Spirit Of Shankly: LeBron James

[TommyW]

SOS and others did all supporters proud in the great struggle to help get rid of Gillett and Hicks. Now it looks a bit like an organization without a cause to me (I know there will always be things to do, but I don't see any compelling great cause to unite the fans and fight for, as before).

 

I think the fan ownership share is a difficult one. For starters, it is easier to have pledged money than real money. If SOS had a serious sum in the bank, indicating serious people with a serious proposition in mind, then that's one thing. But pledges and promises do not have the same weight.

 

As for the Lebron James thing, it seems fine at face value to me. I would imagine it is some sort of mutual benefit thing, whereby each party helps to raise the profile and revenue of the other in various markets around the world. This is precisely the sort of thing we need to be doing if we are serious about raising revenue and competing at the highest level anyway.

 

While there is obviously a long way to go, thus far FSG have been fine for us. They have removed the debt. They have appointed the right manager. They have brought in a good no.2 for Kenny in Steve Clarke, the academy is going well and kids are getting a chance, Carroll and Suarez look inspired signings, we have been told more is to come and that they want to win. Summer will reveal yet more about our owners, but so far so good to my eyes.

 

im not a member of SOS but have to say that people are over thinking this

 

all they want is clarification as to what is going on, lets face it, its a slightly out of the norm move the owners have pulled here, surely a bit of clarification isnt too much to ask?

 

for me, we've been through too much to give any owners a free ride (no matter how promising their start)

[Guest ShoePiss]

That's utter bollocks

 

No it isn't, theres examples of it all over this thread.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Yeah I'll sum it up for you. Whenever SOS post on this board the same old come out, ignore whatever the message is, repeat untruths and generally slag off the union.

 

You're either with us or against us is the mantra from the SOS opposition.

 

That's a very one-sided view in itself. There's been some very reasonable points raised in this thread, many ignored like usual as they're inconvenient as they represent credible criticism, and there's been problems on the other side of the polarised debate, too.

[G Richards]

im not a member of SOS but have to say that people are over thinking this

 

all they want is clarification as to what is going on, lets face it, its a slightly out of the norm move the owners have pulled here, surely a bit of clarification isnt too much to ask?

 

for me, we've been through too much to give any owners a free ride (no matter how promising their start)

 

Fair enough mate.

[Royal Family]

I find it astonishing given what happened over the last few years that people are so against our owners being asked to clarify the situation.

 

I understand that many on here don't like SOS, and that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, but that doesn't automatically mean that everything they say is wrong.

 

For all their talk of loving Anfield and so on, FSG are businessmen and are here only to make money. For that reason, I won't automatically assume everything they do is definitely in the best interests of the football club.

 

If these questions had been posed by anyone other than SOS, would they have been met with anything like this level of hostility?

 

Top rate post, that one. I think we need to keep FSG under the microscope this summer, which is their first really big test. So far, let's remember, they haven't actually invested a single penny into the club - and whilst good ownership is about far more than spending money, we need to see some evidence this summer of direction, ambition and strategy. If SOS can do that, and keep reminding them that we aren't just going to slavishly get behind them on the basis of words alone, then great.

 

I also think you're quite right about the visceral reaction to SOS - i think some of the SOS 'top brass' need to think hard about their reputation among the non-members of the fanbase and how they might go about correcting that. A little more humility would undoubtedly help, as would a determination not again to become so closely associated with a single figure at the club (RB) and so drawn into internecine and divisive power struggles. SOS could still have a really important role to to play going forward, so they need to think hard about how to repair a few bridges, in my humble view.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

The aggressive tone of SOS and Graham on this thread is plainly and simply down to the fact that Lebron James got the part of the club they wanted.

 

It all comes down to SOS goal of having some investment for the fans, sorry I mean their members.

 

If the above has been mentioned before, I apologise but that's why I think Graham and his members are appearing unhappy.

 

I have no issue in the owners being questioned, it's understandable. However as Unrighteous said, there is no need for SOS anymore, as they do not represent the fans of Liverpool Football Club, they only represent their own committee and members interests and ideas.

[moof]

Top rate post, that one. I think we need to keep FSG under the microscope this summer, which is their first really big test. So far, let's remember, they haven't actually invested a single penny into the club - and whilst good ownership is about far more than spending money, we need to see some evidence this summer of direction, ambition and strategy. If SOS can do that, and keep reminding them that we aren't just going to slavishly get behind them on the basis of words alone, then great.

 

I also think you're quite right about the visceral reaction to SOS - i think some of the SOS 'top brass' need to think hard about their reputation among the non-members of the fanbase and how they might go about correcting that. A little more humility would undoubtedly help, as would a determination not again to become so closely associated with a single figure at the club (RB) and so drawn into internecine and divisive power struggles. SOS could still have a really important role to to play going forward, so they need to think hard about how to repair a few bridges, in my humble view.

 

What about the 300 million they invested to purchase the club and pay off the debts? As you say, running a football club isn't about pumping money into it (man city/chelsea).

 

As long as FSG has a business plan that will increase our revenue and allow us to build a new stadium/redevelop anfield; then i don't see what the problem is here.

 

I understand a healthy cynicism but "holding the owners to account" is ludicrous.

 

If i bought a Ford Fiesta should i expect a letter from the Ford Fiesta owners club holding me to account if i didn't replace the exhaust?

 

To me it's a case of 'internet warriors' being powerdrunk. The e-mail campaign to get rid of the cancers was a wonderful show of togetherness from LFC fans all over the world, but people think that's how you settle things now. It happened when people were bombarding JWH's twitter account calling for Hodgsons head and it's happening again regarding who owns a stake in their company. It fucking stinks.

[gkmacca]

Yeah I'll sum it up for you. Whenever SOS post on this board the same old come out, ignore whatever the message is, repeat untruths and generally slag off the union.

 

You're either with us or against us is the mantra from the SOS opposition.

 

And vice-versa.

[Royal Family]

What about the 300 million they invested to purchase the club and pay off the debts? As you say, running a football club isn't about pumping money into it (man city/chelsea).

 

As long as FSG has a business plan that will increase our revenue and allow us to build a new stadium/redevelop anfield; then i don't see what the problem is here.

 

I understand a healthy cynicism but "holding the owners to account" is ludicrous.

 

If i bought a Ford Fiesta should i expect a letter from the Ford Fiesta owners club holding me to account if i didn't replace the exhaust?

 

To me it's a case of 'internet warriors' being powerdrunk. The e-mail campaign to get rid of the cancers was a wonderful show of togetherness from LFC fans all over the world, but people think that's how you settle things now. It happened when people were bombarding JWH's twitter account calling for Hodgsons head and it's happening again regarding who owns a stake in their company. It fucking stinks.

 

I agree but I also think it's a bit naughty of you to make it seem that is my phrase by quoting there - i haven't asked for the owners to be 'held to account' at all, merely pointing out they can't expect blind faith in all their decisions given the circumstances that have afflicted us since 2007, and indeed arguably earlier.

 

Borrowing money to buy the club isn't my idea of 'investment', mind. G+H did that too.

[Heinze]

I don't know how it is in the UK but over here in Australia all of the international students I run into go mental for NBA. I ask them if they follow football and they either respond with "NFL?" "Beckham? " or "United?"

 

We clearly have some ground to make.

[moof]

I agree but I also think it's a bit naughty of you to make it seem that is my phrase by quoting there - i haven't asked for the owners to be 'held to account' at all, merely pointing out they can't expect blind faith in all their decisions given the circumstances that have afflicted us since 2007, and indeed arguably earlier.

 

Borrowing money to buy the club isn't my idea of 'investment', mind. G+H did that too.

 

No sorry i wasn't aiming that specifically at you but it still applies. Nobody is blindly supporting them. They are a totally different operation to G+H; i think people need to understand this. They aren't a couple of fucking shysters, they are a BIG deal. Their reputation is second to none.

 

I find it bizzare we have the custodians we've always wanted, yet people are still complaining.

 

Did they borrow money to buy the club? Because i understood that they bought the club outright and removed the debt. I may be wrong.

[Best Believe It]

And vice-versa.

 

Polarised opinion? Liverpool fans? Never!

[ThewaytoRome]

I've posted the facts previously but I'll repeat them.

 

A few of us met Werner and Henry when they arrived. They received a briefing document about the Union, its members and aims and objectives. It was a businesslike, to the point document as you would expect when dealing with businessmen.

 

It made no demands, placed no deadlines and welcomed them to the Club.

 

Two things happened pursuant to that meeting. Firstly Henry gave us (me) his personal email address (presumably the one ATK is using to tease out some sort of asistance with season ticket purchases) and secondly Henry invited us to keep in touch and that FSG would welcome an ongoing dialogue.

 

I emailed him two or three times from my work email address (I am a solicitor) and got polite replies without comment or complaint.

 

We asked for a further meeting which was not offered (despite the earlier assurances) and we then put together a document on Union headed paper which followed a consultation with members about the issues they wanted FSG to address over the short, medium and long term.

 

This document was again businesslike and got to the point rather than waffle on over scores of pages (it is on our website).

 

This document was sent as an attachment by me again from my work email address to Henry with a polite and warm covering message wishing him a happy Christmas - the document was Union headed and addressed from the Committee on behalf of the members.

 

I have my suspicions that Henry didn't even draft the reply as he would have known that we had corresponded without comment via our respective email addresses.

 

 

Only on your mothers side by the sounds of it.

 

Ask him for the moon on a stick whilst you're at it.

[Graham Smith]

The aggressive tone of SOS and Graham on this thread is plainly and simply down to the fact that Lebron James got the part of the club they wanted.

 

It all comes down to SOS goal of having some investment for the fans, sorry I mean their members.

 

If the above has been mentioned before, I apologise but that's why I think Graham and his members are appearing unhappy.

 

I have no issue in the owners being questioned, it's understandable. However as Unrighteous said, there is no need for SOS anymore, as they do not represent the fans of Liverpool Football Club, they only represent their own committee and members interests and ideas.

 

Six factual errors in such a short post.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Six factual errors in such a short post.

 

Where?

[Graham Smith]

The aggressive tone of SOS (1) and Graham (2) on this thread is plainly and simply down to the fact that Lebron James got the part of the club they wanted (3).

 

It all comes down to SOS goal of having some investment for the fans, sorry I mean their members (5).

 

If the above has been mentioned before, I apologise but that's why I think Graham and his members are appearing unhappy (6).

 

I have no issue in the owners being questioned, it's understandable. However as Unrighteous said, there is no need for SOS anymore(4), as they do not represent the fans of Liverpool Football Club, they only represent their own committee and members interests and ideas.

[Bladeofchaos]

they do not represent the fans of Liverpool Football Club, they only represent their own committee and members interests and ideas.

 

So this bit is fact then, and yes we seen the quick edit to move the 4th one :)

[Trucker Paddy]

Graham I asked yesterday and never got an answer, how much money have SOS got in guaranteed pledges

[Graham Smith]

Graham I asked yesterday and never got an answer, how much money have SOS got in guaranteed pledges

 

You haven't read the thread then.

 

The short answer is none as SOS aren't collecting any money but on the basis that this factual answer won't satisfy your attempt at point scoring I have tried to explain the current position in the fuller answer at Post #100.

[Graham Smith]

So this bit is fact then, and yes we seen the quick edit to move the 4th one :)

 

Yes, this is fact - we've never said we represent anyone else.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The aggressive tone of SOS (1) and Graham (2) on this thread is plainly and simply down to the fact that Lebron James got the part of the club they wanted (3).

 

It all comes down to SOS goal of having some investment for the fans, sorry I mean their members (5).

 

If the above has been mentioned before, I apologise but that's why I think Graham and his members are appearing unhappy (6).

 

I have no issue in the owners being questioned, it's understandable. However as Unrighteous said, there is no need for SOS anymore(4), as they do not represent the fans of Liverpool Football Club, they only represent their own committee and members interests and ideas.

 

I know you solicitors have a lose grasp on the meaning of the word 'fact', but that's just fucking ridiculous. 1, 2 and 4 are subjective. 3, 5 and 6 are opinions based on why he 'think' that's why you're being so arrogant and patronising. Both of these things are aggressive traits.

[Trucker Paddy]

You haven't read the thread then.

 

The short answer is none as SOS aren't collecting any money but on the basis that this factual answer won't satisfy your attempt at point scoring I have tried to explain the current position in the fuller answer at Post #100.

 

Firstly thats bollocks, nobody is trying to point score here, I asked you as a commitee member who has come on the forum to discuss the subject a direct question to which you never gave me an answer so I asked the question again thinking you may have missed the post as i did post #100, it was not an attempt at point scoring,and I'd expect you to retract that comment on the forum.

Until last September I had attended every meeting, spoke at 2, flew over for both the AGM in June and the rally in July last summer to show support, so I do not appreciate been spoke down to in such a patronising tone when i ask a committee member a question, which i think all members are intitiled to know, a simple referal to the post would have been sufficent.

I have now read the said post and TBH, it basicly says you've no confirmed pledges or guarnteed funds, and are just speculating about how many people would be intrested in the idea of fan ownership.

[StevieH]

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 

What was that, Stevie?

[StevieH]

That's Lebron James wearing our colours during a post game press conference.