Hicks to face protest in North East

[Roscoe]

not sure if or where this should be posted really, but it was reported on radio 5 this morning and I have no doubt the media will be all over it.

 

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liv...-name_page.html

 

Hicks to face union protest Feb 9 2007

 

 

 

 

Liverpool Daily Post

 

 

AMERICAN tycoon Tom Hicks may have only just come on board as the new co-chairman of Liverpool FC, but he is already being promised a hostile reception if he attends his first away game at Newcastle United tomorrow ? and it has nothing to do with football.

 

Members of the GMB union are planning to lobby him as he goes into the St James Park ground over £2.5m of unpaid severance money they claim he owes when a company he ran in the North-east became insolvent. The GMB has said it will also seek support from fans by giving them copies of a letter the union has written to Mr Hicks, seeking a meeting with him on the matter.

 

Since Via Systems, employing 850 workers in South Shields, became insolvent in 2001, union members who lost their jobs have been campaigning to recover money they consider that the company, run by Mr Hicks, owes them.

 

A delegation has already travelled to the company head office in Dallas, Texas, but were unable to meet Mr Hicks.

[Huyton_Red]

He wont be there, the first game they are coming over for is the Barcelone one on the 6th March they said in the press conference

[Leo No.8]

A delegation has already travelled to the company head office in Dallas, Texas, but were unable to meet Mr Hicks.

 

Rumour has it Hicks invited them into his office but they were unable to get their beer bellies through the door. Even when, after half an hour, they came up with the idea to try one at a time...

[Bailo]

Heard this guy interviewed on R5 this morning, he said he didn't think Tom Hicks had acted illegally, nor was it in any of their contracts to get the amount they're seeking. His arguement seemed to be "Well he's got enough to buy Liverpool so he's got enough to pay us what we'd like".

 

Some people live in cloud cuckoo land.

[boohog]

Hicks would have no personal liability to employees of a company he owns. It would be the same if liverpool went bust and there were unpaid wages. There is no reason he personally would have to pay them. They would have a claim against the club rather than him.

[PhilM]

Heard this guy interviewed on R5 this morning, he said he didn't think Tom Hicks had acted illegally, nor was it in any of their contracts to get the amount they're seeking. His arguement seemed to be "Well he's got enough to buy Liverpool so he's got enough to pay us what we'd like".

 

Some people live in cloud cuckoo land.

 

That's exactly what I thought as well.

[L19red]

Heard this guy interviewed on R5 this morning, he said he didn't think Tom Hicks had acted illegally, nor was it in any of their contracts to get the amount they're seeking. His arguement seemed to be "Well he's got enough to buy Liverpool so he's got enough to pay us what we'd like".

 

Some people live in cloud cuckoo land.

 

 

they got the legal minimum from the government which is pretty much what anyone gets when their employer goes bust. Unless an agreed payoff is written into an employees contract that is all you are officially entitled to, and even if its written in to a contract you just join the back of a long line of creditors. It's f***ing harsh if you get laid off and can't find another job, but thats the way it is.

 

the thing that got me is that they wanted nearly £30K each!

[Ostrich Man]

Im sure Shankly would agree with all that.

 

Wouldnt have a problem with it at all.

 

sure maybe hed make a wee joke about the poor fat jobless geordies too.

[nd]

Im sure Shankly would agree with all that.

 

Wouldnt have a problem with it at all.

 

sure maybe hed make a wee joke about the poor fat jobless geordies too.

 

Legally, Hicks's a*** is covered I'm sure.

 

Morally...you certainly have a point.

 

"The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards." I doubt Shankly would've been pleased with modern football, full stop.

[slapnuts]

they will probably be mackems, f*** them

[fyds]

Im sure Shankly would agree with all that.

 

Wouldnt have a problem with it at all.

 

sure maybe hed make a wee joke about the poor fat jobless geordies too.

Yes - imagine if he'd been a Clydeside Shop Steward who sold all his left-wing principals down the river, took as much cash as he could lay his mits on and for good measure slipped lots of business representing the youth team to his son while demanding millions he hadn't earned from a couple of horse-spunkers, the end result being a hostile takeover of his club and the breaking away of supporters to set up their own once they had had enough?

 

What kind of loose-boweled, short-tempered, half-pissed hypocrite would do a thing like that?

[RafaShanks]

He wont be there, the first game they are coming over for is the Barcelone one

 

Distant relations to Kewell?

[Ostrich Man]

Yes - imagine if he'd been a Clydeside Shop Steward who sold all his left-wing principals down the river, took as much cash as he could lay his mits on and for good measure slipped lots of business representing the youth team to his son while demanding millions he hadn't earned from a couple of horse-spunkers, the end result being a hostile takeover of his club and the breaking away of supporters to set up their own once they had had enough?

 

What kind of loose-boweled, short-tempered, half-pissed hypocrite would do a thing like that?

 

yeah weve always gotta be worse eh fyds...cant face the truth...yeah but your this...your that.

 

do i think fergies a money grabber...er yep..though i didnt know frazer launched his hostile takeover because of the rock of gilbraltar thing...there ye go you learn something made up every day.

 

doesnt detract from the point made fyds.

 

people clambering to make jokes and stick up for ruthless f*****s who keep s***ting on the working man to keep their vast wealth just because theyve bought your club...i reckon glazer is another money grabbing c*** and if i heard about him doing the same id say the same thing.

[fyds]

yeah weve always gotta be worse eh fyds...cant face the truth...yeah but your this...your that.

 

do i think fergies a money grabber...er yep..though i didnt know frazer launched his hostile takeover because of the rock of gilbraltar thing...there ye go you learn something made up every day.

 

doesnt detract from the point made fyds.

 

people clambering to make jokes and stick up for ruthless f*****s who keep s***ting on the working man to keep their vast wealth just because theyve bought your club...i reckon glazer is another money grabbing c*** and if i heard about him doing the same id say the same thing.

Glazer was able - not caused - able - to mount his takeover because yon horsey chaps bought into united (at the time, a lot of reports said spite and business were mixed) and he bought them out giving him the leverage he needed.

 

I'm not defending Hicks as I know nothing about the case, though from what others have written it seems there is little to defend anyway. I posted what I did because you were being a two-faced twunt raising 'Shankly' who is long dead (why not raise Juvenal or Ghandi - not LFC men so far as I'm aware but otherwise as relevant) when you have enough crap on Old Trafford's doorstep to worry about.

[Ostrich Man]

Glazer was able - not caused - able - to mount his takeover because yon horsey chaps bought into united (at the time, a lot of reports said spite and business were mixed) and he bought them out giving him the leverage he needed.

 

I'm not defending Hicks as I know nothing about the case, though from what others have written it seems there is little to defend anyway. I posted what I did because you were being a two-faced twunt raising 'Shankly' who is long dead (why not raise Juvenal or Ghandi - not LFC men so far as I'm aware but otherwise as relevant) when you have enough crap on Old Trafford's doorstep to worry about.

cause this week ive heard the spin coming out of anfield saying shankley would be all for this,just pointing out he wouldnt be in a rush to defend the yank owners against the working men....i mean asking for £30,000 each...the nerve...you need that to pay your reserves for the week.

 

btw do you know what two-faced means

 

have i ever made out i like liverpool or ever resisted the chance for a dig?

 

(all you had to do was point out who the type of people shankly had as his chairmen to prove your point...or busby )

[fyds]

cause this week ive heard the spin coming out of anfield saying shankley would be all for this,just pointing out he wouldnt be in a rush to defend the yank owners against the working men....i mean asking for £30,000 each...the nerve...you need that to pay your reserves for the week.

 

btw do you know what two-faced means

 

have i ever made out i like liverpool or ever resisted the chance for a dig?

 

(all you had to do was point out who the type of people shankly had as his chairmen to prove your point...or busby )

Wanting 30k doesn't mean you're entitled to it. Two faced in as much as denegrating our new owners by linking their assumed short comings to the ethics of a man who has been dead more than 20 years while ignoring the conduct of your own owners and a manager who ditched his ethics when they weren't profitable.

 

FWIW, I always like Busby, and even thought Louis Edwards at least a half-decent chairman, though Martin Edwards was a c*nt. I always liked our John Smith from Shanks' day and David Moores - Hicks and Gillett we'll have to wait and see about, but so far as a result of their buyout we don't owe anything...

[libero]

Yes - imagine if he'd been a Clydeside Shop Steward who sold all his left-wing principals down the river, took as much cash as he could lay his mits on and for good measure slipped lots of business representing the youth team to his son while demanding millions he hadn't earned from a couple of horse-spunkers, the end result being a hostile takeover of his club and the breaking away of supporters to set up their own once they had had enough?

 

What kind of loose-boweled, short-tempered, half-pissed hypocrite would do a thing like that?

Give that man a fiver for his post of the week....