Liverpool FC Forum

by **fivecups** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:14 am

Ciggy wrote:
lakes10 wrote:Cig looking at the amrican new forums the Americans are mad about the flag stuff but have put it down to "SKIN HEADS" sorry but i found that funny, the photo that had been posted had a lot of guys with shaved heads....i was going to join and tell them they are not skin heads its just how a lot men have their hair over here when it stars to receding .....but i could not be bothered.

Everyone needs to move on from the flag now we have bigger fish to fry them are planning on staying for years

Yes, but it's something that shouldn't be repeated at the 4th of July protest. I think hanging and burning effigies of Hicks and Gillett would be far more powerful.

by **SeaofRed** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:00 am

I like the idea of fan ownership, or at least the German style which states that 51% of all clubs in Germany club have to be owned by the fans with the other 49% being owned by outside forces like businessmen and what not.

This is a long shot, but if 10m Liverpool fans worldwide were to come together, each placing £150 on the table, then that would raise £1.5BN which would buy out Hicks and Gillett, fund a new stadium and allow the manager money to spend on players.

Of course it's all fantasy, but I like the idea of some form of fan ownership. Real Madrid and Barcelona are fan owned and both clubs are two most financially powerful clubs in the world.

by **lakes10** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:30 am

SeaofRed wrote:I like the idea of fan ownership, or at least the German style which states that 51% of all clubs in Germany club have to be owned by the fans with the other 49% being owned by outside forces like businessmen and what not.

This is a long shot, but if 10m Liverpool fans worldwide were to come together, each placing £150 on the table, then that would raise £1.5BN which would buy out Hicks and Gillett, fund a new stadium and allow the manager money to spend on players.

Of course it's all fantasy, but I like the idea of some form of fan ownership. Real Madrid and Barcelona are fan owned and both clubs are two most financially powerful clubs in the world.

yes on the face of it Real Madrid and Barcelona are fan owned........but it helps if your fans are the ones the run the country you live in or are millionaires.

by **Sir Roger** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:38 am

The Good Yank wrote:
dundreamin wrote:Whats the big !PROBLEM bout the flag burning? Its gone on for years. And
More people on this planet would agree than disagree.fook them.if you
' dont like the heat get outa the kitchen. THIS IS WAR!

Well junior, the big problem is that when you burn the flag of a country, don't assume that everyone who sees that isn't going to take it as a direct insult. Don't asume that it won't be taken as an insult to those it wasn't meant to offend.

I've stayed away from this subject for a bit but I've had my fair share of biting my tongue.

I fully understand that the flag burning was meant for two idiot dipshits but the thing that really bothers me, the two idiot dipshits who that was a signal to couldn't give a damn about the flag burning.

Instead of taking the easy way out and doing the cliche' thing of burning the American flag, why not show some creativeness and come up with something that shows the character of LFC and the creative nuance that the rest of the world associates with the city of Liverpool?

I understand why it was done. But as a US Veteran (and fought right along with Englishmen), I won't for a second deny that It didn't severely disappoint me in seeing something related to a club I love insult me, even if it wasn't intended to.

by **SeaofRed** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:41 am

lakes10 wrote:yes on the face of it Real Madrid and Barcelona are fan owned........but it helps if your fans are the ones the run the country you live in or are millionaires.

I wouldn't be opposed to wealthy Liverpool fans buying to the club alongside us fans. The German system really needs to be implemented here.

by **lakes10** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:15 am

Ciggy wrote:
lakes10 wrote:Cig looking at the amrican new forums the Americans are mad about the flag stuff but have put it down to "SKIN HEADS" sorry but i found that funny, the photo that had been posted had a lot of guys with shaved heads....i was going to join and tell them they are not skin heads its just how a lot men have their hair over here when it stars to receding .....but i could not be bothered.

Everyone needs to move on from the flag now we have bigger fish to fry them are planning on staying for years

this is my last posts on the matter unless it happens again.

i am going to post some view from an american forum.

Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 05:35:51 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There has always been resentment aginst the USA in some quarters in Western Europe. Nothing is more perishable than gratitude and it frequently turns to hate---just so the person/group does not have to feel gratitude.

someone then pointed out that it was at G&H and not america.

Reply #3 on: Today at 04:04:02 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that's the case, they should not be using a symbol of THE ENTIRE COUNTRY in a protest against two idiots who just happen to be American

« Reply #4 on: Today at 09:27:13 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a legal perspective, in America, they would have the right to exercise their freedom of speech, which is the right to protest peacefully. Go ahead and burn my flag, since that's about the most powerful symbolism these ponces have at their disposal.

Beyond that, I could NOT care less about their opinions about anything. Where I sit, getting upset at them only provides them the power to affect my feelings, and I refuse to give them such power.

Burn away, powerless users of symbols. When you're angry enough to commit violence against people, or perhaps take up arms to make your silly point -- all I ask is you bring lunch for us, as I will be hungry after I kick their sorry butts.

by **Ciggy** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:55 am

Lakes just feckin leave it now hey? Its happened no point posting things from an American forum.

Thought your job was in anger management? All you seem to want to do here is cause them.

by **andy_g** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:19 pm

FFS, i'm sure that most people, including those who are sticking up for the devilish arsonists, are aware that burning the flag wasn't the best way to get a point across. but it happened, it made some people feel better, it gave a lot of press something else to talk about and it sure as hell illustrated the level of anger that is felt towards those two yanks. oops, sorry.

but can all of you lot who are banging on as if you were in a fúcking united nations conference judging some eastern european mass murdering warlord just pack it in now?

by **Boocity** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:20 pm

lakes10 wrote:the strange thing is that all the amrican arm of BP is owned by america since 1998.

Off topic I know but Lakes for someone who goes on about knowing all in the business world I am surprised at this statement, the US arm of BP was formerly AMOCO who BP aquired in 1998. Its not owned by the US its owned by BP.

by **lakes10** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:24 pm

Boocity wrote:
lakes10 wrote:the strange thing is that all the amrican arm of BP is owned by america since 1998.

Off topic I know but Lakes for someone who goes on about knowing all in the business world I am surprised at this statement, the US arm of BP was formerly AMOCO who BP aquired in 1998. Its not owned by the US its owned by BP.

In the 1998 take over BP agreed that the owners of AMOCO would have full say and run the American side of BP, yes they are now the same company but the american side is still run buy america....put it this way, do you think america would let us brits take all their oil if the americans did not have some part of thw ownership of BP

No most of the oil from the amrican sites is for the amrican market

by **kazza** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:26 pm

SOS sent a proposal to join forces with Share Liverpool and they were talking about 500 squid per fan payable in monthly installments, I liked that idea and would be inerested and I am sure many others would be too.

Here is the letter for non SOS members

Dear Member

The Spirit of Shankly wish to inform members that there have been detailed discussions with Share Liverpool over the last six months regarding the progress that had been made by Share Liverpool in promoting a supporters' ownership scheme.

The discussions centred on the perception from our members (and supporters generally) that progress had stalled under the Share Liverpool scheme and that an opportunity was being lost which might not be available again for some time.

The Management Committee of the Spirit of Shankly reached the conclusion that a merger of the two organisations would be appropriate in order to use the momentum and resources that the Union had together with the expertise that undoubtedly existed within Share Liverpool.

The merger discussions reached a point where the Union put a formal proposal to Share Liverpool for merger and Share Liverpool met on 2nd June to consider the offer.

Unfortunately Share Liverpool have rejected a merger which has left the Union with no alternative but to put into place a contingency plan that we have been working on for some time.

This plan involves the creation and launch of a credit union scheme to collect payments from supporters to establish a fund for the purchase of a stake in the Club. It will allow for members to make monthly payments to reach the starting point of £500 per supporter.

This will be launched this summer.

In addition the best of the Share Liverpool proposals relating to the structure of how the scheme will work and the approach to wealthier supporters and commercial organisations will still take place except now there will be transparent progress. Members will see their funds safely secure and will be able to see the growth in the fund.

We would urge all those that made an initial pledge to Share Liverpool to fall in behind the Union with the promise of action, progress and the best effort that can be made for us to secure a preliminary stake in our Club.

We have put a more detailed explanation of the background to this decision on our website at http://www.spiritofshankly.com/supporter-ownership.html

by **lakes10** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:33 pm

Ciggy wrote:Lakes just feckin leave it now hey? Its happened no point posting things from an American forum.

Thought your job was in anger management? All you seem to want to do here is cause them.

its only your views about me that makes you angry.
the only person thart is making you angry is yourself and your views about other.

first part of any anger course

by **7_Kewell** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:27 pm

Igor Zidane wrote:
7_Kewell wrote:
Igor Zidane wrote:Jesus ,Mary and Joseph .There's some sh!te being spouted in this thread .

Fact One . SOS represents it's members ,Kewell is not a member ,so don't worry mate we don't represent you .

Fact two . Yesterdays protest was organised by fans and NOT SOS. It was a spur of the moment thing (lakes don't know what your on lad )

Fact three. Some fans burnt American flags . Boo feckin hoo . So what ,in the grand scheme of things i couldn't care less . THe message has got across . What do you want SOS to do Kewell ,feckin send a few police in to nick them ffs . People are angry and there showing it . Tough sh!t .

Fact four . GUESS WHAT SOS MEMBERS ARE FANS ASWELL . They are entitled to march and protest and do what the feck they want . THEY ARE NOT DOING IT IN SOS'S NAME . Atleast the people there yesterday are attempting to do what they can to get the owners out . Not type on a internet forum slagging others off .

FACT FIVE . This is all my own personal opinion and not the opinion of SOS .

well, by all means, carry on as you were then. I'm just saying how it is. SOS has no PR plan and that is one of the main reason it isn't working.

Your not just saying that are you . You are saying sos is racist , is condoneing racism . Your saying that SOS have to some how stop fans from doing what they want to do i.e burn flags . HOW? Your certainly more @rsed about SOS than the very future of our club . No national journo is going to be involved with SOS . Really ? I know of atleast 3 paid up members. If you are going to rant about something you know nothing about . Try atleast to get some facts in there somewhere .

i'm telling you the IMAGE SOS portrays. IF you don't like that image then I suggest you ask your mates in SOS to do something about it.

Or just carry on lad. It is clear no one (including yourself) has a fuking clue about getting good and positive media coverage.

BTW, the Echo isn't a natiional newspaper...

by **dundreamin** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:51 pm

In SOS we TRUST!! At least there doing something about the mess we are in,instead of sitting behind a keyboard moaning about it.
And i don,t give a toss what the press print,we are scousers we,ve had negative press for years, so FOOK THEM

by **zarababe** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:27 pm

lakes10 wrote:
zarababe wrote:
Ciggy wrote:From Anfield

get in there

I wonder what our american fan base think of this, i wonder if they back doing this was a good idea.

and as for saying its not a SOS backed March....well they are the voice of the fans and still should have put a stop to this.

dont think any of you understand how much the Amrican flag means to the americans.

bang out of order

yes the owners must go and go now but this is a step too far.

This ain't the spirit world lakesy.. it's not the first time this flag has been burned, in fact it's probably the most burned flag in the world - WONDER F'UCKIN WHY :lookaround

Burn there effoges (spl) and their flags, they're not wanted YANKS OUT NOW !!

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online