Hicks Knows Best?

[Spirit Of Shankly]

Tom Hicks has broken off talks with DIC because their leadership style would not be in the interests of: "Kop [Holdings], of the Club, or of the Club's loyal and passionate supporters."

 

Let's look at this. Why does Mr Hicks put Kop Holdings first? Doesn't this reveal exactly where his priorities lie? How many times do the man's priorities have to be revealed to us? It's wonderful of him to emphasise what we already know. The interests of Kop Holdings and Liverpool Football Club are not one and the same. Kop Holdings needs Liverpool to come fourth every year and get a stadium built and then it makes a billion pound return without ever investing a penny. Liverpool Football Club demands greatness. Liverpool Football Club should be the jewel in the crown. Not another stepping stone for an obscenely rich man to make more money he doesn't need.

 

Mr Hicks is remarkably presumptuous if he feels he knows what's best for Liverpool Football Club and its supporters. The very supporters who distrust him entirely. The very supporters who have made their feelings known again and again what's best for them.

 

Mr Hicks should listen to Liverpool's supporters. They've repeatedly tried to tell him what's best for this club. On the whole it can be summed up as follows:

 

What's best for this football club isn't being in exactly the same position as we were fourteen months ago but with £350m of debt.

 

What's best for the football club and its supporters is that the man who has publicly stated he'll siphon Liverpool's money off to his other sports teams, hasn't pledged to buy the club one way and then do the opposite, has promised stadia yet has failed to raise the money and still hasn't started digging, has offered the manager's job to a total novice in club management terms – how exactly was that in the club's best interests Tom? - and then discussed such a foolish move in public, leaves and never, ever, ever comes back.

 

What's best for Liverpool Football Club is that the man who has dragged this footballing institution through the mud, who has classlessly tarnished the family silver, who has shown such disdain and disrespect to the very supporters he now claims to act in the interest of accepts the healthy profit he has been offered and shuts the door behind him.

 

How many times do we have to tell him he doesn't know what's best for LFC? He doesn't know what's best for the supporters? Well, let's keep telling him and let's tell him louder.

 

Before the Reading game. 15th March. The Olympia. Noon. Let's tell him again there and then let's tell him outside the ground and then let's tell him inside the ground and keep telling him and the world that he doesn't know best. Only when he steps through the exit door will he have shown any intelligence, any class and any understanding of what Liverpool's supporters want.

 

One way or another, on the 15th of March, let your voice be heard.

 

Spirit Of Shankly.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Spirit Of Shankly

[psl]

Stepping it up to during the match now?

Edited March 10, 2008 by psl

[Knox_Harrington]

Stepping it up to during the match now?

Discuss it. Discuss everything.

[pipnasty]

Knox - what is the current feeling of actually boycotting the match and do you think this may change? No agenda - I'm just interested.

[Cobs]

boycotting the match

 

the only thing i can see having an impact, tbh.

[km9]

Match Boycott is the only way now!!!

The team will suffer short term but the club will benifit long term.

[pipnasty]

the only thing i can see having an impact, tbh.

 

I tend to agree - it's how you get to that point that I suppose is the difficult part. I think you have to build towards something like this for it to work.

[Guest Prongsy]

the only thing i can see having an impact, tbh.

 

Me too.

 

He'll feel that in the pocket, to the tune of more than a million quid.

[Knox_Harrington]

Knox - what is the current feeling of actually boycotting the match and do you think this may change? No agenda - I'm just interested.

In the first meeting it was voted to give the team as much support as possible. We need to unvote that and then genuinely get the action to take place as far as I'm concerned. You don't get two goes at something like that. Given the context of the season, that's going to be difficult. We've got Reading next. That could have been a possible but there's no time and it's the next mass meeting where such a vote could take place. Then it's the derby and then it's the balls out run-in.

 

Start of the season, you might have a chance.

 

That's my opinion on it in practical terms.

 

In tactical terms, say it was workable, it's your last move. You do that, you've got to be sure it'll work because it's difficult to do twice. We are approaching the nuclear option though. I do think it should be on the agenda, but I wouldn't look to push it prior to the start of next season.

 

EDIT: Want to emphasise, I'm speaking for me there.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Knox_Harrington

[pipnasty]

In tactical terms, say it was workable, it's your last move. You do that, you've got to be sure it'll work because it's difficult to do twice. We are approaching the nuclear option though. I do think it should be on the agenda, but I wouldn't look to push it prior to the start of next season.

 

EDIT: Want to emphasise, I'm speaking for me there.

 

 

Yeah, fair play. It's like going on strike - you call for a strike and nobody walks out then you are dead in the water. And if people do agree to strike and bit by bit some start returning to work, then you are dead in the water too. It's very difficult. I suppose with a Union, you are able to fully ballot members but because SOS are so new, it becomes very difficult to judge.

 

I agree about the next season bit and I just hope that people don't get impatient at the perceived lack of 'action' when this is clearly not the case. One step at a time and all that.

[Cobs]

I tend to agree - it's how you get to that point that I suppose is the difficult part. I think you have to build towards something like this for it to work.

it's going to take STH's not going to the match, or at least not entering the ground.

 

 

Me too.

 

He'll feel that in the pocket, to the tune of more than a million quid.

 

it's not so much the immediate hit of money, more the obvious, startling sight of a 3/4 empty Anfield on match day and what that says. I appreciate you may not get that many but imagine a 5,000+ hole in the middle of the Kop? He can't just ignore that.

[RBM]

A boycott of products by our major sponsors may be easier to orchestrate then a match boycott. They could be written to and advised that as sponsors of LFC they are to be targeted as part of any boycott due to the current ownership issues. It will be easier although propbably less effective to get supporters to drink other brands of lager other then Carlsberg then to convince them not to go to the match. This could have a knock on effect of making future sponsorship more difficult to secure, with companies not wanting adverse publicity. It's just something I see as a possible next step rather then jumping to attempting a match boycott during such a sensitive time on the playing side.

[Kuyt-fever]

How would a boycott actually work? Would you just not buy a ticket or buy and not show up and protest outside the stadium?

 

A few games 5 years ago , if I remember correctly , only pulled in about 33,000 people and if you could convince about 10,000 to boycott then you'd have a shot.

[pawiddop]

The Blackburn match is televised, a walk out maybe?

[Flight]

Before the Reading game. 15th March. The Olympia. Noon. Let's tell him again there and then let's tell him outside the ground and then let's tell him inside the ground and keep telling him and the world that he doesn't know best. Only when he steps through the exit door will he have shown any intelligence, any class and any understanding of what Liverpool's supporters want.

 

One way or another, on the 15th of March, let your voice be heard.

 

Spirit Of Shankly.

 

 

 

I have huge respect for you guys, but the only thing that will work is boycotts.

 

Protests don't matter when everyone who is protesting has paid Hicks 40 quid to be there. he doesn't care how unpopular he is and he doesn't care about anyones opinions of him. All that matters to him is $$$$

 

Even the threat of protest would start him thinking. It has to be brought to the table for all the groups who are taking action to discuss together.

[liveabiglife]

This is NOT a post to say thay you shouldn't do whatever you feel is the right thing to do, before there is a collective rolling of eyes. I am not 'at it again': picking holes. I want to ask a question, that probably has been asked off-forum: do we really think Hicks will admit defeat? I wonder if he will walk away where it could be seen that he 'lost' - I really wonder if teh only way to get rid of the guy is to suck-it-up and offer him a way out that makes him look good. It woudl turn stomachs, but it may be worth it. BTW, I don't have a suggestion on how to do that, before anyone challenges me to provide one.

 

Playing devil's advocate, and taking account of the character the guy has revealed so far- bloody minded, arrogant and a bit of a tw*t - I wonder if overt action may actually make him more resolute. HEAR ME before youshout at me: I'm not saying I think it will - I'm wondering, that's all. He just strikes me as someone who will not publically admit defeat, and a boycott and more protests etc, may make it harder for him to get out without losing face. Of course, I could be completely wrong on that, I'm quite willing to admit that.

 

I know given previous comments, this may well be taken as me being negative again, but I'm really not - it is a genuine wondering that goes through my mind as I read and watch things unfold. For all I know a boycott may be just the thing - it will certainly hurt him, there's no question. It's just a cost/benefit thing - will it be short-term pain for a long-term gain, as would be the hope, or will it be short-term pain for even greater long-term pain? Don't know the answer ot that, no-one does, but I do wonder just where that guy's heads at.

[Gilps]

A boycott of products by our major sponsors may be easier to orchestrate then a match boycott...

 

But would take so much longer for the effect to filter through in any meaningful way

[Cobs]

But would take so much longer for the effect to filter through in any meaningful way

it wouldn't filter through in any meaningful way, that's the problem with it

[pipnasty]

I have huge respect for you guys, but the only thing that will work is boycotts.

 

 

But how do you get to that stage? If not one seat was filled at Anfield for the next home game, it would be fantastic, but how on earth do you achieve that? That is one of the many challenges that SOS will have to face.

[Guest Prongsy]

The Blackburn match is televised, a walk out maybe?

 

I think the whole point is the money loss. He's surely be happy with people paying and not turning up.

[Falconhoof]

The only way is to hit him in the pocket. That means damaging the commercial performance of his investment.

Boycotting club merchandise, and associated sponsors might bring pressure on Hicks.

 

The problem is that all of this is online and there isn't even a majority of matchgoing fans willing to protest vocally, never mind start boycotting things.

[Kuyt-fever]

Aye , the game against Vitesse in the uefa cup 5 years ago only drew 23,000 not suggesting you could convince that many people to stay away but it shows that we're not as an attrative product as we've been lead to believe.

 

If we get through and it will be tough , then we draw someone like Fernabache or Schalke , 1st leg out there and Rafa takes care of business to put us in a healthy position for the 2nd leg then perhaps similar attendences numbers could be reached. Hicks' would defintly be forced into action if a European night at Anfield was not drawing a gate.

[Gilps]

I think the whole point is the money loss. He's surely be happy with people paying and not turning up.

 

Financially, he'd probably take the one hit anyway. It wouldn't be so much about hitting the pocket as making a very public, visible statement, imo at least.

[alias75]

This is NOT a post to say thay you shouldn't do whatever you feel is the right thing to do, before there is a collective rolling of eyes. I am not 'at it again': picking holes. I want to ask a question, that probably has been asked off-forum: do we really think Hicks will admit defeat? I wonder if he will walk away where it could be seen that he 'lost' - I really wonder if teh only way to get rid of the guy is to suck-it-up and offer him a way out that makes him look good. It woudl turn stomachs, but it may be worth it. BTW, I don't have a suggestion on how to do that, before anyone challenges me to provide one.

 

Playing devil's advocate, and taking account of the character the guy has revealed so far- bloody minded, arrogant and a bit of a tw*t - I wonder if overt action may actually make him more resolute. HEAR ME before youshout at me: I'm not saying I think it will - I'm wondering, that's all. He just strikes me as someone who will not publically admit defeat, and a boycott and more protests etc, may make it harder for him to get out without losing face. Of course, I could be completely wrong on that, I'm quite willing to admit that.

 

I know given previous comments, this may well be taken as me being negative again, but I'm really not - it is a genuine wondering that goes through my mind as I read and watch things unfold. For all I know a boycott may be just the thing - it will certainly hurt him, there's no question. It's just a cost/benefit thing - will it be short-term pain for a long-term gain, as would be the hope, or will it be short-term pain for even greater long-term pain? Don't know the answer ot that, no-one does, but I do wonder just where that guy's heads at.

 

If Hicks had lots of money you may have a point, the fact is all his business' are leveraged to the hilt and the way the US economy is going hes losing money every day simply doing nothing. I think the fans do need to let him know we don't want him here, but i think the biggest reason Hicks will sell up is simply because he can't afford us.

 

In less than 18 months hes going to have to try and get refinancing again, hes also got to try and persuade a bank to give him £300 million plus for the stadium. He can't do this on his own.

 

Hes now come out and said he doesnt want the club run by committee which means there are 3 options...

 

1. He sells his share along with Gillett

2. He buys Gillett out and has 100% control himself (he cant afford to do this)

3. He persuades someone else to buy Gillett out, but if you take him on his latest comments it'd have to be someone willing to match DIC's offer and be prepared to let Hicks make all the decisions!

[Guest Prongsy]

Financially, he'd probably take the one hit anyway. It wouldn't be so much about hitting the pocket as making a very public, visible statement, imo at least.

 

Seriously?

 

He'd be s***ting himself at the risk of losing millions per game if we kept boycotting the club. If it could be done and every fans just said 'none of us are going to another game until he sells' - he'd have next no choice but to sell...

 

not saying that's the right thing to do or that it could be done - but as long as the money is there, what difference does it mean to him, he's obviously not worried about his image.