PeeG

As has been said it was impromptu meeting by an SOS member. Wasn't planned or anything, so with that he has done well. Easy not to remember something in a situation like that. I think that is also why Gillett wanted one person to talk to him and didn't allow all four of us who were there to speak with him about everything. Also, the article is there as much to inform people of what Gillett is like (some people still think they are fine) and to show they need to go as much as it is to get an answer from Gillett. I wouldn't expect him to give a truthful answer anyway if he was questioned on it at the time.

Can see pictures from the mirror archive here as well. http://www.mirrorpix.com/fotoweb/Image_Gri...0and%20football

http://www.liverpoolstudentmedia.com/when-...all-book-review Great book, would be a boss christmas present for someone as well. Going to be on LFCTV on Sat at 7.30 in a programme called The Liverpool Library. Available online here : http://www.amazon.co.uk/When-Football-Was-...f=cm_cr_pr_pb_i

Bump.

As far as I am aware, the stewards didn't ask. The Police were the ones who asked. Police should only step in if the people with the banners got unruly or violent and they did no such thing.

Bump. Bill Shankly is currently a trending topic on Twitter.

I can understand that, but they haven't actually said that to us at any point. They use excuses like its an obstruction and offensive, but don't actually know the real reason. Those lines like that are trying to hide the real reason because they know that will cause more hassle. On the point of stopping individuals bringing banners in, its the same individuals who bring in the Tom & George banners as some of the other wavers. So let them continue with it, because if they continue their heavy handed tactics I would love to see no wavers on the Kop in protest.

The problem is that they don't know what their rules are at times. When did it become the Police's job to take down banners. They say one minute the banner is an obstruction, but don't have bigger banners taken down. They then say its offensive to someone in the crowd, but when asked for a scarf to be taken down because it was offensive to someone they refused. We are pursuing the matter further and will be trying to publicise it more as well.

Back on now. Don't know how I coped in Uni today. Actually got stuff done for once.

24 hour breakfast show is on now with chance for other auction items as well as the above raffle.

Can I just make a point about the comments regarding the calibre of the SOS committee. I see this mentioned on a few forums. Just want to remind people that any member can put themselves forward for election. All they need to have is to be nominated by two other members. I would welcome more people going for the elections early in the new year as that is a way we can become stronger, even if that means myself not getting re-elected. The rest of the committee is in exactly the same mindset. So sometimes (not all the time) it is used as a stick to beat the union with despite out hard work, but you have to remember we were democratically elected. There were 19 people who put their name forward last year. I would love it if 50 people put their name forward this year, as I would hope as well that the people who didn't get elected would still be willing to help out on the sub committees. It is a way of making us stronger. Also, owenthomas, completely respect your view about what you have about Neil being able to do a better job (don't know him so can't comment on that). But I have also seen this line on a lot of forums that If --------- got elected I would join and you have to note that if you are not a member you cannot vote in the elections and therefore that might harm Neil's chances of getting in if he wanted to run for the committee.

As with this meeting were we asked members to e-mail in with questions for Purslow if you want anything raised for the next meeting let Graham know at secretary@spiritofshankly.com.

If not, it is something we can have a go at him for. Another reason these meetings work. We have minuted accounts of what was said, the club have verified it so now can not go back on what was said.

Agree. He was surprised how professional we were. Probably wouldn't have said he would come to a mass meeting otherwise.

He was pushed on his answers as is seen on a few points by Graham (GS). This part is an important part So, he said he would be willing to come to a mass meeting, so hopefully we can get him to the next one and then he can be pushed more.

Its the need to be professional. Like all our meetings are we take minutes and the minutes are agreed by who was there. Things can be misheard. Wouldn't help us if we publish something and then the club say we didn't tell you that. But we also said in the statement we released if there was an area we didn't agree were properly minuted we would still note that in what went out to members.

LFC - The next Leeds? It was myself, Jay and a few others holding it up. Had that one and Thanks but no Yanks up before the game and held up the next Leeds one for the one corner we had by were we where but took it down just before Aurelio took the corner so people could see the corner.

Completely agree. Banner didn't get on TV as far as i'm aware. Was mentioned on 5 live briefly. Some people criticise SOS for lack of action sometimes, but last night highlighted the bigger problem. That anger that was there after the Transfer Window closed and we had made a bad start has started to go. Its up to all of us to spread the word about what is happening to our club. I strongly feel if we could get more to join SOS then we are acheiving that as they will understand our goals, but its not even necessarily about joining SOS at the moment, because nobody had to join SOS last night to join in the chants about the owners. We just need to speak to fans we meet everywhere. Whether its the fella sitting next to you at Anfield or in the pub after the match. If you can make one person every match understand the consequences of what could happen to us, we might then actually be able to acheive something in getting rid of the owners.

Not saying they intentionally want to take us into administration and agree that they just want money. But the Leeds comparison isn't about being exactly the same, but the fact that business model doesn't support the debt we have if we miss out on CL football and the consequences of that could see us drop further down like Leeds and maybe be relegated. I hope i'm wrong about my views on it, but its possible. That thought of it being possible would have been outrageous before the owners put the debt on the club. Its a worst case scenario and we have the chance to highlight that worst case scenario as a way of putting more pressure on the owners.

When you talking about other fans, I thought you were referring to fans of other clubs, in terms of what they think of LFC. That is what I meant by it isn't an issue. Did not mean for that to apply for non members of SOS.

Administration is worst case scenario and we could probably go into some form of informal administration which would not see us docked points. Hicks and Gillett would only sell to a private investor if it benefits them, and likewise with the private investors, particularly how they have disappeared now with the high valuation on the club by H+G. It might not even need for us to have administration to get to that point. They have debt that needs to be serviced, if we don't have the revenue streams to pay it off (e.g. Champions League Football) then we need to get it from somewhere such as selling players.

We could go into administration, that is what could happen, not being floated. Docked 9 points for a start. Also, with the new financial restrictions being put into place for the premier league, if we can't satisfy them then there could be things like transfer bans and even stopping us from improving contracts.

What other fans think of us isn't an issue. Also, it would be a lot worse what they would think if we were in League One or the Championship.

The accounts that have been published for 2007 gave something like a £45 million income from matchday revenue. United for the same period was around £110million I think and I think Arsenal are around the £100million mark with the Emirates.

Think the problem is in football that there a lot who want to make money out of football, but its not really that profitable in the long run. Hicks and Gillett are just waiting to be able to sell for a profit. People like Abramovich and the Abu Dhabi group aren't doing it for profits and there model is not ideal for football in a different sense. Take away our debt and you can see we are a well run club. You are not having close to 40 million going out of the club on interest a year then so it allows you to survive more. The Fan ownership model that share liverpool had was to reduce this figure and have a plan that it would eventually be paid off which Hicks and Gillett do not have. Of course they might want something in return, but this doesn't have to be in a way it puts the club at risk and does not have to be monetary. The thing with Moores as well, he said he sold us because he didn't have enough money to take us further, but if he had taken the loans out the Americans did to build the stadium then there would not have been as much of a problem as you could see that the loans would be paid back when the stadium was built.