Direct action from Saturday and Comment on the Christian Purslow meeting‏

[Spirit Of Shankly]

Please see the below link for a report on Direct Action carried out on Saturday, aimed at George Gillett on his visit to Anfield.

 

http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/Direct...m-Saturday.html

 

Below is a link to our comment on the recent meeting held with Liverpool FC Managing Director, Christian Purslow.

 

http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/Christ...-_-Comment.html

 

Spirit Of Shankly

[Crazy Horse]

"Unfortunately, while our argument is not with the senior management of the football club directly but with the current owners, those running the football club for them are guilty by association"

 

Does this include Rafa? And if not, why not?

[LicK]

"Unfortunately, while our argument is not with the senior management of the football club directly but with the current owners, those running the football club for them are guilty by association"

 

Does this include Rafa? And if not, why not?

 

If you're serious, then consider that Benitez was there before they were. Him quitting in 'protest' is going to achieve what exactly? If you've never been in a situation where you don't want to be forced out of the job you enjoy by your new a****** boss(es) then good for you.

 

Ayres and Purslow were appointments of Hicks & Gillette. They implicitly bought into their bulls*** by taking their jobs. Benitez did not.

[Hassony]

Ayres and Purslow were appointments of Hicks & Gillette. They implicitly bought into their bulls*** by taking their jobs. Benitez did not.

 

even if they are actually doing a better job than their predecessors?

[LicK]

even if they are actually doing a better job than their predecessors?

 

They're going to have to do some f***ing job to do anything but service the debt.

[Hassony]

They're going to have to do some f***ing job to do anything but service the debt.

 

Well we seem to be doing better on the commercial side lately, the debts are not really their fault.

[Zoob]

It's embarrassing that twice now Gillett has denied saying there would be a spade in the ground in 60 days. Wish the national press could pick this up, as it's a shameful example of the lies, deceit and crap that has been so common under these 2

[fyds]

Firstly, as I among others hoped for recently, it's good SOS are differentiating between the club itself and the owners. Secondly, as the owner in question, George Gillett proved at the Academy in lying to their face and was further emphasised with the use of police and stewards at the ground to supress protest and legitimate freedom of speech (something I was always led to believe Americans held sacred) further ongoing dialogue with the owners or their officers/intermediaries is an error of judgment that offers no advantage to SOS but every possible PR advantage to Tom and George by way of simple usuary.

Edited September 29, 2009 by fyds

[Rimbeux]

They're going to have to do some f***ing job to do anything but service the debt.

 

 

True, it's another prong of on the edge leverage business, you put yourself in a position where you absolutely must improve the revenue

[David Hodgson]

Firstly, as I among others hoped for recently, it's good SOS are differentiating between the club itself and the owners. Secondly, as the owner in question, George Gillett proved at the Academy in lying to their face and was further emphasised with the use of police and stewards at the ground to supress protest and legitimate freedom of speech (something I was always led to believe Americans held sacred) further ongoing dialogue with the owners or their officers/intermediaries is an error of judgment that offers no advantage to SOS but every possible PR advantage to Tom and George by way of simple usuary.

 

Usuary ?

[fyds]

Usuary ?

Not in the financial sense DH (although, by proxy...) but in the basic sense of as against their (SOS's) will as a figleaf to the fans - the owner's 'showing willing and a spirit of cooperation' etc. Being used.

[Maldini]

SOS need to get video or audio of him denying the 60 days statement. Get a video on youtube and email it to every journo in the country. It's time we start assembling the case for the prosecution.

[drdooom]

Firstly, as I among others hoped for recently, it's good SOS are differentiating between the club itself and the owners. Secondly, as the owner in question, George Gillett proved at the Academy in lying to their face and was further emphasised with the use of police and stewards at the ground to supress protest and legitimate freedom of speech (something I was always led to believe Americans held sacred)

 

Anfield is a privately owned building, there is no 'legitimate freedom of speech' inside it. They're perfectly in their rights to supress protests there just like you would be inside your own house. Of course it shows them in a bad light and makes them look rattled but freedom of speech is a straw man.

[Stevie H]

SOS need to get video or audio of him denying the 60 days statement. Get a video on youtube and email it to every journo in the country. It's time we start assembling the case for the prosecution.

agree with this. film stewards and police taking protest banners off fans inside anfield too. the more evidence there is the better.

[Mike]

Anfield is a privately owned building, there is no 'legitimate freedom of speech' inside it. They're perfectly in their rights to supress protests there just like you would be inside your own house. Of course it shows them in a bad light and makes them look rattled but freedom of speech is a straw man.

 

correct. i said that earlier. you buy a ticket you agree to play by their rules.

[PeeG]

correct. i said that earlier. you buy a ticket you agree to play by their rules.

 

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.

[Falconhoof]

I agree with the idea that its a private place and they can eject whoever they wish. Just as a cinema could if you were protesting about Mr Odeon by waving a banner around.

Under normal circumstances you are allowed to wave banners and flags in our stadium by permission of the owners, they are within their rights to withdraw that permission at any time and for any reason. They can remove permission for individuals, and continue to extend permission to others.

[honourablegeorge]

Hate to be the pedant, but the "who's" at the end - ARGH

[Molby]

I agree with the idea that its a private place and they can eject whoever they wish. Just as a cinema could if you were protesting about Mr Odeon by waving a banner around.

Under normal circumstances you are allowed to wave banners and flags in our stadium by permission of the owners, they are within their rights to withdraw that permission at any time and for any reason. They can remove permission for individuals, and continue to extend permission to others.

 

ok, I think we all understand this now - so it's not a legal issue

 

then it's a moral and political one so let's get busy on it...this should end up being a PR disaster for them if handled correctly

[Mike]

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.

 

don't get me wrong peeg, it's a joke that they took it down. but i'm not sure you'll get anywhere with that. the awful truth is that if gillete want's something taking down, he can

[Falconhoof]

ok, I think we all understand this now - so it's not a legal issue

 

then it's a moral and political one so let's get busy on it...this should end up being a PR disaster for them if handled correctly

 

Of course its wrong, but its a sideshow, a distraction IMO. The main issue is whats affecting the development of the playing squad, and the stadium.

[Knox_Harrington]

don't get me wrong peeg, it's a joke that they took it down. but i'm not sure you'll get anywhere with that. the awful truth is that if gillete want's something taking down, he can

Should the police get involved though, Mike?

[Mike]

Should the police get involved though, Mike?

 

if the club are paying for them, which they do, i can see how they might get involved. again, not saying they should.

[Stevie H]

don't get me wrong peeg, it's a joke that they took it down. but i'm not sure you'll get anywhere with that. the awful truth is that if gillete want's something taking down, he can

should be publicised then. highlight the point that stewards and police are being ordered only to remove banners which are critical of the owners.

[D.Boon]

Should the police get involved though, Mike?

 

Aren't they being paid for by the owners