Old article I know but......

[Kaizer Sauze]

Little snippet from here

Liverpool PR war has Hicks in a spin | the Daily Mail




"Now the Hicks camp have confirmed there are plans to approach London PR giants Freud Communications, whose major clients include Sony, Nike, Pepsi, Volkswagen, Nestle and London 2012 — a sure sign that Hicks, criticised by his Liverpool opponents Rick Parry and David Moores for washing the club's dirty linen in public, intends continuing with a very public strategy as part of his Anfield power battle."


Quiz question, starter for 10

Who heads up Freud communications?

[Neil G]

Originally Posted by Kaizer Sauze

Little snippet from here

Liverpool PR war has Hicks in a spin | the Daily Mail




"Now the Hicks camp have confirmed there are plans to approach London PR giants Freud Communications, whose major clients include Sony, Nike, Pepsi, Volkswagen, Nestle and London 2012 — a sure sign that Hicks, criticised by his Liverpool opponents Rick Parry and David Moores for washing the club's dirty linen in public, intends continuing with a very public strategy as part of his Anfield power battle."


Quiz question, starter for 10

Who heads up Freud communications?

Isn't it the guy who's married to Murdoch's daughter?

[Kaizer Sauze]

Originally Posted by Neil G

Isn't it the guy who's married to Murdoch's daughter?

In one

Matthew Freud, who is married to Elizabeth Murdoch

Looks like Hicks has done as much research on us as what Parry and Moores did on him

[Neil G]

Originally Posted by Kaizer Sauze

In one

Matthew Freud, who is married to Elizabeth Murdoch

Looks like Hicks has done as much research on us as what Parry and Moores did on them

Guess that would mean the end of Dave's appearance on Sky.

Although the article does say there are plans to approach them, not that they've actually struck a deal yet. DIC know the PR game as well, so I'm sure they'd be having a word in Freud's ear if they thought he could strengthen Hicks' hand. They could probably pay more to Freud than Hicks is offering just to reject the deal.

[Kaizer Sauze]

Originally Posted by Neil G

Guess that would mean the end of Dave's appearance on Sky.

Although the article does say there are plans to approach them, not that they've actually struck a deal yet. DIC know the PR game as well, so I'm sure they'd be having a word in Freud's ear if they thought he could strengthen Hicks' hand. They could probably pay more to Freud than Hicks is offering just to reject the deal.

Correct it is not yet a done deal, and I don't doubt someone has had a word in his shell but your never know.

The point is this, you think they (Hicks et al) would have someone on board who would have spotted this a mile off.

[Neil G]

Originally Posted by Kaizer Sauze

Correct it is not yet a done deal, and I don't doubt someone has had a word in his shell but your never know.

The point is this, you think they (Hicks et al) would have someone on board who would have spotted this a mile off.

Do you mean that this will get Liverpool fans' backs up even more because of the Murdoch connection? I can't see that happening. There are already plenty of business relationships between Liverpool and Murdoch's interests, not least the massive amounts that we get from Sky.

I don't this link will make any difference to the majority of Liverpool fans. In the list of crimes perpetrated by Hicks against the club, this comes pretty low down I'd say.

[Kaizer Sauze]

Originally Posted by Neil G

Do you mean that this will get Liverpool fans' backs up even more because of the Murdoch connection? I can't see that happening. There are already plenty of business relationships between Liverpool and Murdoch's interests, not least the massive amounts that we get from Sky.

I don't this link will make any difference to the majority of Liverpool fans. In the list of crimes perpetrated by Hicks against the club, this comes pretty low down I'd say.

Unfortunately, we have to deal with SKY and they call the shots

But to actively pursue the services of someone who's directly related to Murdoch is beyond the pale for me.

You only have to look at the shite that Chris Bascombe has had to put up with and he's only a journalist.

[Cardie]

Originally Posted by Kaizer Sauze

But to actively pursue the services of someone who's directly related to Murdoch is beyond the pale for me.

The majority of fans are happy to actively pursue the services of murdoch let alone someone related to them when they purchase SKY TV, is their not enough you can have a go at them for without trying to push it to the extremes watering down the argument in the process?

The S*n is the boycott, beyond that it's down to personal preference many supporters read the NotW and the Times/Sunday Times, pay for Sky TV, use My Space, have watched Fox News, Watch the sunday supplement despite it being sponsored by The S*n

Personally I don't buy the S*n or NotW but do watch Sky, Have read the Times, have watched Fox channels, have looked on My Space, and watched the Sunday Supplement despite the S*n adverts.

It may be hypocritical to boycott those two and watch/read the rest but then what can I do, to me the S*n is up their and it's links with the NotW are clear, the rest is tenuous at best.

If that means myself and thousands of other supporters are 'beyond the pale' then so be it.

[Kaizer Sauze]

Originally Posted by Cardie

The majority of fans are happy to pay money to murdoch, is their not enough you can have a go at them for without trying to push it to the extremes?

The S*n is the boycott, beyond that it's down to personal preference many supporters read the NotW and the Times/Sunday Times, pay for Sky TV, use My Space, have watched Fox News, Watch the sunday supplement despite it being sponsored by The S*n

Personally I don't buy the S*n or NotW but do watch Sky, Have read the Times, have watched Fox channels, have looked on My Space, and watched the Sunday Supplement despite the S*n adverts.

It may be hypocritical to boycott those two and watch/read the rest but then what can I do, to me the S*n is up their and it's links with the NotW are clear, the res is tenuous at best.

If that means myself and thousands of other supporters are 'beyond the pale' then so be it.

So hypothetically you would see nothing wrong with Hicks et al trying to soft soap the fans and as part of that trying to build better relations with either the HJC and HFSG (Imo by even speaking to Freud they have established thier amount of knowledge on the subject.) or even both whilst on the other hand paying a firm who's headed up by someone who's married to the daughter of Rupert Murdoch and would probably advise on any "soft soaping"?

Doesn't sit well with me that.

[Cardie]

Don't really want to get into this as I've made my feelings on people using Hillsborough as a means to point score known when certain individuals were doing it around the time of the anniversary (and nothing good will ever come from having it at the centre of an argument that's nothing to do with what happened), but how many people in the HJC or HFSG have Sky, or have read the times, or used My Space (don't actually know if that's still owned by Murdoch) etc etc?

[Kaizer Sauze]

Originally Posted by Cardie

Don't really want to get into this as I've made my feelings on people using Hillsborough as a means to point score known when certain individuals were doing it around the time of the anniversary (and nothing good will ever come from having it at the centre of an argument that's nothing to do with it), but how many people in the HJC or HFSG have Sky, or have read the times, or used My Space (don't actually know if that's still owned by Murdoch) etc etc?

Cardie I know what your saying, but, and I'm not saying they will, but I would imagine there is a decent possibilty that they will look to speak to both groups.

Now whether thier intentions are genuine or not, its instantly going to look like the ultimate point scoring exercise on thier behalf if they have a Murdoch directly linked to the club.

[Cardie]

They won't though will they, they'll have a Freud.

He's married Murdochs daughter, he doesn't assume The S*n's guilt because of that anymore than you or I do for subscribing to Sky.

[Kaizer Sauze]

Originally Posted by Cardie

They won't though will they, they'll have a Freud.

He's married Murdochs daughter, he doesn't assume The S*n's guilt because of that anymore than you or I do for subscribing to Sky.

You know it won't play out like that though as people get hysterical very quickly.

I also understand what your saying, but whether or not I have a SKY subscription, watch lost, stalk women through myspace whatever, I'm not employed by the club.

It's a massive can of worms that I can only see going badly wrong.

Fortunately I don't actually think they'll end up going with Freud, but I think it was foolish to even consider it.

[Cardie]

Originally Posted by Kaizer Sauze

You know it won't play out like that though as people get hysterical very quickly.

Evidently.

[Kaizer Sauze]

Originally Posted by Cardie

Evidently.

Where have I got hysterical?

I've offered my opinion on it which is that I think it's a bad move?

As an aside, I think there is an element of Hick's clan that genuinly do want the best for the club but are underminded constantly by other more powerful voices making ill-thought out decisions.

[Cardie]

I just think your making a massive issue about nothing, and if you're doing it you can only imagine what the more frantic members of the forum will be like.

[real red]

Well I've had some stick on here for my stance on DIC not being the perfect buyers some of their most love-struck fans think they are, and for my stance on Hicks getting blamed for a lot more than actually is down to him, but this is stupid for him.

I think it plays into his hands to blame him for promising something that Gillett had actually promised, or blaming him for something that neither of them said but Gillett was closest to saying. He must feel encouraged when he hears angry complaints about something not down to him. Like DIC must feel happy when they're getting credit for future plans they've never actually said they'd be doing anyway.

But this says a lot about Hicks. There are plenty of innocent explanations for this.

First of all it's not Murdoch, it's not Murdoch's daughter, it's Murdoch's son-in-law. He might not have dealt with Freud, he might have dealt with someone three rungs lower down.

It's right that the boycott ends officially at the Sun, and if it didn't we should be boycotting everything with Murdoch's stamp on it. Freud are further from Murdoch than Sky, NOTW, The Times and the rest.

But has he got no sense? (Rhetorical question). That's what does me. I know I didn't spot any link when I saw the article originally, but that's because I've no interest in smarmy London media agencies. But he should have. Five minutes for one of his office clerks to check Wikipedia would have done it. Five minutes.

It's still not worth condemning him over, unless we find out he's been eating out with Murdoch as part of a plan to unilaterally end the boycott, but he really needs to try and put his brain into gear before giving his enemies even more bows for their arrows.