longtimered

SOS and other groups deserve congratulation for the pressures applied and being prepared to put in time and effort to deliver action not just words. I think SOS needs to be proactive in rebuilding relationships with the Chairman and Chief Executive because they have earned our gratitude and being practical its hard to engage in discussion about supporter involvement if key figures in the club have been alienated. SOS-Shareliverpool need to escalate their hitherto liesurely timetable for any real action.There will be a limited timespan with the new owners where the question of fan participation is a real option.I thought SOS were very cavalier about dismissing the early October deadline-whether that was just "spin" because they weren't ready I'm not sure.The only real way to protect interests in the future is thro a level of fan stakeholding and real progress needs to take place on what after all has always been the stated long term aim of SOS.

Depends on the objective-neither option is a long term solution in my view.Hodgson looks out of his depth at a bigger club ;Kenny might bring a short term spark to get the best out of what is available playing wise pending a sale(hopefully!)

don't know what to say -we are really shocking to watch whatever competition

Spot on.Shows his total lack of understanding of Liverpool Football Club.

Fair answers Graham tho I meant being ready for the SOS deadline. Can you clarify who comprises the board of SOS-SL;PM if you prefer.

A number of questions. On an issue of detail -what is the role of shareliverpool on the SOS management committee.I thought it was merely the question of supporter ownership where the two groups had shared interests?Is it to ultimately provide a means of losing the separate identities? I am glad SOS are trying to regain the reigns as it were by the 31st October deadline.I still think SOS needs some explicit position regarding the 6th October deadline.You cant ask other groups to desist unless you adress this specific issue. I think there are a number of weaknesses in the overall approach.There is no body yet established who is driving the process of fan ownership with appropriate legal and financial expertise or if there is we are unaware of it.Has even the joint committee between SOS/SL been established yet or is this subject to the EGM? There is no scientific basis to approximate the funds available on behalf of the wider supporter body.To establish a deadline on this basis seems premature. Questions of future fund raising for such as ground redevelopment do not appear to have been adressed.There needs to be a financial model for the next 5-7 years. I support the concept of a fan/supporter stakeholding but think a lot of time has been wasted and the Ocober deadline is now forcing a timescale for which SOS-SL is not adequately prepared.

Having expectations "not that high" against Birmingham with the resultant tactics/formation etc and not not being unhappy with result and performance is not acceptable.He needs to do something to correct the approach and aspiration very quickly.

Sorry it wasn't that we only drew rather the total lack of ambition to win later reinforced by the manager's comments.

Total despair.We were organised to play for 0-0 and maybe nick something.No ambition.We need a manager who will look to win fixtures like yesterdays.Whatever weaknesses exist in the squad it was Birmingham we were playing not Man Utd or Chelsea etc.Mid table beckons at this rate.

Are people as underwhelmed as I am by the low profile/leadership of SOS on this specific issue of the deadline?I would have thought a major campaign was of the utmost importance.

It isn't a matter of whether a particular paper is credible or not.Unless they are reporting facts after the event then all papers are speculative and rely on sources with varying degrees of knowledge and influence.You cant believe the Times because you think Evans or Barrett is a good red and then disbelieve Bascombe because you think he is a bad red.All parties rely on different sources who have got stories both right and wrong in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

There are a couple of issues I don't understand. Firstly why would anyone have a go at SOS for their involvement?Their long term aim and ultimate aim have been stated and published from day1-therefore the merger with Shareliverpool always had to be the first step.Anyone who has joined or had anything to do with SOS will have seen the aims of the organisation I would have thought. Secondly the question of developing the model of supporter ownership(i assume you mean minority stakeholding)-how is this being done?I would have thought a proposal needs to be developed by no more than 5/6 people with the appropriate business/legal/financial skills and then endorsed by SOS-SL.This would include a draft shareholder agreement/articles of association which kicks into touch the negative nitpicking of Numero Nuevo.I dont get a picture of a clear action plan -particularly when time is of the essence. There are only a few key issues to concentrate on: -what is the minimum shareholding for an effective minority stake;is it 10%? -can that amount of money(c£50m) be raised -what protections(requring 100% shareholder agreement) can realistically be negotiated in the articles of association/shareholder agreement -what scope is there to increase shareholding in the long term We need a heavy hitter from the business world to be a frontman.What a shame Terry Leahy is an Evertonian.

Good to see and not before time.It will be interesting to see the composition of the management committee and what skills they have.Hopefully a model for minority stakeholding is also being developed.

The main issue was that he thought everything was about Gerrard Houlier first -humility wasn't in his dictionary.The latest outburst illustrates the same issue I think. He wasn't a disaster as manager but didnt leave a good legacy with the strength of squad.

Its clearly good that the two organisations have got together since there cant be competing parties with the same objective.this has always been a stated long term objective of SOS I think. I can't help but think the phrase "fan ownership" is unhelpful since it is probably an unrealistic objective.Surely the objective is to raise a minority stakeholding to a level which -thro articles of association etc-gives levels of protection by specifying those items(e.g.debt levels)which require 100%shareholder agreement.The majority shareholder has the responsibility of running the club within the perameters set out by the shareholder agreement;the minority shareholder doesnt interfere in the day to day running of the club.The minority shareholder would have board representation through a process of nomination(financial)and election (general).In this way some level of long term protection is built in to avoid a repeaat of the last four years. In my view the agreement between SOS and Shareliverpool is long overdue as is involvement of an experienced business/commercial heavyweight.

It is a good article-thought provoking.If shareliverpool was as effective as the red knights (or whatever they are called )then a more palatable solution could be possible.Like others I find the legacy of Moores and Parry to show them as totally shallow and incompetent. I dont understand how this article has anything to do with whether we finish 4th or 7th.One is a long term structural and strategic issue as opposed to short/medium term tactical management of one part of the club.

Its a midfield position when there were 3 defenders-2 full backs and a centre half.He later finished his careeer(at Derby) as a tommy smith type second central defender once the game had evolved to 4-4-2.

Pure logic goes out the window as to what standing caused.I was at both Heysel and Hillsborough and neither tragedy would have occured in an all seater stadium which is the end of the debate for me.

Don't know why anyone would be critical of this-particularly since it was conducted in a proper way.Whilst I dont expect Moores to suddenly show some backbone and leadership you just never know-who expected Hicks jr to send such an email! Well done to the two concerned.

Is this genuine question.Club privately owned by the two.

I'm glad to see others have picked up on preseason.At the time it worried me that we were not in good shape tho I didnt consider things to be as bad as they have turned out.In all honesty we are going to have to improve significantly to stand a chance of 4th spot.

Surely while this is newsworthy SOS can develop a very specific press handout which repudiates Gillett's points item by item or number by number.Is this something that can be added to the "poster" campaign?

What you about Real is fair-its kind of a national institution that the banks support.Barca isnt tho.My personal view is that some form of minority stakeholding is the most practical on all fronts.The articles of association would specify what items-e.g debt ceiling;key appointments etc-require total shareholder agreement.The majority shareholder would be free to run the club day to day.

There are a whole series of issues. 1.The stated ultimate/long term aim of SOS means that they should be acting in partnership or in conjunction with Shareliverpool. 2. The principles of fan ownership work sufficiently well at Real Madrid and Barcelona so it is patently untrue to say it cant work here.There is some instability with the leadership but that is happening anyway-the days of a constant local benefactor are gone. 3.Fan ownership is potentially a way of protecting clubs from being a rich man's plaything with no guaranteed security if the rich man exits.It is more likely to protect the heritage 4.The proposal as it stands isnt realistic-Hicks and Gillette arent going to sell at the price quoted. 4.The proposal to cover the £100m of residual debt isnt finacially sound. 5.The question of improving the future long term income stream through ground redevelopment isnt addressed . Dont think people should get too hung up on the personalities of those involved though the proposal continues to show a certain amount of naivety rather than a pure business proposition.

Many years ago my boss asked me to take his young lad to a match.I took him to Stamford Bridge to see the Reds win 2-1;Roger Hunt scored one of our goals.I repeatedly explained to this young lad that Roger was the greatest goalscorer in the game-far better than that Jimmy Greaves that the southern press used to over rate. I delivered the lad back to his parents near Brentwood Essex where a kids party was taking place. Ten minutes later a father comes to collect his kid from the party-that father was Jimmy Greaves.The lad proudly tells him that he'd just seen the best striker in the country score at Chelsea and that I'd told him that Roger Hunt was a far better player.Jimmy Greaves still had the decency to laugh and shake my hand even tho I explained it was important that these southern kids got properly educated! To be honest Greaves was a tremendous player- particularly when strikers were just expected to score goals rather than waste energy on "working for the team".He was probably the greatest finisher of his era.