Graham Smith

The question of Purslow being on or off the Board and Blackstone aren't related.

They could not have done as Broughton's original terms of appointment stopped them from appointing to the Board in order to stop that exact circumstance. That was a key element of the case - remember H&G tried to sack the Board.

Thought you were asking about Purslow not being around?

Simple answer is the Club would still have been sold. We were looking at administration, there were some credible buyers and from all accounts NESV were clearly the most credible and so we were sold. It wasn't rocket science.

I can't let this cack go unchallenged. No one got stictched up and "SOS" whatever that means, yet again, held no candle for Benitez. Yet again, what is the evidence for this nonsense? What SOS did do was suss Purslow from the start and despite getting pilloried over the meetings with him and trying to doorstep him to find out exactly who was running the show many saw it as rude to the man and none of the supporters' business. The whole point of trying to hold him to account was to expose the vaccuum he stepped into that allowed him (not Broughton) to dispose of one manager without having a better one lined up and then oversee one of the worst six month's in this Club's history. And let's not overstate his "saving" the Club. Once you get to the point that you see that Hicks and Gillett are finished and the Club is looking at administration it isn't hard to play a part in dealing with the limited, credible offers that were around and then take legal advice that says "Go on, sell, they won't be able to stop you". Especially when the personal risk to you is zero.

Currently number 14 on the iTunes Sports podcast list.

Eh? This is the second one this year and they will be monthly from now on.

Bump. Last day of voting. Make it count.

They haven't got a big turnover and you can't overstate a few years in the CL for what it can bring to your finances. The ground doesn't generate massive returns and their limited success sees them without big returns. They seem to have realised that they cannot go big in the transfer market but have gambled on keeping their "stars" by giving them long and biggish contracts. The last set of accounts make it pretty clear that without investment they will have to sell to buy this summer. New owners with at least some pockets of cash are needed otherwise they'll end up hoping Moyes (or whoever follows him) can keep turning sow's ears into silkish purses.

This was aimed at LFC TV. During the campaigns (understandably) Committee members who had previously been asked on were blackballed. However, when the dust settled after the change of ownership the programmes produced about the sale and the events leading up to it made no mention of the Union (or indeed other groups). Suggestions about a programme on the Union have fallen on deaf ears. And while these programmes are mostly about football opinions (and that isn't in the Union's remit) they also cover the goings on around the Club too - again a debate we are not being allowed any part of.

Ha ha, they won't come near us. Despite the lifting of the unofficial ban on Union members being asked back on (Peter Hooton). We remain airbrushed out of the Club's official view of history.

Who's doing LFC TV on behalf of TLW? RAWK got their five minutes of fame this afternoon (showing tonight) and LFC TV have said they are inviting other fanzines and websites on their show including this site.

No show without Punch.

The Union Management Committee are placing the following resolution before the AGM this coming Saturday Proposal 2 That the AGM encourages all of its members to engage in the creation of the LFC Supporters’ Committee up to and including seeking representation upon by members

Completely untrue

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.

I used my work email address. The document was an attachment and the email had a couple of lines of warm and polite greetings within it. I had previously emailed his personal email address (that he had given to me) a couple of times from my work email address without any comment. His comment is baffling.

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.

This must be the tenth time I've personally responded to you on this issue but we'll try again.... The Union has no intentions of buying any part (or all) of the Club. But carry on regardless.....

No payments have even been made for any legal work done by Committee members on behalf of the Union. 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. And again, and you won't be able to show it, where is the evidence that the Union was pro-Benitez rather than pro-manager. Good luck with proving that, just join the line of people who have said this before and when asked can't show anything. The Porto march maybe? The sacking day demo? There's two to start you off.

Time will tell as in all of these things.

Yes, the huge irony being that that is exactly what he has said he is going to do. Seems we're on the same page as him (read his response). Presumably that is something we're all pleased about and which wasn't clearly known before this?

If you took the trouble to follow the link you'd see there are large documents which make it tricky to post. Oh yeah, and cheers, that might save the thread from the usual stuff. But maybe not.

Listen, I saw Keegan leave, and we had about three years of Barnes going too. And don't even start about Gerrard. We're the Club, not the players. They (apart from a very small number) aren't the Club, we are. If he goes, he goes. We carry on. Don't abuse him, don't idolise him, he had a choice to be a legend, if he leaves he decided not to be. We're still here, rely on ourselves because at the end of the day as we have always said forget who owns us and who plays for us because we are the only constant in all of this.

I think one thing we've hopefully achieved is that the Union is outward facing in the way it has attracted branches (a bloke from Oz has been in touch having heard the podcast) and it can be seen that isn't a Liverpool centric organisation.