SPIRIT OF SHANKLY - EGM Agenda 25th September 2010

[SpiritOfShankly]

Please see the link below for further information, including agenda, for the Spirit Of Shankly EGM on the 25th September.

 

 

Spirit Of Shankly - EGM Agenda 25th September 2010 – Spirit Of Shankly – Liverpool Supporters' Union

 

 

Spirit Of Shankly

[Guest ShoePiss]

Great to see that minutes will be available to stream within 24hrs of the meeting and more importantly that members will be able to vote online. Good stuff.

[Horus]

Yay - if there is one thing we need at the moment with 6th October looming, is a meeting about why you're doing nothing in the lead up to the 6th October.

 

Why don't you just ask your members to join Kop faithfuls attempts at action, and then you can all get back to taking out loans to buy the club, training camps and travel arrangements?

 

Absolute waste of space. Meetings about meetings, votes about votes. Where is the rage and anger that forced SoS to be formed in the first place? People don't want excuses about why you're sitting on your hands any more. I think your membership will definitely decline and that will be because you've pissed all over the good will and desperation of the fans, in order to follow your own agenda.

[Graham Smith]

Yay - if there is one thing we need at the moment with 6th October looming, is a meeting about why you're doing nothing in the lead up to the 6th October.

 

Why don't you just ask your members to join Kop faithfuls attempts at action, and then you can all get back to taking out loans to buy the club, training camps and travel arrangements?

 

Absolute waste of space. Meetings about meetings, votes about votes. Where is the rage and anger that forced SoS to be formed in the first place? People don't want excuses about why you're sitting on your hands any more. I think your membership will definitely decline and that will be because you've pissed all over the good will and desperation of the fans, in order to follow your own agenda.

 

This 6th October deadline is nowhere near being a certainty and the simple "No to Refinance" is exactly that, too simple.

 

What comes behind it?

 

If you read closely we are saying they should refuse to refinance but we are suggesting a strategy afterwards where the Club and RBS engage with the supporters to solve this mess.

 

We appreciate that the smaller internet groups want no refinance (but what after?) and are against any supporter involvement. It is for them to get behind the larger groups (if this gets passed) or decide to row their own boat.

 

On the meeting and vote front, we don't have the benefit of four or five lads deciding what should happen, draft an email and then post it on a site - we have members who decide what happens.

 

You will also see that in the absence of a "real" deadline that the supporters are giving not being met, then more direct action should commence.

 

Engaging with RBS and the Club is the immediate way forward, but if they won't then the way is clear.

[Horus]

This 6th October deadline is nowhere near being a certainty and the simple "No to Refinance" is exactly that, too simple.

 

What comes behind it?

 

If you read closely we are saying they should refuse to refinance but we are suggesting a strategy afterwards where the Club and RBS engage with the supporters to solve this mess.

 

We appreciate that the smaller internet groups want no refinance (but what after?) and are against any supporter involvement. It is for them to get behind the larger groups (if this gets passed) or decide to row their own boat.

 

On the meeting and vote front, we don't have the benefit of four or five lads deciding what should happen, draft an email and then post it on a site - we have members who decide what happens.

 

You will also see that in the absence of a "real" deadline that the supporters are giving not being met, then more direct action should commence.

 

Engaging with RBS and the Club is the immediate way forward, but if they won't then the way is clear.

 

As always Graham, thanks for replying.

 

However, it's far too simplistic to say "then what?"

 

Every fan is sick to the back teeth of the club being milked to death from all angles. Most fans I talk to (including me) wouldn't give a shit if we were forced into administration if it meant wrestling the club out of the hands of those that are destroying it.

 

The minute that finance is refused and the club is available at a market value, then Broughton can get on with the business of choosing an owner that has proved we won't be bought with debt, has the means to build a stadium etc. Until our "custodians" can be forced out then there is no "what happens after."

 

This was the reason your group was formed, and this is the single biggest failure of SoS. Nobody expects you to have it all wrapped up on your own, but I have been appalled with your attempts to raise deposits for loans to place on the club, whilst doing nothing to try and make that happen.

 

I appreciate that your committee requires more than 4/5 lads making decisions, but is that an acceptable excuse for sitting on your hands between the end of the season - end of September?

 

If October 6th turns out to be a red herring and isn't an actual deadline, then we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. But fiddling whilst Rome burns on the off chance that it isn't actually a fire but merely a series of bright light bulbs, is inexcusable.

[Graham Smith]

As always Graham, thanks for replying.

 

However, it's far too simplistic to say "then what?" ........

 

I appreciate the frustration and it is shared by everyone around the Union table. But between the end of the season and now there has been lots of work going on behind the scenes and sometimes things have to move at a pace that can't be dictated.

 

I'll say again, a simple refusal to refinance without a plan of what follows is not credible and dangerous. A plug pulled leaves us in a worse position potentially - it depends upon what RBS's powers are.

 

But even having said that a sale after administration could leave us with worse owners as it would be a fire sale, a sale even with RBS "owning" the Club would probably leave us with legal figts AOTS with the Americans and RBS just keen to bale, again with all sorts of undesirables suddenly relaising they could afford LFC.

 

At the end of the day come along (if you're a member) and vote in favour or against the plan.

[Trucker Paddy]

 

This 6th October deadline is nowhere near being a certainty and the simple "No to Refinance" is exactly that, too simple.

 

What comes behind it?

 

If you read closely we are saying they should refuse to refinance but we are suggesting a strategy afterwards where the Club and RBS engage with the supporters to solve this mess.

 

We appreciate that the smaller internet groups want no refinance (but what after?) and are against any supporter involvement. It is for them to get behind the larger groups (if this gets passed) or decide to row their own boat.

 

On the meeting and vote front, we don't have the benefit of four or five lads deciding what should happen, draft an email and then post it on a site - we have members who decide what happens.

 

You will also see that in the absence of a "real" deadline that the supporters are giving not being met, then more direct action should commence.

 

Engaging with RBS and the Club is the immediate way forward, but if they won't then the way is clear.

 

Graham on June 12th a vote was taken and carried by members to pressure RBS, this hasn't happened and the commitee are now saying "engaging with club and club is the immediate way forward", IMO the reason for this is SOS and Share Liverpool believe they can buy the club.

RBS have taken £100m from LFC in the last 3 years, are SOS involved in talks with RBS as we speek,also are SOS been financialy backed by unnamed investors?

Again I'm not getting on your back here, anybody willing to give there time and effort to rid us of the yanks should be appreciated but given that the committe chose to ignore the members wushs from June 12th you can understand my scepticism.

[Graham Smith]

Graham on June 12th a vote was taken and carried by members to pressure RBS, this hasn't happened and the commitee are now saying "engaging with club and club is the immediate way forward", IMO the reason for this is SOS and Share Liverpool believe they can buy the club.

 

Things change and we have now proposed this strategy. If we are wrong then we'll get bombed on the 25th.

 

RBS have taken £100m from LFC in the last 3 years, are SOS involved in talks with RBS as we speek,also are SOS been financialy backed by unnamed investors?

 

We are not in talks with RBS.

 

We have no unnamed financial backers

 

Again I'm not getting on your back here, anybody willing to give there time and effort to rid us of the yanks should be appreciated but given that the committe chose to ignore the members wushs from June 12th you can understand my scepticism.

 

Express it on the 25th and be ready to explain what you see as being the result of a simple refusal by RBS of refinancing and the risks that entails.

 

(and I like you aren't getting at you :-) )

[Trucker Paddy]

 

Things change and we have now proposed this strategy. If we are wrong then we'll get bombed on the 25th.

 

We are not in talks with RBS.

 

We have no unnamed financial backers

 

Express it on the 25th and be ready to explain what you see as being the result of a simple refusal by RBS of refinancing and the risks that entails.

 

(and I like you aren't getting at you :-) )

 

Thanks for the reply Graham

[Horus]

Things change and we have now proposed this strategy. If we are wrong then we'll get bombed on the 25th.

 

 

 

How does this line fit with the voting process of the union? Surely if action is voted on and approved, but a select few choose to ignore the members, then how will you convince members to to vote again, or non-members join up to not have their votes mean anything?

 

I think we need an admission that you are hell bent on buying the club and will take no course of action to jeopardise this.

 

You'd probably be happier for the current owners to stay in place for another couple of years to give you more time to raise loan deposits.

[FranStan]

Just like to add that on 25th June a proposal was put forward for action again st RBS, i.e. boycotting RBS products, cancelling credit cards, switching accounts. It was voted down as it would probably be a lot more ball ache for people doing it than it would to RBS, so that got knocked back but the meeting decided there should be some action towards RBS, after careful consideration this is the proposal that will go before the meeting.

 

Also in the meantime there has been the potential sale/non sale of the club, where everyone thought we were actually for sale then realised they were trying to hang on.

 

If it gets knocked back then we go for something else.

[Graham Smith]

How does this line fit with the voting process of the union? Surely if action is voted on and approved, but a select few choose to ignore the members, then how will you convince members to to vote again, or non-members join up to not have their votes mean anything?

 

I think we need an admission that you are hell bent on buying the club and will take no course of action to jeopardise this.

 

You'd probably be happier for the current owners to stay in place for another couple of years to give you more time to raise loan deposits.

 

It fits perfectly well. The dynamic changed after June in our eyes and we prepared for this proposal.

 

I'd say again that if the membership do not accept that what has been done was for the best then this will get turned down.

 

The Union is not hell bent on buying the Club - it has no formal role in that (that is SOS-SL who are hell bent on getting a stake or getting the Club) other than to encourage supporters to mobilise for it.

 

Your suggestion that the Union would be happy to see the owners in place for another couple of years is risible and undermines what until then was a fair criticism and a decent debate.

 

Let me throw a similar thing back to you - are you the type of person that would prefer to see the owners here for another couple of years rather than supporter ownership?

[FranStan]

How does this line fit with the voting process of the union? Surely if action is voted on and approved, but a select few choose to ignore the members, then how will you convince members to to vote again, or non-members join up to not have their votes mean anything?

 

I think we need an admission that you are hell bent on buying the club and will take no course of action to jeopardise this.

 

You'd probably be happier for the current owners to stay in place for another couple of years to give you more time to raise loan deposits.

 

Totally wrong, there was action being planned only this week that unfortunately didn't come off, and there is likely to be more (matchday) action announced before the EGM.

Not one single thing we have ever done could point to what you describe in your last sentence, we have constantly tried to rid the club of the owners.

[Antynwa]

I have no idea what SOS are doing, what they stand for and the likes.

 

We need to ensure the banks don't refinance the deal. Thats the bottom line. Fan ownership can fuck off.

[fatherjack]

I have no idea what SOS are doing, what they stand for and the likes.

 

We need to ensure the banks don't refinance the deal. Thats the bottom line. Fan ownership can fuck off.

 

 

Your username reads as anti YNWA. hmmmmmmm manc perhaps?

 

 

Also think about it what better fit and proper owners for our club could there be than the very people who love the club?

[Antynwa]

Not one single thing we have ever done could point to what you describe in your last sentence, we have constantly tried to rid the club of the owners.

 

Hypothetical question.

 

If the Union where told by the banks and Yanks. That if things stayed the way they where and they raised x amount of money. They could then buy the club.

 

 

Would that be a proposition the Union or the Credit Union would entertain?

[Guest TesticleOReilly]

Your username reads as anti YNWA. hmmmmmmm manc perhaps?

 

It does if you can't read.

[Antynwa]

 

Let me throw a similar thing back to you - are you the type of person that would prefer to see the owners here for another couple of years rather than supporter ownership?

 

You're saying it's either us or them. When it isn't us or them at all. It's Them or 20 other potential investors.

 

They won't own us for another few years as long as they don't refinance. We need to focus all our energies on them not refinancing, it's as simple as that in my eyes.

[Graham Smith]

Hypothetical question.

 

If the Union where told by the banks and Yanks. That if things stayed the way they where and they raised x amount of money. They could then buy the club.

 

 

Would that be a proposition the Union or the Credit Union would entertain?

 

You can have the same question back - if SOS-SL came back and said that RBS said that if we could raise £x and we all thought it would take six months to raise that sum would you say no and let the opportunity to get rid of them go?

 

My personal answer to your question is it would depend upon the timing.

[Horus]

It fits perfectly well. The dynamic changed after June in our eyes and we prepared for this proposal.

 

I'd say again that if the membership do not accept that what has been done was for the best then this will get turned down.

 

The Union is not hell bent on buying the Club - it has no formal role in that (that is SOS-SL who are hell bent on getting a stake or getting the Club) other than to encourage supporters to mobilise for it.

 

Your suggestion that the Union would be happy to see the owners in place for another couple of years is risible and undermines what until then was a fair criticism and a decent debate.

 

Let me throw a similar thing back to you - are you the type of person that would prefer to see the owners here for another couple of years rather than supporter ownership?

 

I still don't understand. Whose eyes viewed the situation as "changed?" I've constantly seen on here that it's up to your members to vote on action, and if people don't like it they should join and have a vote. However, statements in this thread seem to suggest that even if you have a vote on a motion that is passed, then a select few reserve the right to ignore/choose a different course of action. Am I correct on this or have I misunderstood?

 

The union per se may not be hell bent on buying the club, but the pseudo merging with SL, the speaking to banks about loan deposits etc, definitely point to a different solution to the problem you were set up to combat.

 

I'll admit to both you and stan that may last comment was unhelpful and maybe a little hyperbolic, but your complete inactivity over the summer months have just added to the way people have feel let down.

 

You've become an organisation that is known for reacting to situations rather than planning.

[royhendo]

We appreciate that the smaller internet groups want no refinance (but what after?) and are against any supporter involvement. It is for them to get behind the larger groups (if this gets passed) or decide to row their own boat.

 

I have a hard time with that statement related to "the smaller internet groups" Graham.

 

It gets to the stage where people keep plugging away to try and help you boost your membership in spite of themselves.

[Graham Smith]

You're saying it's either us or them. When it isn't us or them at all. It's Them or 20 other potential investors.

 

They won't own us for another few years as long as they don't refinance. We need to focus all our energies on them not refinancing, it's as simple as that in my eyes.

 

Not at all - if you're right about 20 other investors then it'll all be blown out of the water anyway.

 

No harm in running this at the same time and see if we can make it happen, it isn't your energy being wasted.

 

Let me throw this back to you as you're a passionate advocate of no refinance, what is the endgame as you see it when the refinance is refused? What's the timeline? Administration? A pre-packaged administration? Do you think there will be legal action by the owners if RBS take over? What rights do RBS have at the moment?

 

The questions could go on and on and it is vitally important to have an answer to them otherwise a simple no to refinance sees us taking a leap in the dark - you have to have answers to these questions otherwise we could end up worse off.

[Antynwa]

You can have the same question back - if SOS-SL came back and said that RBS said that if we could raise £x and we all thought it would take six months to raise that sum would you say no and let the opportunity to get rid of them go?

 

My personal answer to your question is it would depend upon the timing.

 

That purely depends on whether you believe Fan Ownership is plausible. Secondly, is it worth the Yanks being charge for that long.

 

Fourthly. We can get rid of them on October the 6th. They are in the electric chair and there is no one to flick the switch.

[PeeG]

Not at all - if you're right about 20 other investors then it'll all be blown out of the water anyway.

 

No harm in running this at the same time and see if we can make it happen, it isn't your energy being wasted.

 

Let me throw this back to you as you're a passionate advocate of no refinance, what is the endgame as you see it when the refinance is refused? What's the timeline? Administration? A pre-packaged administration? Do you think there will be legal action by the owners if RBS take over? What rights do RBS have at the moment?

 

The questions could go on and on and it is vitally important to have an answer to them otherwise a simple no to refinance sees us taking a leap in the dark - you have to have answers to these questions otherwise we could end up worse off.

 

And are those other investors the saviour or Hicks and Gillett Mk II.

 

The proposal mentioned builds towards providing a long term solution.

[Antynwa]

Not at all - if you're right about 20 other investors then it'll all be blown out of the water anyway.

 

No harm in running this at the same time and see if we can make it happen, it isn't your energy being wasted.

 

Let me throw this back to you as you're a passionate advocate of no refinance, what is the endgame as you see it when the refinance is refused? What's the timeline? Administration? A pre-packaged administration? Do you think there will be legal action by the owners if RBS take over? What rights do RBS have at the moment?

 

The questions could go on and on and it is vitally important to have an answer to them otherwise a simple no to refinance sees us taking a leap in the dark - you have to have answers to these questions otherwise we could end up worse off.

 

All perfectly valid questions. But at the end of the day we won't be short of suiters to buy the club. The hard part is ensuring we are bought by the right people. RBS want either one of two things.

 

1. To wash their hands of us

2. Or to keep them paying ridiculous amounts of interest.

 

If it comes to scenario one. And we are in administration then it is the duty of the fans as a whole to ensure due process is carried out, that we are bought by the right people.

 

It's a dodgy area, we're going into uncharted territory, but the way I see it this is the only way out. If we put all of our eggs in the Fan Ownership basket, we won't have the money, we won't have the time and RBS or the Yanks won't entertain a bid because they're quite happy paying a shit load of interest, and RBS are quite happy receiving it.

 

SOS as a leading group should be engaging in active dialogue so that they are involved If and when LFC are in administration. I don't know the legal framework but I am presuming that the owners will have literally no control over anything if thats the case, and the fans should have more access.