Liverpool FC Forum

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:17 pm

s@int wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:season tickets are already paid for joe, as well as every match that is already sold out, which is probably a fair share with not long left before the season ends.

Also how long does this boycott go on for? Do we stand outside for 10 years and still see Hicks in charge? How many would be outside come European Cup semi final night?

boycotting the match is a waste of time and effort, because the ground will still be filled with people even if it's not the diehard supporters. This club is to big around the world for the ground not to be full.

So how is the ground going to be filled anyway then , if the tickets are already sold?

If there was a boycott it wouldn't have to be for long before the banks start becoming uneasy about their money and reassessing the idea of loaning even more! Probably 2 or three matches would get the point across, but its whether it could be organised, enough people took part and the effect it had on team results.

the ground would still be filled (not to capaticy but certainly 20 thousand plus) saint because so many of our fans on matchdays are here for the one off game. They're not going to pass up the opportunity of seeing Liverpool play because of Tom Hicks.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:21 pm

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
s@int wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:season tickets are already paid for joe, as well as every match that is already sold out, which is probably a fair share with not long left before the season ends.

Also how long does this boycott go on for? Do we stand outside for 10 years and still see Hicks in charge? How many would be outside come European Cup semi final night?

boycotting the match is a waste of time and effort, because the ground will still be filled with people even if it's not the diehard supporters. This club is to big around the world for the ground not to be full.

So how is the ground going to be filled anyway then , if the tickets are already sold?

If there was a boycott it wouldn't have to be for long before the banks start becoming uneasy about their money and reassessing the idea of loaning even more! Probably 2 or three matches would get the point across, but its whether it could be organised, enough people took part and the effect it had on team results.

the ground would still be filled (not to capaticy but certainly 20 thousand plus) saint because so many of our fans on matchdays are here for the one off game. They're not going to pass up the opportunity of seeing Liverpool play because of Tom Hicks.

I think 20,000 would be a huge success mate. Would certainly send a message out. I wouldn't expect anything like as low as that to be honest.

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:25 pm

That's why I said 20 thousand plus

but I still don't think it'd make to much difference to Hicks, he'd rather sit in a half empty ground where there's no noise, than a sold out Anfield where he's taking grief from the fans. He'd be made up with the boycott.

by **nobybob** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:30 pm

heimdall wrote:
s@int wrote:
heimdall wrote:Until I read a statement by DIC saying they have given up trying to buy a share of the company then I don't think it is the right time to be taking this kind of action, I would much rather that we secure champions league football for next year, irrespective of who owns us that must be the priority, it is stupid to cut off your nose to spite your face.

Bit fkn late to take action AFTER DIC have pulled out mate. Bit like putting your condom on after you have finished.

OK you have a point there but the most important thing is to secure European football for next year, and boycotts etc will just affect the team and not Hicks.
Everyone is making the assumption that Hicks is a rational human being, he isn't, he thinks in the same way as his good old pal George Dubbya, who invaded Iraq for entirely wrong reasons.

the most important thing is NOT to secure european football it to secure the future of the club what part of that dont you understand??

by **nobybob** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:35 pm

To those of you who think a boycott would have no effect i ask this , "how hard do you think it would be for hicks to bring in other partners without the gate money ?
just one game might be enough as just the knowledge that we did it once and so could do it again would frighten off any of hicks potential buddies from thinking they could join the feast and bleed us dry.

To those who oppose boycotts and talk of team moral, getting fourth place etc, the ones who say "jus get bee ind de fuk!n team" and "if i don't buy a ticket someone else will," i say thank god people never took this attitude and thought if i dont buy the S*N someone else will.
So i ask this what are u gonna tell ur grand kids in the future when Liverpool as we know it now no longer exists are you going to say.??

"i was there at the end son i was cheering , and the team moral was great we won those few games and got fourth!

"but grandad there is no team now cos that nasty man took all the money"

"Yes son but the team moral was great those last few games"

LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE PEOPLE

We can still cheer the boys on , let them know we love them
but lets just do it from outside the ground.

We have the chance to make history here fellas, to do what the mancs failed to do, to say enough is enough it stops now! Just imagine the amount of media coverage a boycott would generate all around the world ( even out in Texas) the message would be loud and clear, Football is for the fans not greedy fuk!n parasites.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:37 pm

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:That's why I said 20 thousand plus but I still don't think it'd make to much difference to Hicks, he'd rather sit in a half empty ground where there's no noise, than a sold out Anfield where he's taking grief from the fans. He'd be made up with the boycott.

Until he tried to get a loan backed by the guarantee of full attendance and couldn't. Nothing makes banks more nervous than the thought of someone pulling the plug on their clients income.

But like I said its easy to talk of a boycott, its another thing having an organised one. The problem is our options are so limited now that probably the only one open to us that would have any effect is to refuse to part with our money. No spending on clothes, programs, and boycotting the sponsors products may have an effect, boycotting the ground imo would have an effect.

by **Bammo** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:42 pm

A boycott would only work if it were well organised well in advance of games. I don't go to games (money being the main reason) so it doesn't directly affect me but I can give the viewpoint of a non-regular.

If a game is boycotted and a picket line set up, how aggressive will the people on the picket line be? In the modern game it is expensive and difficult to get match tickets and so often fans can only afford to go to the occasional match. I'll give you a hypothetical situation.

Working class Dad finally gets tickets to take his 2 kids to a match at Anfield. They turn up to be faced with a picket line trying to stop them get into the ground. Does the Dad support the boycott and disappoint his kids or does he risk the wrath of crossing the picket line?

A boycott would send a huge signal to Hicks and the banks etc but if it is to work then it must be well-organised and well-publicised before hand. Unfortunately I don't think that's possible.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:45 pm

Bammo wrote:A boycott would only work if it were well organised well in advance of games. I don't go to games (money being the main reason) so it doesn't directly affect me but I can give the viewpoint of a non-regular.

If a game is boycotted and a picket line set up, how aggressive will the people on the picket line be? In the modern game it is expensive and difficult to get match tickets and so often fans can only afford to go to the occasional match. I'll give you a hypothetical situation.

Working class Dad finally gets tickets to take his 2 kids to a match at Anfield. They turn up to be faced with a picket line trying to stop them get into the ground. Does the Dad support the boycott and disappoint his kids or does he risk the wrath of crossing the picket line?

A boycott would send a huge signal to Hicks and the banks etc but if it is to work then it must be well-organised and well-publicised before hand. Unfortunately I don't think that's possible.

I agree mate its nigh on impossible, but what other options have we?

by **nobybob** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:51 pm

Hicks has one chance to win and that is to bring in other investors.
This is our chance now while we are in are strongest position and hicks is at his weakest. If we could organise a boycott just for one game the impact would be immense because anyone thinking of investing with Hicks would sh!t a brick. The last thing these money men want is bad publicity and the potential loss of gate receipts hitting their investment. The amount of publicity from one boycotted match would be amazing and more than enough to scare of any potential friends of hicks.

So you see fellas IMO the best way to get hicks out is to help DIC at the mo and this is the way to do it.

by **Bammo** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:52 pm

Boycotts of increasing severity could work if they are organised and planned by a recognised group, like SOS.

They could draw up a schedule of games and the level of boycott for each.

eg: 1) No spending inside ground
2) 1 + no merchandise from club shop
3) 1, 2 + turning backs during game
4) 1, 2, 3 + walking out at half time
5) boycotting games completely.

of course, it's easy to give examples when I'm not the one involved in organising it all

by **ivor_the_injun** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:56 pm

I don't see a boycott ever really working. All you'll get is a ton of wools (of which I am one) seizing the opportunity to get in en masse.

If this drags on through summer (perish the thought), maybe the first home game next season could work, but at this stage of the season, with tickets already either selling or sold, there's no way it could be properly organised.

by **Ace Ventura** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:57 pm

Bammo wrote:Boycotts of increasing severity could work if they are organised and planned by a recognised group, like SOS.

They could draw up a schedule of games and the level of boycott for each.

eg: 1) No spending inside ground
2) 1 + no merchandise from club shop
3) 1, 2 + turning backs during game
4) 1, 2, 3 + walking out at half time
5) boycotting games completely.

of course, it's easy to give examples when I'm not the one involved in organising it all

Dont think 3 or 4 would have any influence at all mate.

I am not sure how hard it would be to organise and how far the fans would go, but if they did boycott 2 games the amount of revenue that Hicks and Gilette would lose would be far more then we realise, £30ish a ticket say 25,000 not there. Also then all of the money those fans would of spent in the shops etc.

Hicks would take far more notice of that than fans turning there backs or any songs that are being chanted imo.

by **nobybob** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:00 pm

Bammo wrote:A boycott would only work if it were well organised well in advance of games. I don't go to games (money being the main reason) so it doesn't directly affect me but I can give the viewpoint of a non-regular.

If a game is boycotted and a picket line set up, how aggressive will the people on the picket line be? In the modern game it is expensive and difficult to get match tickets and so often fans can only afford to go to the occasional match. I'll give you a hypothetical situation.

Working class Dad finally gets tickets to take his 2 kids to a match at Anfield. They turn up to be faced with a picket line trying to stop them get into the ground. Does the Dad support the boycott and disappoint his kids or does he risk the wrath of crossing the picket line?

A boycott would send a huge signal to Hicks and the banks etc but if it is to work then it must be well-organised and well-publicised before hand. Unfortunately I don't think that's possible.

Agree with many of ur points mate ,plenty of advance warning must be given because as you say it is very expensive to go the game and the last thing i want is for a dad to save his hard earned money to take his kids only to face a picket line. On this point i also feel that any picket line must not use any kind of pressure or strong arm tactics whatsoever on the day. Even asking people not to enter is to much IMO as we all have differing views as can be seen here , but i personally think it is perfectly acceptable to not enter and to hold banners saying IM NOT GIVING TOM MY MONEY or something along those lines.

by **club_Levis** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Bammo wrote:Boycotts of increasing severity could work if they are organised and planned by a recognised group, like SOS.

They could draw up a schedule of games and the level of boycott for each.

eg: 1) No spending inside ground
2) 1 + no merchandise from club shop
3) 1, 2 + turning backs during game
4) 1, 2, 3 + walking out at half time
5) boycotting games completely.

of course, it's easy to give examples when I'm not the one involved in organising it all

All these will hurt the players, the club and the manager you are trying to protect. Just cheer the team and isolate the guys till they feel really neglected and unwanted. For me they have given the manager enough support, bar the klinsman issue, and hope it continues into the summer.

by **nobybob** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:05 pm

club_Levis wrote:
Bammo wrote:Boycotts of increasing severity could work if they are organised and planned by a recognised group, like SOS.

They could draw up a schedule of games and the level of boycott for each.

eg: 1) No spending inside ground
2) 1 + no merchandise from club shop
3) 1, 2 + turning backs during game
4) 1, 2, 3 + walking out at half time
5) boycotting games completely.

of course, it's easy to give examples when I'm not the one involved in organising it all

All these will hurt the players, the club and the manager you are trying to protect. Just cheer the team and isolate the guys till they feel really neglected and unwanted. For me they have given the manager enough support, bar the klinsman issue, and hope it continues into the summer.

YOU are not even worth wasting my breath on

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online