liveabiglife

A guy I follow on Twitter posted this: http://leoroberts.wordpress.com/2009/04/16...theres-a-claim/ It really made me think - as someone who witnessed it very much from a distance, I think the reality of the survivor's daily agony had, to some degree at least, not fully impacted me. The need for justice really came through in his post, but from an angle less publicised in the media.

Banks have no appetite to precipitate the failure of an organisation - it's bad publicity. Back in the early 90's they would appoint Administrative Receivers quite readily, but that changed toward the end of that decade; RBS in particular became very reluctant to make appointments. In the current climate, if finance payments are being met, the security is still sound and the projections stack up, I would say they will not exercise any fixed or floating charges, and would be unlikely to risk a shortfall on any return by forcing a sale - and thereby forcing a lower price. They would also be unlikely to be in favour of the courts appointing Administrators because of the bad press and damage to the brand that is LFC, given that it is that brand that offers huge weight and substance to the value of their security. I would also think that the interest payments may go down, not up, given the direction rats are moving in. I can't substantiate any of that with fact, but that is my opinion given what I know of the insolvency business.

Presumably the financial situation has worsened to a point where we can't afford to pay our webhost, and that's why the official site's been down all day

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

Not sure that's necessarily true, Flight. 1) I haven't read the loan docs, but my guess is that they can't force a sale. If they have fixed and/or floating charges they can appoint receivers, or they may prefer to back the directors to initiate Administration, but G&H are unlikely to do that. Either way, that woudl damage us way more than G&H could do on their own. They have no obligation to renew the debt, which woudl simply force G&H to look elsewhere for credit. My guess is that they would get it, but probably at a cost far in excess of what they have currently paid. 2) However passionate we feel, RBS are a business who exist to deliver profits to share amongst their shareholders; they are, in my view, unlikely to view G&H's actions as social injustice. I imagine the Chairman is referring more to companies and individuals who engage in teh oppression of whole people groups/companies etc. 3) Fair enough, but they are a business, and even if they are ardent Reds, head will rule heart and business will be business. I'd like to think I was wrong, but experience suggests to me I may probably not be far short of the mark.

I know you acknowleged there are exceptions - and I think there are exceptions on both sides. Some kids who get to one or 2 games will provide more passion that you can shake a stick at, and some who go week-in, week-out will provide none. I've sat next to lads with scouse accents who bitched the whole game, didn't sing, slagged off players and generally behaved like they'd rather be somewhere else; and I've sat next to sme who gave me an education in what passion is. There will be people who fall on both sides of the passion argument and who fall on both sides of the city boundary. I think sometimes there is a danger that some people don't appreciate what they have when it's on-tap all the time, and almost take it forgranted after a while - though I do accept your point about phoning home and picture taking. On another note - my personal experience tells me that you don't have anything personal against OOTers.

From what I see, in some quarters there seems to, on occassion, be a misunderstanding/different interpretation about what 'constructive' means: it does not mean that you have to agree. I have read some very constructive comment that may not be in accord with what SOS is doing, plans or approaches, but is certainly aimed at helping and shaping the cause, but has been rejected or elicited a defensive response. Take the stuff about sending e-mails and getting no response. I have done this several times, and had no response - there could be any number of reasons, but the comment that SOS needs to sharpen up on this is valid - they do - it's vital: that's meant constructively, yet everyone who has voiced it gets a defensive "they are volunteers...." response. Yes they are - we know that - but they still need to focus on comms. SOS need to filter out the abuse, reject it and ignore it, but they also need to take on board the constructive critisism, observation and feedback, because it may just be helpful. Sometimes constructive comment will be hard to take, but that does not mean it is not supportive. Obviously, on other occassions, there is comment that is not constructive amd is simply meant to drag SOS down, and on that point, Ant, you have a point.

Fair enough, but I have to say I agree with Gunga Din's view. I know you know this, but it probably bears repeating - LFC is a global club with, therefore, a global following, never mind a UK-wide following. Day-trippers, as you call them, will be a permanent part of a club like LFC. Most, I imagine, put a lot of effort into travel, procuring tickets etc. - it's actually quite hard work to get to matches when you live a way away, and I know people who would love to go to Anfield, just once, to experience it and see their team. If you want to direct venom at anyone over taking tickets off genuine fans/locals, try the corporates. I got tix through my bro-in-law for the 2007 CL semi because he works for Mitchell & Butlers, who control Carlsberg and Amstel distribution rights. For me, that was a great result - not only were they great seats, they were free, so I got to go to a bonus game that season - but we were surrounded by people in corporate branded clothing, suits etc. who talked to each other through the game, and only started paying attention when the pens started. But last season, my mate who had got all the right credits for CL couldn't get semi final tix. Logic tells me the only way that can happen is if they take tix off the general allocation and make them corporate jollies - otherwise the loyalty thing should guarantee you. It made me realise that those tix I had in 2007 probably denied someone who had gone to all the previous rounds a ticket, and it made me feel really uncomfortable. The corporate thing is, I think, a real problem when it spills out of the boxes and into the stands. If you need to fill seats, it's great, but when you can fill your seats many times over it counts against actual fans. I used to have to take clients to Villa Park when I used to work for Deloitte in Birmingham, and 9 times out of 10 the last thing that the client was interested in was the footie (which was lucky, given it was Villa back in the late 90s ;-) ) - the free beer, yes, the free food, yes, the footie - a necessary 90 mins to get all the beer and food. I don't know how many corporate tix we allocate, but that would be a better place to start than the day trippers or ooters, I reckon.

Surely that depends, Ant. Maybe the day-tripper can't afford to be a 'loyal' fan? I live in the midlands and I can afford for me and my son to come to max 8 games a season. Each trip costs about £120 with tickets, travel, a program and needing to get food at least once as we are out all day. We leave the house at 9.30am and get home about 8.30 to 9pm. We get our tickets through a supporters club as that is the only way have found to successfully secure them as I am always at work when they go on General Sale. Does that make me a day-tripper? I'd go to every game if I could afford it, but like I said, I can stretch to about a grand a season, and the tickets, travel and everything else that goes with it (not least an entire Saturday of 'family time', too for each game) limits me to 8 games. Does the fact I can't afford it make me less loyal? Maybe it does, but I don't feel less loyal - if anything I feel frustrated I can't get to more games. I understand that local lads want to get to see 'their' team, but I see LFC as 'my team' too, and rightly or wrongly, I feel like I have just as much right to a ticket as anyone else. If I have to use a supporters' club, Thomas Cook, a mate with a season ticket or some other means to get a ticket, I'll use it, but the important thing, surely, is that tickets are allocated fairly, evenly and consistently, whether to 'loyal' fans, 'day-trippers', or 'would be 'loyal' if we could afford it' fans like me? I'm not criticising your point, Ant, I simply think that the whole Day-trip/OOT thing is a little unfair on some of us day-trippers and OOTers. LFC is a global club, and I would imagine that there will always be more people outside Liverpool who will want to get tickets than in it, simply based on where the volume of supporters live.

This may be wishful thinking, but I have been seeing this a different way... Man City, Chelsea, the Mancs and, to some degree Arsenal, can all comfortably outspend us. City, Chelsea and United buy up the top three places, that leaves fourth. Randy Lerner can splash the cash, as he's shown, so that leaves at least three teams going for one CL place and one, maybe 2, Uefa spots. Portsmouth, Spurs and who knows who else - West Ham if they get Bilic, maybe - could push for those spots, too. If we don't win stuff we don't get cash that makes us a money making proposition. Eventually the capital generated from player (asset) sales dries up, and the debt, while lower, now becomes static because revenue streams equal expense streams. Now we are stuck because without a stadium we can't generate extra revenue, which pays the debt and dividends after expenses, and if we aren't winning and aren't in the league of the billionaire's playthings, then we are less attractive to the banks and other lenders. If G&H see it that way, I think a cut-and-run to DIC or a.n.other rich man may seem like a good and timely option. If I were them, I'd be doing the maths, and I reckon the answer wouldn't be one that would make me want to hang on to this investment. Like I said, probably wishful thinking, but you never know?