Minutes from Christian Purslow and SOS Meeting

[JohnDoe]

If the SOS version is true then CP is talking down the value of the club and while we can service the debt that is not going to encourage Hicks and Gillet to sell so I don't see that as convincing logic for him saying these things and/or wanting the information leaked this way.

If an investor doesn't come in, they'll be forced to sell. They've bought something they can't pay for. The club is effectively in RBS' hands and G&H are completely irrelevant. Purslow has made that clear and let it come out through SOS, he obviously can't admit to saying it, but it's given any potential investor the dominant position in any kind of negotiation with G&H. If that isn't a positive thing to come out of this, I don't know what is.

[Neil Young]

If an investor doesn't come in, they'll be forced to sell. They've bought something they can't pay for. The club is effectively in RBS' hands and G&H are completely irrelevant. Purslow has made that clear and let it come out through SOS, he obviously can't admit to saying it, but it's given any potential investor the dominant position in any kind of negotiation with G&H. If that isn't a positive thing to come out of this, I don't know what is.

I don't think business works like that at all and I think it's wishful thinking on your part.

If Purslow and/or the banks wanted a potential investor to know the strength of their position in negotiations then they could just have told them. It didn't have to be made public at all.

The effect of this public airing is to heighten the sense of turmoil and distrust, something which is likely to reduce the level of interest of any potential investor.

The idea that Purslow would use a meeting with a militant fans' group to get messages to investors seems very far-fetched to me.

[Guest]

If an investor doesn't come in, they'll be forced to sell. They've bought something they can't pay for. The club is effectively in RBS' hands and G&H are completely irrelevant. Purslow has made that clear and let it come out through SOS, he obviously can't admit to saying it, but it's given any potential investor the dominant position in any kind of negotiation with G&H. If that isn't a positive thing to come out of this, I don't know what is.

It's not positive it's dragging the club into another piece of unneeded 'washing of dirty linen'. It's no good, SOS are clearly ruled by their hearts, not heads.

[JohnDoe]

The idea that Purslow would use a meeting with a militant fans' group to get messages to investors seems very far-fetched to me.

Not if the papers are going to run with it as well. It's more pressure on G&H while also letting the fans know what's going on.

It's not positive it's dragging the club into another piece of unneeded 'washing of dirty linen'. It's no good, SOS are clearly ruled by their hearts, not heads.

The washing of dirty linen argument doesn't hold water when the future of this club is in danger. All gloves should be off, no prisoners taken. The club's been dragged through the dirt when G&H started raping it.

[cream]

I don't think business works like that at all and I think it's wishful thinking on your part.

If Purslow and/or the banks wanted a potential investor to know the strength of their position in negotiations then they could just have told them. It didn't have to be made public at all.

The effect of this public airing is to heighten the sense of turmoil and distrust, something which is likely to reduce the level of interest of any potential investor.

The idea that Purslow would use a meeting with a militant fans' group to get messages to investors seems very far-fetched to me.

Agree, don't think it was for any potential investors, although he would've told them what the situation was in any discussions. Purslow has come out and said it like it is, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Darkon]

I don't think business works like that at all and I think it's wishful thinking on your part.

If Purslow and/or the banks wanted a potential investor to know the strength of their position in negotiations then they could just have told them. It didn't have to be made public at all.

The effect of this public airing is to heighten the sense of turmoil and distrust, something which is likely to reduce the level of interest of any potential investor.

The idea that Purslow would use a meeting with a militant fans' group to get messages to investors seems very far-fetched to me.

especially considering that he puts his own position in question and that it's far more common and easier to just give the information to a trusted journo and have them get access to a "leaked" document.

I really don't think SOS have thought their strategy well through.

[Scratch]

Ah, more turmoil and questions raised, just before a big run of games for us...damn those London newspapers, always trying to destabilise us before crucial matches...oh wait, we're doing it ourselves...even better!!

[Baracus]

i think where ****ed from now on till the end of the season, this will give the media enough ammunition to go after our manager and players and constantly stir **** before every game of ours.

well done Shit On Sticks.

[The Birdman]

I find the fact SOS are trying to do something admirable, I have no doubt they are passionate reds through and through however they don't speak for every Liverpool fan and some of their publicity is frankly embarrassing.
With a little more thought and a lot less 'union attitude' I'd be a lot more supportive and probably more appreciative of them than I am at the moment.

[Tee]

I find the fact SOS are trying to do something admirable, I have no doubt they are passionate reds through and through however they don't speak for every Liverpool fan and some of their publicity is frankly embarrassing.
With a little more thought and a lot less 'union attitude' I'd be a lot more supportive and probably more appreciative of them than I am at the moment.

I agree in that at least they are doing something. Although some of there actions are starting to make me feel more than uncomfortable for the future of our club.

[calvoboy]

Ah, a dispute over the minutes. You see this time and time again whenever there is a campaigning single-issue pressure group. For example, you often see it in planning hearings etc. for big projects where nimby's ask for meetings with council officers or developers. Because the campaign group are so fixated on the topic they often hear what they want to hear, and seize on one or two sentences and see them as being far more significant than the speaker intended, only to become bemused when the speaker challenges their account of the meeting.

In my opinion, and based on this experience of minuting disputes, I would imagine that Purslow's account is accurate, though he has probably sanitised the wording of one or two points, as I'm sure he would have talked in conversational language on the night. Yet again, the whole incident comes across as there being too many zealots and not enough intelligent cool heads in SoS though. Why on earth is this being publicised by them? It will achieve nothing, and will cut off every last line of contact they had with the club. I know they are well meaning and passionate, but they just keep on shooting themselves in the foot and could end up doing much more harm to the club than good.

[Shanks]

With a little more thought and a lot less 'union attitude'
I'd be a lot more supportive and probably more appreciative of them than I am at the moment.

[Exiled_red]

Moving away from the who backs SOS and who deosn't issue, it seems that this £100m investment is crucial to the future of the club, there are two points that I find a little confusing

1) It seems that without this £100m, we're in real trouble as it seems the banks won't refinance the loans, is this definate? as such what will happen will the club be forced in to administration or will the bank force a sale? (or both?)
2) Hicks has recently sold the Texas Rangers and Gillett the Montreal Canadiens, if they value the club at such a high price, which they seem unable to sell for at present, why don't they invest an additional £50m each to protect their investment?

[Craig_H]

Moving away from the who backs SOS and who deosn't issue, it seems that this £100m investment is crucial to the future of the club, there are two points that I find a little confusing

1) It seems that without this £100m, we're in real trouble as it seems the banks won't refinance the loans, is this definate? as such what will happen will the club be forced in to administration or will the bank force a sale? (or both?)

The club will effectively be repossessed by the banks, who will then sell it on to recoup their money. The problem with this, is that they'll just sell to whoever puts up the cash, it wont matter if they're good owners or have the best interests of the club at heart.

2) Hicks has recently sold the Texas Rangers and Gillett the Montreal Canadiens, if they value the club at such a high price, which they seem unable to sell for at present, why don't they invest an additional £50m each to protect their investment?

Because they are cunts.

[Exiled_red]

The club will effectively be repossessed by the banks, who will then sell it on to recoup their money. The problem with this, is that they'll just sell to whoever puts up the cash, it wont matter if they're good owners or have the best interests of the club at heart.

Thanks, but does this count as administration? I guess it amounts to us not being able to pay off our debts, which usually leads to administration, that happened with a couple of other clubs before they were sold, much to the annoyance of the new owners.

Because they are cunts.

Even putting aside our views on them, surely from a purely business point of view on their part it's better for them to put in their own money and remain in control of the club, than to let the banks sell the club off. Even adding the £100m wouldn't put their investment to the level the 'bought' the club for initially. Even in a poor financial climate and after their spell of ownership, the club is worth more now than what they 'bought' it for.