SOS Statement

[SpiritOfShankly]

First of all a thank you to all who made it out to the park last night armed with high visibility jackets, spades and in one instance a pickaxe. It was short notice but well worth it given the coverage we’ve been able to greet Mr Hicks with as he arrives in Liverpool. It’s brilliant to be able to demonstrate with a smile on our face and it’s similarly brilliant that this idea came originally from one of the forums. This is what we’re all capable of, an idea from an individual that’s made reality by us coming together which yet again publicly hammers home the point about the duplicitousness of both of our owners.

Later on in the evening, representatives of SOS met with representatives of DIC, led by Amanda Staveley. We felt that as “a meeting of minds” it went very well. We had a long, thorough discussion about supporters being better represented within the football club. We came away feeling not only listened to but engaged with and we’re very hopeful we will continue that discussion at a later date. We were also told DIC hold the manager in very high regard.

Mr Hicks should be at the game tonight. We fully expect the decision taken en masse at the first meeting to hold; no protesting during the game. Him coming seems like a provocation but we ought to rise above it and get on with the matter in hand. Today’s papers and last night’s meeting reinforce the fact we are having an impact - that you are having an impact - and we know we will all work as hard as we can to continue to do so. It also means we can enjoy the game without having to worry about us getting our point across. We’ve got it across yesterday, we’ll get it across tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the next day. We’re not going nowhere.


Spirit Of Shankly.

[kop77]

well done lads

[Rashid]

Good stuff....

[Ronin47]

well played lads

[RED Tezza]

Nice one boys, saw the coverage on the news excellent stuff

[Paul]

Any news on the online membership of SOS yet?

[Red '84]

good stuff.

lets have another night to remember now.

[Slimmy]

Well done lads1 keep up the pressure on that fat bastard

[bobhorse]

Excellent Intelligent well thought out statement just what we have come to expect from SOS during this trouble era of Our Club

I would believe DIC would be more in keeping of what the Fans want and indeed expect from the custodians of our great Club if only what they have learned from the mistakes made by others

Keep up the outstanding work Lads everyone is behind what you are trying to achieve for Liverpool Football Club and its Supporters

[real red]

Had to get this off my chest, and it's not aimed at anyone personally, or even suggesting that anyone is acting as they are for anything other than the good of the club.

- - - - - - -

Wasn't the vote at the last meeting that said dialogue with owners or potential owners carried with the proviso all meetings were minuted, the contents were not kept secret?

Not trying to stir up trouble, but surely a meeting with Hicks done in this way would raise no end of complaints about what was said or not said, what sweeteners might have been offered and so on? I think that's something like the way the comments went before that vote at the meeting anyway.

Staveley represents an investment firm that has used dubious tactics to try and win fans over (Tony Barrett's piece about the Sheikh being a boyhood Red for example) that might have an LFC-wallpaper-using CEO but is still a company looking to make itself richer out of us.

I understand the conflict between insisting everything's on the record and actually not getting a meeting with them at all, but I think if you're going to announce you've had such meetings, or you or they are going to let it leak, that such meetings should be put on record.

Personally I trust them only marginally more than Tom Hicks, but far more than George Gillett. I've not fully made up my mind where Parry sits in this tree of shite, but he's sharing a branch with David Moores.

The "we were also told DIC hold the manager in high regard" is an example of why the meeting should either have been kept completely confidential, or thoroughly minuted.

It's a nothing statement. It's a David Bick style statement. Did it have a "but" on the end?

I've also noticed some inaccuracies creeping into some of the statements and quotes attributed to SoS, which I think as supporters who have seen what innacuracies in reporting can do, we should never, ever, even dream of going down the road of.

The selective quoting, the mis-quoting, the quotes going to the wrong person.

Throwing a claim onto a forum to back up what you think of someone is all well and good. But unfortunately those who are in positions of responsibility need to be telling the truth and checking their facts.

Maybe it makes no difference, because maybe he's going down anyway. I suppose it depends on how you feel about people being judged on the truth, rather than the version of it that fits the aims of those claiming the 'truth'.

Maybe that's how the police got away with stuff against the IRA in the past. In some cases they thought they knew who was guilty, they had almost enough proof, but just to be on the safe side they added a bit more. And nobody was bothered, after all, it was only someone everybody hated.

It can only have really been DIC and Parry that told us through the media from December onwards about the financial troubles that Hicks and Gillett had. In the end we believed it. And now, we want to make sure there's no doubt, so just to be on the safe side we add a bit more evidence. We even now find we can ignore Gillett's 'crimes', he's made a plea bargain and what a great guy he is for doing so. Even Parry's sentence will be lowered if he can help send this guy down.

All of them should be judged on the truth. Whether we like them or not. Because then, in ten or twenty years' time, we can tell our kids or grandkids that we weren't part of something that we should all be ashamed of.

If not, then we'd better not ever expect the truth to work for us again.

Ever.

[chrisbonnie]

well done lads, id love to see the pictures of the "New Stadium Starting"

i for one will be filling out your application form ,and sendong over my few shillings to help the cause

its great to see somebody taking a stand

[Trucker Paddy]

Well done lads, just 1 thing Hicks is such a self obsessed prick if he does'nt see any protest he'll think everything is ok, he's that fucked up!!

[Uncle Travelling Matt]

Originally Posted by real red

Had to get this off my chest, and it's not aimed at anyone personally, or even suggesting that anyone is acting as they are for anything other than the good of the club.

- - - - - - -

Wasn't the vote at the last meeting that said dialogue with owners or potential owners carried with the proviso all meetings were minuted, the contents were not kept secret?

Not trying to stir up trouble, but surely a meeting with Hicks done in this way would raise no end of complaints about what was said or not said, what sweeteners might have been offered and so on? I think that's something like the way the comments went before that vote at the meeting anyway.

Staveley represents an investment firm that has used dubious tactics to try and win fans over (Tony Barrett's piece about the Sheikh being a boyhood Red for example) that might have an LFC-wallpaper-using CEO but is still a company looking to make itself richer out of us.

I understand the conflict between insisting everything's on the record and actually not getting a meeting with them at all, but I think if you're going to announce you've had such meetings, or you or they are going to let it leak, that such meetings should be put on record.

Personally I trust them only marginally more than Tom Hicks, but far more than George Gillett. I've not fully made up my mind where Parry sits in this tree of shite, but he's sharing a branch with David Moores.

The "we were also told DIC hold the manager in high regard" is an example of why the meeting should either have been kept completely confidential, or thoroughly minuted.

It's a nothing statement. It's a David Bick style statement. Did it have a "but" on the end?

I've also noticed some inaccuracies creeping into some of the statements and quotes attributed to SoS, which I think as supporters who have seen what innacuracies in reporting can do, we should never, ever, even dream of going down the road of.

The selective quoting, the mis-quoting, the quotes going to the wrong person.

Throwing a claim onto a forum to back up what you think of someone is all well and good. But unfortunately those who are in positions of responsibility need to be telling the truth and checking their facts.

Maybe it makes no difference, because maybe he's going down anyway. I suppose it depends on how you feel about people being judged on the truth, rather than the version of it that fits the aims of those claiming the 'truth'.

Maybe that's how the police got away with stuff against the IRA in the past. In some cases they thought they knew who was guilty, they had almost enough proof, but just to be on the safe side they added a bit more. And nobody was bothered, after all, it was only someone everybody hated.

It can only have really been DIC and Parry that told us through the media from December onwards about the financial troubles that Hicks and Gillett had. In the end we believed it. And now, we want to make sure there's no doubt, so just to be on the safe side we add a bit more evidence. We even now find we can ignore Gillett's 'crimes', he's made a plea bargain and what a great guy he is for doing so. Even Parry's sentence will be lowered if he can help send this guy down.

All of them should be judged on the truth. Whether we like them or not. Because then, in ten or twenty years' time, we can tell our kids or grandkids that we weren't part of something that we should all be ashamed of.

If not, then we'd better not ever expect the truth to work for us again.

Ever.

SOS are doing a good job but you are so spot on. They should get you on board as their PR man.

[Rashid]

realred, I respect you more than I do most on here but it saddens me to see you become a Hicks sympathiser.

[taliesin08]

Has the Sheikh joined yet?

[theRedHorse]

Originally Posted by Rashid

realred, I respect you more than I do most on here but it saddens me to see you become a Hicks sympathiser.

uh-oh.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by Rashid

realred, I respect you more than I do most on here but it saddens me to see you become a Hicks sympathiser.

Rashid in "Never bothered to read a post properly" shocker.

[bri]

statements like that show a little bit more nouce than simply "fuck off yanks" and are more likely to be picked up by the media and shown in a positive light.

[Cath]

Originally Posted by Rashid

realred, I respect you more than I do most on here but it saddens me to see you become a Hicks sympathiser.

Rash, read RR's post again. It's constructive criticism. Being cautious about DIC's motives doesn't make you a Hick's sympathiser.

[benolad]

Agree with real red the meeting could of been minuted and published in it's entirity for everyone to see. If it indeed was minuted which I'm guessing it wasn't.

[isr]

Originally Posted by Rashid

realred, I respect you more than I do most on here but it saddens me to see you become a Hicks sympathiser.

Rashid, seriously brother, come on.

[TK421]

That's a seriously good post Real Red and very thought provoking.

Thanks also to SoS for the info, I agree with UTM they are doing a good job.