SOS membership

[Bob]

There are more and more calls for SOS to act against the owners, and in pretty much every thread about it, the topic of 'non-members' putting up ideas and expecting other to carry it is mentioned, so for my own interest, who is a member?

 

I'll start.

 

I'm not.

[Lucky Pierre]

I am but my membership runs out this month

[Bob]

I am but my membership runs out this month

 

are you going to sign up for another term?

[Chinandeler Bong]

Yes. Joined last month. Got my shiny card through last week. And I love the badge effort.

[Lucky Pierre]

are you going to sign up for another term?

I was definitely going to, even if it's just for the away travel. However it depends on their approach to the West Ham boycott. If they just dismiss it then I'll have to consider not doing it. If they try and get interest in it then yeah, definitely.

[Byrnie]

Yep, I'm a member.

[ZonkoVille77]

I'm not. Reason: Location. EOM.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm not a member. I highly doubt I ever will be a member. It isn't a money thing, I'd be willing to pay much more than the membership fee if they did something about the owners.

 

Is giving them money the only way that people should be allowed to make suggestions about how a self appointed representative body acts?

[Dan Vito Corleone]

I allowed my membership to expire last May. I have been impressed with the last 6 months or so, and PeeG and Graham Smith keep the site informed in a polite, friendly manner which I appreciate, but there's still too much of an air of "not interested in none members" for me. I am in the atk and Dougie Do'ins union.

[Lucky Pierre]

I allowed my membership to expire last May. I have been impressed with the last 6 months or so, and PeeG and Graham Smith keep the site informed in a polite, friendly manner which I appreciate, but there's still too much of an air of "not interested in none members" for me. I am in the atk and Dougie Do'ins union.

The Taliban?

[Dan Vito Corleone]

I'm not joining either side of the resistance. I will remain a mercenary.

[JohnnyH]

I'm a member now for a while and think they are doing good work. I was very vocal about mistakes I perceived in the past and didn’t join, but when I saw more of what they were doing I decided to join and pass on my views from the inside. I’m now trying to work on a few things myself with them on the travel side which may or may not come off, but I now realise that they can try and work on things like travel while also keeping the main focus of owners out.

 

The problem I suppose is if they deal with non members in the same way as members then there is no incentive to join them. People are and should of course use their own initiative to try and help oust the owners but I don’t see why it has to be a negative thing if you’d rather go your own way.

 

SOS desperately want the current owners out, and are working on things to do that. Other people are doing their own great work (like Mick and Al) to get the owners out. These groups of people have two massive things in common. 1) Wanting the owners out. 2) Having full time employment. The second one means that it can’t be 24/7 and it’s picking battles that are winnable where possible.

 

The West Ham thing I think wont happen as there are too many Season Ticket holders who won’t give up their day at the game, and too many day trippers who aren’t clued up. But I agree it should, be discussed again. It has been discussed before and was voted down, but we’ll see this time. However, unless it is a massive agreement of 1000’s then the ground will just look a little below sold out and it’ll have no impact.

 

We all want the same thing. I don't think infighting amongst Liverpool fans serves any purpose and I also think that the lads who come on here have held themselves very well despite some very confrontational comments.

[PaulMcC]

I'm a member and thing the more people who join the better.

 

If you don't like what they're doing, you can try to change it or suggest something different.

[Graham Smith]

I'm not a member. I highly doubt I ever will be a member. It isn't a money thing, I'd be willing to pay much more than the membership fee if they did something about the owners.

 

Is giving them money the only way that people should be allowed to make suggestions about how a self appointed representative body acts?

 

Self appointed?

 

I could have swore I organised a set of elections.

[Graham Smith]

I allowed my membership to expire last May. I have been impressed with the last 6 months or so, and PeeG and Graham Smith keep the site informed in a polite, friendly manner which I appreciate, but there's still too much of an air of "not interested in none members" for me. I am in the atk and Dougie Do'ins union.

 

It's not about being disinterested in non-members - the problem is we can only represent those who are members otherwise we get the usual suspects on here and other places saying "they think they represent everyone".

 

Also it is only right we listen to members and not internet posters.

[Graham Smith]

I was definitely going to, even if it's just for the away travel. However it depends on their approach to the West Ham boycott. If they just dismiss it then I'll have to consider not doing it. If they try and get interest in it then yeah, definitely.

 

I think a boycott is unlikely not only for the reasons mentioned above but also this game is the closest home game after the anniversary and might be considered disrespectful.

[Liverpool lad]

I renewed, I am pleased with the progress they are making and especially happy with the away travel. I can also say that on the SOS coach I have met a few committee members and they were very polite indeed.

[Dougie Do'ins]

I think a boycott is unlikely not only for the reasons mentioned above but also this game is the closest home game after the anniversary and might be considered disrespectful.

Could the union seek the thoughts of the two respected Hillsborough groups ? If their not opposed to a boycott then put it to the members.

[The 5th Benitel]

I am and i will continue to be. They're the one group who have any chance of making a real impact imo and they are clearly committed to getting rid of the owner. Soething for which there is no clear solution. I wish i could get more involved but i have far too much going on at the moment. I'll certainly be looking to do so next year when things should have settled down a bit.

 

It's a shame everyone with the same goals cant get behind one uniting voice as that would make us, as a group of LFC supporters, far more influential imo.

[Graham Smith]

Could the union seek the thoughts of the two respected Hillsborough groups ? If their not opposed to a boycott then put it to the members.

 

Which is what is happening.

[The 5th Benitel]

I think a boycott is unlikely not only for the reasons mentioned above but also this game is the closest home game after the anniversary and might be considered disrespectful.

 

I'm not sure people would link the two. My personal opinion is that's it's the last real opportunity to make this kind of an impact this season and, given how crucial this summer couls be for the future of the club, it would be good if SoS made this kind of major statement while the chance is there.

[Graham Smith]

I'm not sure people would link the two. My personal opinion is that's it's the last real opportunity to make this kind of an impact this season and, given how crucial this summer couls be for the future of the club, it would be good if SoS made this kind of major statement while the chance is there.

 

Boycotts have been discussed regularly and as soon as the Union consider a call for one would succeed I have little doubt it will happen as members will go for it. Currently when put to members the vast majority recognise that a fallied boycott would be worse than not trying one.

 

What can't happen is a call for a boycott which is loud and public but which then fails completely undermining the Union and more importantly setting the cause back months.

[The 5th Benitel]

Boycotts have been discussed regularly and as soon as the Union consider a call for one would succeed I have little doubt it will happen as members will go for it. Currently when put to members the vast majority recognise that a fallied boycott would be worse than not trying one.

 

What can't happen is a call for a boycott which is loud and public but which then fails completely undermining the Union and more importantly setting the cause back months.

 

I can understand that but i think given the current climate, the increased awareness about the owners being cunts, the fact it's a mid-week game against a non-glamour team and cos there are hardly any home games left it's got more chance of succeeding than any other home game.

 

At least in my opinion anyway.

[Graham Smith]

I can understand that but i think given the current climate, the increased awareness about the owners being cunts, the fact it's a mid-week game against a non-glamour team and cos there are hardly any home games left it's got more chance of succeeding than any other home game.

 

At least in my opinion anyway.

 

I'd be interested in people's views of what would constitute a successful boycott and the form it would take.

 

5000? 10000?

 

Don't turn up at all? Turn up and go in late (this has alot of resonance and should be avoided in my personal view)?

[Guest ShoePiss]

I'd be interested in people's views of what would constitute a successful boycott and the form it would take.

 

5000? 10000?

 

Don't turn up at all? Turn up and go in late (this has alot of resonance and should be avoided in my personal view)?

 

Has to be don't enter the ground at all, as for numbers it would have to be more like 10,000 as 5,000 spread around all stands wouldn't even be noticed that much.

 

SOS just doesn't have the numbers to pull this off it seems.

 

My personal opinion is that the problem stems from a few things;

 

People initially saw an RTK connection which I thought had some terrible attitude problems within the ranks.

 

People dislike the fact that they had no involvement in the start up of the union and immediately took the stance of 'they don't represent me and never will'

 

The fact that it's called a union may be turning off our right of centre politically leaning fans.

 

I'm sure there's more and everyone will have their own reasons for not joining but that's my take on it.

 

The first one was the only one that made me cautious of joining SOS, yourself and PeeG have done a great job representing SOS; showing a great deal of class and respect in the face of severe provocation.