Thomas O Hicks Junior

[Guest ShoePiss]

Great post

 

 

 

4pool is mental. He got binned from YNWA for suing people about things they said about him on the forum :D

 

I remember that and there are some right twats on ynwa, he didn't sue anyone but at one point did threaten legal action. He's not mental, just likes to be right at all costs.

[Malarkey]

TLW 4 eva

[AquiMan]

got to admit when i first saw this this morning i wern't too sure, but well done boys and girls.

 

don't know if this has already been posted but even if it has its worth another look.

 

Liverpool director Tom Hicks Jr accused of sending abusive email to fan

• Liverpool to investigate claims surrounding emails

• Reports claim Hicks Jr has apologised for outburst

Buzz up!

Digg it

Agencies

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 January 2010 01.44 GMT

 

Tom Hicks Jr, left, with his father, Liverpool co-owner, Tom Hicks. Photograph: Mike Egerton/EMPICS Sport/PA Photos

 

Liverpool have launched an investigation into claims by a fan that he was sent abusive emails by Tom Hicks Jr, a director at Anfield.

 

The supporter alleges that Hicks Jr, son of the co-owner Tom Hicks, called him an "idiot" and then, in a separate email, told him: "Blow me fuck face. Go to hell. I'm sick of you."

 

The fan alleges that he was sent the emails after forwarding to Hicks Jr an article from the Liverpool Echo which related to the debts at Anfield.

 

The second email from Hicks Jr is said to have been copied to Ian Ayre and Philip Nash, the club's commercial and financial directors, although club sources are reported to have said that they never received the correspondence.

 

The Sunday Telegraph claim that sources close to Hicks Jr said he regretted the incident and had apologised to the fan for the inappropriate language used in the email.

[Chinandeler Bong]

Great post

 

 

 

4pool is mental. He got binned from YNWA for suing people about things they said about him on the forum :D

 

Just to clarify I meant another poster , not 4 pool. My mistake.

[Sangria]

Well in Steve and everyone else for getting it into the public domain. What a stupid prick and keep the good work up lads.

 

I think SOS are doing a very good job now and and they deserve a lot of credit. Made up with this.

[coachpotato]

The timing of this is perfect, as it's a slow news week for the journo's with all the games being off and with little movement in the transfer markets.

That so many media outlets are carrying SteveH's piece is a coup for SOS and all LFC fans who care about the Club.

A small light at the end of the tunnel perhaps.

[kacangpool]

Wouldn't have thought the powers that be at RBS will be very pleased with the latest developments.

 

rbs seems to only care about the repayments though. is there a way to pressure rbs?

[bossy]

Excellent stuff, well in Stevie, and SOS for getting into the press.

[llego]

In the Guardian!! Wow I can hardly believe it.

[Newport]

You Kiss Your Father With That Mouth, Tom Hicks Jr.? Ah, More Anarchy in the U.K. - Dallas News - Unfair Park

By Robert Wilonsky in SportsSat., Jan. 9 2010 @ 8:54PM

Tom Hicks Jr.

​Earlier this evening, Paul Gardner -- Spirit of Shankly Regeneration Liaison Officer and rabid Liverpool FC fan -- sent word: Tom Hicks Jr.'s got a potty mouth. Which is no big deal, sure, except Hicks is vice president of Hicks Sports Group and a director of Liverpool FC, the soccer team his old man bought with George Gillett Jr. in 2007. And Hicks Jr., according to e-mails sent to Unfair Park and stories published tonight in the U.K. press, used that potty mouth when responding to one Reds fan's e-mail concerning the future of the club, which, as we've mentioned countless times, is deep in debt.

 

The story goes like this: On Saturday, the Liverpool Echo ran this op-ed that speculated any cent Liverpool makes from selling its players to rival teams will "help finance the £240m debt the club is trying to manage." The letter writer, Steve Horner, did nothing more than copy and paste the original story. According to the e-mails forwarded by Spirit of Shankly's Gardner (he also sent screen shots), Hicks responded twice on Saturday. The first time, he wrote, simply, "Idiot." The second response was far more colorful: "Blow me fuck face. Go to hell. I'm sick of you." Gardner also included Hicks's apology, sent hours later, in which he wrote, "Stephen, I apologize for losing my temper and using bad language with you. It was a kneejerk reaction. Tommy."

 

Gardner sends along the official reply from the Liverpool supporters' union:

This comment is behaviour unbecoming that of a Director of Liverpool Football Club. Anyone associated with the club should not treat the fans with the contempt that he has. It reinforces our view of the owners and their Sons that they do not care about the football club or the fans. We believe that this now makes his position on the board of directors untenable.

After using Hicks's e-mail address that accompanied the missives to Horner, and then jumping through the Hicks Holding e-mail verification hoops, Unfair Park asked Tommy for a response; none has been provided so far. And e-mail has also been sent to Hicks Holding spokesperson Lisa LeMaster; when reached by phone tonight, Rick Ericson, also at LeMaster Group, said he was unaware of the incident and had no immediate response. According to the Telegraph, "Friends on Saturday night described the Texan as being 'mortified' by the 'grave misunderstanding.'" And the Guardian is reporting that Liverpool has launched an investigation into the incident.

 

Last we heard from Tommy was in February 2008, when he was went for a pint in Liverpool and was greeted by a chorus of protest songs and a shower of spittle. The incident also spawned a terrific metal band name: A Grimace of Concern.

 

Sorry about the images you might get from that headline, btw.

[goatboy59]

Mullock (Mirror) and Bernestein (Mail) writing up anti-Hicks stories?

 

That's a big change right there, they're usually just mouthpieces.

 

I wonder if Gilett, or Purslow and the bank, are the real players now?

 

For all those wishing harm on Hicks snr, just remember; the son inherits everything :eek:

[StevieH]

Brian Woolnough hasn't even made reference to it on the Sunday Supplement when looking at the back page headlines.

[Rico1304]

Soccer AM should be in on this too, I know its a shit show but it'll keep the pressure on and the story in the press for another week. I've just e-mailed them.

[StevieH]

Tony Evans on TalkSport now...

[chris71]

Chris Bascombe also has a piece on it.

 

By Chris Bascombe, 09/01/2010

LIVERPOOL'S owners have been plunged into more chaos after a foul-mouthed email rant by director Tom Hicks Jnr.

 

In an astonishing attack, the son of the club's Texan co-owner told a critical Kop fan: "Blow me, **** face. Go to hell. I'm sick of you."

 

Liverpool supporter Stephen Horner, 29, wrote to the club's owners and their sons to express his concerns for the future of the Merseyside giants.

 

After first being dismissed as an 'idiot', he then received the second obscene response.

 

The email, sent from the address of board member Hicks Jr, was also copied to Liverpool FC commercial and finance directors Ian Ayre and Phillip Nash.

 

Club sources insisted last night Ayre and Nash never received the offending correspondence and they have launched their own investigation into the matter.

 

But the email will cause further embarrassment to the under-fire Americans, who have lurched from one disaster to another since their takeover in 2007.

 

Horner, a London-based Kop fan of 20 years, was stunned by the response to what he believed was a perfectly polite correspondence.

 

He said: "I'm genuinely shaken. I can't believe a member of Liverpool's board would write to a fan in this way. It sums up how the club is being run at the moment.

 

"I simply emailed copies of an article which would make every Liverpool fan worried, suggesting the club's debts will prevent investment in the team.

 

"I was hoping for a reassuring response instead I was insulted.

 

"I don't want an apology, I just want them out of the club."

 

It is not the first time that Hicks Jr has been at the centre of controversy. He was attacked and forced to flee when he ignored threats from fans and visited a pub in Anfield two years ago. And this latest gaffe is sure to increase the pressure on his father and fellow co- owner George Gillett Jr to sell - especially at a time when their lack of investment in the team is under renewed focus.

 

Liverpool FC declined to comment on the matter but Sport of the World understands that Hicks Jnr sent a private apology last night.

 

Foul-mouthed email sent by Texan to upset Reds supporter. | News Of The World

[goatboy59]

Brian Woolnough hasn't even made reference to it on the Sunday Supplement when looking at the back page headlines.

Cunt was on the Sun in 89. Enough said.

[Kennys_spell]

Appreciate and respect your opinion but the Union has moved on from maybe a few months ago and the approach is a bit more radical about how welcome they are (or rather aren't) in Liverpool or at Anfield.

 

If we're asked we will say as we have said for weeks now "They're not welcome here and we will make any visit as difficult for them as possible".

 

We appreciate the fact that this will alienate some people.

 

 

 

It's got to be up to the Union how they conduct themselves and set their agenda out but it seems a little counter-productive to me that you want to "make any visit as difficult for them as possible".

 

If that's the official stance, how do the Union plan to have 'dialogue' with the Yanks. It seems to me that adopting that approach simply declares the Union as 'Hostile' rather than 'open to discussion'.

 

Just my thoughts.

[robslappa]

It's got to be up to the Union how they conduct themselves and set their agenda out but it seems a little counter-productive to me that you want to "make any visit as difficult for them as possible".

 

If that's the official stance, how do the Union plan to have 'dialogue' with the Yanks. It seems to me that adopting that approach simply declares the Union as 'Hostile' rather than 'open to discussion'.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

The Union needs to be hostile in my opinion. The time for dialogue is over as they don't give two fucks about we think anyway.

 

We need to do everything to make their lives as uncomfortable as possible. If we don't and they stick around then we might not have a club, well certainly not one we recognise.

[Kennys_spell]

i don't disagree with the union's stance.

 

i'd just point out 2 things. first this email is an opportunity. if handled properly it ups the pressure and the public awareness. if it turns into a tit for tat thing, we lose the upper hand (that was the part i was pointing out i disagree with).

 

2nd, though i gather some may disagree, all protests etc need to be non-violent. otherwise i think it harms the cause. its easy to be marginalized as a group of thugs if it goes the violent route.

 

i'm not saying that's what happening now, its just a general comment.

 

I have to say I agree with these comments, this incident should be looked at ONLY as a small part of the offensive, it's not going to be something that can be used to get them out. It's an opportunity that must be handled properly to put extra pressure on them. The slightest mishandling will definitely be seized upon by them and used against us. It's what businessmen at that level do.

[Kennys_spell]

The Union needs to be hostile in my opinion. The time for dialogue is over as they don't give two fucks about we think anyway.

 

We need to do everything to make their lives as uncomfortable as possible. If we don't and they stick around then we might not have a club, well certainly not one we recognise.

 

I just don't see how the union can expect to be treated as anything other than a Hostile irritant if that's how they set out their agenda. I would have thought the aim of the Union is to strongly present the supporters point of view to the owners. How are they expected to do that if they make things that difficult for the owners that it's impossible for them to get into dialogue with them?

 

I respect your point of view - I just can't see how that approach will work.

[Trucker Paddy]

You'd like to think the oppurtunity is there now for the parasites that are our explayers would speak up for the fans that are been abused by these cunts, I agree with ATK on this fairclough, Aldridge Kennedy and especially the sell out Dalglish are a disgrace to the club and the people of the City and are afraid to lose there perks..

[Delmar]

I have to say I agree with these comments, this incident should be looked at ONLY as a small part of the offensive, it's not going to be something that can be used to get them out. It's an opportunity that must be handled properly to put extra pressure on them. The slightest mishandling will definitely be seized upon by them and used against us. It's what businessmen at that level do.

 

I would like to know what this "used against us" is? In what way? Would it make things worse? The owners have had it easy, we are seeing the results of that approach and of their ownership on the pitch right now, in every single game. A disunited club, an empty shell, and already today mid-table.

 

Also, what exactly does "handled properly" mean? I think this particular incident has been handled just fine up until now, and I trust the people really involved in it to do so in the future.

[Kennys_spell]

You'd like to think the oppurtunity is there now for the parasites that are our explayers would speak up for the fans that are been abused by these cunts, I agree with ATK on this fairclough, Aldridge Kennedy and especially the sell out Dalglish are a disgrace to the club and the people of the City and are afraid to lose there perks..

 

Sorry mate but it's this type of loose thought that will turn people against us - calling our ex-players parasites won't get them on our side as far as I'm concerned.

[Kennys_spell]

I would like to know what this "used against us" is? In what way? Would it make things worse? The owners have had it easy, we are seeing the results of that approach and of their ownership on the pitch right now, in every single game. A disunited club, an empty shell, and already today mid-table.

 

Also, what exactly does "handled properly" mean? I think this particular incident has been handled just fine up until now, and I trust the people really involved in it to do so in the future.

 

They can use it to 'dilute' the strength of our argument. For instance - when talking about the supporters they can simply drop in a statement along the lines of....

 

"when ALL the supporters attacked Tom jr, he didn't make a great issue out of it but really how are we supposed to take the views of people like this seriously"

 

Now a couple of things there - it wasn't ALL the supporters that had the confrontation it was one or two but this sort of comment will tar ALL of the supporters with the same brush and believe me, they wouldn't hesitate to do that. It also provides them with a platform to simply ignore the views of "ALL" liverpool supporters by suggesting that they are a baying mob that attacks authority.

 

As for handled properly - see the post below yours.

 

Just my thoughts.

[robslappa]

I just don't see how the union can expect to be treated as anything other than a Hostile irritant if that's how they set out their agenda. I would have thought the aim of the Union is to strongly present the supporters point of view to the owners. How are they expected to do that if they make things that difficult for the owners that it's impossible for them to get into dialogue with them?

 

I respect your point of view - I just can't see how that approach will work.

 

 

The Union, although small in numbers, is now a player that can't be ignored and even though I don't care if there's any contact with the club anymore, I get the feeling the club will always maintain some sort of contact simply so that they can keep an eye on things even if protests are escalated.

 

The protest at the ground the other week was supposed to have seen Tom Hicks turned away for his own safety which was a result in my eyes. We need to make them think this just isn't worth it anymore.