Minutes from Christian Purslow and SOS Meeting

[Craig_H]

People cant have it both ways here.

Firstly, if SoS arent a 'force' and hold no power, why then would potential investors be put off by their actions?

If potential investors are influenced by the actions of SoS, then clearly they are indeed a 'force', like it or not.

[redstaralex]

One person has caused Tom Hicks' Jr to resign from the board and f******.

that was actually a carefully designed exit plan from th jr, neither he nor his wife have been able to settle and wanted to return to the us

[Vermilion]

that was actually a carefully designed exit plan from th jr, neither he nor his wife have been able to settle and wanted to return to the us

So he brought shame on the club just so he could go home...the ****.

[Craig_H]

that was actually a carefully designed exit plan from th jr, neither he nor his wife have been able to settle and wanted to return to the us

Bollocks. He could easily have just resigned. He hardly needed to abuse a fan by email.

[JohnDoe]

but we've seen over the past 20 years that all of the larger football clubs aren't interested in the local fans who turn up, support and buy maybe a programme and a pie, they want foreign fans to enjoy the Anfield experience and spend £200 in the shop while they're here so actually for our club, yes it can live without the local community support

This is a war and the fans are taking a stand. Not just us, Man United's fans are doing the same. We know they have "all the power" but we can make it difficult enough for them to **** off. I'd rather do that than do nothing.

the only protest that will have any affect is (a) not buying a ticket, which won't work as there's always someone else who will buy one or (b) all supporters walking out in unison at half time during a live televised game, now that would seriously impact on the owners as it would set a precedent that would get global attention

The protests have already made their effect and been successful. The fans caused one director to lose his temper and resign. The fans are not giving G&H any moment of peace when they visit Anfield. They can stay through all of that, true, but we're making it very painful for them. Again, doing nothing guarantees the parasites stay.

but there is a substantial section of fans that think their impact is both negative and embarrassing

They are invited to form their own course of action. They are also invited to join SOS, which isn't an exclusive club, and voice their concerns and opinions. It's easy to complain, hard to do.

[James P]

There's a difference between running a business and taking on a business merely to suck money out of it and leave it in ruins, which is what G&H are doing as well as the Glazers. Owning a football club does not mean you can do whatever you want with it without any consequences. A football club can not live without the community supporting it.

If you think that G&H's sole intention was to suck money out of the club and leave it in ruins, then you really are missing the point. They saw it as a successful business which could generate significant profits. So far they have put significant chunks of their own money in, not taken significant amounts of money out (not least because when they bought the club it didn't have any cash, hence the Kuyt transfer 'loan') and a further £185m of the borrowing is secured against personal guarantees from the two of them. If the club does go into administration, they stand to lose an awful lot of money.

Maybe you, unlike the rest of us, saw the worst recession since the 1930s coming back in 2007, and knew that their ability to raise and service funds to build the new stadium would be massively undermined. But somehow I doubt that.

There is no doubt that things have gone sour, but circumstances have intervened in a big way.

This view, while true in the cold, objective sense, is not accepted and will not be accepted by the Liverpool "consumer". That is a fact. We have a right to protest and we will do so if an entity attempts to take advantage of legal loopholes in order to generate profits on the expense of the collapse of an institute that is worth far more than just money alone, without any responsibility or forthcoming consequences to that money guzzling entity (see: Greedy cunts). If you refuse to accept that then we're both wasting our time.

You keep banging on about generating profits from the 'collapse' or 'ruin' of the club, and about 'legal loopholes', which frankly undermines everything else that you say. What 'legal loopholes'? And how on earth do they stand to profit from the demise of the club? And as already said, the 'without consequences' bit is patently wrong - there is £185m of consequences for the pair of them if this goes tits up.

You may have the right to protest, but they have the right to ignore you. And just because you decide to protest doesn't make you right.

They ARE a force in this process, like it or not, they have made an influence. They may not be chin scratching business men with smart clothing and millions in the bank, but they've made an impact on this club. Make no mistake.

No they aren't. If Purslow hadn't granted them an interview, they'd still be mouthing off in pubs and writing banners to wave at matches. They're entitled to their opinions, but let's not pretend that they are in any way going to have a significant influence on the outcome of all this. If things pan out the way that they would have hoped, it will be entirely coincidental.

[Craig_H]

When did G&H put 'significant chunks of their own money' into the club?

[James P]

Firstly, if you think football clubs are like any other normal business, then it is you who doesnt have a clue.

They generate turnover, have assets, make profits / losses, pay tax, file accounts, pay wages, and so on. That sounds like a normal business to me. Just because our view of them as fans is different to our view of other corporate entities doesn't make it so.

Secondly, if the barracking and harrassment issue is so significant, why do you suppose H&G havent just thought '**** this', sold up and ****ed off?

Because they want a certain value for the club, that they aren't going to achieve. Given that they've already taken several years of abuse, I'm sure that they're prepared to take a bit more in the hope that they get what they want for the club. If they had the chance to do all this again, however, I reckon the answer might be no.

[James P]

When did G&H put 'significant chunks of their own money' into the club?

When they bought it. They certainly didn't get RBS to stump up 100% of the cash for the acquisition. Nearly £60m came in from their Cayman holding company.

[Craig_H]

They generate turnover, have assets, make profits / losses, pay tax, file accounts, pay wages, and so on. That sounds like a normal business to me. Just because our view of them as fans is different to our view of other corporate entities doesn't make it so.

You're missing the point entirely.

Which 'normal businesses' out there hold the emotional and traditional values that are held within a football club?

If your local supermarket goes under, will millions and millions of people be devestated? Or will they simply just shop elsewhere, with it having a minimal impact on their lives?

Are you even a football fan? Because i cant understand how a football supporter would fail to see the difference.

Because they want a certain value for the club, that they aren't going to achieve. Given that they've already taken several years of abuse, I'm sure that they're prepared to take a bit more in the hope that they get what they want for the club. If they had the chance to do all this again, however, I reckon the answer might be no.

So you basically agree with me, that the prime motivation is financial and that 'abuse' and protests arent really on their agenda a great deal, in comparision to their view of, and the value they assign to, the bigger picture - eg, massive profits.

You made a reference to SoS and implied that all they do is make banners and wave flags - so if what they're doing is so insignificant, why do you think the owners might, if they had the chance to do all this again, decide on a 'no' answer?

Make up your mind - either SoS and their actions have a major impact on the decision-making of the owners - or SoS are just a flag waving, banner making non-entity.

[Craig_H]

When they bought it. They certainly didn't get RBS to stump up 100% of the cash for the acquisition. Nearly £60m came in from their Cayman holding company.

Is £60m 'significant chunks' of their combined own money?

[James P]

People cant have it both ways here.

Firstly, if SoS arent a 'force' and hold no power, why then would potential investors be put off by their actions?

If potential investors are influenced by the actions of SoS, then clearly they are indeed a 'force', like it or not.

You're clearly getting confused by the distinction between being a genuine part of the process, and being an embarrassing nuisance. They have no influence over the decisions being made, but they can still be off-putting to potential investors who don't want to have that embarrassing nuisance focussed on them.

It's like having noisy neighbours. They don't get to decide what colour you paint your house or what curtains you have, but they can sure as hell put someone off buying your house.

[JohnDoe]

If you think that G&H's sole intention was to suck money out of the club and leave it in ruins, then you really are missing the point. They saw it as a successful business which could generate significant profits. So far they have put significant chunks of their own money in, not taken significant amounts of money out (not least because when they bought the club it didn't have any cash, hence the Kuyt transfer 'loan') and a further £185m of the borrowing is secured against personal guarantees from the two of them. If the club does go into administration, they stand to lose an awful lot of money.

They never put their own money in and they have taken money out, you could have read the extent of it all just a few weeks ago in the papers. They may have loaned the club money, I don't know, but if they have you can bet that they'll be asking for it all back. All they care about is profits, they thought they could make easy money but the recession hit them, that is true. But what they've done since then is keep their hold on the club without any long term plan, just so they could sell it on and pocket a nice sum of money, without doing anything of course.

Maybe you, unlike the rest of us, saw the worst recession since the 1930s coming back in 2007, and knew that their ability to raise and service funds to build the new stadium would be massively undermined. But somehow I doubt that.

There is no doubt that things have gone sour, but circumstances have intervened in a big way.

If you're going to defend their actions, you're wasting your time. Their actions cannot be forgiven. They have lied and continue to lie to us on every occasion, making false promises even today. Hicks talking about us having a BIG summer without him being in any kind of position to make those statements is an example.

You keep banging on about generating profits from the 'collapse' or 'ruin' of the club, and about 'legal loopholes', which frankly undermines everything else that you say. What 'legal loopholes'? And how on earth do they stand to profit from the demise of the club? And as already said, the 'without consequences' bit is patently wrong - there is £185m of consequences for the pair of them if this goes tits up.

It won't go tits up fortunately because there are buyers lining up. Worst case scenario for them is sell the club without a profit.

You may have the right to protest, but they have the right to ignore you. And just because you decide to protest doesn't make you right.

Yeah, okay.

No they aren't. If Purslow hadn't granted them an interview, they'd still be mouthing off in pubs and writing banners to wave at matches.

Oh, shame on them neanderthals.

[James P]

Is £60m 'significant chunks' of their combined own money?

In cash terms, yes. Being worth £300m is not the same as having £300m in cash.

[Craig_H]

You're clearly getting confused by the distinction between being a genuine part of the process, and being an embarrassing nuisance. They have no influence over the decisions being made, but they can still be off-putting to potential investors who don't want to have that embarrassing nuisance focussed on them.

It's like having noisy neighbours. They don't get to decide what colour you paint your house or what curtains you have, but they can sure as hell put someone off buying your house.

Surely a new investor would have to make a 'decision' with regards to the investment. So directly or not, if SoS are able to put them off or influence these decisions in any way, they're obviously making a significant impact.

I'm not suggesting SoS are a genuine part of the process, obviously not internally, but they're also capable of having a strong influence on matters (if you believe potential investors might be put off by them), so in that respect, they are a 'force', one way or another.