S.O.S Latest Poll

[Spirit Of Shankly]

In the light of today's report in the Liverpool Echo where it was claimed Mr Hicks walked away from negotiations because he rejected DIC's proposal of a supporter's representative with full voting rights, we would like to clarify amongst the support on as wide a basis as possible where they stand on such an issue.[/font]

 

It's become ever clearer Mr Hicks' first, second and third priority with Liverpool FC is to make as much money as possible. Wanting the club to be financially strong isn't, in itself, a bad thing. It only becomes a bad thing when, as emphasised by his statement last night, the interests of Kop Holdings are specified to be different to that of LFC and its supporters. As we argued last night, it is enough for Kop Holdings to reach a very significant return on its investment by getting the stadium built and keeping the club in fourth place. That isn't enough for LFC's supporters.

 

Given the fact that Mr Hicks will struggle to raise further loans to refinance his existing debts or to expand upon the stadium we have an opportunity to exert financial pressure on him. We can emphasise, to him and to anyone who would loan him further money or anyone who would come on board alongside him to invest in Liverpool Football Club that we will not allow ourselves to be the cash-cow he wants us while he treats us with such disrespect. We can emphasise we are prepared to deny the club money to lower its viability as an investment. We can emphasise that we are more than a brand and that those who love Liverpool the world over love it as something way beyond a sports team and instead see it as something central to their lives and will go to any lengths to protect it as such.

 

Carlsberg have done nothing wrong. They have a product in the marketplace very similar to a host of other products and part of how they try to boost their product's sales the world over is an association with the "brand" of Liverpool FC, the "brand" of The Kop, the "brand" of the 12^th man. However, we need to get the message across to them and any future sponsors that we, the very brand they are paying good money to capitalise on, are not happy with the current leadership and that by being associated with Liverpool FC at this time they are associating themselves with a man who threatens everything they want to associate their brand with.

 

On Merseyside, Carlsberg sell thousands of barrels of ale every week. They monitor their sales on a week by week basis. The Merseyside territory is in the top 5, in terms of sales volume. Therefore any boycott will get the message across quickly that we want Hicks out now. It is definable and most importantly any Carlsberg drinker has lots of alternatives at any given bar.

 

Therefore, while we don't want to hurt Carlsberg, we should use this way of getting our message across to Carlsberg, to any other current or future sponsors, that we want Tom Hicks out and that financially backing him or the football club while he remains in charge is not a financially wise move.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Spirit Of Shankly

[Eskimo]

Personally I don't agree with boycotting Carlsberg but if people are going ahead with this then they should be made aware of all their brands, no good giving the Pilsner a miss if you then buy Tuborg...

[AmassiveSlot]

Personally I don't agree with boycotting Carlsberg but if people are going ahead with this then they should be made aware of all their brands, no good giving the Pilsner a miss if you then buy Tuborg...

 

 

Thing is the company will notice Carlsberg sales are down... especially if we send a few letters/emails make it very public as to what we are doing........ think it might work...... as long as enough of us actually stick to it........ Start drinking real Pilsner anyway!

[ricalmighty]

And what are carlsberg supposed to do about it? "ehh Mr. Hicks our sales are down because of you, could you please sell your shares in the club, so people will buy our beers again?"

 

Do you want em to cancel their sponsor deal, only for another company to step in? a company who might not focus as much on Merseyside consumers.

 

Btw. you are not supporting Liverpool by buying Carlsberg, you are supporting Carlsberg. Drink the beer you like and not the one printed on front of your favorite footballers shirt.

[Michael]

1. No, as I want a board that is professional and will make the right decisions for the club without wearing their heart on their sleeve. A supporters' representative would do more harm than good imho. Get a board in that wants the best for Liverpool and that knows how to get it and has no "get out" of using a fan who may well go native.

 

2, Yes, as that will help to get the message across without alienating any individual or company that has supported Liverpool.

 

3. No. Carlsberg should not be singled out. They have always kept their end of the bargain. By all means make it clear that we will boycott any new sponsor, even Carlsberg when they renew their sponsorship, but not an existing one.

[Drexl]

1. No, as I want a board that is professional and will make the right decisions for the club without wearing their heart on their sleeve. A supporters' representative would do more harm than good imho. Get a board in that wants the best for Liverpool and that knows how to get it and has no "get out" of using a fan who may well go native.

 

2, Yes, as that will help to get the message across without alienating any individual or company that has supported Liverpool.

 

3. No. Carlsberg should not be singled out. They have always kept their end of the bargain. By all means make it clear that we will boycott any new sponsor, even Carlsberg when they renew their sponsorship, but not an existing one.

Agreed.

[boohog]

Agreed.

Ditto for the same reasons.

 

Regarding 3, if our boycott extends to Carlsberg it could materially impact the value of future shirt sponsorships even if we get Hicks out. Direct action on club merchandise is likely to be far more effective and have less long term repurcussions.

[AE]

1. No, as I want a board that is professional and will make the right decisions for the club without wearing their heart on their sleeve. A supporters' representative would do more harm than good imho. Get a board in that wants the best for Liverpool and that knows how to get it and has no "get out" of using a fan who may well go native.

 

2, Yes, as that will help to get the message across without alienating any individual or company that has supported Liverpool.

 

3. No. Carlsberg should not be singled out. They have always kept their end of the bargain. By all means make it clear that we will boycott any new sponsor, even Carlsberg when they renew their sponsorship, but not an existing one.

 

 

Agree with that.

[David Hodgson]

And what are carlsberg supposed to do about it? "ehh Mr. Hicks our sales are down because of you, could you please sell your shares in the club, so people will buy our beers again?"

 

Do you want em to cancel their sponsor deal, only for another company to step in? a company who might not focus as much on Merseyside consumers.

 

Btw. you are not supporting Liverpool by buying Carlsberg, you are supporting Carlsberg. Drink the beer you like and not the one printed on front of your favorite footballers shirt.

 

Carlsberg would be hugely unhappy about it and seek talks with the Liverpool board.

 

It would be the start of a process of making life uncomfortable for Hicks. His imagination could start to consider the implications, in the longer term, of supporter disruption to his financial plans.

 

He may fear that no sponsor will touch LFC whilst he's in charge. Any sane businessman facing this potential diruption would willingly take a profit and get out. And get out quickly.

 

It's an easy boycott to implement. Carlsberg would feel it's impact quickly. It does not directly hit the club in the pocket, and it's not much of a sacrifice asking people to get involved in it.

 

Boycotting all LFC products is far too broad and vague a target. What does it mean ? If I take my lad to the match and he's thirsty, I can't buy him a coke ? Some Dad's promised his kid a replica shirt for his birthday next week, and he now has to opt out ? Unworkable. As are ideas like match boycotting.

[David Hodgson]

1. No, as I want a board that is professional and will make the right decisions for the club without wearing their heart on their sleeve. A supporters' representative would do more harm than good imho. Get a board in that wants the best for Liverpool and that knows how to get it and has no "get out" of using a fan who may well go native.

 

2, Yes, as that will help to get the message across without alienating any individual or company that has supported Liverpool.

 

3. No. Carlsberg should not be singled out. They have always kept their end of the bargain. By all means make it clear that we will boycott any new sponsor, even Carlsberg when they renew their sponsorship, but not an existing one.

 

 

Why the tears for Carlsberg ? F*ck 'em. If they have to be a casualty of this 'war' then so be it. Hopefully Hicks will get the message, and it could be over soon.

[charlie clown]

1. No, as I want a board that is professional and will make the right decisions for the club without wearing their heart on their sleeve. A supporters' representative would do more harm than good imho. Get a board in that wants the best for Liverpool and that knows how to get it and has no "get out" of using a fan who may well go native.

 

2, Yes, as that will help to get the message across without alienating any individual or company that has supported Liverpool.

 

3. No. Carlsberg should not be singled out. They have always kept their end of the bargain. By all means make it clear that we will boycott any new sponsor, even Carlsberg when they renew their sponsorship, but not an existing one.

 

 

Agree entirely on the first two, and I kind of agree on the third but I hate lager generally and I hate Calrlsberg more than most.

 

On the first one I also think it will be virtually impossible to get a democratically elected representative.... I have absolutely no idea how that could be done - how would anyone define the constituency?

[charlie clown]

Personally I don't agree with boycotting Carlsberg but if people are going ahead with this then they should be made aware of all their brands, no good giving the Pilsner a miss if you then buy Tuborg...

 

 

don't agree - there was more to the Murdoch empire than The Sun but that was/is a targetted ban and had a noticeable impact that that rag still suffers from today 20 years later.

[DanielS]

Calling for boycotts is a good idea. Whether they are successful in immediately impacting sales or not is almost immaterial as the idea is more important than the application.

 

The first suggestion is risible and needs pruning from the list if we are to keep this process serious.

[theredfella]

don't agree - there was more to the Murdoch empire than The Sun but that was/is a targetted ban and had a noticeable impact that that rag still suffers from today 20 years later.

 

In fairness though, that, in the main required really only a city and the surrounding areas to be mobilised whereas this campaign has to stretch much, much further.

 

The boycotting of Carlsberg is futile because for everyone that doesn't drink it, there'll be another consumer waiting to step into the breach. Plus how on earth can the boycott be measured tangibly? Is there a notably higher percentage of Carlsberg drinkers on, say, Merseyside than the rest of the country? Also if sales of Carlsberg do drop off, how can they show that it's Liverpool fans have brought it about? The only formative way I can see is pressure in the first instance on Merseyside landlords to not order the barrels but it would be interesting to see how many actually take that up, even more so as a fair precentage are likely to be Blues.

 

The boycotting/walking out of a live match with the world watching is the only way to make a definitive statement.

[Mike]

In fairness though, that, in the main required really only a city and the surrounding areas to be mobilised whereas this campaign has to stretch much, much further.

 

The boycotting of Carlsberg is futile because for everyone that doesn't drink it, there'll be another consumer waiting to step into the breach. Plus how on earth can the boycott be measured tangibly? Is there a notably higher percentage of Carlsberg drinkers on, say, Merseyside than the rest of the country? Also if sales of Carlsberg do drop off, how can they show that it's Liverpool fans have brought it about? The only formative way I can see is pressure in the first instance on Merseyside landlords to not order the barrels but it would be interesting to see how many actually take that up, even more so as a fair precentage are likely to be Blues.

 

The boycotting/walking out of a live match with the world watching is the only way to make a definitive statement.

 

all your questions have been clearly answered by david hodgson.

[Flight]

1. Absolutely No, unless we can get someone like Kenny.

 

 

2. Yes; totally.

 

 

3. Yes. The clubs finances and partners are not the clubs any more - they are Hicks. People need to wake up to this fact before it is too late. We don't want to be another set of Stars or Rangers fans and only realise the extent of this mans avarice and single mindedness once it is too late and look back wishing we had done more. This isn't about taking money away from Carlsberg - it is to make Hicks think.

 

 

Don't presume Hicks wants to sell. Its very possible he wants to own us forever and keep milking us. He HAS to be shown we won't put up with him.

Edited March 12, 2008 by Flight

[owenthomas]

I voted as follows:

 

1) No. You only have to read through this forum alone to see the differing views of fans across the globe - if it was guaranteed that i would be the representative on the board, or say the likes of Neil, JohnGibbo or Rimbeux then i'd be inclined to think "yes" - quite simply because more often than not these are the people whose views i agree with (though i have reservations on that too - see below). If the rep was going to be X, Y or Z (don't wanna mention names! ) whose opinions are the polar opposite to mine i'd go "off me cake!". So put simply it's not worth stressing me out more so i'd leave that well alone. Leave it to the professionals (that goes to Tom Hicks as well, the c***) to make the (hopefully) right decisions to take us forward..

 

of course, people will disagree with things i post as well as say those i mentioned so how would they feel if one of us went on the board? theyd probably be pissed off and feel it was a silly idea too.. also, to add to that: how would any locals feel if there was a 'wool' or a 'Norwegian' elected to the board? what if a decision was taken the majority didn't like and said representative was part of the process of bringing this in and had to go home to their (what will be) very well known, possibly not very well guarded house every evening.. why the f00k would you wanna put yourself through it? i wouldn't! nar, not into this idea and anyone voting yes for this is thinking with their heart and not with their head..

 

2) Yes. If people better informed than me think it will make a difference then i will.

 

3) Yes. As above really.

[Gomez]

1. No, I really struggled with this. I would like a fan representative in principle, but I reckon it would be unworkable. I could see it getting messy and non-footballing issues taking over

 

2. If you like, don't see it working but fair play for trying.

 

3. No, as stated elsewhere, Carlsberg will be locked into a deal, they cannot withhold money from Hicks or apply pressure and it will just mean we will be less attractive to other potential future sponsors. I've said many a time, if you must boycott sponsors, pick the main sponsors of Hick's other franchises, then you impact Hicks and not LFC.

[theredfella]

all your questions have been clearly answered by david hodgson.

 

Carlsberg would be hugely unhappy about it and seek talks with the Liverpool board.

 

It would be the start of a process of making life uncomfortable for Hicks. His imagination could start to consider the implications, in the longer term, of supporter disruption to his financial plans.

 

I reckon the non drinking of a lager is hardly going to worry him more than all the sh*te that's already happened and far from driving him out, he's trying to raise finance to take the place over. Plus (and this is only a thought) perhaps his US connections can generate a sponsor?

 

He may fear that no sponsor will touch LFC whilst he's in charge. Any sane businessman facing this potential diruption would willingly take a profit and get out. And get out quickly.

 

Any sane businessman would have got out of the club by now. Look at George Gillett.

 

It's an easy boycott to implement. Carlsberg would feel it's impact quickly. It does not directly hit the club in the pocket, and it's not much of a sacrifice asking people to get involved in it.

 

As I said, how do you measure that response tangibly? How can you definitively prove that it's Liverpool fans who've not bought the ale?

 

Boycotting all LFC products is far too broad and vague a target. What does it mean ? If I take my lad to the match and he's thirsty, I can't buy him a coke ? Some Dad's promised his kid a replica shirt for his birthday next week, and he now has to opt out ? Unworkable. As are ideas like match boycotting.

 

I think that the merchandise ban is only really for the club shop rather than any old JJB around the country and I think it's a very good point re taking the kids to the match. If you could though, taking a few cans of pop from home would solve a lot of problems.

 

As for the match boycott, I've said all along if you wanbt to mobilise people from all over, you need to make sacrifices to get things going. Most of the boycotts don't hurt the regular matchgoers, it's the DTs and the like. By organising (I'm not saying it's easy) some sort of match boycott through a walkout/sitdown outside etc, you draw far more attention to the cause, people see others making a huge sacrifice and they think, "Well if those lads can do that, I'm sure i can do <insert whatever way of showing support>.

 

If we, the people who are actually supporting and pushing this campaign, can't make sacrifices, why can we expect anyone else to?

Edited March 12, 2008 by theredfella

[Guest Prongsy]

I voted for yes on all three counts, but the thing that really would hurt hicks, the only thing that would really hurt hicks, is losing match day revenues.

 

That's the only way he'll be FORCED to sell.

[Cobs]

1. No - think it would be a mess

2. No - unworkable as seen from examples already in the thread

3. No - don't see it having an impact. Carlsberg are an enormous company a dip in sales on Merseyside is not going to have them banging on Hicks' door demanding he sell up

[theredfella]

1. Yes and No. As owen said above, it would really depend on who it was and also how would candidates be assessed and by whom? However I'd be quite happy to see someone like Kevin Sampson on there, I think he's a hugely intelligent fella with enough credibility to reach out to your man on the street and also wise and clever enough to be able to take on commercial issues.

 

2 & 3. I'm happy to boycott the merchandise/ale etc but I honestly don't think it will have that much impact.

[MFletcher]

It would depend who the fan representative was.

 

The only way I could see it working would be if it was someone like Kenny - a hugely respected ex-player who knows the game inside out. Your average man on the street having a seat on the board would be a pointless PR exercise.

[Mike]

theredfella

 

sales of carlsberg tetley is more than just lager.

sales information is extremely specific for industries such as this. point of sale management information about barrelage will pinpoint exactly where sales have dropped off. they would be able to tell within a week that they are experiencing a massive drop in sales on merseyside.

[Cobs]

theredfella

 

sales of carlsberg tetley is more than just lager.

perhaps a list of all these products would be useful then?

 

 

seems a bit pointless to stop drinking Carlsberg and unwittingly switch to one of their other brands, doesn't it?