PeeG

There has been. Over 70 new members yesterday (since its after midnight) and that is just online registrations. Obviously we always want more than that.

We have a whole host of press contacts who will be sent press releases all the time with our protests, statements, etc. It was the same here. They still have to decide if it is newsworthy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/ian-herbert-the-163100m-question-liverpool-cant-ignore-1887506.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/banks-ready-to-force-sale-of-liverpool-this-summer-1887507.html

On what happened in the meeting (not his version) there was no real reason to suggest he was being dishonest. We approached it with caution, but obviously a lot of the things he said will come out in time so we could judge his honesty then.

A lot of that is down to Hicks and Gillett. When those two don't get on it causes more problems.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article7012838.ece

So, who still isn't a member? http://www.spiritofshankly.com/join.html

Pretty much so. Any things like that like money for stadium be part of initial agreement with new investors with a percentage share with that then. It could happen to be a part owner but that could just cause more problems. At the moment we have 2 owners that don't get on, will adding another make things better. We need complete removal of Hicks and Gillett.

Not quite. Contract renewals will have agent fees and signing fee which will be taken out of the player account. However if the wages are less then the profits are more so more can be put into the player account that way as well.

Transfer Policy can only change with a Sugar Daddy or new stadium. Both require Hicks and Gillett selling up a good proportion of shares to be able to do so.

He said it wouldn't. It always goes back into the player account. Essentially the only chance of reasonably doing well is having a good first XI but depth in the squad and you have to hope you get no injuries. The problem is that is pretty much how we are set up now and the problems have been evident on the pitch with that.

He said the £20m was from contract renewals. He said contract renewals are taken out of the player account. So without talking about that being right or wrong to include it in with transfers, you will always one big contract renewal a year at least which will eat into the part of the player account that came from profits. We made £45m last season and we now have interest payments of around £20m. We may earn £5-£10m less this year then take into account Reina's renewal and others and then you start to wonder where the money is to buy above and beyond what we have already.

The banks wont care. Its the owners and possible investors that will care and Purslow said that the Owners valuation is not realistic.

The story of last night was that we had been banging away since late last week asking for them to approved. We did exactly the same thing last time. We'd decided to publish without approval when the second version landed. There was no way we could square the circle between what we had all heard and what CP was suggesting had actually been said. Some of it was missing in his version, some embellished and some just added as it had never been said by him at all. There was then a frantic session of gauging Committee opinion which went from going back to the Club and seeking a common version to just pushing our own out on its own. Overnight we decided the fairest thing would be to publish both versions and let members decide. I can assure you all our version is based upon a written note and the approval of the people there on the night. There were a couple of revisions by the group before it was agreed and despatched a couple of days after the last meeting.

The day we release stuff with "there being no plan b" and Purslow starts a press initiative to come out and say there is a Plan B. Wasn't what he told us on the night.

We just want to give members the chance to read them first. They pay their £10 so deserve that chance. Yes, others may get to see them first, but without causing undue stress on servers by password protection etc it is the best way.

Only time will tell on that. But talks to Balague and gives him some information similar to what he told us in parts which would go out before he gets back to us to quell any momentum built by us with it. Its one of those unprovable things, but when seeing things first hand the way things have gone I don't like it. Around then, yes.

http://www.spiritofshankly.com/join.html Join now and then its ready for the future.

No doubt a deliberate ploy by Purslow that as well.

I know. Seen it. Thanks.

Cunny, what did I say above. Can you take link down please. Give members a chance to read them first. I will post them up around 2.30pm and I will answer any questions then. We have to be fair to our members.

Members had wanted that dialogue and it didn't stop anything. If it wasn't for that then we wouldn't have got the ST price freeze or sorting the whole PTS debarcle where they didn't include loyalty in the new scheme. The banks knew how we felt because we sent them hundreds of letters if not more and we got an official reply back from them. So they certainly knew how we felt about the owners. We would never underline our key objective. Just wait until members get sent the minutes.

What we do elsewhere with travel and community work does not affect our ability to protest against the owners and a lot of our members value those things as well. By becoming a member as well you can have an active role on our policies as can any member, as we represent our members. On that incident. We made our statement clear and we condemned those songs. Also, it wasn't the Christmas Party.

I assume by that then that you are not one of the 4,000 then. Can I ask why? Can I also add as well that can people please refrain from posting the minutes on forums until we do. Members deserve the chance to read them first.