LFC Supporters Committee Announced

[Guest Andrew Moran]

With respect, there is a whole SOS page on the Partner's Credit Union site which I've linked above. Nowhere on that page does it say that you have to pay into the SOS Share Account to apply for a season ticket loan. In fact, it goes on to say that their existing non-SOS members have applied for loans for season tickets in the past, and even for a loan for travel costs to Istanbul.

 

Download the PDF form which is linked to at the bottom of that page.

 

Perhaps it should say that on that page, and your comments about various uses of Credit Union loans are not relevant to the points about the Season Ticket Loan. You are confusing the issue by talking about such.

 

If you read the comments by Pidge earlier in this thread, then download the application form (it is the same one on the SOS site - I cannot post links as a new user), you will see quite clearly that it says on the form:

"To be eligible for this loan you need to have been a member of the Credit Union for 10 weeks and to have been paying money into the SOS Share Account with Partners on a regular basis."

 

It is abundantly clear that you must pay into the SOS Share Scheme before you can even get a Season Ticket Loan.

[ritchie]

Andrew Moran, you're role on the supporters committee is not to wage war on SOS, as far as i'm aware. So what are you actually trying to achieve, except cause all kinds of shit, which is not what the football club needs, and is not why you and the others were appointed?

 

It's not right what you're doing here. If you've got issues with SOS then sort them out with those involved, even if it means you feel the need to report them to FSA which you already have.

 

But to use your place on the supporters committee as a vehicle to do this, and attack SOS, is bang out of order. You're coming across as a snide. Particularly with the way you've specifically set out to do it on TLW forum, which to be frank isn't exactly SOS friendly.

[Guest Andrew Moran]

You should work for a tabloid the amount of times you are selective with portions of quotes.

 

How many times can one guy be wrong in one, albeit very long winded and self serving post?

 

TLW get used to these long winded rants, and seen as though my email has been quoted, I might aswell put the whole email transcript up and let people decide for themselves.

 

Andrew I am not going to get into a discussion with you because I've been there before, I feel sorry for the people you now stand for as an unelected representative. But it's nice to see you still havve a lot of time on your hands to deal with their queries.

 

Notice the deflection and personal attack, but the complete and utter failure to address any points raised.

[Durango]

Andrew Moran the new King of TLW,

 

Nothing like a good old bit of Union bashing to get your career kick started

[FranStan]

Notice the deflection and personal attack, but the complete and utter failure to address any points raised.

 

My last personal email to you set out the reasons why I will no longer get into a debate with you, your new found position calls for a little more discretion. I'm disappointed this is your first public action as a SC member and how negative it is, when the whole point of the SC is to bring the club and supporters closer together.

 

 

For more examples of how receptive Mr Moran is to the views of others please see here:

 

The LFC Crest - an Interactive History

[Anubis]

Download the PDF form which is linked to at the bottom of that page.

 

Perhaps it should say that on that page, and your comments about various uses of Credit Union loans are not relevant to the points about the Season Ticket Loan. You are confusing the issue by talking about such.

 

If you read the comments by Pidge earlier in this thread, then download the application form (it is the same one on the SOS site - I cannot post links as a new user), you will see quite clearly that it says on the form:

 

 

It is abundantly clear that you must pay into the SOS Share Scheme before you can even get a Season Ticket Loan.

 

I suspect the form is incorrectly worded as it contains two contradictory statements.

 

The first implies, quite clearly, that eligibility for the season ticket loan is an independent product, as is the SOS share account, hence the words as well as and other products and services.

 

You can join the Credit Union by completing a simple form and

opening a Regular Credit Union Share Account agreeing to save

at least £2.00 per week in that account. By doing this you become

eligible to open the SOS Share Account (saving as little or as

much as you like) as well as gaining access to the other products

and services like the SOS Season Ticket Loan.

 

I suspect this paragraph is incorrect as it contradicts not only the above paragraph, but also the websites of both SOS and the Credit Union.

 

To be eligible for this loan you need to have

been a member of the Credit Union for 10 weeks and to have

been paying money into the SOS Share Account with Partners

on a regular basis.

 

And I'm not confusing anything. The Credit Union are making it clear that as an ordinary member (SOS or not) they'll entertain loans for both season tickets and travel arrangements. So why would they force SOS members to save in the SOS share account?

[ritchie]

My last personal email to you set out the reasons why I will no longer get into a debate with you, your new found position calls for a little more discretion. I'm disappointed this is your first public action as a SC member and how negative it is, when the whole point of the SC is to bring the club and supporters closer together.

 

I wonder why Andrew Moran is so set out to cause conflict and division amongst supporters, when the supporters committee was formed for the opposite reasons, both for the fans and the club as a whole.

 

Disgrace.

[stringvest]

I have to say it all appears a little unseemly, this. I'm no supporter of SoS, but Mr Moran's personal crusade does not sit comfortably with the role he's just been voted into. I'm not sure it's smart to adopt such a confrontational - and personal position when two minutes into a role representing the fans' views. A deselection is possible, no?

[ritchie]

I have to say it all appears a little unseemly, this. I'm no supporter of SoS, but Mr Moran's personal crusade does not sit comfortably with the role he's just been voted into. I'm not sure it's smart to adopt such a confrontational - and personal position when two minutes into a role representing the fans' views. A deselection is possible, no?

 

You'd hope so. I certainly wouldn't want this Moran fella respresenting me.

 

I'm no real fan of SOS, but this is a disgrace this. This crusade has got nothing to do with the role he was given by LFC.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Just in case people forgot how our representatives were elected, they were voted in by the below group of seven.

 

Ian Callaghan

Karen Gill - Shankly's granddaughter

Dave Boyle - CEO supporters direct

Sue Johnston

Jack Stopforth - CEO Liverpool chamber of commerce

John Bishop

Ian Ayre

[ritchie]

Just in case people forgot how our representatives were elected, they were voted in by the below group of seven.

 

Ian Callaghan

Karen Gill - Shankly's granddaughter

Dave Boyle - CEO supporters direct

Sue Johnston

Jack Stopforth - CEO Liverpool chamber of commerce

John Bishop

Ian Ayre

 

I'm respectful of those on the panel, but this lad seems like a lunatic:

Propaganda and Forum Control

 

He's obsessed with SOS, even in his official capacity as a Liverpool supporters representative he's waging all-out war on SOS. He's completely wrong for the role if that's the case.

[andythered]

Andrew Moran. I am not too sure what your point is here. You have raised your issue with the FSA and now decided to come onto this site to semi-publicaly say that you have done so. I was a bit hesitant about this appointed supporters committee in the first instance...it is like an unscientifically put together focus group. I have even less hope for it now.

[kopite96]

What a fucking joke you are.

 

You get on the "supporters committee" to "represent the fans" yet it seems like your first "action" has been to formulate a personal vendetta against SOS. Quite frankly sir, you seem like the sort who would take up a role such as "milk monitor" and think your the fucking queen.

 

But worst case scenario is, your just stuck up your own arse. I wish you the very best in finding someone to sort this out for you.

[Guest Andrew Moran]

First of all folks, the Committee has not met and this is personal correspondence.

 

The announcement about the Committee including me has given me an opportunity to present these arguments, and I am taking it, in the interests of all Liverpool supporters.

 

Frankly, if it costs me the place on the committee, then it would have been worth it.

 

Second, I find it strange that people are attacking me for pointing out that other people who represent them are constantly making false statements in an apparent effort to mislead Liverpool Fans. It is unseemly, I agree, but would you rather I kept quiet about these facts and statements and let them get away with it?

 

You can't just bury the issue and let them get on with it! Mr Stanton and SOS are attacking me personally, whereas I am attacking what they have been saying and doing as wrong.

 

Frankly it has been difficult to make these views publicly known. I have been trying to do this for weeks and months. This announcement has made it far more possible for me to bring these points to public attention - first of all about the lack of democracy over the TUC rally, and then this apparent attempt to mislead over the loans.

 

You can't just support everything SOS does with blind faith, and as I said, that Football Quarter initiative deserves wholehearted support, but SOS is undermining the good it does and can do with the things I have pointed out.

 

Mr Stanton says he may as well post his entire response. Well, his reply was six pages, and I'll save him the trouble:

 

 

 

 

SPIRIT OF SHANKLY

 

Dear Andrew,

*

Thank you for your correspondence, sorry for any delay in the reply but we were under the impression that one of our Committee members had actually replied to you, as well as posting on the blog you linked to on "The Kop", I will attach his responses at the end of this email in case you did not get them.

*

I will go through your questions and hopefully answer them, it may not be the answer you are looking for but*I will answer as honestly as*possible.

*

1. Why is Spirit of Shankly involved in organising coaches for a national Trade Union event that has no clear, obvious or specific link to Liverpool FC, the members of SOS, or for that matter, the City of Liverpool?

This goes beyond politics and is not any sort of political alignment. Our aims involve looking out for the community of Anfield, how that links with the club and the supporters. The situation of the local community not only affects the residents, but the supporter experience of anyone visiting which has an effect on the club and it's non-matchday revenues. Although you call us a supporter organisation we are actually a fully constituted Union, SOS received backing and support from Merseyside trade Unionists when we were forming, help with organisation and campaigning, along with help with actually forming the constitution of our organisation. Spirit of Shankly is a Union and the umbrella body for unions is holding a demonstration that members put forward to us and agreed strongly at the AGM that we should support.

 

SOS is a properly constituted voluntary sector body; the voluntary sector in Liverpool is being decimated by the cuts already taking place. We also have a constitutional commitment to the area of Anfield, and are trying to make some amends for the club’s impact on its blight, which these cuts impact upon.

 

We are also dedicated and an integral part of the Football Quarter planned development, which is dependent upon public sector input which will not be forthcoming as a result of the cuts.

 

You seem to have a bit of an issue around the campaigning against things that have not actually happened yet, and state as one of your reasons for wanting support in remembering the disaster victims in Japan, that these events have actually already happened. All I will say to that is that since SOS was formed we had doubters and naysayers saying what we were trying to do was pointless and would have no effect, that it wasn’t worth trying because the people involved were too powerful. This is the same situation, people are fighting to try and save their jobs, their hospitals, their schools and their day centres, while there is still a chance of saving them. Why should people wait for the services to be cut further before they make their voices heard? By people coming together and using their voices things are achieved.

 

*

*** 2. Who sanctioned it?

 

Multiple members sent in requests for us to attend and for the item to be added to the agenda for the AGM taking place, I will refer to the information Paul Gardener sent to you in his initial reply to your questions: It was raised at the AGM last month with stating the view on it and asking if members wanted to support it. Some members got in touch saying they would be interested in getting an SOS coach to London and one was arranged from this. The committee is democratically elected by the membership and the current committee ratified only last month, in case you are wondering how the committee was chosen. The AGM was available for viewing online which was e-mailed out to members within 2 days of the AGM. You can see the point raised and reasons given from 11:30 on this video -*(I cannot post the link)

*

*****3. Aside from the obvious use of web resources and the time of those at SOS involved, what funds and resources*have been used to arrange this?

 

As has been said we are all volunteers and the main resource is just the time of those stewarding the coach on the day. Otherwise there is no financial subsidy for this as it is funded by those paying to use the coach. We have also approached the TUC to see if there was any way they could provide and subsidy towards the coach, we are awaiting a response, any subsidy received would be passed on to people travelling on the day.

 

4. Why is there any need for this when the local TUC is doing the same thing?

To ensure that people have as many options as possible available if they wish to attend, many of the TUC provided travel is already fully booked, with many of the spaces being taken up by Union reps rather than actual members. Also, as stated above, we have approached the TUC and asked them to consider providing a subsidy if available.

5. Why does this cost more than the TUC arranged transport?

The TUC travel is free, on a first come first served basis, with limited places, many of which have been taken up by Union reps and officials rather than members. We are running the travel at cost price, the cost of hiring the coach will be divided by however many people travel, minus any subsidy we may receive from the TUC. I am somewhat confused by this question as in your third question you seem concerned with the funds and resources used to arrange this, but now you are concerned that we may be charging more than the TUC, who are providing free travel. As of yet, nobody who has raised an interest in travelling has commented on the price.

6. Will the SOS members concerned be considered as acting in a personal capacity or as representatives of SOS – and will any SOS banners or flags, or other such items, be taken?

The SOS waver may be present as we are going as SOS to represent our aims. Just as there will be many banners, signs for many community groups, unions and so on representing a variety of issues.

 

7I ask that SOS confirm that it is not aligning itself with any political movement or party.

We are NOT aligning ourselves with any political party.

 

 

What I would say to you though Andrew is that Football and Liverpool FC does not exsist in a bubble, detached from the rest of the world and current events, and many times over recent history the two have intertwined when events have given rise to it.

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope I have answered all of your questions, as I said they may not be the answers you wish to hear, but they are the honest truth.

 

Thanks

 

Fran Stanton

Chairman

Spirit of Shankly

Liverpool Supporters Union

 

 

P.S. Please find below the original responses sent by Paul Gardener who deals with a range of things for SOS from Community Regeneration to Youth.

 

Paul Gardener’s initial reply:

 

I am one of the people on the SOS committee. I am the youth officer.

 

*To answer some of your questions.

1. This goes beyond politics and is not any sort of political alignment. Our aims involve looking out for the community of Anfield, how that links with the club and the supporters. The situation of the local community not only affects the residents, but the supporter experience of anyone visiting which has an effect on the club and it's non-matchday revenues.

2. It was raised at the AGM last month with stating the view on it and asking if members wanted to support it. Some members got in touch saying they would be interested in getting an SOS coach to London and one was arranged from this. The committee is democratically elected by the membership and the current committee ratified only last month, in case you are wondering how the committee was chosen. The AGM was available for viewing online which was e-mailed out to members within 2 days of the AGM. You can see the point raised and reasons given from 11:30 on this video -*CANNOT POST LINK

3. As has been said we are all volunteers and the main resource is just the time of those stewarding the coach on the day. Otherwise there is no financial subsidy for this as it is funded by those paying to use the coach.

4. The Coach is provided to provide extra options for people. Many transport options have already been filled for different workers unions and some may want different transport than from a work union.

5. I cannot comment on the costs of the TUC transport and if they are subsidising and so on, but we are running it at cost price.

6. The SOS waver may be present as we are going as SOS to represent our aims. Just as there will be many banners, signs for many community groups, unions and so on representing a variety of issues.

7. We are NOT aligning ourselves with any political party.

 

It also should be noted that we have had two committee persons over the last few years looking at Youth, Community and Regeneration which directly cross over into these issues with the effect the club has on Anfield and it's residents and the effect Anfield has on the club and supporters.

And a subsequent reply from Paul

 

Your points are noted about these things, as with any feedback we receive.

 

There isn't a political reason and you are using reverse logic to say it is a national issue and then comparing to climate change. At the rally there will be people there with a political reason to, but there will also be many like SOS there with issues regarding their local community even down to a much smaller scale than the Anfield area. There will be many people there that day that won't have the same beliefs, or the same political leanings, but they will be there to fight for their cause however small.

Anfield is one of the most deprived constituencies in the country and will be hit hard with the likes of the Housing Market Renewal Scheme being scrapped. This affects residents and the community, but also supporters and their experience when visiting the club particularly on a non matchday. That is the reason for our aims regarding the community and also having committee members allocated to those areas. To be able to assist in creating a thriving community that not only helps the community, but also helps the club.

As has been said before we are running at a cost, so there is no funding going towards the coach. Whether the TUC subsidise unwaged or leave later is not an issue for SOS, but for them and those who wish to use it.

 

My reply:

 

Dear Fran,

 

First of all, the replies you refer to were made to a blog, not to my correspondence, and those replies do not answer all the questions asked.

 

As with those blog replies, you fail to show any specific link to the Anfield area or Liverpool supporters. Michael Shields was a clear and tangible issue, as were "The Dockers", although the latter was certainly a bit before SOS's time, so it is a bit disingenuous to refer to such - and the latter is a matter for one's personal conscience - not a Supporters' Organisation. Where is the link here?

 

You go on to state that;

"Spirit of Shankly is a Union and the umbrella body for unions is holding a demonstration that members put forward to us and agreed strongly at the AGM that we should support".

 

The TUC is the umbrella body for Trade Unions. As SOS points out, there is no other Supporters' Union, so therefore there is no umbrella body for SOS. The accusation made is right then - you do think SOS is a Trade Union.

 

That being the case then, presumably SOS is affiliated to the TUC - which presumably means that SOS is making affiliation payments...

 

As for this "agreed strongly" at the AGM, that is a plain nonsense. There was merely no dissent to the idea of arranging transport, and there was no vote. Your interpretation of the events, again, seems disingenuous.

 

I might add, that arranging transport to a venue does not necessarily mean that you are going in an official capacity - and that is the real issue with that, as far as I am concerned.

 

Then we come to:

 

As has been said we are all volunteers and the main resource is just the time of those stewarding the coach on the day. Otherwise there is no financial subsidy for this as it is funded by those paying to use the coach. We have also approached the TUC to see if there was any way they could provide and subsidy towards the coach, we are awaiting a response, any subsidy received would be passed on to people travelling on the day...

 

 

 

TUC provided travel is already fully booked, with many of the spaces being taken up by Union reps rather than actual members...

 

 

 

Oh really...

 

The TUC travel is free, on a first come first served basis, with limited places, many of which have been taken up by Union reps and officials rather than members. We are running the travel at cost price, the cost of hiring the coach will be divided by however many people travel, minus any subsidy we may receive from the TUC. I am somewhat confused by this question as in your third question you seem concerned with the funds and resources used to arrange this, but now you are concerned that we may be charging more than the TUC, who are providing free travel. As of yet, nobody who has raised an interest in travelling has commented on the price.

 

Did you make those travelling aware of the alternatives? Your information, by the way, seems to be greatly in error.

 

I raised this issue nearly three weeks ago, so arguing that places may not be available now is a bit of a cheek, but then again, you have not done your homework. I have checked again and have copied this today (21 March 2011), from an online source about other transport:

 

Liverpool Trades Union Council Coach to London

Tickets available from News from Nowhere, Bold Street, Liverpool

Any queries telephone 07585268607

 

Update: Second coach ordered 25th Feb due to demand to fight the cuts.

Update: 3rd Coach ordered 7th March 2011

16th March Update: Coach 4 sold out in 2 days now selling coach 5

Update: Tickets now available for coach 6.

 

Cost: £20 Waged £10 Unwaged

Email: (Unable to post link)

Telephone: 07585268607

Organised by: Liverpool Trades union Council

The local TUC, as already stated in the blog, have been ordering coaches as demand required.

 

 

 

Having also checked this today, they have confirmed that there are still seats on coach 6 available - but that will be the last coach. Clearly the information you provide about TUC transport is completely wrong, despite the fact that the above had already been pointed out to you, and is as available to you as it is to me.

 

 

 

What has also has been pointed out already, is that the local TUC has been arranging transport that is cheaper, based on demand, and leaving significantly later than you are, making it significantly more convenient. So why even bother? Why not refer SOS members to that, if they want to go? There is clearly no need to even provide this transport! It's an option - sure - but a crap and unnecessary one!

 

 

 

You seem to have a bit of an issue around the campaigning against things that have not actually happened yet...

 

 

 

No, and "Go fish": For all you know, I could be going on this march in a personal capacity, or as a member of an affected organisation.

 

 

 

It is the involvement of SOS that I object to - not the involvement of its individual members, as their conscience dictates - on a matter that has no clear of obvious

 

 

 

You simply do not make your case to involve SOS in this rally. It's all vague and generic your reasoning - the sign of someone keeping the specifics out of it, because they do not suit your argument or personal agenda.

 

 

 

We don't live in a bubble? Well, I'm not going into an existential argument about the nature of the universe with you, but you are clearly defying common sense. SOS cannot and should not involve itself with anything that does not or will not clearly affect its members or even Anfield. You do not better the Housing Market Renewal Scheme as an example, which is a shockingly awful example to quote - but then you just don't have any genuine reasons, do you? You just want to go shout at the Government, and take SOS with you.

 

 

 

You have waited until after the events of Thursday, and the weekend game, to now dismiss any involvement or comment in providing a banner in support for either the people of Japan, or even our Supporters in Japan, after the fact.

 

 

 

Were you not at Anfield on Thursday, or watching Channel 5, or highlights since or seen the online video of our club's and our fans tribute and condolences that put other clubs and their fans to shame? The fact is, others got together because you did not involve yourselves with it. It was all arranged without any actual or moral assistance from our Supporters' Union, despite the obvious and stated desire of fans to do something specific and despite SOS being approached beforehand about it.

 

 

 

You seem terribly uninformed as to the desires of fans to have a large banner (e.g. check out RAWK, as well as "The Kop") and the fact that both the Japanese Supporters' Club, and Japanese nationals in the UK who are Reds, have been involved with arranging those banners and tributes that we saw. It seems you are like Nelson, placing a telescope to his blind eye, then saying, "I see no ships".

 

 

 

Offering your personal opinion of it, after the fact, to justify the non-involvement of SOS, having ignored the issue beforehand, is just insulting. I suppose you personally agree with SOS going to this rally, as if that makes both decisions the correct ones.

 

 

 

Don't you feel ashamed about that? It makes me wonder why I bother paying you a subscription, when you cannot be bothered to even consider a matter like this.

 

 

 

It seems clear to me that you are and your cronies are the ones living in a bubble; a bubble the size of Liverpool, or whatever your personal patch of it is.

 

 

 

You are the worst examples of Liverpool fans - only interested in yourselves and your little bit of Liverpool. You only care about other supporters outside of Liverpool paying their membership fee.

 

 

 

The fact that you happily and unapologetically involve SOS in a matter where there is no clear or tangible link to the supporters, the club, or even the area around the stadium, and wilfully ignore the feelings of numerous fans, locally and far afield, over a matter that has directly affected our supporters, but in a different part of the world, shows just how big your bubble is.

 

 

 

You and your pals have been rumbled.

 

 

 

Consider me now a former member of SOS.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Andrew J Moran

[moof]

Agreeing with Andy here. SOS was born from noble causes but it seems they've lost the plot regarding fan ownership. They think they represent the majority of fans opinions wheras they represent a vast minority.

 

They still do some good but i feel they've got ahead of themselves a little. Thanks for the help in removing H&G. I will always be grateful to SOS for this.

[RoboRiise]

Why is this lad using his place and name on the supporters committee to do a hatchet job on SOS via the TLW forum?

 

Civil war isn't what the committee is supposed to be about mate. If you want to report SOS to the authorities over certain things in your own time then that's your business, but it's not part of your remit on the supporters committee, is it?

 

If this is the type of character representing the fans on the committee then it's going to be a disaster.

 

 

I think you might want to go back and read the e-mail he sent to Dave again. The reason he mentioned SOS at all is that at the time he applied to become a member of the committee he was a member of SOS.

 

SOS have made it clear that the supporters committee is a separate entity, meaning that just because an SOS member is on the committee he's not an SOS representative to the committee; that would be a misrepresentation of the facts because the committee representatives have all been appointed to represent a particular demographic. Regardless, it doesn't seem unreasonable that in the real world an individual who is an SOS member would likely find some common ground between the aims of the union and the interests of the area or demographic that he's been appointed to represent; indeed I would have the expectation that such a person would have a largely pro-union agenda.

 

In view of that, I think it's perfectly reasonable for such a person to explain that he's no longer a member of SOS, simply for the sake of clarity and avoidance of confusion. Explaining that fact without giving any indication of why he's no longer a member would leave a vacuum of information which would doubtless be filled by all manner of ludicrous speculation, so having clarified that he's no longer a member, it follows that he needed to explain why.

 

To be honest, I think the transparency that Mr Moran has shown so far is admirable. No matter what your opinion of his stance is, you can at least form that opinion based on hard facts from the horse's mouth instead of rumour and conjecture, which has to be a good thing.

 

 

Notice the deflection and personal attack, but the complete and utter failure to address any points raised.

 

 

I did.

 

There's obviously some pre-existing history here which I'm not party to but regardless of that, the way for SOS to debunk someone's lies (if that's what we have here) is to illuminate them with the light of truth, not to dismiss the person making them as a crank without any attempt to address the issues which have been presented. That's just an observation by the way, before you all start.

 

I know Graham has been quite proactive in the past in posting on forums and addressing concerns about union matters, I'm sure he'll be along presently to give us some input.

 

Everyone: No-one on this thread has the full story here - how about for a change we all lay off the personal insults until we've got a clearer picture? If not then regardless of your intent, the person you're most likely to make a cock of is yourself.

 

One last point:

 

I'm respectful of those on the panel, but this lad seems like a lunatic:

Propaganda and Forum Control

 

He's obsessed with SOS, even in his official capacity as a Liverpool supporters representative he's waging all-out war on SOS. He's completely wrong for the role if that's the case.

 

 

One thing I can't argue with is his point about various other fora and it addresses the earlier question about why this was posted on TLW.

 

The suggestion that this site has an overall anti-union agenda is frankly bollocks. There's certainly an anti-union element on here, same as there is a pro-union element (as this thread shows) but the critical difference is that on RAWK (for example) I'd be amazed if this thread had lasted an hour. That's down to the different character of the respective sites, nothing more - RAWK is simply more actively moderated and tends to veer away from more controversial topics but if all LFC sites were the same I think we'd be poorer for it.

 

The post was simply put up on a site where it was pretty much guaranteed to stay online - nothing wrong with that if an open and honest debate is what people are after.

[Pidge]

I'll probably read that later, if I can find it amongst Ritchie's posts.

[Captain]

The post was simply put up on a site where it was pretty much guaranteed to stay online - nothing wrong with that if an open and honest debate is what people are after.

 

Not only that, the Editor posted it for him.

 

Good post by the way, RR.

[VladimirIlyich]

And I thought Dennis Tooths posts were long winded!

 

Just joking Dennis.

 

This supporters forum hasnt even started yet and WW3 has begun.

[ritchie]

And I thought Dennis Tooths posts were long winded!

 

Just joking Dennis.

 

This supporters forum hasnt even started yet and WW3 has begun.

 

Who's fault's that?

[VladimirIlyich]

Who's fault's that?

 

I must admit Andrew Moran hasnt got off to a good start.

 

I think our US friends call it 'having issues.'

[RoboRiise]

Who's fault's that?

 

 

Well the people making digs from the sidelines whilst contributing the square root of fuck all to the discussion aren't really helping...

[Kevin D]

Who's fault's that?

 

?

[ritchie]

Well the people making digs from the sidelines whilst contributing the square root of fuck all to the discussion aren't really helping...

 

It's up to the SOS committee to come on and defend themselves.

 

I just think its clearly wrong for this lad to use his place on the supporters committee to wage war on SOS. It wasn't what he was appointed to do.

[RoboRiise]

I see Graham is lurking and presumably reading the thread. Say what you like about Graham but he's never hid in the face of controversy.

 

 

It's up to the SOS committee to come on and defend themselves.

 

I just think its clearly wrong for this lad to use his place on the supporters committee to wage war on SOS. It wasn't what he was appointed to do.

 

 

If that's what he's doing I'd agree with you mate. As it is, I actually thought he was trying to get some of this out of the way before the committee is formally initiated - the members have been chosen but they haven't actually started any work yet.

 

Were I in his shoes, I'd also be concerned about the possibility of this whole pre-existing animosity coming out through, shall we say other channels once the committee was up and running. As a certain Welsh footballer has learned this week, sometimes when there''s information which is bound to find its way into the public consciousness it's better to retain control over how and when that happens yourself.