SOS membership

[The 5th Benitel]

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)?

 

 

I'd say dont turn up at all. Numbers would be an issue but if you get it down by 10,000 it owuld be a quarter of their match day revenue. That amount would be noticable on tv as well and could start to make the kind of impression the green and gold thing has with the mancs. Of any of the suggestions i've heard this one has the greatest potential impact imo.

[Guest ShoePiss]

I'd say dont turn up at all. Numbers would be an issue but if you get it down by 10,000 it owuld be a quarter of their match day revenue. That amount would be noticable on tv as well and could start to make the kind of impression the green and gold thing has with the mancs. Of any of the suggestions i've heard this one has the greatest potential impact imo.

 

It shouldn't be about revenue at this stage, tickets would still need to be bought otherwise there's plenty of people that would just take up the slack.

 

Revenue lost through drinks and food would be a nice side affect of the empty seat protest.

[The 5th Benitel]

It shouldn't be about revenue at this stage, tickets would still need to be bought otherwise there's plenty of people that would just take up the slack.

 

Revenue lost through drinks and food would be a nice side affect of the empty seat protest.

 

I know that's what i meant by lost revenue. I also think it would be a very publically visable display of fan's discontent that would get picked up by the media.

[razor]

The committee have my utmost respect: professional in their approach, and DOING things.

 

The problem with SoS (or the union as it is sometimes referred to - a consistent corporate image is needed so that needs to be addressed) is too many fans aren't on board with its aims. A quick word with those people around you at a game will tell you this.

 

What they need in my opinion is more people on-side so that a planned boycott will be supported by big numbers.

 

I think the Manchester game is a missed opportunity to gain huge, free, positive media coverage.

 

My reservations about joining were around the scally image that I had in my mind, which the end-of-season bash did little to dispel.

 

THAT could have been dealt with (not directly, but by people seeing the absolute professional nature of the committee) by a clear and positive statement at the Manchester game.

 

Opportunity missed. And it won't come round again.

[Soup]

I'm a member and I will renew. I think the Union has done some good work.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Self appointed?

 

Yes, absolutely. Is it not true that many of the original members of SoS and/or RTK who, as a small group, were self appointed and are still playing a role in the 'elected' committee?

 

I could have swore I organised a set of elections.

 

Calling it an elected committee is a bit of a ruse. But look, me arguing about the internal politics of an organisation that I think can be as much of a hindrance as it is a help isn't really worth a great deal either of our time. It's just an obfuscation of what is important.

 

As for your earlier question about what would be classed as a successful boycott: The answer is clear, as far as I'm concerned. The continual, repeated and rapid loss of revenue via both match day and merchandise streams. This would make their position untenable because their business plan would totally fail. We would no longer be purchasing the club for them.

 

My suggestion, which is a total waste of my own finger power as it will fall on deaf ears, is that if the current owners are not removed and/or a suitable solution reached with the ownership situation by the last kick of the season then a full boycott campaign should be launched. It needs somebody that can organise it, set the plan into action and somebody that is well versed in rhetoric and propaganda. We need last minute road blocks, entrances chained, pickets organised, media campaign set into action, fans contacted and various other measures to ensure a good attempt at ousting the owners. However, it is clear that the only effectual, fan based method isn't acceptable to SoS members, many of whom are paying season ticket holders.

 

You might not want to go that far, and I respect that, but lets not pretend that what SoS are doing is in any way forcing the owners from the club, the organisation's raison d'être. At the end of the day, I'm just replying with my opinion on a thread on a message board. I'm not a member. I'm not in direct conversations with SoS. I'm not at the AGM shouting my opinions out. I can, and most likely will be, easily ignored. I'd also like to reiterate what I've said in the past, this isn't anything personal. I'm sure that each and every one of you has the best interests of the club at heart and are genuine, nice people. I just vehemently disagree with what I see as antics that are a waste of time and are wholly ineffective when it comes to the stated primary objective of the group that call themselves Spirit of Shankly - a man who was a socialist and believed in the people. Seems a bit of an antithesis to me.

[kelster]

I don't get all the socialism stuff.

[Lucky Pierre]

Which is what is happening.

Nice one. I just thought with there being nothing on the forums about it that it may have been brushed aside.

[Graham Smith]

Yes, absolutely. Is it not true that many of the original members of SoS and/or RTK who, as a small group, were self appointed and are still playing a role in the 'elected' committee?

 

Not that I am aware.

 

A Committee was formed of volunteers from the Sandon meeting to February 2009 when elections were held. A couple of Committee members were voted off and a few new people got on (I was one).

 

The allegation made by some people of a clique is factually incorrect. Of the first volunteer Committee I think three of the people knew each other but the other half dozen or so were strangers to each other.

 

The 2009 Committee saw three new faces none of whom knew each other and none of whom knew anyone on the Committee.

 

This time two or three went off and their replacements again weren't intimates of existing Committee members (other than a couple of existing members who knew them).

 

The election process cost about £3000 to £4000 each time and was overseen by the Electoral Reform Society. Some ruse.

[Al Campbell]

I'm a member and am happy with what they've done so far. Hopefully the billboards are just the start of a heavier level of protest against the Yanks.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The allegation made by some people of a clique is factually incorrect.

 

Certainly not me. So part of your post is completely irrelevant to what I've said.

 

The election process cost about £3000 to £4000 each time

 

Which was it? 3k or 4k? That's a pretty big discrepancy there. Actually, I really don't care. It has nothing to do with me. I'll leave the internal politics to those that have given you money for a respected voice. Again, this is just obfuscating what's important. It's becoming a pattern.

 

Still, I guess what I said in the bulk of my post was a self fulfilling prophecy:

 

My suggestion, which is a total waste of my own finger power as it will fall on deaf ears

[coachpotato]

I am a member. I believe that SOS are doing as well as they can in the circumstances and am tired of people who compare them with the manc crowd, who are better funded and have tacit approval from higher up people at old trafford it seems.

 

I will continue my support by renewing my membership.

[Original202]

£4000 spent on the elections? Is that a joke?

 

Complete waste of money given that money could go towards leafleting, billboards, banners etc

[Graham Smith]

£4000 spent on the elections? Is that a joke?

 

Complete waste of money given that money could go towards leafleting, billboards, banners etc

 

There were 4000 members that had to be written to and the election process run by an independent organisation. Has to be that way due to the legal set up of the Union.

 

The elcetion cost in 2009 was around £4000 and this time we reduced it to around £3000 and next year it will be even less due to the fact that we have received members' approval to alter the election process to allow electronic voting.

[PeeG]

£4000 spent on the elections? Is that a joke?

 

Complete waste of money given that money could go towards leafleting, billboards, banners etc

 

Its all part of the constitution to do so in a fair and proper way and is accounted for in the membership fees then. It allows to fully represent the members and be accountable to them. Otherwise people will be complaining that we are self appointed and don't represent anyone.

[PeeG]

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.

 

With that though, we shouldn't be arranging a boycott for a match just because others might not go then because then you are just picking and choosing matches then. It needs to a constant effort and particularly at 'big' matches so that it cannot be misconstrued that people aren't attending because its a mid week game against a non-glamour team and that they aren't attending in protest against the owners. So a game like Chelsea would make more of a statement.

[The 5th Benitel]

With that though, we shouldn't be arranging a boycott for a match just because others might not go then because then you are just picking and choosing matches then. It needs to a constant effort and particularly at 'big' matches so that it cannot be misconstrued that people aren't attending because its a mid week game against a non-glamour team and that they aren't attending in protest against the owners. So a game like Chelsea would make more of a statement.

 

 

I agree but it would be much harder to execute in any meaningful way and, with people around here being as dismissive as they usually are, the whole boycott idea would be immediately ruled out as unworkable if the numbers participating weren't big enough. A boycott of the likes of West Ham could result in massive gaps in the crowd which would make the media sit up and notice and result in the kind of impact that SoS could build on.

 

There were a load of anti-yank chants at the end of match last night. You can tell there's a general increase in awareness and SoS can take a lot of the credit for that.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I agree but it would be much harder to execute in any meaningful way and, with people around here being as dismissive as they usually are, the whole boycott idea would be immediately ruled out as unworkable if the numbers participating weren't big enough.

 

I think most people that are dismissive act that way because they want a boycott. I've certainly not been shot down by anyone about a boycott, other than SoS members.

 

I agree with PeeG, though. It needs to be constant and inclusive of big games. Personally, I think the summer is the time to make a push for a full boycott - however, that needs to be agreed upon far in advance. You know, like now.

[Maldini]

I joined a few months back, a couple of weeks before the Purslow stuff. I figured it's better to try and change something from within than to moan about it from the outside

[Lucky Pierre]

With that though, we shouldn't be arranging a boycott for a match just because others might not go then because then you are just picking and choosing matches then. It needs to a constant effort and particularly at 'big' matches so that it cannot be misconstrued that people aren't attending because its a mid week game against a non-glamour team and that they aren't attending in protest against the owners. So a game like Chelsea would make more of a statement.

But we all know that a Chelsea boycott's not going to happen until people know that a boycott could be a success. As it happens, Chelsea tickets go on sale the midweek before West Ham, but if the West Ham game boycott was a success, we could move it onto the first game of next season, then the first big match, then maybe come this time next year if they're still here then consistent boycott may be possible.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I joined a few months back, a couple of weeks before the Purslow stuff. I figured it's better to try and change something from within than to moan about it from the outside

 

Have you succeeded?

[Guest ShoePiss]

Received my membership pack earlier this week (joined on 4th Feb).

 

As SOS gains more international members they need to look at this 5 quid extra for Europe and rest of the world. The postage paid to the west coast of USA was only 1.35.

 

Just an overview letter and an update letter, along with a business card style membership card and a very nice pin badge.

 

To SOS:- When are members going to be able to vote on actions online?

 

I recently joined a supporters' trust for a local team out here and they had online board member ballots set up online for free, new motions by the trust will be voted on by members in the same way.

 

They are using ballotbin.com

[23_Carra_Gold]

It shouldn't be about revenue at this stage, tickets would still need to be bought otherwise there's plenty of people that would just take up the slack.

 

A Monday night game would be the perfect time to do this. Pompey is a prime example, ended up giving away a Kop ticket we had spare to Evo as well as being offered a Main Stand and a Kemlyn for nothing. Nobody taking up the slack that night.

[njackets]

Member joined the other week after realising they needed money for them billboards, think its only right everyone throws there share in.Not recieved any fancy pack through the post though I want my tenner back!

[Coro]

I joined a few months back, a couple of weeks before the Purslow stuff. I figured it's better to try and change something from within than to moan about it from the outside

 

Same here.

 

A union is only as good as its members and all that.