7 Oct 2009

GEORGE GILLETT interview: Did it REALLY happen? I'm not so sure. And here's why...

George Gillett’s interview with a member of ‘Spirit of Shankly’ has been the hot topic of debate this week, but did the alleged interview even take place? I’m not convinced.

Having re-read the transcript a couple of times and considered the context, I have now come to the conclusion that this ‘interview’ with George Gillett is either:

a) Completely false
b) Cobbled together from other interviews/statements

I retract points A and B above from the list of possibilities. It seems that the interview may have actually taken place. I stand by point c below though. Please see notes at the bottom of this post.

Here are my reasons:

The Saudi Prince factor


In the transcript, the ‘interviewer’ stated:

As some of you know, I had an impromptu meeting with George Gillett last Saturday at the academy.

Last Saturday was the 26th September, the day Gillett was hosting Saudi Prince Faisal al-Fahd bin Abdullah bin Saud at Anfield for the 6-1 win over Hull. Clearly, Gillett would’ve been meeting/greeting the Prince at some point prior to the game, and probably dining with him/having business meetings after the game. At the very least, he would arguably have been spending all his time with the Prince whilst he was in Liverpool. It would be rude not to, wouldn’t it?

So – when exactly did Gillett have time to sit down and give an ‘impromptu’ interview?! Furthermore, why would he suddenly decide to grant a fan an interview on the day he was hosting an important guest an Anfield?!

This does not make sense.

Why would the interview take place at the academy?

The ‘interviewer’ stated:

“As I didn’t think one half of our custodianship would invite me in for a talk please understand I went into the meeting with nothing prepared”.

So – Gillett invited him to an interview? Who suggested the academy? Gillett? Given the fact the academy is about 7 miles away from Anfield, I don’t buy this for a second. having said that, let's just say Gillett WAS at the academy with the Prince, showing him around, for example - are we to believe he would leave him hanging about to have an interview with a fan?! Is that not a tad disrespectful? Why would he double book himself like that?

Another related question: why would Gillett invite this particular guy to conduct an interview? How was it arranged? Did Gillett call him and say 'hey, come down for an interview!' Again, I don't buy it.

The (unlikely) triple lie


Three separate times in the interview, Gillett denied making the ‘spade in the ground’ comment:

1 - "Any comments on the stadium came from hicks. I think what happened was Hicks was absolutely convinced that we were going to start to move dirt to make for the foundations. In the period of time between Hicks saying that and the sixty day , the entire world credit market fell apart and I believe that he ended up with big egg on his face, making it look like he’d said something and then not living up to what he’d said and that was a mistake on his part".

2 - "The one I plead guilty to is that I have a partner who promised put a spade in the ground in sixty days in the midst of the credit market and the stadium hasn’t and the stadium hasn’t been built. That’s the one thing, there’s no way I can deny that. That was said and it was fact"

3 - "Tom Hicks promised a spade in the ground in sixty days and it hasn’t happened. It’s the one fact that you’ve laid out."

Why would he blatantly lie THREE TIMES about an issue that could be so easily proven? I just don’t believe it.

Swearing?

Gillett swore a couple of times during the interview:

1- "That’s bullshit the way the media writes it, they don’t understand how to write about cash flow and profit and loss"

2- "We are not falling behind that’s horseshit".

I don’t believe that Gillett would respond in such a way, especially in an interview that would, in all probability, make its way into the media

Transcribed from memory?!


At the end of the interview, the interviewer wrote:

“I have done my best to relate all of what was said between myself and George Gillett. If I have missed anything out it is because I have either forgotten or it was just things that have already been said.”

Are we to understand by this that the entire transcript was created FROM MEMORY?!

If so – and taking into account the interview’s length - how can it be taken seriously?!

If it was not transcribed from memory (!) then the interviewer must have recorded the interview and transcribed it from the recording. If that’s the case, then I challenge the interviewer to release the recording as a way to verify this interview actually took place.

Frank McParland - a witness?

Frank McParland apparently witnessed part of the interview. If that’s true, let’s hear confirmation from him that the interview actually took place. I’m sure SOS could wangle this if they tried.

The fact is, there is no verifiable proof at all that the meeting ever took place or (if it did take place) that what was said was relayed accurately.

I challenge SOS and the interviewer to PROVE that the meeting really did take place place, and that what was said is accurate and not embellished/selectively censored.

And even if the meeting DID take place, the fact that the interviewer may have transcribed the interview from memory (!) renders it unreliable at best, especially given the subconscious bias that may have contributed to what he remembered and how the interview was transcribed.

EDIT: 8 October 2009

Given SOS's antagonistic, adversarial, derogatory approach to the Owners (YANK LIARS OUT!), it is entirely reasonable to be suspicious of an incendiary interview that pops up on the net suddenly and makes George Gillett look like a complete fool.

If SOS had a professional approach to ousting the owners I would never have questioned the interview. SOS's playground tactics makes Liverpool fans *as a whole* look bad.

re point C above - With SOS's shameless anti-Owners agenda, how can we be expected to take the interview in good faith? How do we know nothing was modified/censored/embellished/exaggerated in a bid to further their agenda?

According to SOS members, the interview was transcribed 'from notes and memory'. hardly the most reliable record of events. And there is, apparently, a recording of the interview. If so, put SOS should put it online and let Liverpool fans judge for themselves.

I offered SOS a deal: if they removed all derogatory terms about the Owners from their website and pledged to approach the issue in a manner more aligned with 'The Liverpool Way' of doing things in the future, I would gladly remove this post.

As you can see from the comments section below, SOS point-blank refused, illustrating what I have suspected about them from the start: they do not care about how Liverpool fans might view their tasteless approach; they could't care less if the majority of Liverpool fans (and by that I mean the WORLDWIDE fanbase, not just a handful from Liverpool) might be offended by their blatantly xenophobic approach to the Owners.

Now, I am unhappy with Owners too, and despite the positive things they have achieved at the club (yes, there are some!), I would still prefer it if they left. But there are ways and means of achieving this, and taking a childish, derisory 'YANK LIARS OUT' approach is not a credible or effective approach.

SOS claims the Owners are liars; let them prove it. Allow the alleged facts to do the damage instead of resorting to juvenile name-calling.
------------

----

Join the site's new Facebook page!


Become a fan on Facebook!



181 comments:

  1. if the interview never happened gillett would have said so. no dinial so it more than likely happened. A bit embrassing for him. with the video of him saying that there would be a spade in the ground in 60 days.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I challenge you to air your view in person, actually at a game

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are you honestly that thick? Why did the interview take place at the academy? well if you actually did some research you would know why.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There's pictures of Gillett at the Academy with the investor and his entourage; if you simply took a look on the same site you lifted the "false" interview from.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Spirit of Shankly are a total embarrassment to your club and fans.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/user/RepublikOfMancunia/video/x9j5xd_spirit-of-shankly-end-of-season-do_sport

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you look at this bloke's blogs, they are anti Rafa and pro the Americans. Who is this bloke and what agenda has he? He does not go to the match where these views have few followers. Why not pop into the Albert or the Park and start a converastion?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also why would Gillet make these negative comments above Rafa when he is trying to attract investment from a potential investor?  

    ReplyDelete
  8. At last, the voice of reason. This whole interview screams b**locks!
    Gillett conducting an interview with a member of SOS (whose sole reason for existing is his removal) and does it around a Saudi Prince with whom he is setting up a business partnership. I don't think so!

    I don't often agree with you Jaimie as you constantly undermine Rafa, but in this case you've got it spot on.

    The whole episode smacks of SOS stirring things up. The whole lot of SOS should p**s off - they are an embarrassment to the club, the players, the fans and everyone connected with Liverpool Football Club. Some small minded people are going to suggest I am not a real fan but I am sick and tired of these muppets dragging our club through the mud and making us a laughing stock in front of the whole world.

    No more leaflets, no more pathetic little 'protests' and let's get rid of the childish little 'Yanks Out' banners that have disgraced Anfield over the past couple of years.

    ReplyDelete
  9. <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">The site tells me my message must not exceed 5000 characters, despite it only being about 2500.  So , in two parts:</span>

    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">,A few points:</span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">Regarding how the meeting came to take place,</span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">"I should have said this in the initial post but the reason I was in a position to talk to GG was because I was there with other members of SOS."</span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"></span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">and later,</span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">"I intended to ask him what he was showing the Arabs a round for and each time I got side tracked. As I said I honestly didn't think he'd take me upon the offer of a talk."</span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"></span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">Both of those comments are from the thread that you linked to, but clearly didn't read.  Essentially, Gillett was buttonholed by a group of fans at the Academy and agreed to speak to a representative.</span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">Why did the meeting take place at the academy?  The entire purpose of the weekend's visit was to generate publicity for a deal involving the creation of licensed LFC football academies in </span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">Saudi Arabia</span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">.  As a </span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">Liverpool</span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> fan, I thought you'd be well aware of that.</span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">Moving still deeper into the thread, page 3 in fact, we find this:</span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">"Did you record this conversation? Or was that from memory?"</span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"></span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">"Notes and memory."</span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"></span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">So the answer to your question, "Are we to understand by this that the entire transcript was created FROM MEMORY?!"</span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> is no, it wasn't.</span>

    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">(Cont...)</span>

    ReplyDelete
  10. (cont...)

    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">As for the length of the interview and keeping people hanging around, although it looks quite lengthy written down, anyone who regularly addresses meetings or gives speeches will recognise that you could get through that in five minutes.  Also, I doubt Gillett would want to appear as indifferent to fan protests in front of his new partner - he probably thought it was time well spent.</span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">Your suggestion that Gillett would not swear in such a discussion merely serves to highlight that you have failed to recognise the tone of the conversation from the transcript and also that you have little experience of dealing with people at a senior executive level, many of whom retain the language of the shop floor.  You may have heard of a gentleman called Sir Alan Sugar, for example?</span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">Finally, the fact that this has appeared in several national newspapers and the post is still on the </span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">Liverpool Way</span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> website, yet there is no sign of legal action or a content removal request suggests that the interview was exactly as presented.</span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">Since your entire article consists of scurrilous accusations with no evidence whatsoever presented to support your hypothesis, I'm surprised that you consider that a sound basis to question the integrity of a fellow </span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">Liverpool</span><span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> fan.  The usual rule of thumb in such situations is to acquire some evidence <span style="font-family: Verdana;">before</span> attempting to challenge the veracity of a person's claims.</span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;"> </span>
    <span style=" color: black; font-family: Verdana;">You identified one easy way in which at least part of this story could be verified; by contacting Frank McParland.  The fact that you chose to write this sorry piece instead of attempting to do that, coupled with the fact that two of your allegations can be disproved by simply reading the first three pages of the thread you linked, speaks volumes about your interest in establishing the facts.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well written response, Guest.

    Sadly lacking in any proof of anything. The interview was reported from notes taken by a person who was at Melwood for what reason? As an SOS member, probably to cause some trouble - which they certainly have done.

    No recording, no witness. Just because a couple of papers printed the story, and a few more copied it from the first lot, does not give the story any credibility.

    No matter how many times I read the transcript, I cannot see anything other than a load of bulls**t that cannot be corroborated by anyone. Also, to take a week and a half to type up a five minute conversation, along with many other points already covered, suggests that the interview never happened.

    It is not on us to disprove the interview happened. The burden of proof is firmly with the originator of the 'report'. No proof, no credibility and therefore false.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A picture of Gillett at the academy does not prove that an interview took place.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Seriously, you need some new material!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oooh, look at the implied threat in that comment. 

    Grow up already!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Exactly, Yogi.  Why would Gillett present himself in such an unprofessional manner when he's trying to attract an investor.  It's nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If the interviewer was there with 'other members of SOS' then prove it.  Get all the members who were allegedly there to corroborate the story.

    Also, are you suggesting that whilst Gillett was showing the visitors around he decided to just leave them hanging whilst he did an impromptu interview?  Once again, I don't buy it.

    And re the notes - the 'representative' just happened to have a pen and paper with him at the time, so he could conveniently record the notes? 

    Fine - if their are notes, then you should have no problem scanning them and posting them as evidence, no?

    ReplyDelete
  17. And what were members of SOS doing there in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  18. 5 minutes? You're having a laugh, right?  so when did the interviewer have time to take notes then?  Does he know shorthand?  Did he write stuff down without having to look at the paper?!

    I'm well aware of how business-people operate, but given the suspect nature of the transcript (i.e. drawn from memory), the tone of the alleged transcript cannot be relied upon as accurate.

    And so what if it appeared in several national newspapers.  They print stuff that isn't true/verfied all the time.  Just look at the Daily Mail's story today about Rafa being given 12m to spend in January.  no sources; no quotes; no verification.  It's just made up. 

    Re challenging the veracity of the claims - I'm sorry, but when you purport to represent all Liverpool fans, we have the right to question the veracity of what appears to be a very suspect interview, especially when it is conducted by a group that has a very childish, antagonistic approach to the owners.

    re Frank McParland - I have tried to contact him; I've also contacted the LFC press office for some kind of confirmation.  They said they will get back to me if and when something can be verified.

    As Happy red says below though, what you have written does constitute proof of anything.

    So - please prove that the interview actually took place.  Once you've done that, prove that the statements were not embellished/exaggerated in any way.

    You could start by getting the interviewer to scan his alleged notes and post them on the net for other fans to read.  Having said that, notes can easily be manufactured after the fact, so we still won't know for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  19. it happened .... deal with it people ...george took the bait when a delegation confronted him ... he then invited one member inside however he was under no pressure to conduct the interview but..... he bit ...these are the facts..naive he may have been and ... telling porkies about tom and the spade in the ground quote ...well you can draw your own conclusions there

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thank you.

    In response, I'd point out that Jamie's accusations are equally lacking in proof.

    Leaving aside the fact that he's made a bit of a fool of himself with his Columbo routine by asking questions that are clearly answered in the thread, the poster on The Liverpool Way makes it clear that the meeting was not pre-arranged and very much ad hoc in nature.

    I can only speak for myself but I don't carry a dictaphone around with me on the offchance that I'll happen to have a discussion with an important figure and be required to provide a permanent record.  I could probably lay my hands on a pad and pen and as a regular attendee at meetings, I'm able to recall discussions with reasonable accuracy but that's the best I'd be able to do at short notice.

    I bumped into Fabio Capello in Manchester a few months ago and we exchanged a few words but I couldn't prove that in the way you suggest.  I'd still be annoyed if I was accused of lying about it though because it would be an insult to my integrity.  Where our owners are concerned, the truth is bad enough without having to embelish it.

    Your point about the burden of proof has some validity but there is no evidence at all to suggest the discussion did not take place, only speculation.  In particular, I'm sure Gillett and his legal advisors wouldn't be shy about taking action to have the content removed from the wesite if it was substantially inaccurate.

    In any case, we're not in a court here; my impression is that the post was made in good faith and I will accept it as such in the absence of evidence to the contrary.  If it is subsequently shown to be wholly or partly ficticious, I'll be the first to hold my hands up and accept that I was naive.  I don't see it happening though.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So - were you there? Were you one of the alleged SOS delegation that happened to be at Academy?  And let's say it did take place, are you 100% certain that what was written in the transcript was accurate, uncensored and not embellished?

    ReplyDelete
  22. With SOS's antagonistic, adversarial attitude towards the owners and dergoatory 'Yank Liars out' mantra, how can you be so certain that the post was made 'in good faith'?

    Is it not possible that certain parts of the interview (if it actually took place) may have been embellished to put Gillett in as bad a light as possible?

    I would not even raise this issue if SOS were professional in their approach, but the fact is they are not, thus anything they submit that has not ben verified should be viewed with suspicion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Kanwar, you are really making a complete fool of yourself with this one. Do you not think Gillett would have come out and commented on this if it were fabricated? There is no way he would let this one slide.

    On a side note, how many games do you get to Jaimie?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jamie - I don't know the members of SOS (I'm not one myself) but given that your comments will no doubt find their way back to them by one channel or another, perhaps they will be able to oblige you.

    I'm not suggesting that Gillett just left his guests hanging at all, rather that there was probably at least ten minutes in the schedule (which is all that exchange would have taken) when Gillett wasn't going to be hanging on the coat-tails of his guests.  It's common practice in such visits for the people directly responsible for the various aspects of the operation being visited to host the guest - after all, what could Gillett tell Prince Faisal about the daily workings of the academy?

    As for as whether the representative "just happened to have a pen and paper with him," firstly why not?  I usually carry both.  Secondly, is it inconceivable that such esoteric items would perhaps be available at the academy?

    As far as scanning and posting the notes, for the reasons explained above, I don't have access to them so I couldn't personally provide that.  It would be an excercise in futility in any case as far as proof is concerned - I could create some jottings myself from the post on The Liverpool Way and publish them online; if I did, I'm sure you'd be the first to point out that I could not prove they were contemporaneous.

    HappyRed:  Gillett's visit was publicised.  I read about it myself.  They were protesting, it's kind of what they do.  You know, £1m in interest payments every nine days, that kind of thing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. re the Capello point - you may have bumped into him but you didn't then post a transcript on a website, which was then picked up by the national media.  If SOS are going to put their interviews in the public domain then they should expect the veracity of said interviews to be challenged.

    The wider issue here is the manner in which SOS chooses to 'represent' the fanbase. In m view it is amateurish, unprofessonal and counter-productive.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jamie - You've missed my point regarding the newspapers.  I wasn't suggesting the fact they published the story makes it true in and of itself, rather the fact that there has been no denial or rebuttal of the reported exchange by Gillett suggests that it's broadly accurate.

    Even if he didn't feel it was likely that a national newspaper would publish a retraction (and I don't think it's likely myself) I would suggest that getting the post removed from the Liverpool Way website would be a far simpler proposition, in fact it could probably be accomplished by a solicitor's letter to the site owner.  Again the absence of such action does not prove the accuracy of the account, but it certainly suggests there would be no grounds for the post being removed because it was a fair representation of the discussion that occurred.

    5 minutes, perhaps 10 - no I'm not having a laugh at all.  Seriously, in a properly focused discussion I could definitely cover those points in ten minutes.  As for him knowing shorthand and so on, all I can say is that despite you saying that you know how business people operate, you're way off the mark on that point.  I could produce that kind of a record of a meeting from very few notes, really nothing more than bullet points and a few key words and figures - I do that on a daily basis at work and wouldn't even class it as a skill to be honest, it just requires a retentive mind. 

    Regarding McParland and the LFC press office, I shall await developments with interest - please be sure to publish any response that you receive.  It would be helpful if you could post a screengrab of the e-mail, or an mp3 file if they contact you by phone, to assist in verifying the accuracy of the reported conversation.

    Haha - I see you've already addressed my point above about not being able to prove the provenance of any notes.  All I can say is that so far, I've seen exactly two people casting any doubt at all on this account, both of them on this site and using nothing other than your own opinion to support your accusation.  In the grand scheme of things Jamie, your opinion has no more or less validity than mine as neither of us can provide any proof whatsoever to support our respective viewpoints.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "If SOS are going to put their interviews in the public domain then they should expect the veracity of said interviews to be challenged. "



    I'm sure that they do expect that.  It seems clear though that in this case, the unanticipated nature of the meeting precluded the creation of a contemporaneous record.  It's difficult to plan for something if you don't have advance notice of it.

    Once the discussion had taken place, SOS would have been damned regardless of what they did - publish and people such as yourself will cast doubt on their claims, don't publish and if any news leaked out about the meeting at a future date, there would be outrage feom their members that they weren't told about it.  In view of that, I think that the right decision was to publish  Again, I guess time will tell.
    As for Capello, he told me that David Nugent was going to be his secret weapon at the World Cup and that Gary Neville would only get another England cap "over my dead body".  Then he mumbled something about Rob Jones and started crying, it was all quite sad really.  Still, I mentioned the possibility of Owen getting another call-up to the squad and that soon had him laughing again.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Why dont you come to a meeting then and ask these pressing questions you have to those SoS members??

    The internet far more comfortable for you??

    ReplyDelete
  29. This website has been set up by Gillett & Hicks.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Gillett is a LIAR. He's now proved that. Watch him sell up sooner than  he wanted to .

    ReplyDelete
  31. Its quite simple just like the YANKS  , if the transcript was made up Gillett would have come down Hard on SOS with a big DENIAL ..

    Tick To-ck .....  Still no denial ....

    ReplyDelete
  32. While you laughably bat away the fact that this interview is now all over the internet and in a range of national newspapers aren't you missing a key point here?

    It's easy to post up things that will provoke a response (you should know, you do it all the time). But if you are the journalist you say you are you would know that every media source that repeats this interview runs the risk of being sued if it didn't actually take place.

    The fact that it has been in The Times, The Telegraph and The Guardian DOES give credence to what appeared on the Liverpool Way. The sources will have been verified - and the fact that at least three members of the Times sports desk - including the editor - are Scousers means they are even more likely to want proof it was true before going to print. Why would they shit on their own doorstep and run the risk of being banned from Anfield?

    And if it is all completely made up, as your agenda-driven piece suggests, then why doesn't Gillett deny it? He's got the internet, he can read papers, he even contacted a Liverpool fan once directly who set up a petition against him, so why the silence over this? Because it's true perhaps?

    Also ringing the club proves nothing. When have you known ANY official organisation confirm or deny a story if there's nothing in it for them? Simple PR. The press office and the official website are at the end of the day working for Gillett and Hicks. If it was untrue, surely Ian Cotton would have been straight out there denying the stories - after all it is bad PR to have an owner criticising a manager surely?

    On another point, why do you link to Republik of Mancunia? You do know they produced a t-shirt relating to "we won it three times without killing anyone" chant don't you? As a Liverpool fan (apparently), do you not find this offensive?

    Robbo
    Well Red - a Liverpool FC blog

    ReplyDelete
  33. I am a member of SOS and proud of it.  I am particularly proud that we are keeping the pressure on H+G and when that pressure is brought to bear on them personally they make such spectacular gaffes.

    In Britain there is a tradition of innocence being assumed until guilt can be proven.  As such Mr Kanwar I challenge you to prove the guilt of the SOS member in publishing the interview as written.  Why not contact him direct through the original website that it was published on?

    Why not contact the SOS and ask to see the notes?  There are many and manifold ways you could prove the provenance of those notes - for instance, whilst Mr McParland may have seen part of the interview, I find it odd that you will not - as most responsible people would before throwing out a potentially libellous claim, you have not contacted the author direct?

    I speak as an SOS member, not the SOS.  If they were as unprofessional, amateurish and counterproductive as you claim they would never have secured meetings with the current Chief Executive or Ian Ayres, had not one but two face to face meetings with the owners, nor would one of the owners (if current reports are true) be looking to sell up.  Mostly it's the credit crunch, but I like to think we have made it difficult for him. 

    Like it or not Mr Kanwar your hatred of the SOS does not detract from the truth.  They get things done.  And the two owners of this club that we both claim to love are demonstrably proven liars.  Only one of us Blindly sucks at their PR teat.

    You claim to disown Media hype and Blind Faith Fandom.  Yet your Love in with H+G shows no sign of abateing.  I wonder why that is........

    ReplyDelete
  34. If you bothered to do some research, instead of just trying to stir shit, you would know there was an organised protest. Fans were at Anfield, Melwood and the Academy because they knew Gillett was visiting.

    ReplyDelete
  35. One thing you seem to have missed is Gillett's comments after the interview went public, it was along the lines of...

    "This was a meeting with a fan and it was my understanding it would never go public"

    Basically blows the idea of it not happening out of the water and renders the whole article bollocks.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Have you ever been to Anfield? Is this blog a front for the yanks? Are you on the yanks payroll. When you say SOS don't represent me, well your views do not represent thousands of Liverpool fans. You talk complete and utter tripe, and hopefully when the yanks leave, you will leave to.

    ReplyDelete
  37. How easy is it to be controversial on the internet? :-D  Why not be controversial in person, it'll get you better known than on the internet. Come down the solly before any match, it'll help you get better known.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Very bold that, coming from a site that sells t-shirts and clothes for babies with without killing anyone one on them. Making light of a disaster on clothes for babies.

    http://republikofmancunia.spreadshirt.net/en/GB/Shop/Index/design/design/Without-Killing-Anyone-5339742

    ReplyDelete
  39. no way,hes a coward

    ReplyDelete
  40. SOS only claims to represent its members.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jamie, you criticise SOS saying that we do not have proof of the meeting, yet you publish an article that has no proof that the meeting did not happen.

    As has been said if it didn't happen Gillett would have denied it. Where is that denial.

    SOS were there to make it known to Gillett he was not welcome, we then asked Gillett to speak to us about the financial situation and he requested to speak to one of the people there.

    Oh, forgot to say Jamie I was there, I am a part of SOS and am sick of your unsubstantiated drivel. Want proof that we where there, want proof that the Saudi prince was there, want proof that Gillett wasn't with the Saudi prince all the time, then here you go.

    http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/7084/dsc00075jl.jpg

    Saudi Prince on the balcony with John Owens as Gillett is inside talking to an SOS member. So if you don't think we should put anything out without proving it then please do not publish anything that criticises SOS or anything else for that matter without proof. Please feel free to e-mail me at community@spiritofshankly.com so we can have a proper chat, and if you want you can meet me before any game or anytime in Liverpool and we can discuss what you have to say rather than causing more problems to an already bad situation we find ourselves in with the current owners.

    ReplyDelete
  42. You're an embarrassment, you know that.  You and many other so-called 'fans' like yourself are just yobs, and give all other fans a bad name.  Oooh, come down the Solly before a match...I wonder what that means ;)

    Grow up.

    I'm willing to meet any representative of SOS on neutral ground to discuss any issue they want.

    ReplyDelete
  43. no implied threat jaimie, you like to make others seem unreasonable whenever you're questioned...some serious problems if you cant handle being called on your questionable editorial slant

    ReplyDelete
  44. Blatant lies.  This quote was never made. If it was, please provide a link to a reputable source in which Gillett makes his quote.

    ReplyDelete
  45. So it doesn't represent the fans at all then and is completely self-serving?  Comes as no suprise, really.

    ReplyDelete
  46. haha!  Funiest thing I've heard all week.  What next?  I am actually Gillett?!  How do you explain all the critical articles about Hicks/Gillett then, as evidenced here: ---->>>

    ReplyDelete
  47. because the guy has no clue, zero respect for rafa the club or indeed hicks...he has been marginalised by everyone at the club and is alone since the departure of parry...the new comm. director and ceo are hicks appointments and hicks appears to be the lesser of 2 evils more concerned with making this club a viable business venture rather than gillet who is more interested in protecting his self image...if gillet showed half the respect that he showed when 'tearfully' selling his ice hockey team lfc would be ok. hicks might not try and be everyones friend but we all know where we stand with him.

    ReplyDelete
  48. lack of denial proves nothing.  if Gillett is really on the verge of selling up, I really don't thing he cares enough to respond, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  49. jaimie...unlike you perhaps gillet likes to hear other people when they disagree and wanted to convey his side in an open and frank discussion...you have a lot to learn from gillet in this respect...its always easy to shift the burden of proof to the other party...again you've let your meagre grasp of the english language, football and business in general betray your true nature as an arrogant, stubborn individual who's only qualification to write on this subject or any other is access to a pc...have you legally acquired the rights to use the kop and liverpool football club in your title? as far as i am aware they are trademarked together and your using them would imply you have some sort of authority from the club? can you confirm this and provide proof where needed...thanks and regards

    ReplyDelete
  50. Yes, and every media outlet verifies every piece of news all the time and none of them ever get sued for printing falsehoods?!  Is it not equally possible that the story was not properly verified?  Is it not possible that the editors of certain newspapers decided that there was nothing really libellous in the transcript and went with it anyway?  is it not possible that they weighed up the likelihood of Gillett suing (pretty slim if you ask me) and ran the story? 

    It is not as black and white as you make out. And given the fact everyone seems to dislike the owners - and the article basically reinforces Benitez's position amongst the fans (rafa the victim), then the chances of the Telegraph et al being 'banned from Anfield' are non-existent.

    re contacting the club - they have confirmed/denied stories many times in the past.  For example, recently, tupon publication of Glen Johnson's reputed 139k salary, he Press Office denied that the Daily Mail had been given access to any of the players' salary details.

    And please don't get on your high-horse about RoM - Liverpool fans are equally guilty of making Munich chants toward Manure fans.  Both sets of fans are as bad as each other when it comes disgraceful chants.

    I try and foster good relations with rival fans/websites, not hatred and conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Have you tried to get in touch with SOS then to "foster good relations" or is it all about "hatred and conflict" when they are concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  52. When they stop their antagonistic 'Yanks Out' approach then maybe. Also, judging by the interaction with SOS supporters/members I've had in the past, it would be pointless, considering their usual response is 'You don't go to the game; come dow the Albert before and blah blah blah' - typicl football thugs, who'd rather resort to violence than proper discussion. I'm not interested in that. SOS has a major image problem and that needs to be addressed - they don't care though, which is the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  53. But Jamie you have said below

    "I'm willing to meet any representative of SOS on neutral ground to discuss any issue they want."
    <div id="TixyyLink" style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">I have offered you that opportunity and you still don't reply to that comment with proof of the Saudi prince at the academy.
    </div>

    ReplyDelete
  54. robbohuyton is right. i did read this. besides this article jaimie has written is almost wholly based on what he thinks is right and wrong. he thinks gillett would not leave the saudi guys unattended to speak to SOS guys. why do you assume. maybe he did it. maybe gillett excused himself to go to the toilet and took a small detour to have this conversation. i wonder if this guy jaimie kanwar is george gillett in disguise. cant see another reason why this guy is so pro geroge gillett

    ReplyDelete
  55. 'Blindly sucks at their PR teat' - love it :)

    I do not hate SOS - I am sure that there are many members who are moderate and professional.  From what I've seen so far though, their approach is counter-productive and childish. Running a campaign with the mantra 'Yank Liars out' is not the way to go about things; you may think i t gets results but it makes SOS - and Liverpool fans - a laughing stock.

    Just because they secured meetings with X, Y and Z is not proof of their professionalism.  Indeed, in the alleged interview with Gillett, he had to tell the interviewer to 'drop the atitude' with his questions, which speaks volumes.

    And potentially libellous?  Please.  SOS put this interview in the public domain in a very slipshod manner - there is every right and a definite NEED to question its veracity. Or should we just blindly accept everything SOS says without question?

    I do not hate SOS - I am sure that there are many members who are moderate and professional.  From what I've seen so far though, their approach is counter-productive and childish. Running a campaign with the mantra 'Yank Liars out' is not the way to go about things; you may think it gets results but it makes SOS - and Liverpool fans - a laughing stock

    And potentially libellous?  Please.  SOS put this interview in the public domain in a very slipshod manner - there is every right and a definite NEED to question its veracity. Or should we just blindly accept everything SOS says without question?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Your line about 'go into the Albert and start a convsrsation' is typical football thug rhetoric.  indeed, there are other lines of the same type on this thread and others.  The impication is 'come into the Albert with REAL fans, say what you think and then everyone will beat the crap out of you'.

    It's pathetic really. As I've said repeatedly, I will meet anyone fro SOS on neutral ground and engage in a RECORDED debate about anything to do with LFC.

    ReplyDelete
  57. A grainy photo taken from a distance where none of the people in it are intelligble at all?  I'm sorry, but how does that constitute proof of anything?

    ReplyDelete
  58. You're alarmingly quick to accuse people of being liars Jaimie. I personally don't know about the quote mentioned above, but if you plan on keeping this website alive, I strongly suggest you wind your fucking neck in and check that it isn't true.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Thought you might say that, you can tell who the people are particularly the Saudi prince. You have said you will be want to meet a SOS representative and have a recorded debate. I have offered you that above but still don't say take up the offer. You go on about this proof as well, but as I have said before you are publishing this without proof, so it would be wise to check your facts before publishing. When in touch with the Liverpool PR department, ask them for the photos they took of the lads that were there at the academy as well.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "And potentially libellous? Please. SOS put this interview in the public domain in a very slipshod manner - there is every right and a definite NEED to question its veracity. Or should we just blindly accept everything SOS says without question?"

    Yeah, so get in touch with Frank McParland or the LFC press office and question it. Don't just make a call, be told to hang on for an answer, and then go ahead and hammer out several paragraphs of libellous nonsense regardless

    You claim to be a member of the NUJ. May I suggest you look into attending one of their courses covering Media Law?

    ReplyDelete
  61. I am Secretary of the Union and would be more than happy to meet to discuss this "fabricated" nonsense.

    I can confirm it all happened.

    Can you suggest somewhere to meet, following which you can publish a retraction and apology about the allegation this has been made up.

    I have supplied my email address.

    Graham Smith

    ReplyDelete
  62. I'm looking forward to hearing Kanwar's apology. The tabloid approach of this blog is right up there with the worst of the red tops.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Jaimie? Jaimie? Where are you?

    ReplyDelete
  64. I have checked whether it is true.  And it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I do actually have other things to do, so I'm not on this site 24/7.  If you wish to arrange a meeting, please email me: editor@liverpool-kop.com

    ReplyDelete
  66. I just have offered to meet you - no need to email.

    Please suggest a couple times, dates and venues in Liverpool to suit you.

    secretary@spiritofshankly.com

    Can I assume that if satisfied with the meeting we will get a retraction and apology for calling the Union and one of our members a liar? That seems only fair.

    Graham Smith

    ReplyDelete
  67. I said neutral ground. Liverpool is not neutral ground in this instance.

    And to clarify - I did not call SOS or one of your members a liar per se; I challenged you to prove that the meeting actually took place AND that the record of the interview was accurate/not embellished.

    You can do all that today, I'm sure, via the net.  No need to meet for that.  And yes, if there is proper verification, then I will gladly post a retraction.

    The wider issue here is SOS's approach, which is all wrong.  If you wish to discuss that, then I'm willing to meet, but not in Liverpool.

    ReplyDelete
  68. jesus this site scrapes the bottom of the barrel.
    First and last ever visit for me.

    ReplyDelete
  69. We are all Liverpool supporters apparently so can't see how Liverpool isn't neutral. Graham's and my e-mail addresses have been posted, E-mail either of us with dates and times and suitable venues that you feel are neutral and we will arrange a meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  70. You surely can prove that the interview took place and that what was presented on the internet was not exaggerated/censored/embellished, can't you?  if so, then do that TODAY and stop wasting time.

    I have a deal for you though: remove all references to YANKS from your site and literature (including Yank Liars out! etc) and promise Liverpool fans that such derogatory terms will not be used again, and I will remove the article from my site.

    I think that's fair, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  71. It is not libel for one very good reason: it is impossible to libel a nickname when no one knows who it is.  99.9% of people outside the Liverpool Way forum have no idea who Doogie Do'ins is, thus there can be no libel.

    Furthermore, I have the defense of fair comment. As long as the opinion is based on true facts (it is); is genuinely held (it is) and is not influenced by malice (it isn't), there is no defamation.

    ReplyDelete
  72. So good you posted it twice eh Jaimie?

    Think very carefully on this.  You have the article up there and published.  The legal definition of Libel - as stated in Wiki (not the best source but it will do for now) is as follows.

    In law, defamation–also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification–is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,<sup></sup><span style=""><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></span> a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

    So.  We have a statement, by you, that claims to be the truth, that gives the SOS, and indeed the interviewer a bad name.  Indeed happy red etc seem only to happy to call on it.  Ticks all the boxes for me.

    Think on Jaimie.  Your words are baseless and without any form of proof whatsoever.  The fact that the Hicks and Gillette spin machine have not denied this interview (after it went to the National Press), nor the content would say to me that what has been written - whilst not contemporaneous - is indeed the truth.

    You have, in the absence of any other facts to hand, have opined that what was published was - whats the words?  Cobbled together from other interviews?  Completely False?  Modified and or Exaggerated?  That opinion is defamatory, and Libellous.  You have NO right to question its veracity until you have hard fact in your hand that allows you to question it.  Run it by any brief.  He'll tell you the same.

    Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  73. is that a clucking sound I hear or is it just Colonel Sanders???????????????????

    You've been called out Jamie and you still keep moving the goal posts. You know full well that SOS can't do what you ask as it was the members mandate. Mate you 're no a red that's for sure but you are a coward.

    ReplyDelete
  74. So basically your argument is - how do you know anything is true ever? How we do know it's true you claim to be a Liverpool fan?

    And why wouldn't Gillett sue? And why wouldn't he ban reporters from Anfield for "lying"? It's not as black and white as YOU make out either.

    Surely "making up" that the owner has had a go at his manager (again) is damaging to his reputation? And if he could prove that he'd be well on his way to being able to sue, yes?

    As other people have stated, you don't know it's not true so why even suggest it isn't? Hits for this website - plain and simple. You're clearly obsessed with that, for whatever reason. You know what buttons to press to wind up sections of the Liverpool support so you do it - time and again.

    As for the press office confirming the Daily Mail did not have access to Glen Johnson's salary details, please. Did you need to contact them to find that out? Let's take your approach on this - how do you know Glen Johnson didn't tell the Mail? How do you know someone who works in accounts at LFC didn't tell the Mail? etc etc etc

    Unconvinced by this justification for linking to RoM (and giving an interview to them) as well. I agree with you that both sets of supporters have been guilty of disgraceful chants and I don't condone Liverpool fans that do it - in fact I've questioned LFC fans that do it to their faces - not just on the internet.

    But the fact remains that they stand by that t-shirt - and therefore don't look interested in "fostering relations" do they? So why offer them any kind of support - why not write an article tearing apart their approach to things - as you are attempting to do with SOS?

    It appears you have more patience with Man United supporters who like to stir up bad feeling than you do with a pressure group that is trying to get what is best for LFC.

    And what exactly does "working behind the scenes" mean? Or is it PR bullshit?

    As for this point "why go to Old Trafford when United fans are chanting about Hillsborough?" 

    Does that need answering? I go there to support Liverpool Football Club. Something you should try doing sometime (if you are a Liverpool fan, that is.)

    ReplyDelete
  75. Hang on - goalposts being moved here. This is about you making it clear you do not believe that a meeting took place - the upshot of that position is that the guy that had the meeting, the SOS members there, Gillett himself and me and the other Committee members are lying, there isn't a halfway house. Not about the contents of banners.

    More than happy to meet away from Liverpool - please suggest a reasonable venue, time and date.

    Posturing behind a keyboard is very easy - we're not doing that. We are asking to meet to debate openly and positively with you. You're the one backing off from this for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Its not about making deals so you can claim some sort of victory. Its showing what is the truth. You shouldn't have published the article because it isn't true and you haven't proved yourself that it isn't true, Its not a removal we want, its a retraction, because nothing would stop you without a retraction for posting similar things again. A retraction highlights you were wrong.

    Send us, as I said, dates, times and suitable 'neutral' venues and we can meet with you.

    ReplyDelete
  77. the goalposts are not being moved at all.  And be accurate please: In the article I suggested that the meeting not taking place was one of three possible eventualities.  This is right at the start of the article.

    Furthermore, the first time I made the offer of meeting, i did not mention it would be about this particular issue.

    I will look at my schedule and get back to you via email with dates and possible venues.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Why do they have to prove it to you? To be honest,  if you look on different LFC forums you're hardly the most liked person, so why would anyone go out their way to please you when chances are you'll write something derogatory about them anyway.

    o and btw i have no affiliation with SOS and am not a member.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I have an honest, non-malicious belies that elements of the transcript are not true.  Given the fact you offered no evidence whatsoever that it was true at the time of publication, this is not an unreasonable opinion to hold, especially in light of certain unsavoury things have gone on under the bannder 'Spirit of Sahnkly; in the past. i.e. the Munich-chanting singer at your Christmas bash.

    As I stated in the article:

    <span>Having re-read the <span><span style="background-position: right -1650px;"> </span>transcript</span> a couple of times and considered the context, I have now come to the conclusion that this ‘interview’ with George Gillett is either:

    a) Completely false
    b) Cobbled together from other interviews/statements
    c) Modified and/or exaggerated</span>

    I do not explicitly state that it is a 'lie' - I suggest three options, any of which could be true.  Or not, as the case may be.

    ReplyDelete
  80. And whilst we're on the subject of libel, perhaps you could stop being so hypocritical.  On your website, you repeatedly accuse Gillett of being a liar. What factual proof do you have of this?!  None whatsoever, as your piecemeal analysis of what he allegedly said proves.  What you have posted is far more libellous than what I've posted, which by the way was directed at an anonymous poster on a message board who uses a nickname.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Where's ur integrity Jaimie. U talk all this stuff on ur site and throw out all these challenges for ppl to prove this and that etc. two ppl finally take u up on ur offer and u hem and haw and beat around the bush. Meet the ppl on ur terms and have ur discussion and then u could post the article for all to see. Then u claim to be a Liverpool fan and blah, blah, blah.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Belief and Fact are not the same things. Because you say the meeting didn't happen then that is a lie because it did. Offering alternatives does not then make it not a lie or offer proof that it did not happen. I don't see why you are moving the goal posts to try and justify yourself. And if you do move the goalposts at least get your facts right. We condemned that incident, but we it wasn't at the Christmas Bash because we didn't have a Christmas Bash.

    Send us the times you are free in your busy schedule and we can talk. As Graham said we are not ones for posturing behind a keyboard. We have offered you a meeting which you wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I'm sorry that just isn't a credible response.

    You said there were one of three alternatives:

    <span>a) Completely false
    b) Cobbled together from other interviews/statements
    c) Modified and/or exaggerated</span>

    <div id="TixyyLink" style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    All three alternatives have varying degrees of dishonesty involved from the very simple first and second alternatives which would be a fraud to the third which suggests the interveiwer has decided to alter what he was told for presumably his own and/or the Union's purposes.</div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">However when taken in the context of the rest of your "article" it is clear you are challenging that the interview actually ever took place. You talk about grainy photos, how could anyone take notes etc.</div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Please have the courage of your convictions and if you think it was fabricated (as you clearly do) stick to that and don't try and start saying all your after is evidence.</div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">I look forward to your email about a meeting. I promise all we are looking to do is to give you the background to what happened, what we are trying to achieve and to listen to your point of view.</div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Or, you can say you're convinced that the interview took place and say that while you held an opinion that it hadn't, enough of those there or closely associated, have convinced you otherwise and retract the article.</div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">That's what an open minded man would do.
    </div>

    ReplyDelete
  84. Plenty of proof. You just have to watch the press conference of when they took over to see that they lied about everything in that. Neither of the owners have ever made a claim of libel against us because they know its all the truth and that they have lied.

    This is all beating around the bush now to try and justify what you have written. Just do as you said you would and tell us where and when you want to meet.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Wrong. It is my OPINION that it may not have happened, and this is clear from the article.  I even said in the title 'I am not so sure'.  I also offered 3 possibilites; I did not emphatically state 'This is a lie and it did not happen'.

    As I've alresacdy said, due to SOS's negative approach and history, combined with the fact that SOS purports to reperesent Liverpool fans. I felt and still feel that if such an incendiary interview is to be published then evidence should be provided to detail that what was said in the metting is accurate, not censored and unembellished.

    All you need to do is prove that and I will gladly post a retraction.

    What are you waiting for?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Oh Jaimie, Jaimie I hear the sound of desperation.

    Completely False does not call it a lie then?

    Libel Jaimie.  Speak to a brief - any Brief, and they'll tell you the same.

    Now accept a meeting, get proved wrong, and publish a retraction so we can all move on.  It is incredibly easy to be controversial when no-one calls you on it.  Well you have been. 

    Words of Advice.  When in a hole, and you want to get out, stop digging. 

    ReplyDelete
  87. I'm sorry that just isn't a credible response.

    You said there were one of three alternatives:

    <span>a) Completely false
    b) Cobbled together from other interviews/statements
    c) Modified and/or exaggerated</span>

    <div id="TixyyLink" style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    All three alternatives have varying degrees of dishonesty involved from the very simple first and second alternatives which would be a fraud to the third which suggests the interveiwer has decided to alter what he was told for presumably his own and/or the Union's purposes.</div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">However when taken in the context of the rest of your "article" it is clear you are challenging that the interview actually ever took place. You talk about grainy photos, how could anyone take notes etc.</div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Please have the courage of your convictions and if you think it was fabricated (as you clearly do) stick to that and don't try and start saying all your after is evidence.</div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">I look forward to your email about a meeting. I promise all we are looking to do is to give you the background to what happened, what we are trying to achieve and to listen to your point of view.</div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Or, you can say you're convinced that the interview took place and say that while you held an opinion that it hadn't, enough of those there or closely associated, have convinced you otherwise and retract the article.</div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">That's what an open minded man would do.
    </div>

    ReplyDelete
  88. And I reiterate my deal proposal:

    1. Remove all references to 'Yanks' and 'Yank Liars out!' from your website and make a pledge to never use them again (i.e. approach things in a professional manner) and I will remove the article.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Graham - why don't you publish the background to what happened on SOS's site or somewhere else TODAY.  Why do we have to wait for a meeting.  If you have the evidence/details then post them without delay.  I'll even post the details on this site with a retraction if this is true.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Two words Jaimie - "Stephen" and "Cohen".

    He said that he was entitled to his Hillsborough opinion but the point both he, and now you are missing, is an opinion relating to a factual event has to have some basis in fact itself.

    You have no evidence to back up your assertion while you have at least two people here saying it took place because one was there and one has had dealings with the interviewer and at least a dozen people who also witnessed it.

    Stop digging lad, it's going to end in embarassment for you.

    ReplyDelete
  91. The formatting of Graham's post is messed up a bit due to when you copy and paste it from other comments. Here it is again. Hopefully it will show up right here. Also, look like it was removed as well now,

    I'm sorry that just isn't a credible response. 
     
    You said there were one of three alternatives: 
     
    a) Completely false 
    b) Cobbled together from other interviews/statements 
    c) Modified and/or exaggerated 

    All three alternatives have varying degrees of dishonesty involved from the very simple first and second alternatives which would be a fraud to the third which suggests the interveiwer has decided to alter what he was told for presumably his own and/or the Union's purposes 

    However when taken in the context of the rest of your "article" it is clear you are challenging that the interview actually ever took place. You talk about grainy photos, how could anyone take notes etc.

    Please have the courage of your convictions and if you think it was fabricated (as you clearly do) stick to that and don't try and start saying all your after is evidence.

    I look forward to your email about a meeting. I promise all we are looking to do is to give you the background to what happened, what we are trying to achieve and to listen to your point of view. 

    Or, you can say you're convinced that the interview took place and say that while you held an opinion that it hadn't, enough of those there or closely associated, have convinced you otherwise and retract the article.

    That's what an open minded man would do.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Did you really just mention Hillsborough?! 

    How incredibly disrespectful.  Quite unbelievable really that you would use a tragedy like that in a cheap attempt to try reinforce a point.

    Please stop dodging the issue - you said you had all the background information to what went on; if so, please post it TODAY on your site.  You purport to represent Liverpool fans; well prove it by opoen, honest and transparent.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Hang on.  An interview posted on the internet is not good enough, yet some ropey screen grabs and scans of a piece of paper which could essentially say "wot O rote about jilet" would be?

    Why do you suddenly not want to see the evidence first hand Jaimie?  What have you got to fear?  Being proved wrong?  Or could it be that you are unable to have a meeting because - you're not in this country perhaps?

    Call me an old conspiracy theorist.

    ReplyDelete
  94. The whole point of my post was clearly to try and force SOS/the interviewer to provide proof that:

    a) The interview took place

    b) What was written in the transcript was not embellished/modifed/censored etc.

    The reason I felt proof was needed has already been explained above i.e. antagonistic, xenophobic approach to the owners etc.  With such an approacj, we're supposed to just accept that the interviewer was impartial AND reported everything as fairly and impartially as possible?!

    What has SOS ever done to deserve such blind faith?  How does SOS's approach to the owners engender a feeling of trust?

    Can you not see this?

    If you were a professional orgnisation who approached things in a professinal manner, I would never have dreamed of making this post.

    When you hold yourselves out as being representatives of the fanbase, you should act in a manner befitting Liverpool's history; 'Yanks Liars Out' and all that nonsense is not the way to go about things.  That is the wider issue here, and if you can't see that, then you will never *really* be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  95. But this now gets more and more bizarre.

    You are the only person I know who is suggesting the meeting did not take place.

    If you read the original poster on TLW he gives some background to the meeting and how it happened.

    On top of that witnesses have posted on here who were there plus those that can corroborate that those saying they were there, were there.

    You even have a quote from Gillett saying he didn't know it would be published widely.

    There are pictures of Gillett at Melwood and the Academy published widely but you dispute he would have been there on the morning of  a match.

    The alternative to the truth is that there is a conspiracy being perpertrated by at least forty or fifty people making all of this up. One of them is George Gillett.

    Come on, there's a time to accept that a poorly written, libellous article needs to be reconsidered. Do it now and we'll shake hands and put it down to your inexperience otherwise you'll just end up looking small minded and incapable of rational debate.

    ReplyDelete
  96. But this now gets more and more bizarre.

    You are the only person I know who is suggesting the meeting did not take place.

    If you read the original poster on TLW he gives some background to the meeting and how it happened.

    On top of that witnesses have posted on here who were there plus those that can corroborate that those saying they were there, were there.

    You even have a quote from Gillett saying he didn't know it would be published widely.

    There are pictures of Gillett at Melwood and the Academy published widely but you dispute he would have been there on the morning of  a match.

    The alternative to the truth is that there is a conspiracy being perpertrated by at least forty or fifty people making all of this up. One of them is George Gillett.

    Come on, there's a time to accept that a poorly written, libellous article needs to be reconsidered. Do it now and we'll shake hands and put it down to your inexperience otherwise you'll just end up looking small minded and incapable of rational debate.

    ReplyDelete
  97. No - the major thrust of your article is that you consider it more likely than not that the interview ever took place.

    By all means argue about the content and it being a true record or "spun" but anyone reading it knows very well that your major point is that you don't believe for a second the meeting took place.

    Retract the allegation of fabrication of the actual meeting. Then we can deal with your suggestion of modification or spin.

    ReplyDelete
  98. nothing bizarre about it at all.  I may be the only 1 person YOU KNOW OF who has reservations about the meeting, but there are undoubedly thousands more fans out there who would like further clairification.

    And re the quote from Gillett - please provide a  link to it.  I'm sure it would have been widely publicised, but I can't find reference to it anywhere.

    I don't believe it's a conspiracy theory, but i am concerned about SOS's approach and the veracity of what was actually presented in the transcript.  Again, I stated this clearly as one of three possibilities in the original article; and given SOS's antagonistic, adversarial approach, blatant anti-owners agenda and complete failure to acknowledge any of the obvious positives that have come from the owners' reign, such doubts are perfectly reasonable.

    My deal offer still stands: take the first steps to becoming a professional, credible organisation by removing all the derogatory terms about the owners from your site.  It's very simple; a few html adjustments and you're done.

    Do you really think the majority of fans approvae of that approach?  What about the significant US fanbase?!  or do you not give a damn what fans really think?

    ReplyDelete
  99. I never demanded to see the evidence 'first hand' in the first place!  Post a link to the comment where I said that.

    And it is far better if all Liverpool fans see the evidence and not just me, is it not?

    And I guess if I wasn't in the country I wouldn't be a proper fan, eh?

    Well, I am in the country, that much is very obvious, and has been proven in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to have deleted one of my posts from this thread - your justification for this?  

    ReplyDelete
  101. I haven't deleted any of your posts.  Very occasionally posts get lost due to server problems with JS-kit (comment service provider). Please feel free to repost. J

    ReplyDelete
  102. Scott the Red is your mancunian side-kick I take it?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Change the record.  Scott the Red runs a completely separate website.  The difference here is I am not part of the 'All Mancs are scum' brigade; I prefer civiluty between fans, not pointless hostility.  If you or ayone else can't handle that. tough luck.  I also have civil relationships with other non-Liverpool websites.  Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Can I assume that despite a polite request to retract your allegations you will not?

    ReplyDelete
  105. I will retract point number 1 in my list by placing a disclaimer in the article.  I will remove the article completely when, as I've requested' you remove all the derogatory terms re the owners from SOS's website and make a public pledge that SOS will pursue the removal of the owners in a more professional manner in the future.

    You purport to represent the fanbase - I'm sure the majority of Liverpool fans find your xenophobic approac distasteful; and my najority, I'm not rferring to those that hang out on The Liverpool Way.  I mean the club's worldwide fanbase, who might take exception to your willingness to attach derogatory labels to non-brits.

    ReplyDelete
  106. REPOST (relating to earlier points)

    <span style=" ">So basically your argument is - how do you know anything is true ever? How we do know it's true you claim to be a Liverpool fan?  
     
    And why wouldn't Gillett sue? And why wouldn't he ban reporters from Anfield for "lying"? It's not as black and white as YOU make out either.  
     
    Surely "making up" that the owner has had a go at his manager (again) is damaging to his reputation? And if he could prove that he'd be well on his way to being able to sue, yes?  
     
    As other people have stated, you don't know it's not true so why even suggest it isn't? Hits for this website - plain and simple. You're clearly obsessed with that, for whatever reason. You know what buttons to press to wind up sections of the Liverpool support so you do it - time and again.  
     
    As for the press office confirming the Daily Mail did not have access to Glen Johnson's salary details, please. Did you need to contact them to find that out? Let's take your approach on this - how do you know Glen Johnson didn't tell the Mail? How do you know someone who works in accounts at LFC didn't tell the Mail? etc etc etc  
     
    Unconvinced by this justification for linking to RoM (and giving an interview to them) as well. I agree with you that both sets of supporters have been guilty of disgraceful chants and I don't condone Liverpool fans that do it - in fact I've questioned LFC fans that do it to their faces - not just on the internet.  
     
    But the fact remains that they stand by that t-shirt - and therefore don't look interested in "fostering relations" do they? So why offer them any kind of support - why not write an article tearing apart their approach to things - as you are attempting to do with SOS?  
     
    It appears you have more patience with Man United supporters who like to stir up bad feeling than you do with a pressure group that is trying to get what is best for LFC.  
     
    And what exactly does "working behind the scenes" mean? Or is it PR bullshit?  
     
    As for this point "why go to Old Trafford when United fans are chanting about Hillsborough?"   
     
    Does that need answering? I go there to support Liverpool Football Club. Something you should try doing sometime (if you are a Liverpool fan, that is.)
    </span>

    ReplyDelete
  107. No, sorry it doesn't work like that. You have published an article that makes allegaions of fabrication, fraud and embellishment without any evidence of your own.

    You now try and squirm away from this by linking a retraction to the Union's website and campaign tactics. Well this sort of sleight of hand will not work.

    I'll leave it to those who have read your "article" and these exchanges to see who is self serving and unable to substantiate his allegations.

    I will leave it there for now as you've already had more than a share of the oxygen of response but this issue is not over.

    Finally, despite a purported Liverpool fan refusing to meet in Liverpool ("it's not neutral" - you couldn't make that up) and being offered to suggest other reasonable venues (on the basis that we are all Merseyside based) I have no email fom you to suggest where we can meet.

    This exchange is not over but for now I'll leave you to squirm on the hook you are on or digging deeper the hole you started (choose your own metaphor).

    ReplyDelete
  108. if the Yank$ out was removed from the SOS website, you would still find other stick to beat SOS with, like you are doing here bringing up the christmas do. Your on a one man crusade to spout your bile and hatred towards a union that only has the best interests of LFC at heart.
    Why the neutral venue? We are all Liverpool fans arnt we? the clue is in the name of the club.

    ReplyDelete
  109. No, sorry it doesn't work like that. You have published an article that makes allegaions of fabrication, fraud and embellishment without any evidence of your own.

    You now try and squirm away from this by linking a retraction to the Union's website and campaign tactics. Well this sort of sleight of hand will not work.

    I'll leave it to those who have read your "article" and these exchanges to see who is self serving and unable to substantiate his allegations.

    I will leave it there for now as you've already had more than a share of the oxygen of response but this issue is not over.

    Finally, despite a purported Liverpool fan refusing to meet in Liverpool ("it's not neutral" - you couldn't make that up) and being offered to suggest other reasonable venues (on the basis that we are all Merseyside based) I have no email fom you to suggest where we can meet.

    This exchange is not over but for now I'll leave you to squirm on the hook you are on or digging deeper the hole you started (choose your own metaphor).

    ReplyDelete
  110. Oh dear oh dear.

    I dont know why anyone is bothering with him. This is clearly a man who has little impact on anyone.

    A site i have never seen before today and doubt i will again, but he has achieved his 15 minutes right here. that is all he should be considered worthy of.

    his article is nonsense and i doubt anyone who reads it with half a mind would think, "yeah, he's right, what a big conspiracy"

    Just leave him to it, and move on. Everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Critiical of Gillett and Hicks? Really?


    <p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">"<span style=" ">Sandon Liverpool fans are a disgrace to the club"</span>

    <p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"> 
    <p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">Yeah, looks it...

    ReplyDelete
  112. He did not try and use Hillsborough as a cheap attempt. He was highlighting how Steven Cohen ran his mouth off and spouted vitriol about the disaster based on myth personal agenda, just as you have done about the supporters who want rid of Gillett and Hicks because there <span style="text-decoration: underline;">are</span> similarities between you both.

    You're probably not from anywhere near Liverpool so you're not exactly best placed to be telling us what's right and wrong when it comes to our club.

    P.S. If you want a reply from the press office about Philipp Degen breaking a nail, you need to work for someone credible and not some two-bit website established to feed your own ego.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I'll try and get over the disappointment and shock of not being 'the most liked person' on LFC forums.  it will be tough, but I will try and pick up the pieces of my shattered confidence and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  114. The ppl offered to meet with you to clear the issue up.......u gonna accept their meeting request or not. All this beating around the bush Jaimie - either you're gonna meet with them or not. Its pretty simple really

    ReplyDelete
  115. Er, how does the Sandon incident have anything to do with the owners?! I see you conveniently missed out the SEVEN critical articles at this link --->>>

    ReplyDelete
  116. Do you like the sound of your own fingers on the keyboard? Judging by they way you prattle on it appears so.

    Meet with SOS, stop pedalling these tiresome agendas of yours and stop making demands that you have no right to ask for.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Pardon Me Jamier but what exactly is your problem about meeting SOS?
    What are you afraid of? being proved wrong?

    They made an offer to meet you, agreed to your terms (in spite of the fact that you added conditions) and yet you didn't meet them.

    If you are a fairly minded fan, then there is no harm in meeting SOS now is there? They have stepped up to the plate. What about you.

    And please no more excuses. Either you will grant a meeting or don't.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Afraid of being proved wrong?  About what exactly?

    it may have escaped your attention but this debate has been going on TODAY;  Am i supposed to have met them today?!

    My original offer to meet with SOS had nothing to do with this issue - I did not suggest meeting to clear up this mess, as there is no need.  It could've all been resoved hours ago if SOS released the purported recording they have of the interview.  They have failed to do that.

    The crux of this thing is not even the interview - the wider issue is SOS's approach to representing the fans.  It is unacceptable, and in its current form, it is not fit (IMO) to hold itself out as a representative of the fans.

    It does NOT represent all fans; it represent a tiny minority of people who believe that the best way to approach issues relating to LFC is through juvenile, derogatory name-calling, i.e. playground tactics.

    Until SOS change their approach and remove all trace of this embarrassing approach from their site, I will not meet with them.

    To meet with an unprofessional, childish group would clearly be a waste of time.

    I am sure that the majority of Liverpool fans do not find their 'YANK LIARS OUT!' campaign amusing or effective.  I',m sure many share my view that it is pathetic, undignified, and the opposite of what Liverpool FC should be all about.

    If you or anyone else cannot hack this line of thinking, I couldn't care less.

    Bottom line: SOS needs to change; its image is in the toilet and outside its rabid members and rabid followers on certain Liverpool FC forums, it has no credibility.

    At this moment, it has no competition when it comes to fans groups, which is why it obtains interviews with senior members of the club.  That will hopefully change someday when (inevitably) another fan-group will  be formed that does things in the right way.  When that happens, SOS will fade away into nothing.

    Unless it changes, of course, which it probably wont.

    I reiterate: If SOS prove that they're taking the first steps to becoming a preofessional orgnisation, then I will meet with them.  Until then, forget it, as I will not waste my time.

    Oh, and Graham - I'm still waiting for the proof that Gillett made a statement to the press saying that 'he thought it was a private interview and didn't know it would go public'.  Where is the proof he said that?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Check this out. More liars.

    Now The Times are lying - they reckon they've seen a transcript! As if eh, Jaimie?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/matt_dickinson/article6862436.ece

    ReplyDelete
  120. I'm sick of being nice now.  There is no way to prove the veracity of this interview unless you see the documents SOS have first hand.  Otherwise its just a load of 1's and 0's posted on the internet - just like you (previously) libellous article.

    The meeting was offered to give you the chance to see the evidence first hand.  This has now turned in to "I want the SOS to stop telling the truth because it suits my Agenda".

    Tell you what Jaimie.  Join the SOS.  Then you'll get the same right to vote on motions as I do.  1 man, 1 vote.  Hell, I'll pay your membership fee.  What you forget is that those Yank Liars out messages are not those of the site owners - they are the agreed upon message by all members of the union present at the meetings.

    You think we should stop calling them liars?  Two things - 1 Prove to us that we are incorrect in calling them such.  2.  Take your argument to the committee and show us to be as wrong on that point as we have shown you to be on yours.

    All else is obfuscation.  Your shifting of the goalposts will not obscure that what SOS say is correct (hence the reason we have not been made the subject of a libel suit) and you weren't.  Or at least it would be clear if you would simply agree to see the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Totally ignored the point before; why do SOS have to prove to YOU that the interview took place? What do they have to achieve by lying about it other than further damaging their name/reputation that they have worked hard on and giving their own time to get things off the ground.

    As mentioned earlier; no affiliation to SOS.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Guilty until proven innocent you mean?

    ReplyDelete
  123. F'ck sake Jamie are you a Liverpool fan, I just stumbled across this sh'te, you are a clown, the view SOS have is the view of 99% of Liverpool fans. I'm delighted these lads are giving there own to time to get rid of these clowns that call themselves owners

    What the f'ck are you doing posting retarded posts on the internet. Would be suprised if you are more than 15 you absolutely no concept of the sh't we are in with these owners

    ReplyDelete
  124. Id hardly say that was in the distance; if you've been to the academy you'd see the car parks are underneath the balconies practically.

    ReplyDelete
  125. But he is the first, and as far as I can make out, the only person willing to defend you, can't you see the irony in that?

    ReplyDelete
  126. Oh, please.  The times have cut and pasted the text from the post on the 'Liverpool Way' website! That much is obvious.  In the article, Dickinson states: The times has obtained a transcript.  That line of text links to the following article:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6862370.ece

    That is NOT a transcript - it is a cut and paste job directly off The Liverpool Way.  The only difference is The Times has edited out the questions put by the interviewer.

    if it was a proper transcript then we would have a scan of it, would we not.  You can clear this all up by revealing whether the alleged transcript was actually given to The Times.  Surely you could find this out by asking the guy who conducted the interview, no?

    Or did someone from the Times break into the interviewers house and steal the transcript?!

    ReplyDelete
  127. Chris - why don't you serve the wider LFC fan community by posting the evidence FOR EVERYONE TO SEE?  Showing it to me alone is great but I'm sure there are thousands of fans out there who would like to see the evidence for themselves.  Just because fans are not challenging SOS like me doesn't mean they are not out there.

    So - you clealry admit there is evidence - why delay this any longer?!  POST THE EVIDENCE TODAY.  Where is the problem with that?

    And you state that the entire union agreed upon the YANK LIARS OUT! message - is that supposed to give it credibility or something?!  This just goes to show the problem with the collective mindset of SOS; it is nothing to be proud of!

    A good comparison is the Munich chant incident:  instead of telling the singer to stop,the whole crowd started chanting along with him!  Another example of the questionable mindset of SOS.

    ReplyDelete
  128. You are sure that the majority of Liverpool fans find SOS' approach distasteful? Like you say, prove it. I for one do not find their approach distasteful. Nor do my Liverpool supporting mates. And we make up the majority of Liverpool fans from where I am from. 

    So please stop putting words into our mouths. Do not claim that a majority of the fanbase finds SOS' actions distasteful unless you could prove it with facts.

    ReplyDelete
  129. <span style=" ">I am sure that the majority of Liverpool fans do not find their 'YANK LIARS OUT!' campaign amusing or effective.  I',m sure many share my view that it is pathetic, undignified, and the opposite of what Liverpool FC should be all about.
    </span>

    Again, what you call pathetic, undignified and the opposite of what Liverpool FC should be all about is your own personal view. Stop using the phrase "the majority of fans" unless you could prove it. 

    ReplyDelete
  130. Yes, I am sure - that means it is my opinion, based on the balance of probabilities (i.e. that the majority of Liverpool fans area reasonable, toughtful people), that the majority of Liverpool fans would not approve of xenophobic approach to the Owners. 

    What happens if the Saudi Prince  buys out Gillet and 6 months later he's made a trail of mistakes?

    'ARAB LIARS OUT!' is that going to be the next mantra?!

    If you're happy with that (or the YANK LIARS OUT! mantra,  then you are just part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  131. I think it is very likely that there majority of LFC fans ACORSS THE GLOBE would not approve of a xenophobic approach to club matters.  Of course, I can't prove it, but neither can you prove the opposite.  It comes down to what is more likely - that the Liverpool fanbase is thoughtful and fair-minded, or a bunch rabid Xenophobes?  As I said in my other reply, if you agree with that approach then you are just part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Interesting. Since I can't prove the opposite, what you say is right then? So since you can't prove what SOS posted is false then...?

    Look, the burden of prove is on you. When you make a general sweeping statement like that, you have to back it up. Why can't the Liverpool fanbase be thoughtful and fair-minded yet support SOS action? Why is SOS actions deemed xenophobic? Just because you say so? I am not British. I am part of the GLOBAL FANBASE. Why would me and my mates be xenophobic? Isn't that discriminating against ourselves?

    ReplyDelete
  133. No - where did I say I am right?  try and grasp this: What I say is my OPINION.  It is not fact.

    And it is my OPINION, that no intelligent, fair-minded person can support an approach that has 'YANK LIARS OUT' as its mantra.  Anyone who does is just part of the problem.

    Any group tha wants to be taken seriously OUTSIDE IT'S OWN MEMBERS should not have such a derogatory, prejudiced approach.  This is not rocket science.

    if everyone thought like SOS, the world would be more messed up than it already is.  Someone has to inject some respectful civility into the organisation or it will never really achieve anything.  Campaigning like a bunch of yobs just weakens their position.  This is obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  134. I am all for exposing potential lies from the owners, and I think that goal should be pursued in the most vigorous manner possible.  However, the owners should damned by an irrefutable presentation of the FACTS; not stupid mantras like 'YANK LIARS OUT!'

    ReplyDelete
  135. OK then. Stop using the majority of the fans then. It is your opinion that such actions are harmful. Full stop. If I think Mr. John's novel is sub-par and I assume that any person with a fair-mind would agree with me, can I say that the majority of the people in this world thinks Mr. John's novel is sub-par? The fact is that a sub-par novel to you might be a good novel to loads of other people. Especially when it is something global. The majority of the world doesn't have to think like you, you know. So, stop assuming that others are the same as well. Not all of us could afford a moral high horse. 

    ReplyDelete
  136. You have effectively admitted you are wrong by retracting the first two points of your article. Also how patronising can you get with the following statement:-  'If SOS prove that they're taking the first steps to becoming a professional orgnisation, then I will meet with them.  Until then, forget it, as I will not waste my time.'
    <div id="TixyyLink" style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"> </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">This is after you said you were happy to meet them and are now back tracking and deliberately adding  conditions that you know will not be made to avoid this meeting, all when hiding behind the above statement.</div>



    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Also how can you critiscise SOS for their 'bile' against G & H after the utterly outrageous comments you have previously made regarding our players and alledged racist comments (Gerrard - rampant xenephobe post)? This was undoubtedly unsubstantiated and baseless yet you are critiscising SOS for the same reasons! You deliberately court controversy and are guilty of double standards. These comments regarding Gerrard were far worse than anything about G&H being liars. </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
    </div>
    <div style="border: medium none; overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Finally i am an intelligent person and though i would phrase it better i have no problem with the 'yank liars out' banners as they are yanks, they have lied and we want them out the club!
    </div>

    ReplyDelete
  137. So you are basically saying that you think it is acceptable to run a campaign with the mantra 'YANK LIARS OUT!'  ?

    I guess then you would also approve of the following:

    ARAB LIARS OUT! (if the owners were Saudi Arabian)
    CHINK LIARS OUT! (If the owners were Chinese)
    DEGO LIARS OUT! (if the owners were Italian)

    And so on and so forth.

    What a great business model, and a superb way to earn respect!

    Any fan who accepts this kind of childishness is part of the problem.  In my opinon.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Mr Kanwar,

    You clearly write solely to get hits on your site, which is the reason for such inflammatory material.  On that point you must be congratulated.  However, Im afraid its all downhill from there on.

    I suspect another reason would be to feed your overblown self-importance. 

    Editor of this site are we?  Im not surprised as you'd find it incredibly hard to find a genuine site to hire you. Or at least one that is interested in real news, honest opinions (not arguement stokers like you specialise in) and intelligent comment.

    In short, you are the blog version of The Sun; Full to the brim of pointless bile that exists solely to create headlines and which is of little - and often no - substance.  

    You lie (and Im perfectly happy if you want to sue me over that comment) and you back-peddle with the same lack of finesse that your American heroes have shown since their ill-fated entry into our club.  Lets make things clear here.  When I say our club, I mean OUR club - not yours.  Ours because we (whether we attend the match or not) are supporters.  Read that word again: SUPPORTers.  There's a clue in there for you Mr Kanwar.

    The day we lack self important fools, we'll be sure to give you a shout.

    Now go and find a new topic to write your lies, pointless drivel and sensationalist rubbish about. 

    ReplyDelete
  139. Real problem with that pesky "comments server" today, eh? I have posted this comment three times today and it keeps disappearing. Anyhow, here we go again - in repsonse to your reply to my earlier post:

    <div id="yiv627110269"><span style=" ">So basically your argument is - how do you know anything is true ever? How we do know it's true you claim to be a Liverpool fan?  
     
    And why wouldn't Gillett sue? And why wouldn't he ban reporters from Anfield for "lying"? It's not as black and white as YOU make out either.  
     
    Surely "making up" that the owner has had a go at his manager (again) is damaging to his reputation? And if he could prove that he'd be well on his way to being able to sue, yes?  
     
    As other people have stated, you don't know it's not true so why even suggest it isn't? Hits for this website - plain and simple. You're clearly obsessed with that, for whatever reason. You know what buttons to press to wind up sections of the Liverpool support so you do it - time and again.  
     
    As for the press office confirming the Daily Mail did not have access to Glen Johnson's salary details, please. Did you need to contact them to find that out? Let's take your approach on this - how do you know Glen Johnson didn't tell the Mail? How do you know someone who works in accounts at LFC didn't tell the Mail? etc etc etc  
     
    Unconvinced by this justification for linking to RoM (and giving an interview to them) as well. I agree with you that both sets of supporters have been guilty of disgraceful chants and I don't condone Liverpool fans that do it - in fact I've questioned LFC fans that do it to their faces - not just on the internet.  
     
    But the fact remains that they stand by that t-shirt - and therefore don't look interested in "fostering relations" do they? So why offer them any kind of support - why not write an article tearing apart their approach to things - as you are attempting to do with SOS?  
     
    It appears you have more patience with Man United supporters who like to stir up bad feeling than you do with a pressure group that is trying to get what is best for LFC.  
     
    And what exactly does "working behind the scenes" mean? Or is it PR bullshit?  
     
    As for this point "why go to Old Trafford when United fans are chanting about Hillsborough?"   
     
    Does that need answering? I go there to support Liverpool Football Club. Something you should try doing sometime (if you are a Liverpool fan, that is.)</span>

    <span style="">
    </span>
    <hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"/>

    </div>

    ReplyDelete
  140. Why was the Republik of Mancunia link removed and my post pointing it out??

    ReplyDelete
  141. As you are recommending reading for people, here's some for you on just how offensive the word Yank is regarded these days:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080729081422AAzg3uO

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090923210038AAamkQN

    Just adding to the (mass) debate.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Jaimie, What is your opinion on Karen Gill, Bill Shankly's granddaughter, who has gone on record many times to support the Union?

    ReplyDelete
  143. I emailed you regarding meeting.  I await your response.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Yank doesn't have to be offensive. It could simply be referring to a person from the States. Chink and Dego on the other hand is offensive.

    I don't see a problem with the mantra. Its direct and true. And it is a business model to start off with. Unlike you and your proclaimed majority of the fans. If you don't like what SOS is doing, provide an alternative to the majority of the supporters you claim to be against SOS. Shouldn't be too hard, since there are more of you and people like you as compared to SOS. And I would definitely support your organisation if it proves to be more effective in improving the current state of LFC.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Yank is offensive depending on the context.  For example, if I went up to an American and said 'fcuck off you fcuking yank', the use of the word 'yank' is clearly meant in a derogatory manner.

    SOS are using Yank in a negative way; to suggest otherwise is just denial.

    And you have to consider this: it's important be fair and be SEEN to be fair.  That means SOS should not give anyone any reason to not take them seriously.

    Having such a juvenile approach makes it easy for people to not take them seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  146. I'd love to know where all the posts between 1.30pm and 7.30pm went.



    Jaimie, any idea?

    ReplyDelete
  147. Now I know you're just on the wind up.

    Stop pretending you can't see who's in the picture and stop saying that you "can't believe that GG would leave Prince Faisal alone" and that it's disrespectful, because no-one with the emotional range and social skills of a normally developed adult (which I'm sure Prince Faisal is) would think that.  I'm sure Prince Faisal would want to speak to other people associated with the club and Gillett would have looked like a fawning lickspittle if he'd followed him round like a second shadow.

    ReplyDelete
  148. But why wouldn't you want to?

    ReplyDelete
  149. What possible justification do you feel you have in asking a registered union to make changes to it's website as an exchange for you removing an innaccurate and libellous article from your personal website?

    The union is acting within the law and it's charter.  You are not acting in a manner that is fair, appropriate or legal.  Also, the union is made of elected members whereas you are frankly some bloke on the internet - who the hell do you think you are?

    ReplyDelete
  150. The word "Yank" is not seen as in any way derogatory by Americans.  I've had enough of this, you are clearly a most peculiar fellow.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Because uunless you feel the original website post is inaccurate, a transcript adds no value at all.  It would be the same words written on a piece of paper, notes which in any case could not be proved to have been taken at the meeting.

    You want a video recording of the entire thing - it's the only possible way to provide the degree of proof that you're asking for.  The fact that the vast majority of Liverpool fans (based on the proportion that use internet forums) seem to have no doubt at all as to the veracity of the account and do not require such additional proof suggest that you simply can't bring yourself to believe it.

    That's your problem Jaimie, not SOS's.

    ReplyDelete
  152. The impression of intellectual superiority that you attempt to convey is most amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  153. "why don't you serve the wider LFC fan community by posting the evidence FOR EVERYONE TO SEE?"

    At a guess, it's because unless you feel the original website post is inaccurate, a transcript adds no value at all.  It would be the same words written on a piece of paper, notes which in any case could not be proved to have been taken at the meeting. 
     
    You want a video recording of the entire thing - it's the only possible way to provide the degree of proof that you're asking for.  The fact that the vast majority of Liverpool fans (based on the proportion that use internet forums) seem to have no doubt at all as to the veracity of the account and do not require such additional proof suggest that you simply can't bring yourself to believe it. 
     
    That's your problem Jaimie, not SOS's.

    ReplyDelete
  154. I've already emailed Graham Smith re meeting up -  he has not responded yet.

    ReplyDelete
  155. As I've said elsewhere on this thread: I have emailed Graham Smith about meeting - he has not yet responded.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Sorry, you still haven't retracted or apologised and at least three of my posts have not appeared from yesterday - IT issues no doubt.

    Thanks for the email. On the basis that the lad who did the interview wants to meet to reassure you plus myself and our media officer your suggestion of London (where you are based) or Birmingham seems a little unreasonable.

    What about the next home game you attend? I don't understand your reluctance to meet in Liverpool "for obvious reasons" - what are they?

    ReplyDelete
  157. I don't think is derogatory. Again, is my opinion against yours.

    And I doubt SOS could be 100% PC and I don't see a reason why they should be. Organisations like Greenpeace, PETA, etc are way more offensive when they feel like opposing someone. Yes, they do get criticized but they are effective and growing at the same time. Getting rid of someone you hate is not going to be nice. You can't sit down and have a cup of tea with the yanks and politely tell them to perform coitus off. You have to get your hands dirty. In fact, you should thank SOS for actually getting their hands dirty when they could choose to stay back, start a site and complain in a PC tone and maybe pray that the Yanks get bored.

    ReplyDelete
  158. So quick to assume, aren't you Graham.  I am not based in London, actually, or Birmingham.

    I have no interest in meeting for 'reassurance' about this issue; I am interested in challenging your childish, adversarial, counter-productive approach to ousting the owners, and how this reflects badly on the majority of Liverpool fans.

    The fact is, SOS accounts for a miniscule minority of Liverpool fans yet, amazingly, you purport to represent ALL fans with your YANK LIARS OUT approach.

    SOS's insularity is amazing.  You have no concept of how the wider fan community views your approach. Worse still, you don't give a toss. I suspect that SOS is really only interested in what game-going Liverpool fans from Liverpool think about things, as in the minds of many SOS memebers (as displayed in my many interactions with them), the only true fans are those that go to games and are from Liverpool.

    This is f course is nonsense, but you display the same attitude in your post: 'What about the next home game you attend' as if that is the ultimate arbiter of what makes a Liverpool fan.

    It's utterly pathetic.

    And to be honest, I do not trust you or SOS to be professional about meeting in Liverpool.  With your thuggish approach to the owners and antagonistic preference for negotiation, why should I?  I have no doubt that if SOS members knew a time and place I was going to be in Liverpool there would be a nice 'welcoming party' waiting for me.

    That is why I said neutral ground.  I have given you options for meeting; you and another rep of SOS said you would meet anywhere.  Prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  159. So, let me get this straight - you are accusing me now of possibly organising something so you can be physically assaulted? Be very careful of suggestions of that type.

    Also the purpose of the meeting is solely to discuss what this whole issue is about (despite your efforts to move the goalposts) - which is you accused a member and the Union of fabricating a meeting or at best misrepresenting a meeting that took place.

    You still haven't apologised for what you now seem to accept to be the case that the meeting actually took place - why not?

    As I said on one of my "missing" posts - you need to apologise for that, but clearly you won't.

    Ok - here's a suggestion. Fulham away - 31st September. We're down on the SOS Coach for that game - how about meeting near Craven Cottage?

    ReplyDelete
  160. No - not you directly, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that my location could be leaked to others.  Clearly, there are quite a few Liverpool 'fans' who would love to have a go at me, and whilst I can defend myself one-on-one, thug and group mentality dictates that this would not be the case.

    Perhaps you are now discovering that I actually had a strategy with this post.  My overall aim was  to question SOS's way of doing things, and through this thread, I have plenty examples of SOS's insularity and worrying views about how to approach ousting the owners. The original post was merely a means to end.  What you see as 'moving the goalposts' I see as perfectly in line with my original strategy.

    And let's get one thing straight: when I originall suggested a meeting, at no point did I say 'to discuss the interview issue'.  That came from you and SOS.

    In an earlier comment, Chris stated: The meeting was offered to give you the chance to see the evidence first hand.  

    I've said it once and I'll say it again: Why don't you serve the wider LFC fan community by posting the evidence FOR EVERYONE TO SEE?  Showing it to me alone is great but I'm sure there are thousands of fans out there who would like to see the evidence for themselves.  Just because fans are not challenging SOS like me doesn't mean they are not out there. 

    And I'm still waiting for the link to Gillett's alleged comment about how he thought it was only a 'private meeting'.

    Re October 31st, I can probably do that date, so that's fine...but I'm not interested in discussing this issue. I'm interested in what I highlighted in the comment above.

    ReplyDelete
  161. I'll have a tenner on that you don't meet them. And if you do, I want proof - a transcript scanned in and posted on the internet, an MP3 file of the interview and photos of everyone at that meeting standing outside Craven Cottage holding a copy of that day's newspaper...

    ReplyDelete
  162. Once again the way you have expressed your views are outrageous. You criticise SOS for comments made about H&G yet you have printed disgusting, baseless and unfounded allegations about Steven gerrard on previous articles accusing him of being a 'rampant/shamless xenephobe'. This insult is far worse than accusing H&G if being liars. But it seems that as it is your opinion it is a fair comment - why does this not extend to anyone else?

    To compare the word 'yank' to chink and dego is shocking, Americans refer to themselves as yanks - it comes from the Uniopn soldiers who faught against the confederates in the civil war and were known as 'yankees'. It is not derogatory at all and the use of the word in the phrase you describe above, such as 'f*ck off you f*cking yank', it is the 'f*ck off' bit that is offensive and the sentiment not the word 'yank'. For some reason the accusation of xenephobe regularly crops up in your articles and responses and i find this offensive when it is completely unfounded.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Hi, I'm from Indonesia. We have fan base here, huge one. We really dont know about all your saying related to LFC. I know that you keep criticising them. But if I can ask you, when you stop criticising LFC? When our manager not Rafa someday, then you stop? You really don't like him, do you? Or, you will keep writing for negative posts for LFC until the end?

    Are you Liverpool supporter?
    When you love someone, is it fair to talking negative thing about him/her? Example, you love your Mom very much, so I'm sure you won't tell anybody about her with pure sarcasms.

    ReplyDelete
  164. it is not derogatory...it is an accepted colloquialism...jaimie trying to stir a racist argument where there is none...its is sad and dangerous and insults anyone (me) that has had to deal with actaul racism. its lucky your on the net cos the pcc and the uk equivelant of the equality tribunal would make an example. you are attempting to aggravate a situation using ethnicity and race which is illegal jaimie.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Ah, that must be what happened to my comments from yesterday than, none of which were especially complimentary but none of which crossed the boundary into abuse as far as I was aware.

    I'm particularly dismayed that the comment challenging your faux shock at the SOS poster's comparison of your methods with those of Stephen Cohen was reoved, focusing as it did on your waving Hillsborough around like a flag in order to make an entirely spurious point.

    I assume the truth hurts sufficiently that you don't wish it to be part of the public record about which you apparently harbour such strong feelings.  Censorship is a tool of repression, a fact I didn't think I'd need to explain to a journalist.

    ReplyDelete
  166. A fan can accept football illiteracy from its owners because they know the vast majority are only in it for kudos or profit.

    They can also excuse a lack of cash, if, like Bill Kenwright, they're in it mostly for love. Fans can even live with pig-headedness, aloofness and a poor knowledge of the club. But they cannot accept having the truth distorted or hidden from them.

    Which is what George Gillett, and his estranged partner in crime, have been doing for almost three years.

    This week alone, thanks to a leaked exchange with the fans group Spirit of Shankly, the former owner of Montreal Canadians ice-hockey team, came out with four statements which do not hold up to scrutiny.

    (1) "The club's debt situation is very sound." It was £44.8 million when Hicks and Gillett took over. It's now £245 million.

    (2) "It wasn't me who said we'd start building a new stadium in 60 days, it was Hicks." Check You Tube. It's you.

    (3) "We've spent £128 million on top of what's come in over the past 18 months to buy players." Rafa Benitez's net spend in that time has been £20 million.

    (4) "Liverpool is in an extraordinarily good financial position." So how come the banks have told you to find new investment, sell-up or they'll re-possess the club?

    This opportunistic, former bit-part player in a small-time North American sport has been found to be totally out of his depth in English football. His deceit merely adds insult to injury.

    As they say in ice-hockey, it's time to get the puck out of here.

    <!-- m -->

    http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion ... 84559.html
    <!-- m -->



    straight to the chase and not a red herring in site !
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
    <tbody>
    </tbody>
    </table>

    ReplyDelete
  167. You should pick up the pieces of your shattered English and grammar you bad bad attention seeker. Your website is the Talksport of Liverpool fansites, overly-opinionated and screaming "look at me". By all means express your points of view but try not to do so in a manner befitting The Sun, you're not big and you're not clever.

    ReplyDelete
  168. A lot of digital ink has been used to write about the poor management style and broken promises of the two American owners ever since they assumed ownership of Liverpool Football Club. I don't mean to go over old ground, we all know that based on what we have seen so far the club would have been far more successful without them. But it's clear they are not interested in Liverpool winning trophies, only in making a profit. It's a management style indicative of American businessmen, it's a style called "Spreadsheet Management ". Success is based on how much profit you make, not on how many trophies you win. It's all about 'Return on Investment'. This management style will dictate whether a new stadium is built, how much Rafa is given to spend on players and how much tickets cost.
    The reality is if Liverpool finished 2nd or 3rd in the Premiership for the next five years and did well in the Champions League without winning it, Hicks & Gillett would consider this success due to the revenues generated by television and gate receipts. They will never admit this and will only communicate their commitment to the success of the club in carefully crafted press releases written by their Public Relations firm.
    <div id="more" class="asset-more">

    If a 3-5 year Strategic Business Plan has been developed for Liverpool FC by Managing Director Christian Purslow, and it should have been, I guarantee you winning trophies is not the number one priority. The number one's will be about maximizing profit and reducing expenditure. Don't get me wrong, of course the club needs to be financially stable, but if it means making less profit in order to put a quality team on the pitch and win as many trophies as possible, that gets my vote.

    To further support this thinking a recent article in 'The Independent' reveals there was a prospectus published in March by investment banks Rothschild and Merrill Lynch to attract potential investors to Liverpool that stated that net summer spending will be locked in at £20m until 2014. This includes wage increases from contract renewals. There is a section in the prospectus that talks about "player transfer payments" which states "Management believes that the normalised long-run level of new net player capital expenditure is £20m." See what I mean about "Spreadsheet Management"?
    When you compare the ownership of Liverpool versus Chelsea or Manchester City there is one fundamental difference. Abramovich and Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan are prepared to loose money or make less profit in order to make their "hobby" club successful. To them it's all about winning trophies, not making as much money as possible. But that's not the case with Hicks and Gillett, to them it's all about making money.
    I love Liverpool but I fear for the future of the club under the current ownership. If given a second chance, David Moores would never have sold his shares to Hicks & Gillett, that is for certain, as I'm convinced he loves Liverpool too.
    I don't have an answer to this dilemma but a club owned by the supporters, as proposed by ShareLiverpoolFC makes more and more sense every day.

    well written piece off the liverpool banter site
    </div>

    ReplyDelete
  169. Hey, Jaimie.

    Watch the mainstream Liverpool websites and the SOS site. That made up interview with Gillett is being launched in the next few hours - any chance of that retraction and apology now?

    ReplyDelete
  170. Why not? Surely the whole of your original article is undermined and proved to be a completely inaccurate opinion?

    I would have thought anyone with an ounce of credibility would just say:

    "Listen lads I had a view, it was wrong and I apologise for the accusations. You can trust me in the future because when I am wrong you'll get me to put it right and apologise, not to hold on to discredited views that merely make anything else I might opine upon doubtful"

    Simple and the grown up thing to do. But if you can't then let this post remain to underline you're relationship with honour and the truth are as close as the owners' relationship is.

    Hugley revealing about your credibility and honour.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Why not?

    Surely anyone with an ounce of credibility would say:

    "Listen lads, I made a mistake. I had an opinion that has been proved to be completely wrong despite me trying to hold on to the opinion I can see now I was wrong. I am apologising and retracting the allegation so you can be sure that in the future if I make a mistake I will admit to it like any honourable a and reasonable person would do"

    On the basis I have posted this message once already and it has been deleted maens you don't believe in free speech either?

    Come on Jaimie, man up.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Why not?

    Surely anyone with an ounce of credibility would say:

    "Listen lads, I made a mistake. I had an opinion that has been proved to be completely wrong despite me trying to hold on to the opinion I can see now I was wrong. I am apologising and retracting the allegation so you can be sure that in the future if I make a mistake I will admit to it like any honourable and reasonable person would do"

    On the basis I have posted this message once already and it has been deleted means you don't believe in free speech either?

    Come on Jaimie, man up.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Graham - I will leave your post up and issue a retraction when Spirit of Shankly changes their approach and drops the ridiculous 'Yanks Out' line.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Why not?

    Surely anyone with an ounce of credibility would say:

    "Listen lads, I made a mistake. I had an opinion that has been proved to be completely wrong despite me trying to hold on to the opinion I can see now I was wrong. I am apologising and retracting the allegation so you can be sure that in the future if I make a mistake I will admit to it like any honourable and reasonable person would do"

    On the basis I have posted this message *edit* now three times already and it has been deleted means you don't believe in free speech either?

    Come on Jaimie, man up.

    ReplyDelete
  175. The two are completely unrelated as anyone can see - you're using your hobbyhorse to avoid doing what every right thinking person would do.

    You keep deleting my posts, I'll keep posting them.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Jamie why do you keep on deleting Graham's posts showing the proof you wanted that the meeting took place. We will be having more videos out in days to come as well.

    Here you go Jamie

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHBcVVfQ2x8

    I await the retraction.

    ReplyDelete
  177. As I've explained: my main motivation in posting the original article was bring certain SOS members onto the site so I could capture their views on certain things, namely a Xenophobic campain against the owners.  As I offered at the time and stated yesterday: When SOS change their counter-productive approach and remove all xenophobic references from their site, then I will post a retraction.  SOS makes every Liverpool fan like yobs with their juvenile approach.

    ReplyDelete
  178. More posts deleted Jaimie, what happened to free speech?

    ReplyDelete