SOS - More Harm Than Good

[dww]

you would have to ask reece about that!

I would but I'm not a member

[JRG]

I represent my opinions on LFC, ME. not EST, RAWK, SoS or anyone else. i thought the whole appeal of Liverpool fans was that we were a diverse and knowledgable bunch who had opinions on the game as well as our club. i personally hate the tribal thick as feck in-gur-lund attitude that i white wash england match attendees with.

if liverpool was just another set of clone fans espousing the same view then it's a real pity. if someone wants to put themselves forward as representing ALL LFC fans then they should ****in keep this kind of **** from happening. if I, a lifelong fan, started a group claiming to represent all fans called 'pillars of paisley' which contaminated the name of a great man like sir bob i'd bloody top myself. i wouldn't want it happening to a great figure and part of our history like sir bob, or shanks. the worst bit is that the media are reporting it as 'THE supporters club' singing about munich

self appointed media hungry groups who claim to represent me when i pride myself on being different, and certainly NEVER chanting **** about munich, can quite frankly take a large piece of wood and fornicate themselves.
help where you can - which they do - by all means, but DONT put yourself forward as the guiding light and one-and-only salvation for LFC, because if you do, and this happens, every LFC fan has to drop their head, allowing the usually more vicious mancs to take the moral ground in our rivalry which then gets played up by the media

Great post mate 100% agree with you.

[Neil Young]

Unions have done a lot of good for a lot of people. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that SOS have done some good work too.

This latest thing though is embarrassing.

I don't know why it has to be all or nothing.

[Kenneth]

I believe u need to have a skinhead, be prepared to have SOS 666 branded across ur back, and sing "you don't get me I'm part of the union" 12 times a day. thats what i heard?

[zimbo]

Unions have done a lot of good for a lot of people. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that SOS have done some good work too.

This latest thing though is embarrassing.

I don't know why it has to be all or nothing.

People are overlooking the fact that, like it or not, they were established to provide Liverpool fans with a voice at a time when disenchantment was at a high and there appeared a need for some sort of collective action. The fact that they have been recognised by the club was a very positive step in my view, as supporter representation, however limited it may be in practice, can only be a good thing.

The problem lies in the (seemingly widely-held) belief that they do not have the authority to speak for all Liverpool supporters. That may be true, but they do speak on behalf of their members, which is what any good Union should do. As far as I'm aware anyone can join and there are no bars on membership. They are open to input from any member and have been involved in raising awareness and campaigning on a number of issues that should really be appreciated by all - HJC, Ray Of Hope Appeal, PTS and ticketing arrangements, cheaper travel, Michael Shields, greater community involvement, etc. Their position on the owners has been clear from day one, and was probably the single most significant factor in their creation, a position which, I think it's fair to say, is shared to at least some degree by the majority of supporters.

However, this latest incident only serves to undermine much of the good work they may have carried out and, at a stroke, destroys their credibility as a viable pressure group. The moronic, sickening chanting was bad enough (although I think we need to acknowledge that this is not solely a SOS issue - it's something that has crept back amongst the wider LFC community and it would be disingenuous to imply that SOS are in any way responsible for it on a wider level; also, the event was open to non-SOS members). What is almost as shameful is that there would have been no mention of it had the clip not appeared on YouTube, a good 2 weeks after it took place. And the SOS statement is entirely lacking in any remorse or even condemnation of those who think it makes them bigger Liverpool fans by gloating over the dead - "...we do not condone such behaviour" doesn't go remotely far enough.

How can we now demand respect for the victims of Hillsborough when our own supporters are celebrating another team's tragedy without official censure? And barely a month after the 20th Anniversary? Absolute idiocy.

I believe that the SOS has the potential to be a worthwhile, effective voice, although some of the concerns of its detractors are unquestionably valid. Whether it is able to maintain its influence in the light of such a massive PR disaster, or use it in a way that would have tangible benefit, is less clear.

[Neil Young]

An interesting and well-balanced post, zimbinho.

[Kenneth]

campaigning on a number of issues that should really be appreciated by all - HJC, Ray Of Hope Appeal, PTS and ticketing arrangements, cheaper travel, Michael Shields, greater community involvement, etc.

Same SOS arrogance. Should according to who? Should I share SOS's view of the Michael Sheilds situation?

[zimbo]

Same SOS arrogance. Should according to who? Should I share SOS's view of the Michael Sheilds situation?

Well I'm not a member of SOS, so the arrogance that you sense must be all my own.

I would certainly imagine that the stand taken by SOS on each of those issues (including Michael Shields, although admittedly that may be an area of some contention) reflects the views of the majority of Liverpool supporters.

[donpisci]

Well I'm not a member of SOS, so the arrogance that you sense must be all my own.

I would certainly imagine that the stand taken by SOS on each of those issues (including Michael Shields, although admittedly that may be an area of some contention) reflects the views of the majority of Liverpool supporters.

You could extend that view by saying that their stance on Munich is a shared by the majority of LFC supporters.

[Darkon]

Well I'm not a member of SOS, so the arrogance that you sense must be all my own.

I would certainly imagine that the stand taken by SOS on each of those issues (including Michael Shields, although admittedly that may be an area of some contention) reflects the views of the majority of Liverpool supporters.

Even if it does, you hit the nail on the head in your earlier post, although you use the argument wrong.

A union can represents it members, but it can't represent anyone else, which is what SoS do. They stand as if the represent all fans, but they only represent a small group of fans.

I agree with them on a lot of issues, but don't agree with many of their methods and I certainly don't like when they speak on my behalf.

And yes the Michael Shields is far from something everybody agrees on (myself included)

[zimbo]

Even if it does, you hit the nail on the head in your earlier post, although you use the argument wrong.

A union can represents it members, but it can't represent anyone else, which is what SoS do. They stand as if the represent all fans, but they only represent a small group of fans.

I agree with them on a lot of issues, but don't agree with many of their methods and I certainly don't like when they speak on my behalf.

And yes the Michael Shields is far from something everybody agrees on (myself included)

I totally understand that objection. The problem is that, with the best will in the world, you will never get the views of 45,000 regular match-goers and millions more worldwide represented by a single body. It's not possible.

SOS exists to represent its members, who are exclusively Liverpool fans, and aims to give them a voice in those areas which affect them directly. I'm not sure how they could ever claim to represent all supporters (particularly as their membership stands at around 2,400), any more than the official Supporters' Club could, although obviously this may be inferred from the nature of some of their communications.

I am similarly unconvinced by some of their methods, yet I would contend that the broad idea is a positive one. There is a definite need for the club to be held accountable to its supporters and an organisation such as SOS, however flawed, appears the best way to achieve that.

[dom9]

I totally understand that objection. The problem is that, with the best will in the world, you will never get the views of 45,000 regular match-goers and millions more worldwide represented by a single body. It's not possible.

SOS exists to represent its members, who are exclusively Liverpool fans, and aims to give them a voice in those areas which affect them directly. I'm not sure how they could ever claim to represent all supporters (particularly as their membership stands at around 2,400), any more than the official Supporters' Club could, although obviously this may be inferred from the nature of some of their communications.

I am similarly unconvinced by some of their methods, yet I would contend that the broad idea is a positive one. There is a definite need for the club to be held accountable to its supporters and an organisation such as SOS, however flawed, appears the best way to achieve that.

Part of the trouble is that they themselves purport to represent all fans.

[Scratch]

It was obvious from the start they were a pretty insensitive bunch. "Sons of Shankly" - what f*cking century were they living in, thinking such a gender-specific name would be a wise move?

Oh...i always assumed SOS meant Spirit of Shankly??

[kingfunk]

Oh...i always assumed SOS meant Spirit of Shankly??

It started as sons of Shankly. but they had to change it, I believe at the request of Bill Shankly`s "grand daughter".

Gender discrimination!

[Neil Young]

It started as sons od Shankly. but they had to change it, I believe at the request of Bill Shankly`s "grand daughter".

Gender discrimination!