Spirit of Shankly Poll Question 3

[Sons of Shankly]

Carlsberg have done nothing wrong. They have a product in the marketplace very similar to a host of other products and part of how they try to boost their product’s sales the world over is an association with the “brand” of Liverpool FC, the “brand” of The Kop, the “brand” of the 12th man. However, we need to get the message across to them and any future sponsors that we, the very brand they are paying good money to capitalise on, are not happy with the current leadership and that by being associated with Liverpool FC at this time they are associating themselves with a man who threatens everything they want to associate their brand with.

 

On Merseyside, Carlsberg sell thousands of barrels of ale every week. They monitor their sales on a week by week basis. The Merseyside territory is in the top 5, in terms of sales volume. Therefore any boycott will get the message across quickly that we want Hicks out now. It is definable and most importantly any Carlsberg drinker has lots of alternatives at any given bar.

 

Therefore, while we don’t want to hurt Carlsberg, we should use this way of getting our message across to Carlsberg, to any other current or future sponsors, that we want Tom Hicks out and that financially backing him or the football club while he remains in charge is not a financially wise move.

 

Should we call for an LFC supporter boycott on Carlsberg products until Mr Hicks leaves the club?

[lfcwonderboy1]

sounds like a good idea what about adidas aswell? there make the kits.....

[Rashid]

Yes, they all need to suffer by association.

[shannow]

i like Carlsberg too much.. anyway, they have been with us a long time and knowing the F*cking yanks.. they would just get someone else to take that vacancy.. they would probably welcome Carlsberg pulling out so they could opt from someone willing to pay more from the US

[thechap]

Absolutely no need to do this. Do we boycott the water board who supply the stadium? Or the power company? Do we boycott the many service companies who supply the stadium? No, that would be ridiculous.

 

If Carlsberg theselves do not like what they are seeing with the current protests they may act of their own accord. To take action against any other product than Liverpool FC would muddy the waters, dilute the protest and see the movement lose support.

[JohnnyH]

Carlsberg do not have a say in who owns the club or who manages it. Boycotting them to me is a bad idea as any future sponsorship could be reduced due to the threat of it happening again.

[captainharris]

I don't really see the point of boycotting Carlsberg products. I think it may be going in the wrong direction and diverting from the main focus of the SOS intentions.

 

Do we then begin to boycot anyone who has an advertising board around the ground, do we stop buying Adidas clothes? I think a boycott of Carlsberg inside the ground is a good idea as this has a direct implication on TH profit making capabilities, as is not buying programmes, merchandise and anything from the food kiosks. Also, put your bets on outside the ground, there's plenty of bookies in the city... what will make TH really take notice will be a dramatic decline on the figures of each matchdys balance sheet.

[Count Morfeo]

Yes, they insulted the English for years by sending over their ghastly, weak brand of lager while retaining their own full strength beverage for the continentals. Plus the Count once had a bad can of Carlsberg. It reall tasted of the can. As most products from cans seem to. Which is why the Count prefers bottles. That, the Count swears, is a true story.

Also Carlsberg uses a lot of uncesseary chemicals in its sup. Reason enough to boycott the drink.

[thechap]

Yes, they all need to suffer by association.

 

 

Rash, listen to yourself. You're getting way off the plot and will only make the protest attract ridicule. Plus you sound far too extremist for my liking. You sound like the animal rights people.

[thechap]

... what will make TH really take notice will be a dramatic decline on the figures of each matchdys balance sheet.

 

Exactly. In a nutshell, that should be the point of the protests.

[Strontium]

Yes, they all need to suffer by association.

 

I suspect it'll be a lot easier for you to boycott Carlsberg than those of us who actually drink alcohol.

[Rashid]

I suspect it'll be a lot easier for you to boycott Carlsberg than those of us who actually drink alcohol.

 

My dad owns about 6 restaurants mate... we probably buy more of the stuff than you have drank in your lifetime.

[JohnnyH]

My dad owns about 6 restaurants mate... we probably buy more of the stuff than you have drank in your lifetime.

 

So you're going to ask your dad not to buy Carleberg?

[Lofts]

jus getting the thread back to the top

[aws]

They are our main sponsor and regretfully would have to be targeted by any meaningful boycott.

 

The club losing a few thousand quid in pie sales is hardly going to register with hicks (or more importantly the banks) but an unhappy sponsor just might.

[moxter]

The problem with boycotting a global brand like Carlsberg is that the effectiveness of something like the SoS will tail off dramatically the further you get from the coty of Liverpool, whereas Carlsberg's sponsorship and advertising is felt worldwide. The penetration of SoS into the Thai market (for example) would, I imagine, be negligible, while the branding will get through again, and again, and again. Remember this is millions upon millions of advertising spend we're talking here - it's not just sponsorship but Carlsberg will target their TV buying around match times on football stations - and that's something we can't do anything about.

[The Chief]

Gotta agree with the lads who say no to this, as JohnnyH said, we don't want to devalue any future sponsorship deals when/if the yank fucks off. But agree with not buying it at the ground, a couple of hours wait for a pint AFTER the game is not to much to ask after all.

[Rashid]

So you're going to ask your dad not to buy Carleberg?

 

If he can help it yeah.. I am not sure how it works but I am pretty certain the contract is with a generic supplier and not with Carlseberg direct so it's easily done - he can buy something else.

 

Depends if a full boycott is approved.

[hamstrung]

Carlsberg tastes like piss anyway, so boycotting it would not be a problem for me.

[RoboRiise]

Carlsberg tastes like piss anyway, so boycotting it would not be a problem for me.

 

I've made a point of doing so since the age of sixteen. Frankly, I'd rather drink piss out of Thatcher's arse.

 

 

But no to the ban - it doesn't punish the enemy and our relationship with Carlsberg pre-dates these fuck-ups by several years.

 

(Edit) Export's tolerable.

[Scooby Dudek]

Carlsberg do not have a say in who owns the club or who manages it. Boycotting them to me is a bad idea as any future sponsorship could be reduced due to the threat of it happening again.

 

That is the point of the protest.

If future sponsors/carlsberg do not wish to get involved with the club whilst the Yanks are in charge, then reduced income means reduced profit, or ideally a loss from the Yanks own pocket. This is the only language they understand.

[robbief]

if you treat sponsors like shit, nobody will sponsor us. no company would be in the right mind to sponsor us after we had done that to carlsberg, lets face it carlsberg arn't going to get hicks out. silly idea.

[Newman]

I don't drink it anyway, it tastes like piss flavoured water.

[Jay Glover]

I don't drink it anyway, it tastes like piss flavoured water.

 

Agreed, allways bottom of the list, only drink it if there is no other option, very rare!

[JohnnyH]

if you treat sponsors like shit, nobody will sponsor us. no company would be in the right mind to sponsor us after we had done that to carlsberg, lets face it carlsberg arn't going to get hicks out. silly idea.

 

Exactly. All negotiating would include the possible sponsors wanted discounts in case of fan boycott.