Spirit Of Shankly: Communication with John Henry

[cochcaer]

Not the greatest approach to open up dialogue. If you open up on anyone robustly they go on the defensive by default. I hope somebody drops him a warmer correspondence just to build a relationship, then hit him with the harder stuff later. Throw him a toffee first.

[Spy Bee]

Holy Jebus!

[emryscb]

Sending a list of demands through a solicitor like that is a joke, farsical.

 

The letter reeks of self importance.

 

The reply suggests to me anyhow that our owners see SoS for what they truly are: a little insignificant group of opinionated fans with their own personal agenda.

 

Time for SoS to come down off their high horse

[MOGLET]

Again, for the three hundreth time, the Union only seeks to represent its members. The document followed a consultation with its members about what they wanted asking.

 

 

Not wanting to piss on your cornflakes, but if the above is true and correct, who writes your unions letters? and why do they keep saying, ""Supporters" and not "Members" all the time?

 

You and yours keep spouting on about only representing your members, yet everything I read from you and yours, has the term, "our members and supporters"

 

That is not just your members is it? or does your letter writer not understand the basics?

 

 

 

2. Ownership of the Club and the questions that supporters would like answered (Page 4);

3. Supporters’ Issues as detailed by our members (Page 7);

4. The Stadium (Page 10);

5. Supporter Investment (Page 11)

 

 

If the above points were marked as "Our members", rather than "supporters" you wouldnt have the backlash you seem to be getting.

 

ie

 

2. Ownership of the Club and the questions that our members would like answered (Page 4);

3. our members’ Issues as detailed by our members (Page 7);

4. The Stadium (Page 10);

5. our membership Investment (Page 11)

 

 

Again as ive said, you did some great things when you were needed, but the way things are now, I think you all need to take a step back, and stop thinking you are the one red voice, you arent, never were, and need to stop acting like you are.

 

You also might want to employ somebody with a tad more expertise in the communications/letter writing camp.

 

How to win friends and influence people!, not the biggest strength SOS has.

[isr]

From John Henry's reply to SoS:

"Our view is that the club belongs to ALL its supporters and we want to have our views disseminated to the same wide audience"

 

Intelligently done. He's made it clear that, going forward, they're not going to pander to any "exclusive" super group of supporters. And then gone on to give a good length reply, just to take the sting out of the "who the hell do you think you are" reaction.

 

I think you call that a good straight defensive bat to a wicked spinning delivery (no baseball analogies please, its such a boring game!). Nicely played.

[dennis tooth]

Small time shite. There, still no replay from Graham as to why they continue to refer to supporters and not simply their own members. Sad that so many people worked so hard to get you back from Bulgaria, Jack Straw must be spinning in his grave to hear it.

[dennis tooth]

These guys invited the document and welcomed it, we told them we wanted to engage on a variety of issues to their face and they were happy to receive the document to the extent that upon request we were given a personal email address. They also promised further meetings and concluded the original meeting by specifically thanking the Union for the work that was done by it and its members in saving the Club from the previous regime.

 

That sets a context for the approach.

 

Then you have the fact that they had already seen a document from us that introduced the Union and explained the various issues in brief that our members wanted to engage on.

 

These guys are experienced business people, they see beyond frippery and fudge in documents and want to see the meat so time isn't wasted. The document is not aggressive, it is businesslike and focussed. John Henry's "lawyer" comment is baffling in the context of having previous emails from that account and in fact offering his own address to that same email account.

 

The document was headed with the Union's logo and addressed from the Union as an attachment to a short polite and warm email.

 

There is no anger, militancy, campaigning or disgust about the response document from the Union Management Committee - these guys clearly aren't Hicks and Gillett.

 

But, the game has changed at L4 for everyone. A supporter base that has always been switched on will not accept that a cheque for £300m buys the Club, again, away from the supporters. We were here before Moores, Hicks and Henry and we will be here long after them all.

 

While that does not allow us to destroy our own Club, what it does mean is that any owner in the future cannot treat this Club like a fiefdom and pat supporters on the head. Happily these guys don't seem to be doing that.

 

However, engagement on issues like ticketing, the stadium and April 15th has to happen, the previous ownership has made the miskate in the past of thinking it reflected supporter opinion when it didn't ("numbers game" anyone?) and the potential for friction is likely to be where the clash between supporter opinion and financial advancement takes place.

 

It is entirely right and proper that there is an organised group endeavouring to represent a membership who have opinions on these issues and it is also right and proper that the owners have a proper, respectable enagagement with that same group either directly or through an effective, resourced and accountable supporters' committee.

 

 

 

You just don't get it mate so should not be a representative of fans or in a position to claim you reflect support opinion.

 

You are dangerous, the letter was smalltime not businesslike and focused, I don't know what business you work in but in my experience, things dont work like that. Proof that SOS is not needed in the new climate has been provided by SOS themselves if anyone needed it.

 

I doubt any of my words will be heeded though so just hope John 'manages' you out of the way so he can focus on real supporters.

[MOGLET]

PS

Any chance you can give me JWH's email addy, so that I can send him an email, that makes it clear from my stand point, that so far, I am more than happy with what he and his cohorts have done, and that I personally want to thank him for playing the ownership game as he has, and wish him all the best for doing what he has done so far, and hope he continues in the same vain.

 

Cheers.

[michaelgordon]

fuck me not this lot again, who are SOS to be asking any questions of the owners from day 1 they seem to be doing a good job and what exatcly will they do if they dont get the answers they so obviously need to feel validated?

 

Go on Strike by not attending games, tickets will get sold anyway

Stop buying merch, didnt work last time, did it

Protest, with the club united again under new owners and new manager that would look pretty silly

[overthe]

'A further question that arises is that as part of a larger group, the overall health of that entity is essential for LFC in terms of ongoing investment. How will this operate? If LFC trades profitably can its profits be applied elsewhere within the group or are they ring‐fenced for LFC? What if LFC suffers a downturn? How will the group support LFC in those circumstances?'

 

Which answer do SOS want here?

[Monkeywool]

So if SoS' stance is they don't want to own part or even whole of the club, as confirmed by Graham earlier in the thread why are they demanding 10% of the club in an official document to the owners? Or is it the "supporters" rather than the "Members" who are doing this? Everything gets interchanged so quickly I lost track as to who are supporters and who are union members now.

[Guest ShoePiss]

So if SoS' stance is they don't want to own part or even whole of the club, as confirmed by Graham earlier in the thread why are they demanding 10% of the club in an official document to the owners? Or is it the "supporters" rather than the "Members" who are doing this? Everything gets interchanged so quickly I lost track as to who are supporters and who are union members now.

 

They are not demanding 10% of the club, you didn't read it properly.

[Monkeywool]

They are not demanding 10% of the club, you didn't read it properly.

 

Clearly agreement would have to be reached with you about what share you would make

available but a figure of 10% would be the proposed minimum

 

2. Will you enter into preliminary negotiations with us on a formal investment by

supporters backed by the club?**

3. If you are not in a position at this point to enter into preliminary negotiations please

confirm why not now and when you might be able to?

 

No, you are right, its at least 10%, my bad....

[Guest ShoePiss]

Clearly agreement would have to be reached with you about what share you would make

available but a figure of 10% would be the proposed minimum

 

2. Will you enter into preliminary negotiations with us on a formal investment by

supporters backed by the club?**

3. If you are not in a position at this point to enter into preliminary negotiations please

confirm why not now and when you might be able to?

 

No, you are right, its at least 10%, my bad....

 

I know I'm right. Fuck it let's post the entire thing :-

 

SUPPORTER INVESTMENT

When we met with you we understood that supporter investment would be something that would be on the agenda with NESV. We have already mentioned comments about supporters being “disenfranchised” and you need to be in no doubt about the disconnection that exists between the Club and the supporters after the last three years.

 

This is the best opportunity that this Club has had to mend the unique relationship that exists with its supporters through allowing supporters to once again own part of their Club. Spirit of Shankly and Share Liverpool FC were working upon a majority bid for the Club but always envisaged that a minority stake might be an alternative if a new owner secured the Club.

 

The main stumbling block relating to credibility was that under the previous owners the Club would not get behind any supporter investment scheme so what we are now suggesting is a unique collaboration between the Club and supporters with the Club backing a scheme to see supporters take an agreed stake within the Club supplying real benefits to both the Club and supporters.

What we do NOT want to see is a “nod” to the supporters in terms of a representative who is consulted by the Club on an ad hoc basis. The work we have done in relation to supporter ownership makes it very clear that there are thousands of people interested in owning a small part of the Club, who want a formal and proper voice representing them while working in conjunction with the majority owners in driving the Club forward.

 

The plan is to offer shares in an investment vehicle at £500 each. These could be purchased directly or through supporters saving in a Spirit of Shankly Credit Union which has been created and will allow those of more modest means to save up for their share.

 

Clearly agreement would have to be reached with you about what share you would make available but a figure of 10% would be the proposed minimum. Valuation of that share would need to be agreed and also any attached conditions to the investment, such as allowing the investment share to increase as future investors and current investors continued to invest and preemption rights if there was to be a disposal of the Club in the future.

The investors would seek to elect a member of their group to the Board who would have full rights of a Club Director. This Board member would be subject to the Board rules and regulations and would need to recognise the responsibilities that go with being a Board member.

The benefit for the Club is that it gets further investment – that investment might be applied to the stadium solution for instance. The investment could continue year on year, with supporters continuing to invest in the Club on an annual basis. This would see the Club cement a proper relationship with the supporters, while the supporters get a degree of control over the future of the Club, the opportunity in time and when appropriate to increase the shareholding as well as protection against disposal of the Club to unwanted owners and a voice on the Board of the Club representing supporter investors.

 

In addition to bringing a unity of purpose between supporters and owners, we would hope to work towards a majority supporter ownership in line with your timeline for realising the value of your investment. We acknowledge that this may be many years down the line, however, an exit strategy usually begins on day one and we feel that a positive working relationship with a shared common end game can only be good for the Club, the owners and the supporters. After all, none of us envisage going anywhere soon!

 

QUESTIONS

1. What are your views and intentions regarding supporter Investment?

2. Will you enter into preliminary negotiations with us on a formal investment by supporters backed by the club?

3. If you are not in a position at this point to enter into preliminary negotiations please confirm why not now and when you might be able to?

 

 

It's not a demand, they're suggesting a unique collaboration between the club and supporters.

[Monkeywool]

Point being, they on one hand say they don't want to, then the other hand put it in an official document they do. What is the score there?

[Guest ShoePiss]

Point being, they on one hand say they don't want to, then the other hand put it in an official document they do. What is the score there?

 

I'm not sure what it is you're referring to but I'd guess that SOS don't want to own part of the club, they have suggested that the club be open to partial fan ownership and fan representation on the board.

 

Part of the proposal says fans could purchase a share directly or save up through the SOS credit union. I took that to mean any fan, not simply SOS members. There's nothing in their proposal which says it should be exclusive to members only.

[Spy Bee]

hower f hite

[MLB]

SoS is doing a good job of alienating a lot of fans right now.

[Graham Smith]

Point being, they on one hand say they don't want to, then the other hand put it in an official document they do. What is the score there?

 

The answer to this supporters/members nonsens is that our MEMBERS have mandated the Union to seek and support a scheme that will allow SUPPORTERS to own a part of the Club. Those SUPPORTERS, if geiven a chance, can adopt or ignore any scheme proposed.

 

Our MEMBERS have also mandated us to address issues such as travel, tickets and the stadium issue that will affect all SUPPORTERS.

 

What our MEMBERS don't do is say to the Club or anyone that we represent all SUPPORTERS, if other groups have different views then they can organise and lobby on behalf of their MEMBERS presumably to having some effect in relation to all SUPPORTERS.

[Wor Horse]

Don't really know why people are trying to justify it, you've seen the owners response, they're not impressed.

 

SOS might have sent it with the right intentions but for their tone and general arrogance in the letter it's rightfully been given short shrift by Henry and co.

 

And you can argue until you're blue in the face it was the right thing to do, but it's not us you're trying to talk to and maintain an ongoing relationship with, it's the owners. And as you can see in their response, they don't think much of it.

[23CARRAGOLD]

I'm a member of SOS, and proudly so I might add, but I was left stunned right at the first 'proposal'. It seemed to come across as moremof an ultimatum from what I could decipher from it.

 

We as an organisation need to enter into dialogue with them in a more friendly and positive manner. The whole way that this correspondence was worded and presented was not what I was expecting. They are not the enemy because they have come into Liverpool Football Club and are money men. They are people who want to work with us fans to take our club forward and in turn make money themselves and help us up to where we feel we belong. Even the money motivation part of that equation is muddled because they seem to be genuinely interested in sporting teams with heritage who have fell on hard times.

 

I will be a very interested observer at the next AGM. Depending on SOS' views of the new owners I may be considering whether to renew my membership when it runs out. These owners can not be judged by the past ownerships mistakes, they deserve a fair crack of the whip.

[Staniola]

 

'And another thing!!!'

 

Hahahaha! Fucking brilliant.

 

SOS are really getting on my tits now. Self serving and over indulgent.

[RoboRiise]

The answer to this supporters/members nonsens is that our MEMBERS have mandated the Union to seek and support a scheme that will allow SUPPORTERS to own a part of the Club. Those SUPPORTERS, if geiven a chance, can adopt or ignore any scheme proposed.

 

 

...and for the sake of clarity if this is SOS-SL we're talking about, SUPPORTERS that wish to invest in club through the SOS-SL credit union will automatically become MEMBERS of SOS because MEMBERSHIP of SOS is required to participate in the credit union.

[Mike D]

[Graham Smith]

...and for the sake of clarity if this is SOS-SL we're talking about, SUPPORTERS that wish to invest in club through the SOS-SL credit union will automatically become MEMBERS of SOS because MEMBERSHIP of SOS is required to participate in the credit union.

 

Completely untrue