Liverpool FC Forum

by **Bad Bob** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:06 pm

The_Rock wrote:I would prefer if hicks went too (especially if this DIC story is true).....but that doesn't mean i am anti-hicks....

Well, you must have a very strange notion of what being "anti-Hicks" means then.

If being anti-Hicks means wanting him out of Liverpool Football Club (a reasonable definition) then, yes, I feel very comfortable in suggesting that the vast majority of us are anti-Hicks. :;):

by **dawson99** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:08 pm

red37 wrote:Southern media in pre big game bollox shocker!

u knwo the journalist was a southerner?

nope, didnt think so...could well be manc, scot, welsh or anything

by **Judge** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:10 pm

more of a world general discussion thread me thinks

by **Igor Zidane** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:12 pm

Statement from SOS. Good news in my opinion.

Neil.

First of all a thank you to all who made it out to the park last night armed with high visibility jackets, spades and in one instance a pickaxe. It was short notice but well worth it given the coverage we’ve been able to greet Mr Hicks with as he arrives in Liverpool. It’s brilliant to be able to demonstrate with a smile on our face and it’s similarly brilliant that this idea came originally from one of the forums. This is what we’re all capable of, an idea from an individual that’s made reality by us coming together which yet again publicly hammers home the point about the duplicitousness of both of our owners.

Later on in the evening, representatives of SOS met with representatives of DIC, led by Amanda Staveley. We felt that as “a meeting of minds” it went very well. We had a long, thorough discussion about supporters being better represented within the football club. We came away feeling not only listened to but engaged with and we’re very hopeful we will continue that discussion at a later date. We were also told DIC hold the manager in very high regard.

Mr Hicks should be at the game tonight. We fully expect the decision taken en masse at the first meeting to hold; no protesting during the game. Him coming seems like a provocation but we ought to rise above it and get on with the matter in hand. Today’s papers and last night’s meeting reinforce the fact we are having an impact - that you are having an impact - and we know we will all work as hard as we can to continue to do so. It also means we can enjoy the game without having to worry about us getting our point across. We’ve got it across yesterday, we’ll get it across tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the next day. We’re not going anywhere.

Spirit Of Shankly.

I posted this the other day in the digging uo stanley park thread. DIC have clearly stated that they are backing rafa.

by **The_Rock** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:13 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
The_Rock wrote:I would prefer if hicks went too (especially if this DIC story is true).....but that doesn't mean i am anti-hicks....

Well, you must have a very strange notion of what being "anti-Hicks" means then. If being anti-Hicks means wanting him out of Liverpool Football Club (a reasonable definition) then, yes, I feel very comfortable in suggesting that the vast majority of us are anti-Hicks.

If you are a free thinker...does that make you anti-god ?

Anti-Hicks means...you hate hicks...you want hicks to be gone at all cost...etc.

For me ...i pretty much neutral....I would prefer he went...but if he stayed...that its all good.....

:;):

by **red37** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:16 pm

dawson99 wrote:
red37 wrote:Southern media in pre big game bollox shocker!

u knwo the journalist was a southerner?

nope, didnt think so...could well be manc, scot, welsh or anything

Where have i mentioned his f*cking nationality....

Southern based biased media.

by **dawson99** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:24 pm

red37 wrote:
dawson99 wrote:
red37 wrote:Southern media in pre big game bollox shocker!

u knwo the journalist was a southerner?

nope, didnt think so...could well be manc, scot, welsh or anything

Where have i mentioned his f*cking nationality....

Southern based biased media.

i thought all the nationals were based in london, so every time its bad its southern based media biased? every time its something good its what?

cut down on the southern media bashing unless you'll praise the southern media when its positive...

by **Bad Bob** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:28 pm

The_Rock wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
The_Rock wrote:I would prefer if hicks went too (especially if this DIC story is true).....but that doesn't mean i am anti-hicks....

Well, you must have a very strange notion of what being "anti-Hicks" means then. If being anti-Hicks means wanting him out of Liverpool Football Club (a reasonable definition) then, yes, I feel very comfortable in suggesting that the vast majority of us are anti-Hicks.

If you are a free thinker...does that make you anti-god ?

Anti-Hicks means...you hate hicks...you want hicks to be gone at all cost...etc.

For me ...i pretty much neutral....I would prefer he went...but if he stayed...that its all good.....

Right, school's in:

"Anti" - from the Greek, meaning "against" or "opposed to." It does not mean "hate".

Ergo, if you are "anti-Hicks" it means that you are against or opposed to his ownership of Liverpool Football Club...a position shared by a sizeable majority of Liverpool supporters, I'm fair certain.

So, you see, you don't have to hate Hicks to be anti-Hicks, although some supporters certainly do.

And, going all the way back to your original 'point' you don't even need to be 'pro-Rafa' ("pro" - from the Latin, meaning "in favour of" or "for") to be anti-Hicks. Clear?

Class dismissed. :;):

by **account deleted by request** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:33 pm

NANNY RED wrote:I think its another PR by Hicks and his cronies Saint

I think you are probably right Nanny. Seems strange to me that Hicks did his exclusive with the Mail..... maybe this is their way of payment to Hicks for that exclusive. Write a PR story that puts DIC in a bad light?

by **red37** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:41 pm

dawson99 wrote:
red37 wrote:
dawson99 wrote:
red37 wrote:Southern media in pre big game bollox shocker!

u knwo the journalist was a southerner?

nope, didnt think so...could well be manc, scot, welsh or anything

Where have i mentioned his f*cking nationality....

Southern based biased media.

i thought all the nationals were based in london, so every time its bad its southern based media biased? every time its something good its what?

cut down on the southern media bashing unless you'll praise the southern media when its positive...

I'll praise/criticise the team/manager as and when through my own thoughts. I don't need to read a newspaper or listen to an 'authority' in the media to allow me to formulate my own opinion. South/North or Timbuktu.

Anyone with an inkling of how the system works can see it for what it is. Hicks (OUR F*CKING OWNER) has been doing it for months. The media, usually based in the South will lap all that up.

a) Drop some alleged 'bombshell' ahead of a major game on the wire.

b) Open your great big gob immediately after a major game.

All in the interests of what.....

To unsettle the team/manager and ultimately the club as an institution. No brainer really.

Should there be some factual credibility to these dubiously timed articles...then in the course of time they can be addressed/debated/moaned about. Til, then - its Media bollox (imo) And as our opponents are infact Chelsea, who reside in the South....

I'll take the whole thing with a pinch of salt. Guvnor.

by **The_Rock** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:07 pm

Bad Bob wrote:Right, school's in:

"Anti" - from the Greek, meaning "against" or "opposed to." It does not mean "hate".

Ergo, if you are "anti-Hicks" it means that you are against or opposed to his ownership of Liverpool Football Club...a position shared by a sizeable majority of Liverpool supporters, I'm fair certain.

So, you see, you don't have to hate Hicks to be anti-Hicks, although some supporters certainly do.

And, going all the way back to your original 'point' you don't even need to be 'pro-Rafa' ("pro" - from the Latin, meaning "in favour of" or "for") to be anti-Hicks. Clear?

Class dismissed.

Aye....... whats up bub ?

The key words here "DON'T ASSUME"....

Don't assume that most ppl here are anti-hicks ? Thats it..... Thats all...Don't have to conduct a class on english ..... Stick to geography.....

All i said...is that i am not anti-hicks....i would prefer if he went....but that doesn't make me anti-hicks. Thats it...I am just answering your earlier question...

But no..... you had to google on "anti" and come up with a pretty boring arguement.... And whats more pathetic is that it is out of point...... I just said anti-hicks and you have to come up with greek....pro-rafa.....latin....and go out of point....If this wasa debate, you would have failed straightaway.....

If you want to conduct a class about what is the exact meaning of "Anti-Hicks"....this is the way to do this.

Anti-Hicks means you are opposed to Hicks the person....Not his ownership...Not his dog....Not that he is a fag..... Again you assume...that being anti-hicks means being opposed to his ownership..... you assume that it is....(I must keep repeating this point "ASSUME" so that it will get through to you.

Hey i can be a teacher too....

And when did i ever make a point about "pro-rafa"..... ? Again you are assuming....

Lets go back to the initial arguement...YOU ASSUME THAT MANY HERE ARE ANTI-HICKS....Lets stick with this shall we....No need to go greek or latin..... If not....You will just be boring me.... with your assumptions.... (And we have to keep this rant to PM........

)

Clear ......... :nod

by **redhayesy** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:14 pm

NANNY RED wrote:I think its another PR by Hicks and his cronies Saint

spot on nanny! totally agree with you there, & just
keeps proving what sh1t stiring b@stard he is!

all this playing the pr bullsh1t game has never & never
will wash with me.

by **NANNY RED** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:18 pm

The_Rock wrote:BTW. If you want to conduct a class about what is the exact meaning of "Anti-Hicks"....this is the way to do this. Anti-Hicks means you are opposed to Hicks the person....Not his ownership...Not his dog....Not that he is a fag..... Again you assume...that being anti-hicks means being opposed to his ownership..... Again you assume that it is.... Hey i can be a teacher too....

And when did i ever make a point about "pro-rafa"..... ? Again you are assuming....

You are boring me.... Great teachers need to inspire...

In my book Anti Hicks means .against him , his dog, his sons , even the air that the man breaths all are tainted . So that must really make me a Hicks hater then , Well im proud of it and wont stop saying it until hes gone.

You gotta be on a wind up saying you dont care if he stays or goes surley.

by **hello_red** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:26 pm

WTF?

People are taking this seriously. Grow up.

by **NANNY RED** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:28 pm

redhayesy wrote:
NANNY RED wrote:I think its another PR by Hicks and his cronies Saint

spot on nanny! totally agree with you there, & just
keeps proving what sh1t stiring b@stard he is!

all this playing the pr bullsh1t game has never & never
will wash with me.

He must think were stupid ok i know its not defo that its come from him but his paws are all over it,

Drop a little hint Dic want Mourinio instead of Raffa yeh soon get the fans with me , Clueless

Dic were quick on the retort though refuting it.

So looks like another plan never came together. Its laughable really . just waiting what he gonna do next

Liverpool FC Forum

Mourinho asked to be manager by dic - According to the mail anyway

Who is online