Spirit of Shankly Union's part in all this.....

[Antynwa]

I think SOS should look for an active, regular and constructive dialogue with the new owners, and that the owners should seek the same with SOS.

[Liverpool lad]

I think SOS should look for an active, regular and constructive dialogue with the new owners, and that the owners should seek the same with SOS.

 

Is the right answer, whilst some people don't agree with SOS wholeheartedly I believe that we need the board to be aware of issues that concern the fans. If another group of fans want to engage with the board than that is fine with me, it doesn't have to be SOS, the club could meet with others too.

 

I just think dialogue between fans and the club would be beneficial, mainly as a way for fans to air their views on ticketing, etc.

[Monster Masch]

Should be called LucasAIDS

 

give that man a comedy award

 

 

Here mate, take a comedy award.

 

[Kobayashi Maru]

SOS represent their 'members' not the fans. As their representatives have said at various times. They have no mandate in representing the fan base in its true sense, so why should they be leading any board involvement for fan representation or making any demands on behalf of fans.

[Redexile]

Hear hear, brother

 

SoS, no matter the amount of members, only represent a tiny portion of our great clubs fans and I suppose what I am saying is...........who the fcuk do they think they are to question potential new owners? surely that is the job of the board, Premier League and possibly parliament

you smug fucker. I'm not a member of SOS and don't agree with all of their efforts but what the fuck did you do to raise awareness of what was happening to our club??????? Wouldn't surprise me if you were a certain Mr Kanwar sitting there right now in a standard and chartered shirt.

[stringvest]

Why? Just looking at this thread you realise how many mongs we have following us.

 

I'd take Graham Smith asking the questions over the vast majority of 'fans'. Besides, SOS represent a group of members, not sure how many there are these days but they're representing me and all the other members, not none members.

 

the problem for me is a large proportion of mongy posts on here come from SOS members, and often, from people who purport to speak for the union. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their view, no matter how offensive to sensible people, but I wouldn't want any new owners thinking that they represent anything but the tiniest fraction of the fanbase. I don't have a complete downer on SOS - I would have happily contributed funds to the projection of a message onto the Houses of Parliament, for instance, but most of the utterings and statements I find embarrassing.

[stringvest]

Hmmm. So you are saying everyone who called Broughton and/or Purslow a 'cunt' is a member of SOS?

They do not claim to represent you, as far as I am aware. They represent their paid up members (again, as far as I am aware).

 

Far from it. They represent their members, that is correct. Which is a tiny fraction of the fanbase.

[Coro]

the problem for me is a large proportion of mongy posts on here come from SOS members, and often, from people who purport to speak for the union. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their view, no matter how offensive to sensible people, but I wouldn't want any new owners thinking that they represent anything but the tiniest fraction of the fanbase. I don't have a complete downer on SOS - I would have happily contributed funds to the projection of a message onto the Houses of Parliament, for instance, but most of the utterings and statements I find embarrassing.

 

Full of irony that post.

[chorlton]

Potential new owners being the operative word at the moment. If, they were to take over I would see nothing wrong with having an informal chat about things with SOS. SOS represent a part of the Liverpool fan base and if new owners have good intentions and care about their 'investment' then wheres the problem with entering healthy dialogue with their consumers?

 

I strongly believe we need to have representation to any potential new owners and have a link to the owners from the fans. I dont mean board representation, I just mean a direct link. Maybe the new owners can have someone who is a direct link and is there to address such groups so they can report back to us.

 

They will need some sort of direct dialogue with us, so I hope SOS is the way they go.

 

Do you not think that statement today from them sounded like a demand? I agree broadly that the new owners speaking to a fans representative group is fine idea and would help reassure us.

 

but this....

 

"It is disappointing that none of the potential purchase groups are yet to engage with Spirit of Shankly and we would expect that to happen now before any sale is concluded so the issues most closely concerning supporters can be discussed."

 

it sounds arrogant, however well intended it is, there's nothing wrong with a bit of dimplomacy toward the new owners.

[diego]

The main reasons Purslow eventually opposed the owners was (1) he knew they were on their way out anyway and he wanted to position himself on the winning side (2) he has better job prospects with the new owners than the currrent owners, although he may be in for a shock there (3) he has been pasted so hard by genuine supporters for his devious ways, his attempts to undermine Rafa and hire Hodgson and for his politicisation of the players, that the opportunity to play the hero was irresistible. SOS played a huge constructive part in the scrutiny and informed criticism which has helped force Purslow's change of loyalty.

[michaelgordon]

Was SOS not set up to get rid of H&G. So what are they going to do now, i cannot see why any new owner would take take up a dialogue with any group that would not seriously benefit them in some way and having a rep for a select group of fans asking/demanding however way you read it probably would not be worth their time. However if they were to say on a matchday hold an open forum to lets say season ticket holders to come along and ask questions and get info from the actual matchgoing fans (not that im saying SOS members arnt matchgoping fans) would this not be a better way to engage with the fanbase.

 

Also on a personal note i hate that the media go to the SOS guy cant think of his name now as if he represents all LFC fans, that really pisses me off

[Coro]

Was SOS not set up to get rid of H&G.

 

Why don't you inform yourself before commenting? Go to their website, plenty on there for you to get a better understanding of the union.

 

That SOS guy is Jay McKenna and not once has he claimed that he speaks for all Liverpool supporters -

 

Sky Sports Shows Yet Again What it Really Thinks of the Ordinary Supporter

 

And so it goes on, with the good folk at Sky Sports totally unable to help themselves.

 

Last week, this column told the sorry tale of Jeff Stelling, whose man-of-the-people reputation took a serious dent when he launched a broadside at Liverpool fans protesting against the ownership of the club by the Duke brothers from Trading Places.

 

To Stelling's eternal credit, during the following weekend's Soccer Saturday, he didn't duck the controversy.

 

Keen to clear up any confusion, he insisted his comment was merely clumsy, that fans have every right to protest, and he was simply suggesting that such protests might be counter-productive when the team's doing so badly on the field. Politically naïve maybe, but a viewpoint that can be justified in debate nonetheless. And hats off to him for attempting to clear it up.

 

At the end of the show, when Liverpool – who hadn't played that afternoon – slipped into the relegation zone, he laughed and teased professional Scouser Phil Thompson. "I'm not laughing at Liverpool, Phil," explained Stelling, "I'm laughing at you." The colour drained from poor Thommo's face. A hilarious moment, and a reminder that no club, however big or well-supported, is above a good old shoeing when they're down. Schadenfreude, after all, is the yang to love and passion's yin: half of what being a football supporter is all about.

 

But what followed on Sky Sports News the day after was an egregious disgrace, far removed from clumsy rhetoric or taproom banter. On Sunday, Roy Hodgson's Liverpool Pub XI failed to climb out of the relegation zone, capitulating at Anfield to a vastly superior Blackpool side. A couple of hours after the result, the channel wheeled in a representative of Liverpool supporters union Spirit of Shankly. Hoping to broadcast a 606-style phone-in rant from a fan incredulous that the 2005 European champions could lose at home so comprehensively to a club whose last major trophy was the 1953 FA Cup, Sky instead received something altogether more measured.

 

"It's an understatement to say it was disappointing," began Spirit of Shankly spokesperson James McKenna, "but it was fully deserved by Blackpool ... Roy Hodgson is Liverpool's manager and we're not going to turn on the manager. Fans see the problem as going beyond what we see on the pitch and extending to the boardroom."

 

Jim White, the silver-haired Sky Sports News host, immediately launched the Stelling Defence. "Doesn't this continued protest have a detrimental effect on matters on the field?" he asked.

 

"I wouldn't say our protest has an effect on the players on the pitch," came the reply. "What I would say has an effect on the pitch is the crippling interest repayments that we never wanted in the first place, that Tom Hicks and George Gillett told us we wouldn't have. The players are professionals, we support the team, but we also know when we have to fight for our football club, which is what we're doing now."

 

It was on. White immediately launched an attack. "You can't blame Hicks and Gillett for defeats to Blackpool and Northampton!" he spluttered.

 

"That ownership has now began to effect the on-the-pitch situation," came the calm reply.

 

White's face went red with heat. "Yeah, but I put it to you again," he frowned, his pen jabbing at the camera, "you don't need reminding of this, it's Sunday night in October, Liverpool are third bottom of the Premier League. Hicks and Gillett don't have anything to do with that ... do they have anything to do with where Liverpool sit in the Premier League tonight? Yes or no?"

 

"Yes they do."

 

"WHY?" demanded White in withering, sub-Paxman tones.

 

"The crippling debt and the filter-down effect that it's had. The club needs overhauling from the very top. It's all well and good talking about being in the bottom three of the Premier League, but off the pitch it's all about whether we have a football club to talk about in the near future."

 

"But of course you'll have a football club!" This wasn't questioning now. It was hectoring.

 

"Liverpool will always be there, you know that. I put it to you, nothing you can do will speed up the sale, they won't be removed until the time is right. Nothing you can do will change that. Do you not concede that?"

 

The union rep kept his equilibrium under fire, and delivered the coup de grace. "I disagree. Hicks, when he put the club up for sale – interviewed on this very channel – said the pressure fans have put on him has told."

 

White had used up nearly all of his ammo. All that was left was a suggestion that fans should know their place. "Why should they hurry up a sale because supporters are protesting that they should do so? It's not up to you to tell Hicks and Gillette when to sell!"

 

"A football club is not the person who owns it. A football club is the people who pass through the turnstile week in, week out. Us supporters. Anyone can owe the deeds. Without us, if we do decide to walk away, who will pay their debt? We're paying it through tickets and merchandising. Without us, nobody's paying their debt. Without us, the football club doesn't exist. We say no to refinance, the banks should engage with the supporters, we can offer solutions to the problems."

 

McKenna having failed to snatch at White's bait, the anchor brought a quick end to what had been a very revealing interview, in more ways than one.

 

Now you could say White was merely asking the hard, challenging questions. But you do wonder what happens to this vigorous journalistic approach when it's Sir Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger or indeed Roy Hodgson on the other end of the line. Why was White so annoyed at mere fans having their say? After all, he was notoriously over the moon for supporters to have their voice when Newcastle United signed Michael Owen back in 2005, when a section of the club's support turned up at St James' Park to chant like compliant chumps at the greatness and perfection of big-money football. That day, hosting a Premier League love-in live from St James' Park, a grinning and over-excited White couldn't get enough of their happy jabbering. When things aren't going so well for a fanbase, though, and the natives get militant, White's red mist appears to descend.

 

Only two conclusions make any sense. Either he believes groups like Spirit of Shankly are wrong and debt-loaders such as Hicks and Gillett are good for football, in which case he's a dumb fool, or he thinks fans should sit down and shut up and accept whatever loaded hand is dealt them, and that they're fair game to attack if they have the temerity to complain, in which case he's coming at this subject from somewhere altogether more unpleasant. You decide. We didn't make these rules. Actually, maybe, come to think about it, White just doesn't like Liverpool. Which is fair enough, he'll find plenty of allies there. But then this isn't just about what's happening to Liverpool.

 

It's also about what's happened to Leeds, and Nottingham Forest, and Newcastle, and Rangers. It's about the £800 million bomb that's ticking at Manchester United. It's about what's happened to countless lower-league clubs across the land over the years, from Chester to Gretna. It's about what might happen to Chelsea or Manchester City if the big boys decide to take their ball home. As one very eloquent observer put it, with reference to Liverpool's current plight, on the blog of the Guardian newspaper: "Manchester United fans should ease up on the crowing, as this is merely a read through, not even a dress rehearsal, for the immediate post-Ferguson regime."

 

Whatever, it would be nice if, like Stelling before him, White came out and apologised for his bombastic approach, and promised to deal with the paying fan on the street – whose money is paying off these debts, after all – more sympathetically next time. Over to you, Jim.

[michaelgordon]

Why don't you inform yourself before commenting? Go to their website, plenty on there for you to get a better understanding of the union.

 

That SOS guy is Jay McKenna and not once has he claimed that he speaks for all Liverpool supporters -

 

I know he hasnt but i do believe thats what the media interpretation is

[TheHitman]

the problem for me is a large proportion of mongy posts on here come from SOS members, and often, from people who purport to speak for the union. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their view, no matter how offensive to sensible people, but I wouldn't want any new owners thinking that they represent anything but the tiniest fraction of the fanbase. I don't have a complete downer on SOS - I would have happily contributed funds to the projection of a message onto the Houses of Parliament, for instance, but most of the utterings and statements I find embarrassing.

 

It is pretty easy for any new ownership to ascertain how many members SoS has. So I wouldn't lose any sleep over that.

 

I very much doubt that anyone agrees with any organisations every statement but what galvanizes people together is what any organisation is trying to achieve.

[Carvalho Diablo]

The below quote has annoyed me, despite all that has gone down in the last 24 hours. I don't want to see them use the evident threat that we - as a collective of fans - can hold to try and leverage more political power.

 

 

 

BBC Sport - Football - Liverpool to be bought by Boston Red Sox owners

 

It would really benefit the new owners by inviting a fan to take a seat on the board and not simply as a popular gesture.

 

Whether an elected SoS member or someone else with a genuine affiliation, perhaps for a year at a time.

 

This would reinforce or reinstate a bond between boardroom and terrace, effectively giving the "club back to the people".

 

Fuck off Moyes you blue nosed twat.

[Ted]

Nah, fuck that. By all means liase with fans groups etc, but fuck having one of them on the board. What the fuck do they know about running a business - which is what it all boils down to - as massive as LFC?

 

Doing something like that would just be a token gesture.

[23CARRAGOLD]

Nah, fuck that. By all means liase with fans groups etc, but fuck having one of them on the board. What the fuck do they know about running a business - which is what it all boils down to - as massive as LFC?

 

Doing something like that would just be a token gesture.

 

This is my thinking. Speak to us as supporters. Have a public relations man who speaks to supporters groups to keep us up to date with goings on at the club. It can only be a good thing after what we have just gone through with the other 2. It could be good for any potential new owner and us supporters to have that direct link.

 

As for places on boards and stuff like that, nah, I dont think so. If any demand like that was placed on potential new owners I'd seriously have to consider rejoining in the future.

 

Just to clarify though, there is no evidence to suggest that anyone is asking for places on boards and that. What I see at the moment is just a request to open dialogue with any potential owners and I dont see any problem whatsoever in asking to be reassured as supporters after the last 2 and a half years we've been through.

[reder]

I think SOS should look for an active, regular and constructive dialogue with the new owners, and that the owners should seek the same with SOS.

 

Ok, so the new potential owners could be financially and ethically sound and could run the could very well for the foreseeable future but might not have the time or consider it an appropriate use of their time to have a meeting or even regular meetings with the union. Which are better, new owners who run the club well and tell the union to do one, or new owners who meet with them, give them a token position of no real value at the club but run the club like sh1t? Are meetings with the union a prerequisite for any new owner?

 

There was a major shitstorm when Broughton wouldnt meet with them but by the looks of things, he has done the job he was brought in to do.

 

Its just that I am getting the feeling that the union expect anyone who has any dealings with the club to meet with them now, as part of some sort of approval process. This could do far more harm than good and it could even put off a very suitable potential owner.

Edited October 7, 2010 by reder

[PaulMcC]

I think without SOS our fans would be a lot less educated on what the owners were doing to the club.

[bri]

any sale of this magnitude £300 million odd quid needs to be done in private (as it has been done.) I'm guessing there were confidentiality agreements in place for the agreement for sale.

 

If your not qualified to deal at this level then you shouldn't be in room. Having a fan group involved simply isn't going to happen.

 

Now that's been agreed the buyers would do themselves a favour by now engaging with the fan group to understand the culture, the concerns etc.

[RoboRiise]

My point is not one of disbandment at all.

 

My understanding is that George Gillett has met with SoS during his tenure, as has Christian Purslow. Unless I am mistaken, despite being positive steps, nothing good has come of either of these meetings apart from interesting meeting minutes.

 

A supporters group demanding answers from potential new owners before they have even bought the club can only do harm IMO

 

 

Yes, you're absolutely right. What we need to do now as fans is just shut the fuck up, accept what they tell us about their plans, about how they're going to invest in the team, how they recognise our proud history, about how success on the field gives success of the field, about how important increasing ground capacity is, about how good the current backroom team are, about how they will support the manager. That worked so well for us last time.

 

Sorry to be so sarcastic but your comments there absolutely astonished me.

 

There are hardly any positive aspects to H&G's time here but I'd say one of them is the fact that we're a more empowered fan base that we were previously. Between the union being created and the forum-based campaigns that sparked up against H&G, I think it's fair to say fans have had their voice heard by the club more than ever before and that's no bad thing.

 

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, especially if those questions include things like:

 

• You said you won't place any purchase debt on the club but do you intend to borrow in order to buy the club and if so, will you take out loans secured against the club in the future to repay your personal loans?
   
   
  
• Probably best to avoid all talk of spades, but the stadium is going to be a huge capital project and I'd be terrified if you said you hadn't thought about what you wanted to do and how it would be paid for, so what are your plans?
   
   
  
• Do you realise that owning a Premier League football team (especially one that's spent the last three years geting fucked about by American sports franchise investors) is going to involve very high levels of scrutiny, matched only by the amount of money that you'll be spending and the results that you'll be expected to deliver?
   
   
  
• Unlike the last pair of cunts, do you actually have a pot to piss in, or are you going to buy us and just busk it after that?
  

 

If these people are on the level, I'd expect them to welcome the chance to answer those.

 

You've got to bear in mind that people haven't really been holding back about the owners recently - a quick Google would reveal plenty of information about what the fans have been up to and I'm pretty sure John Henry will browse the Wall Street Journal occasionally, especially if it has a front page article about protests against the owners of a football club that he's thinking of buying.

 

They're either frighteningly stupid, or they're walking into this with their eyes open about the current atmosphere. If it's the former we could do with knowing and if it's the latter, I'm sure they'll understand that greater and more meaningful engagement with the fans than H&G were willing to provide is going to be key to convincing us that they're different from the last pair.

 

It's unfair for them that Hicks and Gillett have ruined whatever trust may have existed between the owners of this club and it's fans but you can't blame the fans for that. Once bitten, twice shy. If Henry & Co are as straight up as they say they are, they haven't got anything to worry about.