszigackly rules harder than the Proclaimerszigackly rules harder than the Proclaimerszigackly rules harder than the Proclaimerszigackly rules harder than the Proclaimerszigackly rules harder than the Proclaimerszigackly rules harder than the Proclaimerszigackly rules harder than the Proclaimerszigackly rules harder than the Proclaimers
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

Difficult one this, was just looking at a new pair of Gazelles! If that's what it takes though, I'm in.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 28th January 2008, 05:47 PM
Randy Marsh's Avatar
Goooaaaaallllllllllllllll
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,009
vCash: 500
Randy Marsh rules harder than the ProclaimersRandy Marsh rules harder than the ProclaimersRandy Marsh rules harder than the ProclaimersRandy Marsh rules harder than the ProclaimersRandy Marsh rules harder than the ProclaimersRandy Marsh rules harder than the ProclaimersRandy Marsh rules harder than the ProclaimersRandy Marsh rules harder than the ProclaimersRandy Marsh rules harder than the ProclaimersRandy Marsh rules harder than the ProclaimersRandy Marsh rules harder than the Proclaimers
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

hard one, cheapest ale in the student union is carlsberg and fosters, 1.60 a pint! Id rather drink my own piss than fosters.....
























But ye, anything it takes...










*reaches for cock and empty bottle*
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 28th January 2008, 08:30 PM
robslappa's Avatar
Hrumph
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,051
vCash: 3181
robslappa rules harder than the Proclaimersrobslappa rules harder than the Proclaimersrobslappa rules harder than the Proclaimersrobslappa rules harder than the Proclaimersrobslappa rules harder than the Proclaimersrobslappa rules harder than the Proclaimersrobslappa rules harder than the Proclaimersrobslappa rules harder than the Proclaimersrobslappa rules harder than the Proclaimersrobslappa rules harder than the Proclaimersrobslappa rules harder than the Proclaimers
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

I've said no, because by not buying anything from the club shop or the concessions inside the ground, you're effectively boycotting these products anyway.

If we were to boycott Carlsberg, Adidas etc. when it's got nothing to do with club i.e. buying a pair of trainees or having a pint, then it takes focus away from the club and I feel that any action taken should be taken against the club and the club only.

I reckon it could actually weaken our position and might seem petty to neutral observers especially in the press.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 28th January 2008, 09:11 PM
Forumite
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Overcast Barcelona
Posts: 108
vCash: 500
Scooby Dudek is likedScooby Dudek is likedScooby Dudek is liked
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

I think yes, but voted No.

The reality is we do not know every company that supports the club, especially other linked companies, i.e. Out in the Far East, so it is just not practical.
It would be necessary to contact every single company and explain the situation, which again is not realistic.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 28th January 2008, 09:59 PM
Neil G's Avatar
Neil G Neil G is online now
Stroll on!
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norwich
Posts: 3,331
vCash: 500
Neil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the Proclaimers
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

Originally Posted by robslappa View Post
I've said no, because by not buying anything from the club shop or the concessions inside the ground, you're effectively boycotting these products anyway.

If we were to boycott Carlsberg, Adidas etc. when it's got nothing to do with club i.e. buying a pair of trainees or having a pint, then it takes focus away from the club and I feel that any action taken should be taken against the club and the club only.

I reckon it could actually weaken our position and might seem petty to neutral observers especially in the press.
Not if everyone who does it writes to the companies they're boycotting and explains why.

If companies are seeing their profits hurt by an association with LFC while G&H are in charge, they'll reduce the amount they're prepared to pay to sponsor the club when any deals are up for renewal. The same will go for any companies who are thinking of sponsoring the club. This will mean less profit for G&H, which increases the likelihood of them selling and/or RBS refusing to refinance the loan for the stadium whenever that's due.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 28th January 2008, 10:01 PM
Neil G's Avatar
Neil G Neil G is online now
Stroll on!
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norwich
Posts: 3,331
vCash: 500
Neil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the Proclaimers
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

Originally Posted by Scooby Dudek View Post
I think yes, but voted No.

The reality is we do not know every company that supports the club, especially other linked companies, i.e. Out in the Far East, so it is just not practical.
It would be necessary to contact every single company and explain the situation, which again is not realistic.
We wouldn't have to get them all, just enough to make a dent in the club's income. With enough research we could identify most of the companies that have dealings with the club.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 29th January 2008, 09:13 AM
Forumite
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
JustTosh is likedJustTosh is likedJustTosh is likedJustTosh is liked
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

I voted yes on this question, but I’m not so sure.

One of the reasons the S** boycott has been successful for almost 20 years is the fact that it’s simple, direct and to the point.

If a merchandize boycott’s going to be successful people must stick to it for a period of time. To succeed it might be necessary to keep it simple, easy to understand and direct.

Maybe a boycott of all official merchandize in the shops, the ground and on the internet, and nothing else, is the way forward.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 29th January 2008, 09:51 AM
kopitegaz's Avatar
Click preferences
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Liverpool, Merseyside, UK, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way
Posts: 6,934
vCash: 721
kopitegaz rules harder than the Proclaimerskopitegaz rules harder than the Proclaimerskopitegaz rules harder than the Proclaimerskopitegaz rules harder than the Proclaimerskopitegaz rules harder than the Proclaimerskopitegaz rules harder than the Proclaimerskopitegaz rules harder than the Proclaimerskopitegaz rules harder than the Proclaimerskopitegaz rules harder than the Proclaimerskopitegaz rules harder than the Proclaimerskopitegaz rules harder than the Proclaimers
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

Originally Posted by JustTosh View Post
I voted yes on this question, but I’m not so sure.

One of the reasons the S** boycott has been successful for almost 20 years is the fact that it’s simple, direct and to the point.

If a merchandize boycott’s going to be successful people must stick to it for a period of time. To succeed it might be necessary to keep it simple, easy to understand and direct.

Maybe a boycott of all official merchandize in the shops, the ground and on the internet, and nothing else, is the way forward.
I think so too. In the case of Adidas, If I want a pair of Adidas trainers then I'll get some. But I wont buy any club merchandise.

How far down does it go anyway? Orange is a partner. I have an orange phone. Do I get rid of it? Lucozade? Walkers crisps are sold in the ground, do we not buy them outside? That was not being sarcastic in any way, just asking questions.
__________________
"She said no. Should we still do it?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 29th January 2008, 12:24 PM
Forumite
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 937
vCash: 500
Salte is likedSalte is likedSalte is likedSalte is likedSalte is liked
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

I think it's too far fetched to have any real impact so i voted 'no'.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 29th January 2008, 09:28 PM
Al Campbell's Avatar
*****
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Holyhead
Posts: 2,252
vCash: 500
Al Campbell has much to be proud ofAl Campbell has much to be proud ofAl Campbell has much to be proud ofAl Campbell has much to be proud ofAl Campbell has much to be proud ofAl Campbell has much to be proud ofAl Campbell has much to be proud ofAl Campbell has much to be proud ofAl Campbell has much to be proud ofAl Campbell has much to be proud of
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

Yes, every little helps.
__________________
I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying Jehovah
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 29th January 2008, 09:56 PM
Spy Bee's Avatar
Spy Bee Spy Bee is offline
Just like Jesus
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: in a house
Posts: 15,568
vCash: 500
Spy Bee rules harder than the ProclaimersSpy Bee rules harder than the ProclaimersSpy Bee rules harder than the ProclaimersSpy Bee rules harder than the ProclaimersSpy Bee rules harder than the ProclaimersSpy Bee rules harder than the ProclaimersSpy Bee rules harder than the ProclaimersSpy Bee rules harder than the ProclaimersSpy Bee rules harder than the ProclaimersSpy Bee rules harder than the ProclaimersSpy Bee rules harder than the Proclaimers
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

What about Tetley? They are part of the same group as Carlsberg.

It's too tenuous. I voted no.
__________________
Patches I'm depending on you son
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 29th January 2008, 09:57 PM
Forumite
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 20
vCash: 500
Sir Bob is an unknown quantity
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

A no for me on this one as it would have no effect whatsoever on G&H. Lets face facts addidas, Carlsberg etc wouldn't notice the difference in their profits.

i'm happy to do anything that hits G&H directly.

Whats needed is a fans boycott of attending the match. W'ont happen of course but imagine the effect of say only 20 odd thousand at at a home match with thousands outside protesting. G&H would be gone in next to no time.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 30th January 2008, 11:15 AM
Redder Lurtz's Avatar
Cagey's gimp
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mordor
Posts: 3,959
vCash: 500
Redder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the Proclaimers
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

Seems a bit extreme. What next? Stop putting tomato ketchup on your chips because it's red?

Daft idea. Voted with the vast majority in the other 2 latest polls but this is a bit much.

Last edited by Redder Lurtz; 30th January 2008 at 11:16 AM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 30th January 2008, 12:25 PM
Neil G's Avatar
Neil G Neil G is online now
Stroll on!
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norwich
Posts: 3,331
vCash: 500
Neil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the Proclaimers
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

Originally Posted by Kopite68 View Post
Seems a bit extreme. What next? Stop putting tomato ketchup on your chips because it's red?

Daft idea. Voted with the vast majority in the other 2 latest polls but this is a bit much.
In case you hadn't noticed, the situation we're in is a bit extreme.

Hicks is utterly determined to make big money out of our club, regardless of the damage he might do to it in the process. If we're not every bit as determined to fight for our club and prevent him from doing that damage, then he'll win and we'll lose. It's as simple as that.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 30th January 2008, 12:31 PM
Redder Lurtz's Avatar
Cagey's gimp
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mordor
Posts: 3,959
vCash: 500
Redder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the ProclaimersRedder Lurtz rules harder than the Proclaimers
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

Originally Posted by Neil G View Post
In case you hadn't noticed, the situation we're in is a bit extreme.

Hicks is utterly determined to make big money out of our club, regardless of the damage he might do to it in the process. If we're not every bit as determined to fight for our club and prevent him from doing that damage, then he'll win and we'll lose. It's as simple as that.
Of course I'd noticed. Don't be such a condescending fuck.

I just don't believe that if Liverpool fans stop buying Adidas gear it will make a fucking jot of difference to the situation. Boycotting our own stores and concessions might be noticed but switching to carling from carlsberg won't.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 30th January 2008, 12:51 PM
Neil G's Avatar
Neil G Neil G is online now
Stroll on!
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norwich
Posts: 3,331
vCash: 500
Neil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the ProclaimersNeil G rules harder than the Proclaimers
Re: Second LFCSN Survey Question 3

Originally Posted by Kopite68 View Post
Of course I'd noticed. Don't be such a condescending fuck.

I just don't believe that if Liverpool fans stop buying Adidas gear it will make a fucking jot of difference to the situation. Boycotting our own stores and concessions might be noticed but switching to carling from carlsberg won't.
Well if you acknowledge the situation is so extreme, how can you say that this way of tackling it is extreme? Saying you don't think it'll work is something different, you should have said so in your first post.

I've explained further up in the thread how hitting the profits of the companies that sponsor LFC will weaken G&H's position. I don't know how many people would need to boycott them in order for them to notice, I doubt anyone has done any proper research into it. I would hope that LFCSN have got someone on board who can find out, for example, how many pints and bottles of Carlsberg are sold in the UK, Ireland and Scandinavia every week, how much profit Carlsberg make from that, and how those profits would be effected if 10,000, 20,000, 50,000 people etc switched to another beer. If the drop in revenue exceeds the amount that Carlsberg think they rake in because of their association with LFC, then they'll pull out.

The numbers of people needed for a boycott will obviously be high, and it will be a real challenge to get that many people to do it. But until someone's had a proper look at it, come up with some figures and set some targets, it's totally premature to say that it can't make a difference. It's giving up on a challenge before you even know what that challenge is.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 30th January 2008, 08:24 PM
Steve's Avatar
Steve Steve is online now
Hard-core Forumite