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.
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.
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.
__________________
They talk of a man betraying his country, his friends, his sweetheart. There must be a moral bond first. All a man can betray is his conscience.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm happy to withold money in the ground and at the club stores, but where do you stop with everything else. Do we boycott companies who have executive boxes, which I think includes the Echo? Or do we go as far as anybody who advertises in the match programme?
I'm happy to withold money in the ground and at the club stores, but where do you stop with everything else. Do we boycott companies who have executive boxes, which I think includes the Echo? Or do we go as far as anybody who advertises in the match programme?
With the exception of the Echo, I'd say so, yes. Anything that deters companies from giving money to the club will weaken G&H's position.
A boycott of the Echo wouldn't be practical as there's no readily available alternative product that people can buy, unlike Adidas, Carlsberg etc. More importantly though, boycotting it would be wrong because a) it's potentially one of our strongest allies with what we're trying to achieve and b) it would be totally inappropriate to give it the same treatment as that rag which has done far worse.
