SOS Minutes with Purslow meeting

[zico]

He has said nothing of the kind. His job is to get the extra investment in, yes, but I guarantee you that LFC is not for sale for 100 million.

 

He stated that the debts on the club amount to 237 million. He also stated that the owners have put around 130 million of their "own" money in it. Well, I also guarantee you that that money is not out of pocket stuff. The chances are that the 130 million has been borrowed, as well, and that eventually the club will cover the interest for that in one way or another.

 

So the minimum to buy the LFC would then go up to 367 million. Then the owners need a profit. That means that they are still looking to get way over 400 million for the club.

 

The 100 million is just to keep RBS financing going. The debt would still be 137 million which is more than double the debt that we had when Moores sold the club.

 

The 100 million may well buy the majority ownership, though, but that depends on the other responsibilities the new investor agrees to take. It will never buy a majority ownership on its own.

 

All of that is based on what's in public. I also think that the true picture is way more complicated and worse.

 

You could be right about the £ 367 mill, but if it is out of their hands, RBS could very well force them to sell for less. Most likely the £ 130 of their own pocket is loaned by someone else, and I don't think RBS cares whether this money is lost or not.

 

I from the interview minutes, it does not look to be the owner's profit CP has at the front of his mind when he searches for investment..

 

When the shert term financing again is up for renewal, the owners have lost all power unless they can come up with a new financing package...

 

Given the termoil and protests gainst them, I seriously doubt anyone would give them such financing..

 

The power resides with RBS, and their appointed man CP.. All the owners can do is drag this out in hope of a better payoff, nothing more!

 

My opinion anyway....

[Graham Smith]

I don't buy the explanation that CP was being cute in deliberately making controversial statements and then denying them. He is not a liar.

 

He made a mistake. He believed that the agreement with SOS that no minutes would be published without his approval gave him some licence to be frank. In effect, he treated the conversation as he would any "off the record" discussion with a journalist. An agreement not to record the exchange, other than with notes, is normal in such agreements. It is an essential part of the convention that if the journalist breaches the trust by reporting the comments verbatim or identifies the source, then the person who received the assurances that the exchange was "off the record" can legitimately and morally deny them.

 

His mistake was that SOS is not a journalist and does not, therefore, adhere to the ethics of journalism. It also appears that SOS does not consider itself bound by the agreement it made with CP and the assurances it gave him. Furthermore SOS does not consider itself bound by the "parliamentary" conventions that govern formal corporate and institutional meetings.

 

To that extent CP was duped. Ultimately it was his mistake to trust SOS.

 

The substance of that matter is that he wanted to convince SOS that he understood and shared some of their concerns and feelings about the owners. He needed to do this to show that his request that they reconsider the protests they have been making at Anfield was not driven by his concern for the hurt feelings of the current owners but for his concern about driving away or discouraging better owners.

 

The version of the minutes CP has authorized is sufficiently informative and substantial to satisfy most genuine supporters. And if that is all we had learned SOS should be congratulated in providing an opportunity for CP to have made such disclosures.

 

In my view, the substance of the disclosure is not enhanced by the controversial comments. There was no need for SOS to have added them.

 

This does not mean that I accept the SOS version as being true. Minutes are not supposed to be verbatim record of every remark made in a discussion. They are supposed to be a faithful rendering of the substance of the discussion that took place. The true version would have been the version mutually agreed by both parties. There should have been no other version.

 

Not quite.

 

At the start of the meeting I reminded him what we intended to do and while I see your point about him thinking he had an effective subsequent "veto" over the minutes that doesn't stack up as he said (twice at least) - "it's a shame we can't be off the record here".

 

I have been able to check the minutes again against the source material and am even more satisfied that our version is as close as a minute (rather than verbatim record) could be.

[Tyler Durden]

I don't buy the explanation that CP was being cute in deliberately making controversial statements and then denying them. He is not a liar.

 

He made a mistake. He believed that the agreement with SOS that no minutes would be published without his approval gave him some licence to be frank. In effect, he treated the conversation as he would any "off the record" discussion with a journalist. An agreement not to record the exchange, other than with notes, is normal in such agreements. It is an essential part of the convention that if the journalist breaches the trust by reporting the comments verbatim or identifies the source, then the person who received the assurances that the exchange was "off the record" can legitimately and morally deny them.

 

His mistake was that SOS is not a journalist and does not, therefore, adhere to the ethics of journalism. It also appears that SOS does not consider itself bound by the agreement it made with CP and the assurances it gave him. Furthermore SOS does not consider itself bound by the "parliamentary" conventions that govern formal corporate and institutional meetings.

 

To that extent CP was duped. Ultimately it was his mistake to trust SOS.

 

The substance of that matter is that he wanted to convince SOS that he understood and shared some of their concerns and feelings about the owners. He needed to do this to show that his request that they reconsider the protests they have been making at Anfield was not driven by his concern for the hurt feelings of the current owners but for his concern about driving away or discouraging better owners.

 

The version of the minutes CP has authorized is sufficiently informative and substantial to satisfy most genuine supporters. And if that is all we had learned SOS should be congratulated in providing an opportunity for CP to have made such disclosures.

 

In my view, the substance of the disclosure is not enhanced by the controversial comments. There was no need for SOS to have added them.

 

This does not mean that I accept the SOS version as being true. Minutes are not supposed to be verbatim record of every remark made in a discussion. They are supposed to be a faithful rendering of the substance of the discussion that took place. The true version would have been the version mutually agreed by both parties. There should have been no other version.

 

So I take it you havent read, or are just not interested in the fact the SOS members on here have said countless times that they told him if there was no agreement on the minutes that they would print their own version regardless?

And that he knew full well this was their position yet still took nearly 2 weeks to return his version.

[zico]

I don't buy the explanation that CP was being cute in deliberately making controversial statements and then denying them. He is not a liar.

 

He made a mistake. He believed that the agreement with SOS that no minutes would be published without his approval gave him some licence to be frank. In effect, he treated the conversation as he would any "off the record" discussion with a journalist. An agreement not to record the exchange, other than with notes, is normal in such agreements. It is an essential part of the convention that if the journalist breaches the trust by reporting the comments verbatim or identifies the source, then the person who received the assurances that the exchange was "off the record" can legitimately and morally deny them.

 

His mistake was that SOS is not a journalist and does not, therefore, adhere to the ethics of journalism. It also appears that SOS does not consider itself bound by the agreement it made with CP and the assurances it gave him. Furthermore SOS does not consider itself bound by the "parliamentary" conventions that govern formal corporate and institutional meetings.

 

To that extent CP was duped. Ultimately it was his mistake to trust SOS.

 

The substance of that matter is that he wanted to convince SOS that he understood and shared some of their concerns and feelings about the owners. He needed to do this to show that his request that they reconsider the protests they have been making at Anfield was not driven by his concern for the hurt feelings of the current owners but for his concern about driving away or discouraging better owners.

 

The version of the minutes CP has authorized is sufficiently informative and substantial to satisfy most genuine supporters. And if that is all we had learned SOS should be congratulated in providing an opportunity for CP to have made such disclosures.

 

In my view, the substance of the disclosure is not enhanced by the controversial comments. There was no need for SOS to have added them.

 

This does not mean that I accept the SOS version as being true. Minutes are not supposed to be verbatim record of every remark made in a discussion. They are supposed to be a faithful rendering of the substance of the discussion that took place. The true version would have been the version mutually agreed by both parties. There should have been no other version.

 

You could very well be right about the above, but it does not change the fact that he apparently (12 witnesses) made the quotes written into the SOS minutes, and therefore either he meant what he said (but needed the official minutes to be less direct and damning) or he was lying in order to satisfy his audience giving them exactly what they wanted to hear, but not really agreeing with his own statements!!

 

We'll have to reserve our judgemnet on the matter until a later date.. Actions speak louder than words!!

[Anny Road]

So if CP gives a version of the minutes that SOS don't agree with what happens?

No minutes get published or both sets get published. I'd say the later in this case.

 

CP knows he was meeting a hostile pressure group there was no mistake.

[Graham Smith]

So if CP gives a version of the minutes that SOS don't agree with what happens?

No minutes get published or both sets get published. I'd say the later in this case.

 

CP knows he was meeting a hostile pressure group there was no mistake.

 

Ironically hostile to the owners, but not to him per se.

 

He's missed a chance here if he pushes us away.

[zigackly]

Depends how long he sees himself in the job I would say.

[Kennys_spell]

No we didn't. He'd sat on them for over a week and we felt we were getting played and his version was so outlandish that we'd never get to an agreed version.

 

You've got your reasons for doing what you did, you discussed it and came to a conclussion that you felt was the best way forward. I just can't help thinking that it might have been prudent to have a quick chat with him just to see what his "angle" as with his version, what was the message he was trying to get out there.

 

A little understanding at that stage may have given you a lot more leverage later on.

 

Still, it makes for very interesting reading and there are a couple of Gems in there. To me, this puts a better light on the future of our club.

 

So thanks.

[Anny Road]

Ironically hostile to the owners, but not to him per se.

 

He's missed a chance here if he pushes us away.

 

Yes Graham but in general terms he knows you are hanging on his every word with the direct intention of making life for the owners as difficult as possible.

To then fan the flames as he has so obviously done and expect you to leave them out of the minutes is bizarre.

 

The quotes he gave were the defining moments of the meeting. And he knows it. He is writing headlines through your mouths.

[zigackly]

It's so fucking obvious that Purslow wanted this out and that SOS couldn't do anything but publish. He even stuck that little dig about stopping protests in his revised minutes. He gave them something they could not possibly compromise on, and he knew it full well.

[Kennys_spell]

Just wondering is there any safeguards in place that would stop them selling off Torres or Gerrard to cover the 100 million they need.

 

Because I really cant see them getting investment from anyone.

 

I think the fact that both of these players have just (recently-ish) signed new long term contracts and the way the game is being played by Purslow and Benitez that they can simply say that they won't go would scupper any plans the yanks have of raising funds that way.

 

They have to come up with this cash by July - when does the next transfer window open?

[Kennys_spell]

Well he did.

 

 

Has Purslow been in contact with anyone from SOS since the publication?

[Tyler Durden]

I think the fact that both of these players have just (recently-ish) signed new long term contracts and the way the game is being played by Purslow and Benitez that they can simply say that they won't go would scupper any plans the yanks have of raising funds that way.

 

They have to come up with this cash by July - when does the next transfer window open?

 

Thats a good point that mate to all the people flapping over Torres being sold. I think they have to come up with it before then dont they?

[zigackly]

They have to come up with this cash by July - when does the next transfer window open?

 

Clubs buy and sell players outside the window all the time.

 

The window concerns the transfer of registration only.

 

Having said that, I don't think they will sell Torres to pay off this £100M. Doesn't Purslow say that any investors would also have to commit to the new stadium?

[PeeG]

Has Purslow been in contact with anyone from SOS since the publication?

 

Not so far that I am aware of.

[Kennys_spell]

Not quite.

 

At the start of the meeting I reminded him what we intended to do and while I see your point about him thinking he had an effective subsequent "veto" over the minutes that doesn't stack up as he said (twice at least) - "it's a shame we can't be off the record here".

I have been able to check the minutes again against the source material and am even more satisfied that our version is as close as a minute (rather than verbatim record) could be.

 

Surely you said - "OK, let's go off record for a while here" when he said that??

[PeeG]

Surely you said - "OK, let's go off record for a while here" when he said that??

 

No, we didn't.

[zigackly]

And quite right too.

[piscinin]

He did.

 

Hmmm, so let me get this right.

 

You met in September said there would be a reviewed minute. He reviewed and you accepted the minutes. You published the reviewed minutes.

 

You met last week. Stated in the meeting there would be a reviewed minute.

He reviewed the minutes. You ignored his revisions, published them on the web, ran around on forums talking about him in disparaging terms about thinking he was immortal, how he felt you were divvies (even though he never said such a thing, it was in fact someone else) and how he didn't have the face to "front" you all. And then you send all this off to pretty much everyone in the press. And all without a) verifying his position or b) giving him the courtesy of a heads up or c) verifying that humiliating him in public is actually in the best interest of the greater good?

 

I really hope he is the Machiavellian ringmaster everyone seems to think because if not you've just butt fucked the one guy whose actual job and daily work is focused on loosening the grip of the yanks and in doing so have shown you are completely unprofessional and untrustworthy.

[ODZ]

Purslow doesn't need SOS right now, but you'll have another chat with him when the investment comes about, I'm sure.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Purslow doesn't need SOS right now, but you'll have another chat with him when the investment comes about, I'm sure.

 

I don't see why he'd ever need them, to be honest. It might be handy, but they hold no real power over anything.

[Sangria]

Surely you said - "OK, let's go off record for a while here" when he said that??

 

No because then they cannot tell the members. You end up playing to the club instead of the members you represent.

 

They did the right thing, one hundred per cent.

[PeeG]

Hmmm, so let me get this right.

 

You met in September said there would be a reviewed minute. He reviewed and you accepted the minutes. You published the reviewed minutes.

 

You met last week. Stated in the meeting there would be a reviewed minute.

He reviewed the minutes. You ignored his revisions, published them on the web, ran around on forums talking about him in disparaging terms about thinking he was immortal, how he felt you were divvies (even though he never said such a thing, it was in fact someone else) and how he didn't have the face to "front" you all. And then you send all this off to pretty much everyone in the press. And all without a) verifying his position or b) giving him the courtesy of a heads up or c) verifying that humiliating him in public is actually in the best interest of the greater good?

 

I really hope he is the Machiavellian ringmaster everyone seems to think because if not you've just butt fucked the one guy whose actual job and daily work is focused on loosening the grip of the yanks and in doing so have shown you are completely unprofessional and untrustworthy.

 

He knew the possibilities of what would happen. He was informed that if we didn't get minutes back from him we would release them anyway as members needed to know. They weren't revisions, it was a complete rewrite. He was informed about us going to release the two versions. We didn't humiliate him, we reported what was said to us in a meeting.

[piscinin]

He knew the possibilities of what would happen. He was informed that if we didn't get minutes back from him we would release them anyway as members needed to know. They weren't revisions, it was a complete rewrite. He was informed about us going to release the two versions. We didn't humiliate him, we reported what was said to us in a meeting.

 

Mate, you THINK he knew of the possibilities, but you didn't check. He may have just been confused because you said in the meeting that you would publish an agreed minute. He might have trusted you and taken that at face value. Let's hope he didn't.

 

If you were going to go back on your word, why on earth did you not just call him and give him a heads-up just to make sure you weren't doing more harm than good?

[ODZ]

I don't see why he'd ever need them, to be honest. It might be handy, but they hold no real power over anything.

 

They're his best way to get to the fans, and the fans will want to know what's going on when the investment comes about.