Spirit Of Shankly Website - Now Live!

[Spirit Of Shankly]

Spirit Of Shankly Website - Now Live! Spirit Of Shankly, the Liverpool Supporters Union, is pleased to announce the launch of its brand new website - www.spiritofshankly.com The new website will be the focal point for news coming from the Union and where members and non-members can read about what is going on. The website will be updated regularly with news, features and with information on any future plans. It will grow as the Union grows, with more features as and when required. We appreciate it has been a long time coming, but as with everything there are always unexpected delays and last minute obstacles. We wanted to make sure we got everything right, first time round, rather than having to continually go back with a quick fix here and there. After all, this will still be going in 10-20 years, not 10-20 minutes. So take a look around the site. Read about what has gone on so far. If you haven't joined, you can now do so now online. Spirit Of Shankly

[stressederic]

Spirit Of Shankly Website - Now Live! Spirit Of Shankly, the Liverpool Supporters Union, is pleased to announce the launch of its brand new website - www.spiritofshankly.com The new website will be the focal point for news coming from the Union and where members and non-members can read about what is going on. The website will be updated regularly with news, features and with information on any future plans. It will grow as the Union grows, with more features as and when required. We appreciate it has been a long time coming, but as with everything there are always unexpected delays and last minute obstacles. We wanted to make sure we got everything right, first time round, rather than having to continually go back with a quick fix here and there. After all, this will still be going in 10-20 years, not 10-20 minutes. So take a look around the site. Read about what has gone on so far. If you haven't joined, you can now do so now online. Spirit Of Shankly

 

Did the Americans start digging a hole in the internet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sion]

''Current subscriptions will run to 31st May 2009''

 

Does this in effect mean if i join now i'm getting 10 months subscription for the price of 12? or have I misread that?

Is their a reason for that particular date?

[redjersey]

I notice that the stated Aims of Spirit of Shankly no longer include the Immediate Aim of ridding the club of Hicks and Gillette.

 

Any reason for this different stance?

[chrisbonnie]

im paid up, im in Ireland, so obviously cannot attend meetings and the likes, but hopefully the contribution will help in some way, shape or form

[cymrococh]

Well done lads, this should clear up a lot of the questions people have had.

[CaptainXabi]

Nice website.

[Paisley]

I notice that the stated Aims of Spirit of Shankly no longer include the Immediate Aim of ridding the club of Hicks and Gillette.

 

Any reason for this different stance?

 

Good question.

[Knox_Harrington]

I notice that the stated Aims of Spirit of Shankly no longer include the Immediate Aim of ridding the club of Hicks and Gillette.

There's legal issues with SOS specifically naming Hicks and Gillette in their aims in its constitution. Having to deal with unexpected things like this is a major aspect of why there have been delays.

[Knox_Harrington]

''Current subscriptions will run to 31st May 2009''

 

Does this in effect mean if i join now i'm getting 10 months subscription for the price of 12? or have I misread that?

Is their a reason for that particular date?

It's the way in which union subs tend to work, we've been informed. Makes it easier for our administration purposes. I can't think of anything you've lost or could potentially lose at this stage. The issue would kick in if you wanted to join in, say, February. I'm sure SOS will deal with that as the time comes.

[Herbie von Smalls]

There's legal issues with SOS specifically naming Hicks and Gillette in their aims in its constitution. Having to deal with unexpected things like this is a major aspect of why there have been delays.

is it a case of "want to, but can't" name them personally, or is there still an aim to remove "the current owners"?

 

fwiw, this is one particular aspect of SoS that might affect my personal view of the organisation.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Herbie von Smalls

[sutty]

It's the way in which union subs tend to work, we've been informed. Makes it easier for our administration purposes. I can't think of anything you've lost or could potentially lose at this stage. The issue would kick in if you wanted to join in, say, February. I'm sure SOS will deal with that as the time comes.

 

I'd suggest making them run from a date in the future for 12 months to avoid this sort of questioning

 

Save them a whole world of hassle.

[Billy Dane]

Site looks good. Was it always an annual subscription or has it changed from a one off joining fee?

[sutty]

http://www.spiritofshankly.com/union-history.html

 

Think this section is quite handy for understanding what's gone on

[Molby]

is it a case of "want to, but can't" name them personally, or is there still an aim to remove "the current owners"?

 

fwiw, this is one particular aspect of SoS that might affect my personal view of the organisation.

 

 

you've given two alternatives but if I read it correctly, they both mean the same thing

 

'we' want G and H out

 

that might change if a load of people join who think otherwise; but it doesn't seem that likely to happen imo

[johngibo YPC]

There's legal issues with SOS specifically naming Hicks and Gillette in their aims in its constitution. Having to deal with unexpected things like this is a major aspect of why there have been delays.

 

I actually prefer the current wording anyway. It solves all the questions of 'So you are blindly endorsing Dubai etc....'

A slight criticism i have of the website is the prominence it puts on cheap away travel. Its a great initiative but 2nd on the list of reasons to join?? Especially as it only (currently) benefits those living in the city

 

Buts its a minor point, am made up for you all overall. I'm sure its been alot of work

[Herbie von Smalls]

you've given two alternatives but if I read it correctly, they both mean the same thing

'we' want G and H out

 

that might change if a load of people join who think otherwise; but it doesn't seem that likely to happen imo

yes, effectively they do. just wondered whether it was an issue of wording (i.e. identifying the owners by name), or whether it was a new policy regarding ownership.

 

cheers for clarifying anyway.

 

don't want to drag up an old debate, but from my perspective i can't bring myself to get on board SoS when there's:

 

a) a policy of not communicating with the current owners (yet line of communication open with would-be owners)

b) a consensus to get rid of G&H, yet no SoS alternative offered

c) tacit approval of DIC, in so much as they are the only viable alternative - if the current owners are 'forced out', the dubai bid is the only feasible solution - without any 'official' endorsement by SoS

 

i reckon more could be achieved for fans (and ultimately the club) by instigating direct talks with whoever is actually in charge, be it tomorrow or in two years' time. like you've reiterated, that's unlikely to happen.

 

credit though for getting the website up & running and hope the non-ownership-related issues bear fruit.

[sutty]

b) a consensus to get rid of G&H, yet no SoS alternative offered

c) tacit approval of DIC, in so much as they are the only viable alternative - if the current owners are 'forced out', the dubai bid is the only feasible solution - without any 'official' endorsement by SoS

 

Bizarre reasons

[Mad Scientist]

Ultimate Aim

• Supporter ownership of Liverpool Football Club.
  

If the ultimate aim of the SOS is the same as that of ShareLiverpoolFC, why are there two seperate groups? And why should I join SOS instead of ShareLiverpoolFC?

[Spike]

yes, effectively they do. just wondered whether it was an issue of wording (i.e. identifying the owners by name), or whether it was a new policy regarding ownership.

 

cheers for clarifying anyway.

 

don't want to drag up an old debate, but from my perspective i can't bring myself to get on board SoS when there's:

 

a) a policy of not communicating with the current owners (yet line of communication open with would-be owners)

b) a consensus to get rid of G&H, yet no SoS alternative offered

c) tacit approval of DIC, in so much as they are the only viable alternative - if the current owners are 'forced out', the dubai bid is the only feasible solution - without any 'official' endorsement by SoS

 

i reckon more could be achieved for fans (and ultimately the club) by instigating direct talks with whoever is actually in charge, be it tomorrow or in two years' time. like you've reiterated, that's unlikely to happen.

 

credit though for getting the website up & running and hope the non-ownership-related issues bear fruit.

 

I see what you're saying there Herbie but for me there would be an obvious fear, combined with the mistrust they've created in themselves, that such dialogue would give them an 'in' on things and an opportunity to spin the type of bulls*** that's led to the need for an organisation like SOS in the first place

[Herbie von Smalls]

Bizarre reasons

gone over these in more detail before, and don't wish to turn this into a negative thread, but just think it's a cop out to snub one party who's actually at the helm, yet deal with the only other group in a position to take over - without taking a stand and backing them as a policy.

 

there's no evidence of how new owners would run the club, if they ever buy-out. their handling of the original attempt to gain control left a great deal to be desired.

[JamesMc]

Ultimate Aim

• Supporter ownership of Liverpool Football Club.
  

If the ultimate aim of the SOS is the same as that of ShareLiverpoolFC, why are there two seperate groups? And why should I join SOS instead of ShareLiverpoolFC?

 

There are 2 seperate groups, as weareboth completely different.

 

SOS is about representing fans issues, dealing with everything from what goes on around the ground, inside the ground, ticketing, travel and the ownership of the football club.

 

ShareLiverpool is about fans owning the football club and nothing else.

 

For what it's worth, we have had discussions with ShareLiverpool about the idea of Supporter Ownership. This is documented on the site, in the FAQ's.

[Herbie von Smalls]

I see what you're saying there Herbie but for me there would be an obvious fear, combined with the mistrust they've created in themselves, that such dialogue would give them an 'in' on things and an opportunity to spin the type of bulls*** that's led to the need for an organisation like SOS in the first place

i think a lot of the mistrust has been generated by those who want them out tbh.

 

i believe SoS has the wherewithal to conduct any talks in such a way that doesn't give present or future owners ammunition to f*** fans over.