Liverpool FC Forum

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:23 pm

1/ In the light of yesterday’s report in the Liverpool Echo where it was claimed Mr Hicks walked away from negotiations because he rejected DIC’s proposal of a supporter’s representative with full voting rights, we would like to clarify amongst the support on as wide a basis as possible where they stand on such an issue.

Would you welcome a democratically elected Supporter Representative, with full voting rights, on the board of Liverpool FC?

2/ It’s become ever clearer Mr Hicks’ first, second and third priority with Liverpool FC is to make as much money as possible. Wanting the club to be financially strong isn’t, in itself, a bad thing. It only becomes a bad thing when, as emphasised by his statement last night, the interests of Kop Holdings are specified to be different to that of LFC and its supporters. As we argued last night, it is enough for Kop Holdings to reach a very significant return on its investment by getting the stadium built and keeping the club in fourth place. That isn’t enough for LFC’s supporters.

Given the fact that Mr Hicks will struggle to raise further loans to refinance his existing debts or to expand upon the stadium we have an opportunity to exert financial pressure on him. We can emphasise, to him and to anyone who would loan him further money or anyone who would come on board alongside him to invest in Liverpool Football Club that we will not allow ourselves to be the cash-cow he wants us while he treats us with such disrespect. We can emphasise we are prepared to deny the club money to lower its viability as an investment. We can emphasise that we are more than a brand and that those who love Liverpool the world over love it as something way beyond a sports team and instead see it as something central to their lives and will go to any lengths to protect it as such.

Do we want to continue to call for all Liverpool supporters worldwide to boycott all LFC merchandise, food and drink until Mr Hicks leaves the club?

3/ Carlsberg have done nothing wrong. They have a product in the marketplace very similar to a host of other products and part of how they try to boost their product’s sales the world over is an association with the “brand” of Liverpool FC, the “brand” of The Kop, the “brand” of the 12th man. However, we need to get the message across to them and any future sponsors that we, the very brand they are paying good money to capitalise on, are not happy with the current leadership and that by being associated with Liverpool FC at this time they are associating themselves with a man who threatens everything they want to associate their brand with.

On Merseyside, Carlsberg sell thousands of barrels of ale every week. They monitor their sales on a week by week basis. The Merseyside territory is in the top 5, in terms of sales volume. Therefore any boycott will get the message across quickly that we want Hicks out now. It is definable and most importantly any Carlsberg drinker has lots of alternatives at any given bar.

Therefore, while we don’t want to hurt Carlsberg, we should use this way of getting our message across to Carlsberg, to any other current or future sponsors, that we want Tom Hicks out and that financially backing him or the football club while he remains in charge is not a financially wise move.

Should we call for an LFC supporter boycott on Carlsberg products until Mr Hicks leaves the club?

The latest poll questions and views of the S.O.S.

My view
1/ I think it would probably cause more problems than it solved unless the supporter had a high profile. I would prefer someone like Dalglish as our representative.

2/ Yes, we need to hit Hicks were it hurts ... in his wallet

3/ Again I think anything that puts additional pressure on Hicks must be considered. Now is the only time we have to act, once he has found a new partner or additional finance, it will be too late. He obviously doesn't care what we think, so if by letting the sponsors know just how strongly we feel we can get them to indicate their feelings to Hicks maybe it will have more effect.

by **Reg** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:46 pm

Focus the campaign on the sponsers, little else is relevant.

by **Igor Zidane** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:05 pm

I voted ,

yes

yes

yes

by **NANNY RED** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:47 pm

YES
YES
YES.

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:52 pm

yes
yes
yes

by **Bammo** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:08 am

I vote:

1) Yes, preferably a prominent person (such as Dalgliesh, Aldridge) to act as spokesperson for the fans.

2) Yes

3) No. It's only damaging in the long run and will have little effect. Haven't Carlsberg just signed a 4 year deal? If so, they can't cut any payments until that deal is done. Even if they did pull out, how would we negotiate a good sponsorship deal in future?

"Hi, would you like to pay us £10m per year to sponsor us? By the way, if anyone at the club pisses off the fans they'll take it out on you by boycotting your products".

It may help to get rid of Hicks in the short-term but long-term it could have a damaging effect on sponsorshop deals.

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:15 am

Bammo wrote:3) No. It's only damaging in the long run and will have little effect. Haven't Carlsberg just signed a 4 year deal? If so, they can't cut any payments until that deal is done. Even if they did pull out, how would we negotiate a good sponsorship deal in future?

"Hi, would you like to pay us £10m per year to sponsor us? By the way, if anyone at the club pisses off the fans they'll take it out on you by boycotting your products".

It may help to get rid of Hicks in the short-term but long-term it could have a damaging effect on sponsorshop deals.

I know times have changed, but we managed perfectly well in years gone by without a sponsor.

by **Rush Job** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:56 am

Yes
Yes
Only if we make sure Carlsberg know why we are boycoting and that as soon as Hicks is gone we`ll drink loads.

by **taff** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:55 am

I will o along with this but I do have some reservations.

Ok Hicks has turned out to be a complete w.anker but it is sadly the world that we now live in. The LFC brand is so well known and respected that some things do get overlooked.

These people are in it for money, I think Abramovich is after an ego trip but he is deffo the odd one out.

We want money from a billionaire or whatever but want increasing say in the running of our club which if i was a billionaire I wouldnt really appreciate to be honest

But I am a fan and the only solution I can think of is us raising money as has been suggested but to buy a share of the club so we do have a say and it cannot then be floated or abused. I would be welll up for this partnership with an investor but who, God knows.

I am however extremely worried about what Hicks wants and why he stubbornly refuses to go even with the chance of making a few million in a short period of time which again if I was a serious money player I would take. I think his long term interest in us is extremely unhealthy to what we want long term

Therefore a very long winded way of saying yes I would boycott but we are in danger of becoming too militant or too unrealistic as fans in todays world

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:59 am

I am however extremely worried about what Hicks wants and why he stubbornly refuses to go even with the chance of making a few million in a short period of time which again if I was a serious money player I would take. I think his long term interest in us is extremely unhealthy to what we want long term

I agree Taff my main worry about Hicks at the moment is what exactly is he doing with the loan he has already taken out. £60million for starting the build on the new stadium £45 million for future transfers. Over £100million that LFC ARE PAYING THE INTEREST ON. I just wonder whether with money so tight he is using this money to pay off other loans that he would have defaulted on back in the states. i.e. robbing Peter to pay Paul.

If not whats happened to it? Why has the stadium build not started? He has tried to raise money twice in the states by floating his sports empire , the first attempt failed.

DIC may have to accept that Hicks cannot sell at the moment because he is raising money in the States by floating his entire sports empire - Dallas Stars, Texas Rangers and Liverpool.

Liverpool is the jewel in that crown, and he needs his stake in the club to remain part of his portfolio to raise further capital.

Hicks’ whole sporting empire could be put at risk if he sold his complete stake in Liverpool now.

Daily Post

by **taff** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:35 am

my real fear is long term. Until the league announced a plan to play a game overseas I wasnt that concerned but now I am very very concerned.

Hicks thinks like a Yank businessman, I dont hate him for that but as a LFC fan I do hate the real fear I have that this guy who is a businessman will do what other businessmen in the states have done and franchise us out. I am concerned that he can see the impact that "soccer" would have as a main game and we are a top end brand.

I see us as LFC thats it not a brand but using a neutral business point of view I can see changes that would be catastrophic to the roots of the club and that scares me.

As well as a boycott ALL FANS should go to their MP's to get reassurance that clubs cannot and will not move, but this would take a huge effort and the laying down of traditional hatred against a common cause. We laughed at the Mancs now they laugh at us, how long before other clubs laugh at the both of us. the pl is now a global brand heading towards conflict with uefa and traditional support

by **tommycockles** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:20 am

1. possibly in some form but would prefer someone like Dalglish (as mentioned above)
2. Yes definitely (no new shirts, programs at match day, or food/drink once inside the ground)
3. Yes definitely - but i'm not drinking that pis.s Chang beer!

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:57 pm

I was talking to me lad about this last night, and he suggested something that hadn't dawned on me until last night. His point was if we stop giving the money to Hicks will strenghten Hicks' position. Bare with me, it does make sense.

Me lads opinion, "if we stop giving money to the club, then it'll result in less money for transfers which then results in less chance of winning the league. Which then in turn means our better players leaving giving us even less chance of winning trophies. This then lowers the value of the club and if Hicks isn't prepared to sell for 250m, will he :censored:

sell for less. So the only way to get rid of Hicks is by making the seams of his wallet burst."

I can see where me lad is coming from.

by **heimdall** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:24 pm

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:I was talking to me lad about this last night, and he suggested something that hadn't dawned on me until last night. His point was if we stop giving the money to Hicks will strenghten Hicks' position. Bare with me, it does make sense.

Me lads opinion, "if we stop giving money to the club, then it'll result in less money for transfers which then results in less chance of winning the league. Which then in turn means our better players leaving giving us even less chance of winning trophies. This then lowers the value of the club and if Hicks isn't prepared to sell for 250m, will he sell for less. So the only way to get rid of Hicks is by making the seams of his wallet burst."

I can see where me lad is coming from.

It seems your lad has more sense than you

Any kind of boycott will be counter productive, the only action I think would work would be to picket the VIP entrance in a non-confrontational style.
If you :censored:

off Carlsberg or any other sponsor then that will not hurt Hicks but will hurt the club, Carlsberg can't take their money back from Liverpool or Hicks, well not without a costly lawsuit. You would however be hurting Carlsberg themselves and their employees etc, which is not very cool.

I am all for the fan representative though who would have to democratically elected maybe from the fan initiative to buy into the club.

by **nobybob** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:43 pm

If you off Carlsberg or any other sponsor then that will not hurt Hicks but will hurt the club, Carlsberg can't take their money back from Liverpool or Hicks, well not without a costly lawsuit. You would however be hurting Carlsberg themselves and their employees etc, which is not very cool.

i dont believe this but i actualy agree with you on this part heimdall ( make the most of it im sure its just a one off)

Liverpool FC Forum

Sons of shankly

Who is online