Topic: Leaving on a Jet Plane?

[RJH]

Exactly. We have put questions to Broughton and respectfully, but firmly ask for the questions.

The Premier League part is separate and loads have sent in e-mails and they still haven't replied so we are asking for a reply again and if not we will go and knock on their door to see if they will give us the answers then.

I think the problem is that because the Premier League bit is just included at the end of a statement mainly about Broughton, it is open to misinterpretation.

Perhaps if it had its own sub-heading or something, or even just a bigger gap from the rest of the article, it might be a bit more obvious.

[blert596]

Cheers Paul.

It is an information release on our website to update members.

I read it on the website, but being at work and reading this thread while looking over my shoulder, got caught up in the general belief that it was an actual letter to Mr T.

[campioni]

SoS are doing their best to make sure we get answers from the people in charge of the club and some people are getting their knickers in a twist over the semantics of an information release because it might offend someone (even though it wasn't even intended at him).

 

[MichaelA]

It is an information release on our website to update members.

With the greatest respect, I don't think you're doing an especially good job of it. The two issues should have been addressed separately and the text of any letter to our incoming Chairman should have been shared with members.

Whether unwittingly or not SoS have managed to confuse and confound a significant proportion of the fans. I'd suggest the last sentence is deliberately disingenuous. This kind of stuff is playground level engagement with serious business people and serious issues. It's about time that SoS takes that mandate seriously and begin to act maturely and credibly with the people that it seeks to influence.

[electric_bloom]

"we'll be down to see you at our convenience"
Love that bit!

Keep up the good work.

[Jason_King]

should have at least give the guy chance to take up/turn down the offer.

[Igor Zidane]

FFS Read the thread , it is not a letter to anyone . It is a statement for SOS members.

[Graham Smith]

With the greatest respect, I don't think you're doing an especially good job of it. The two issues should have been addressed separately and the text of any letter to our incoming Chairman should have been shared with members.

Whether unwittingly or not SoS have managed to confuse and confound a significant proportion of the fans. I'd suggest the last sentence is deliberately disingenuous. This kind of stuff is playground level engagement with serious business people and serious issues. It's about time that SoS takes that mandate seriously and begin to act maturely and credibly with the people that it seeks to influence.

I think the drafting is clear enough but I accept that "intention" isn't good enough.

I'd challenge that a significant proportion are confused but even if there is any confusion we will take that on board and work harder to make it clearer next time.

To reitierate as per that statement, Broughton is being given due respect and a conciliatory approach. The PL have been ignorant and the subject of significant approaches by many supporters - this won't be allowed to just be let pass.

[wiresnreds]

Well in SOS im glad you adopting the approach you are at the moment as some fans think a letter of pretty please and a big cherry on top approach will be more than what is necessary. Maybe we can write a nice letter to Tom and George in a few weeks saying how much we miss protesting against them at Anfield and would they please please come back for one game, expenses paid of course so we can sing some songs at them!

[Pheel]

I think the drafting is clear enough but I accept that "intention" isn't good enough.

I'd challenge that a significant proportion are confused but even if there is any confusion we will take that on board and work harder to make it clearer next time.

To reitierate as per that statement, Broughton is being given due respect and a conciliatory approach. The PL have been ignorant and the subject of significant approaches by many supporters - this won't be allowed to just be let pass.

"The true meaning of any communication is the response that it gets"

Whatever the intention, (and all on here i guess support the real intention), how people read it is how they believe it. More care needed other wise the brilliant efforts get diluted.

[FiSh77]

can't see the problem with it myself, mind you i take care reading things instead of giving it a quick scan then rushing on here to complain

Additionally, the Premier League continue to ignore fans who have asked pertinent questions about their "fit and proper" test

makes perfect sence to me

[GeeFJay]

read and understood, how did people manage to take that as an open letter sent to this broughton and not an info release?

[OohCampione]

As previously stated, the release will be taken as read by the individual. I feel it's either intentionally confrontational or written in a way to mis-lead members/followers who wish for a more militant approach.

It's about time that SoS takes that mandate seriously and begin to act maturely and credibly with the people that it seeks to influence.

This is the key to attracting more members and gaining further support. I admire what SOS stand for and their attempts to make a difference but if I'm totally honest I have stalled on membership owing to its militant overtones.

[fudge]

As a member i'm not arsed about the perceived sleight at all. Frankly it should be beholden on anyone in charge of our club to listen to us, the fact they don't and might have their noses put out of joint by a slightly aggressive statement is neither here nor there.

They pay no fucking heed whatsoever so fuck politeness

[The Red artist.]

Boss work SOS.

[TSC]

A combination of apathy and ignorance helped contribute to the position we now find the club in.  Find it incedible that SOS get criticised for its actions when it is really the only game in town for us re supporters voices being heard.  They must feel like they're treading on egg shells coming on here.  Damned of you do and damned if you don't.

The powers that be at LFC may not like it?  May get upset?  So what. 

No-one knows what this Broughton guy has been brought in for, or by whom.  Purslow hasn't covered himself in glory - who appointed him?  Banks or owners?  Your guess is as good as anyone's.  No-one knows who the fuck is running footballs equivalent of fawlty towers.

Carry on the questioning and challenges.

[xerxes1]

A good effort, well done to Graham and the boys (and girls) at SOS.

The issue of the fit and proper persons test is worth pursuing as it is common ground for all football supporters.

[Graham Smith]

As previously stated, the release will be taken as read by the individual. I feel it's either intentionally confrontational or written in a way to mis-lead members/followers who wish for a more militant approach.

This is the key to attracting more members and gaining further support. I admire what SOS stand for and their attempts to make a difference but if I'm totally honest I have stalled on membership owing to its militant overtones.

Respect your opinion but to clarify - it is respectful towards the new independent chairman and confrontational to the PL who have ignored us.

"Misleading"? That suggests dishonesty. While I try and recognise the broad opinions of posters on here, as one of the authors of the release I think "misleading" is a bit of a jump when the release is read objectively.

While the Union won't pander to the lowest common denominator, the problems our Club has are such that some confrontation is inevitable, if at the same time, we all consider it tragic.

Oh for the days of just having a beer before the game and calling Ronnie Whelan shit because of his play rather than his opinions.

[OohCampione]

Respect your opinion but to clarify - it is repsectful towards the new independent chairman and confrontational to the PL who have ignored us.

"Misleading"? That suggests dishonesty. While I try and recognise the broad opinions of posters on here, as one of the authors of the release I think "misleading" is a bit of a jump when the release is read objectively.

While the UNion won't pander to the lowest common denominator the problems our Club has are such that some confrontation is inevitable, if at the same time, we all consider it tragic.

Oh for the days of just having a beer before the game and calling Ronnie Whelan shit because of his play rather than his opinions.

I read the release as it was meant, and did see the separation between the new chairman and the PL. I would suggest that the release is much more aggressive in it's wording than the correspondance to either party concerned and that is why I used the words mis-leading. In retrospect, it may have been a bit harsh but I see no reason why you just couldn't publish the letter/emails in full so the members, and prospective members for that matter, can see your approach first hand.

Do SOS regret having alienated Purslow so soon? If so, is there going to be a change in your offensive.

______________________________
Dear Mr Broughton,

We represent 4500 paying members who are also your loyal customers.
Our facebook membership runs to 25,000 of those loyal customers.
We have concerns about the way the club had been run over the last 3 years and would welcome the opportunity to talk to you and understand what your remit and plans are for the club's immediate future.

A lack of interaction with the owners of the club has led to a situation where protests have been the only avenue left open to us to register our dissatisfaction.
This is in neither of our best interests, and indeed we'd much prefer the club to be run properly and allow us to focus on supporting our team.
With that in mind could you please contact us to arrange a meeting at your convenience?

Yours
SOS
________________________________

Maybe?

[BobbyDavro]

What's happened with Purslow?  I can guess, but it'd be good to have it spelled out.

[OohCampione]

What's happened with Purslow?  I can guess, but it'd be good to have it spelled out.

Issue agreeing the minutes for their meeting

LittleMoreInfo

[Paul Gardner]

I read the release as it was meant, and did see the separation between the new chairman and the PL. I would suggest that the release is much more aggressive in it's wording than the correspondance to either party concerned and that is why I used the words mis-leading. In retrospect, it may have been a bit harsh but I see no reason why you just couldn't publish the letter/emails in full so the members, and prospective members for that matter, can see your approach first hand.

Do SOS regret having alienated Purslow so soon? If so, is there going to be a change in your offensive.

The questions are the main points that will be sent to Broughton. The Premier League e-mail people on here already sent so it will be a request again to answer the questions in that e-mail.

On Purslow, we put both sets of minutes out there so everyone could decide what happened in the meeting. If the only way to not alienate him was to lie about what happened in that meeting to allow him to control what was out there then we would have just become his mouthpiece and we would not be representing our members. Members put forward questions to be answered in that meeting and it was our responsibility to give the answers we received. Particularly when it was agreed that we would enter into the meetings as long as everything was on the record.

Of course we would like answers on Rhone and the Football Quarter from Purslow, but if he wasn't going to let us release the real answer it would be pointless.

[bootroom boy]

Well done SOS. to be honest I am totally fed up with the 'Laissez Faire' attitude of the majority of our fans.
These owners are destroying everything our club stands for and may be 4,500 of us, out of our massive fan base are prepared to fight for the club. Too much political correctness, do you think the two bastards who own us actually care? However we should make prospective owners aware of what we expect as fans.

[OohCampione]

Not worried about putting off prospevtive investors?

[Graham Smith]

Not worried about putting off prospevtive investors?

Prospective investors need to know there is a vibrant, intelligent supporter base out there that will hold them to account.

[Hij]

Once bitten, twice shy. They took our kindness for weakness last time, I see no reason to give anyone an easy ride.

Prospective investors need to know there is a vibrant, intelligent supporter base out there that will hold them to account.

[Dam Sodd]

I'd carry their bags. Keep it up SOS

[Robinred]

A combination of apathy and ignorance helped contribute to the position we now find the club in.  Find it incedible that SOS get criticised for its actions when it is really the only game in town for us re supporters voices being heard.  They must feel like they're treading on egg shells coming on here.  Damned of you do and damned if you don't.

The powers that be at LFC may not like it?  May get upset?  So what. 

No-one knows what this Broughton guy has been brought in for, or by whom.  Purslow hasn't covered himself in glory - who appointed him?  Banks or owners?  Your guess is as good as anyone's.  No-one knows who the fuck is running footballs equivalent of fawlty towers.

Carry on the questioning and challenges.

I agree with the sentiments, particularly about the combination of apathy and ignorance.

Yet MichaelA surely has a point too?

The two contrasting sets of SOS minutes are particularly revealing, hence my highlighting of the question you pose above. Were'nt we led to believe it's RBS? So why do CP's minutes seem to bend over backwards to avoid calling the owners what SOS minutes suggest he thinks of them really?

Playing devil's advocate, isn't it likely that Purslow wants shot of the owners as much as anyone, but unlike SOS and many posters in this thread, he thinks the best approach is "softly softly, catchee monkey"?

In other words, given the likelihood that G&H will soon be ex-owners, don't allow constant public airing of our feelings about them to a) frighten off potential investors, and/or b) cause them to do anything other than leave quietly.

Or have I got completely the wrong end of the stick?

[evered avenue]

Typical SOS strong arm tactics. 

"If, as expected, Martin Broughton is appointed this week, then Spirit of Shankly will respectfully but firmly ask for an early meeting with him to seek answers to the questions that supporters want answering now:"

What does 'respectfully but firmly' really imply?  Forget about the open hostility to the PL, this itself is a thinly veiled threat with antagonistic overtones.  What is so wrong with simply 'respectfully asking for a meeting'?

Also, the guy hasn't even been appointed as yet and may not be.  With that in mind, perhaps you should wait until the guy starts the job before asking for a meeting, maybe even giving him a couple of weeks to get his feet under the desk before you pounce on him.

Every time SOS release a statement or plan a protest or such like, there as many fans who disagree as those that agree with the tactics and methods employed and it's always the same story with SOS. 

Whenever those fans that have issue with their tactics and tones make a comment/complaint, Graham Smith or  A N Other SOS person will invariably:

a) Defend their tactics and singularly refuse to accept that there may be a better way, clearly illustrated by their refusal, to date, to adapt a better more inclusive method of approach.
b) They will criticise fans for not being members of SOS strongly implying that if you're not a member then you obviously don't really care and aren't pulling your weight in the struggle.
c) They treat the fans who don't agree with their abrasive approach with the same contempt they accuse the board, and most recently Purslow, of such like behaviour.

If I may, can I put a question to SOS.
If we accept that being a member of SOS is not a prerequisite for supporting and wanting the best for this club, and accepting the fact that since it's inception SOS has been criticised for it's methods by a broad spectrum of fellow supporters, and claiming to represent the fans, then why is it that the feelings of these many fans haven't been taken into consideration as we see the same style of communications and protestations emanating from the SOS camp?

[xerxes1]

If I may, can I put a question to SOS.
If we accept that being a member of SOS is not a prerequisite for supporting and wanting the best for this club, and accepting the fact that since it's inception SOS has been criticised for it's methods by a broad spectrum of fellow supporters, and claiming to represent the fans, then why is it that the feelings of these many fans haven't been taken into consideration as we see the same style of communications and protestations emanating from the SOS camp?

No doubt Graham will officially respond to this.

But as an ordinary SOS supporter I would say this. SOS, in my opinion, represents a known point of view.It cannot, and does not, represent all Liverpool's supporters, or all the shades of opinion there in. It is a rallying point which you either choose to rally to, or don't.

Broughton has been heavily involved in taking on the highly organised BA Cabin Crew. A stiff letter from SOS does no more than let him know we are here. It is the size, strength and capability of our action which will influence, rather than the detail of an individual letter. I applaud SOS for what they ARE trying to do, and accept that they won't always get it right, nor will they please all of the people all of the time.

A personal frustration is this.Unless the FA and Premier leagues rules on Club ownership change when we are sold this could happen again, and again. There is an opportunity to form a supporters pan-alliance acros many clubs (including the Mancs/Pompey/ Cardiff etc) to highlight this and secure change that is being missed at the moment.

My opinion is that we won't be seeing much of Broughton, his job is simply to sell us it appears, he has nothing to offer beyond that.
 

[BobbyDavro]

I'd echo all that by Evered.

It's interesting that Graham - who I've got a lot of respect for - said " vibrant, intelligent supporter base".
I don't think it is an intelligent supporter base, I think it's an angry trade-union-like supporter base.  Every single press-release I've had an issue with.
My over-riding issue is the tone.  The militants says "fuck the tone, they need telling" - but that then relegates you to someone whose only interested in shouting.
I don't really feel like I've got anything in common with SOS other than wanting the best for the club.

[xerxes1]

I'd echo all that by Evered.It's interesting that Graham - who I've got a lot of respect for - said " vibrant, intelligent supporter base".
I don't think it is an intelligent supporter base, I think it's an angry trade-union-like supporter base.  Every single press-release I've had an issue with.My over-riding issue is the tone.  The militants says "fuck the tone, they need telling" - but that then relegates you to someone whose only interested in shouting.I don't really feel like I've got anything in common with SOS other than wanting the best for the club.

I think there is some truth in that Bobby. But at least they are doing something, which is better than nothing. I agree that some "press releases" have potentially damaged the credibility of the organisation. But SOS are a young organisation, learning as it goes along.

An uncomfortable paradox exists for SOS. In order to be heard, it needs to demonstrate "muscle", but that muscle may well alienate as well as attract support from amongst our fan- base. No-one said this was going to be easy.

[OohCampione]

Prospective investors need to know there is a vibrant, intelligent supporter base out there that will hold them to account.

Which could quite easily be interpreted by them, or portrayed by the press as 'Spitting out their dummy if things don't go their way'

An uncomfortable paradox exists for SOS. In order to be heard, it needs to demonstrate "muscle", but that muscle may well alienate as well as attract support from amongst our fan- base. No-one said this was going to be easy.

I slightly disagree, In order to be heard, they need to gain support. Sheer numbers will be the difference at the end of the day.

[Graham Smith]

a) Defend their tactics and singularly refuse to accept that there may be a better way, clearly illustrated by their refusal, to date, to adapt a better more inclusive method of approach.

I think if you read this thread I've responded to MichaelA recognising the confusion and indicating we are trying to do our best all of the time.

I consider we do attempt to be inclusive - members decide on major issues and opt in or out at many levels - email campaigns, marches, leafletting or just solidarity by becoming members.

If being non inclusive means not marching or not confronting the owners then the converse would be true - we'd be criticised for being passive. At the end of the day the spread of opinion is so large we won't satisfy all, and to be honest the only ones we can aim to satisfy are members and the message we get from them at the moment is they want the current campaigns to continue.

b) They will criticise fans for not being members of SOS strongly implying that if you're not a member then you obviously don't really care and aren't pulling your weight in the struggle.

I would challenge you to find one post where Committee members criticise any non member or suggest non members don't care. You won't find it. In fact you will find us engaging and respectful of other people's views. We can't be responsible for other people's views, only our own.

c) They treat the fans who don't agree with their abrasive approach with the same contempt they accuse the board, and most recently Purslow, of such like behaviour.

Again I'd like to see you quote one piece of evidence that backs this up - you won't find it.

If I may, can I put a question to SOS.
If we accept that being a member of SOS is not a prerequisite for supporting and wanting the best for this club, and accepting the fact that since it's inception SOS has been criticised for it's methods by a broad spectrum of fellow supporters, and claiming to represent the fans, then why is it that the feelings of these many fans haven't been taken into consideration as we see the same style of communications and protestations emanating from the SOS camp?

Quite simply because we represent our members only and have always said that. You are entitled to your opinion and it might well be that our opinion and approach may be a minority one - but the difference between us is we've mobilised and got together like minded people, if there is a silent majority around representing other views they haven't got from behind their keyboards yet.

[redannie]

Get a grip !

FFS mate. we all want the same thing for 'OUR' club.

But walking in the door and saying, " can we please, please,please have a  meeting, oh go on please........ but if you won't meet us we're gonna' blow your knee caps off."       isn't axactly the best way of getting a foot in the door, is it now.




In the first instance, ask politely for your request.

Give the man a chance to respond.
If he slams the door in your face, THEN, and I mean THEN, crank up the pressure.


Not give me what I want or we'll hurt you!

Read the release again the 'threat' to meet on their patch is made to the PL who have not condescended to reply to thousands of emails pertaining to the fit and proper test!

[evered avenue]

I think if you read this thread I've responded to MichaelA recognising the confusion and indicating we are trying to do our best all of the time.

I consider we do attempt to be inclusive - members decide on major issues and opt in or out at many levels - email campaigns, marches, leafletting or just solidarity by becoming members.

If being non inclusive means not marching or not confronting the owners then the converse would be true - we'd be criticised for being passive. At the end of the day the spread of opinion is so large we won't satisfy all, and to be honest the only ones we can aim to satisfy are members and the message we get from them at the moment is they want the current campaigns to continue.

I would challenge you to find one post where Committee members criticise any non member or suggest non members don't care. You won't find it. In fact you will find us engaging and respectful of other people's views. We can't be responsible for other people's views, only our own.

Again I'd like to see you quote one piece of evidence that backs this up - you won't find it.

Quite simply because we represent our members only and have always said that. You are entitled to your opinion and it might well be that our opinion and approach may be a minority one - but the difference between us is we've mobilised and got together like minded people, if there is a silent majority around representing other views they haven't got from behind their keyboards yet.

1.  By inclusive, I was clearly suggesting that the considerations of the opinions of all the fans and not just those that are members of SOS.  Merely taking account of paid up SOS members opinion is actually being exclusive.

2.  Apart from yourself, I do not know who are the committee members of SOS but my accusation was not directed solely at the members of the committee but at 'Graham Smith or A N Other SOS person'.  As in any member/supporter of SOS.   As for your challenge, I am not going to troll the endless SOS threads/comments to satisfy your scepticism.  Your denial speaks volumes as it is clear to all who join in these debates here and at other forums that there is most definitely a dismissive attitude emanating from SOS members towards non members but I will give you one example from earlier in this very thread though:
"FFS... before going on at the only people who are trying to do something about our ownership, ask yourself a couple of things...
What are you doing about it?
Is your complaining helping in any way?
Are you a member?
Do you make suggestions of how things could be done better?
Do you just whinge?"
May I also add, that your comment of, "...if there is a silent majority around representing other views they haven't got from behind their keyboards yet." seems more than a tad dismissive to me. Taking time to express our concerns and opinions to the supposed fans union is hardly doing nothing.  We do it in the hope to impress upon you the desires of fans who are not members of SOS and in so doing perhaps provide you with a broader cross section of fans feelings outside of the SOS clique.

3.  The contempt I speak of is in the ignoring of the opinions of the masses of fans who disagree with the methods employed by SOS.  SOS talk of the contempt shown them by Mr Purslow/G&H because they refuse to engage with you and amend behaviour in consideration of the feelings of SOS.  My accusation is that SOS do the very same to all the fans they ignore and alienate.

4.  Lastly but most importantly, you have said here twice that SOS represent only their members,
"...and to be honest the only ones we can aim to satisfy are members"
"Quite simply because we represent our members only and have always said that."
These two statements you make are both truth and lies simultaneously. 
They are true because that is what SOS actually do.
They are lies because it is not what SOS 'claim' to stand for.  From your own website, under the title of aims:
"To represent the best interests of supporters of Liverpool Football Club."
"To create long lasting relationships with all aspects of Liverpool FCs supporting community."

So which is it Graham, do SOS represent merely the paid up members opinions or do SOS really care about and aim to represent the large majority of fans who are not paid up members also?

[BobbyDavro]

Again I'd echo all that.
I'd bet the majority of the posts by any member of SOS has an element of exclusivity and superiority - including the bit Evered's already quoted about still being behind their keyboards.

And I'd post an additonal couple of questions to Graham:
So, you're not concerned with mobilising the silent majority?
Hearing what their views are?
Seeing if you can both bolster your numbers, make you more credible, and possibly see a way forward that you've not considered?
You don't see that mobilising that silent majority is key to the end game?  That having not mobilised them is proof in itself that your current methods aren't working.

[xerxes1]

I think Evered you are being a little harsh on SOS. It is reasonable that they should represent the views of those who bother to join. They cannot guess what people who don’t join think.

You are right to say that the balance between reflecting the views of those who do join and support, and being mindful of those who don’t and aren’t, whilst still being LFC supporters, is a tricky one. But that’s life.

[Graham Smith]

The Union can only represent their members but it isn't contradictory to also have the best interests of all supporters at our heart.

An example would be the work we did over the PT scheme. Our involvement, started by members, had a positive implication for all members of the PTS irrespective of whether they were union members or not.

We don't ignore the masses but we can't speak for them either as our only mandate is from members - you'd quite rightly criticise if we said we represented the views of all fans, because we do not.

Finally, how can we begin to censor views of either members or non-members. If some members (or even non members) are frustrated at posters on here what is the practical solution you suggest the Committee employ? Should we ask all posts to be filtered through the Union? Individual members do not always represent the Union's policy in either what they think or how they say things and that is exactly the way it should be.

[BrettD]

I'm a member of SoS and I agree that there can be 'militant overtones' to some of their press releases. But they're fighting for our club. If militant overtones are needed then that's fine by me. Instead of fucking about over semantics, join up and help get our club back.

On the silent majority point, I've seen many people say 'it's not the Yanks we need to get rid of it's that fat Spanish c*nt who's the problem' when approached with an H&G out leaflet. If I do have one criticism (for want of a better word) I have of SoS is that more educational pieces need to be done. Highlight Rafa's successes and the owners' failings. I also realise that SoS aren't going to have 50,000 members overnight but we're in for the longhaul and I don't imagine SoS disbanding post-H&G.

It's YOUR club. Do what you can to get it back.