Another (potential) PR disaster for Gillette/Hicks

[Salop]

I sincerely hope somebody at LFC is penning a cheque to Luton Town for Liverpool's share of the gate receipts as we speak, otherwise the club's new owners are opening themselves up for another potential panning by the British press.

For those that are unaware of what I'm talking about, LFC were expected to give their share of the gate receipts of today's game (a drop in the ocean to the Reds but a tidy sum to cash strapped Luton Town) to their opponents, due to the League One club's dire financial situation. It's one of the many "unwritten rules" of English football, "British fair play" and all that :D.

I don't know exactly whose decision it will have been to withold their share of the gate receipts, but the Americans are certain to take the brunt of it, as the whole thing smacks of an unpleasant cultural faux pas. Any of you that post on LFC forums or are members of the club or whatever should make your feelings known on the subject. I really think it would be a good gesture if they were to reverse the decision and it would certainly be a bad move for the club, PR-wise, not to do so.

[LiverpoolFanatic]

Link?

[The Jitty Slitter]

Link?

its in all the UK dailys

[Salop]

Here are some links relating to the news story (apologies for untidy links):

http://http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2008/0105/luton_liverpool.html

http://http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/2008/01/05/luton-beg-kop-for-cash-89520-20275347/

http://http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2008/01/liverpools-coldhearted-luton-snub-is.html

http://http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2235807,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=5

It has also been mentioned on today's BBC 5Live FA Cup coverage and during the highlights shown at half time on BBC 1's coverage of the Stoke - Newcastle game.

[revelationx]

Liverpool have no obligation to pay our share of gate money to LTFC. Similarly Liverpool will allow LTFC to keep their half of the gate money at Anfield. LTFC had an administration in which corruption was evident enough for their manager to publicly comment on and for which he was eventually sacked. Their previous Chairman and his corrupt dealings have landed LTFC in such a plight. It is not Liverpool who are responsible for this situation and nor should it be spun as such.

Will Shrewsbury play LTFC next season at their own expense? I am guessing not.

Liverpool should not be responsible for the financial woes of LTFC, Leeds, Fiorentina, Parma or other clubs. To imply otherwise is merely evidence of an anti-Liverpool agenda.

[Salop]

Liverpool have no obligation to pay our share of gate money to LTFC. Similarly Liverpool will allow LTFC to keep their half of the gate money at Anfield. LTFC had an administration in which corruption was evident enough for their manager to publicly comment on and for which he was eventually sacked. Their previous Chairman and his corrupt dealings have landed LTFC in such a plight. It is not Liverpool who are responsible for this situation and nor should it be spun as such.

Will Shrewsbury play LTFC next season at their own expense? I am guessing not.

Liverpool should not be responsible for the financial woes of LTFC, Leeds, Fiorentina, Parma or other clubs. To imply otherwise is merely evidence of an anti-Liverpool agenda.

Anti-Liverpool agenda? WTF? And what in God's name have Leeds, Parma and Fiorentina got to do with anything? You can't possibly lump those club's financial plight in with Luton's.

If we end up in the same division as Luton next season then, yes, we will play them at our own expense at Kenilworth Road as gate receipts are no longer split between the hosts and the visitors for league fixtures.

A couple of points to take into account here regarding your utterly ludicrous comparison:

1. Shrewsbury Town are already at the top of Luton Town's creditors list as we are owed £300,000 for the transfer of Davey Edwards at the end of last seson. We've currently received nothing from them.

2. £100,000 is enough to pay our entire squad's wages for a month. The same figure wouldn't even cover Gerrard or Torres's wages for a week.

The fact is that Liverpool can more than afford to give this money away. Most big clubs do it when they play away to smaller clubs in the FA Cup, particularly if the smaller club is in trouble financially. It was clubs like Liverpool who petitioned the league to get rid of the 50/50 split of gate receipts in the league in the first place (thereby making it inestimably harder for smaller clubs to compete) so it's a bit much of them to begrudge Luton this money.

Also, the corrupt running of Luton Town has absolutely zilch to do with this. The club's finances are now in the hands of administrators whose job it is to ensure that income is distributed legally and creditors are paid off fairly. Luton Town's players haven't been paid in 9 weeks. These aren't overpaid prima donnas who earn more in a week than most do in a year. These are ordinary guys with mortgages, bills to pay and kids to feed. This money wouldn't go to paying bungs or corrupt dealings, it would go towards those guys' living. Surely even the most hard hearted Premiership fan can't begrudge people like that the right to eat?

[ChanceTheDog]

I didn't hear Luton asking for a change of venue (Anfield) which would have given them alot more money.

[Salop]

I hate to say this, but you don't seem to have a very good understanding of what the FA Cup means to people in this country. Of course Luton didn't ask for a change of venue for purely financial reasons. It would have been undignified to do so and would have gone against the spirit of the FA Cup and of the sport itself. Besides, I doubt very much that the FA would have allowed them to do so (the only situation in which a venue switch is acceptable is if the home side's ground is ajudged to be of too low a standard to host the tie) To give you an idea of "the spirit of the FA Cup", Chase Town FC, an amateur club, raised £50,000 in sponsorship to upgrade their Scholar's Ground stadium for their 3rd Round tie with Cardiff City, £50,000 which they could ill afford to spend but they did it for the fans and to preserve the reputation of the club.

Liverpool had a very simple role to play in all of this, and they failed to fulfill it. Requests such as the one Luton Town made are standard practise in English football. I can't be bothered to go into the reasons why AGAIN because, quite simply, if you can't understand it then you clearly have no respect for the traditions and culture of our national game.

[liverbird]

I am sure this is one of those things that the Yanks don't get because I don't get it. Like Chance says, they could have asked to play at Anfield and got more money. But they wanted it both ways -- get all the money and play on their tight, crap ground in hope of an upset. In actuality all the money is TV money and I am sure the Yanks don't get why they should split the money. Frankly, this is another bit where I blame Parry. Presumably this is what they pay him for, to understand the mores of the natives.

[liverbird]

I hate to say this, but you don't seem to have a very good understanding of what the FA Cup means to people in this country. Of course Luton didn't ask for a change of venue for purely financial reasons. It would have been undignified to do so and would have gone against the spirit of the FA Cup and of the sport itself. Besides, I doubt very much that the FA would have allowed them to do so (the only situation in which a venue switch is acceptable is if the home side's ground is ajudged to be of too low a standard to host the tie) To give you an idea of "the spirit of the FA Cup", Chase Town FC, an amateur club, raised £50,000 in sponsorship to upgrade their Scholar's Ground stadium for their 3rd Round tie with Cardiff City, £50,000 which they could ill afford to spend but they did it for the fans and to preserve the reputation of the club.

Liverpool had a very simple role to play in all of this, and they failed to fulfill it. Requests such as the one Luton Town made are standard practise in English football. I can't be bothered to go into the reasons why AGAIN because, quite simply, if you can't understand it then you clearly have no respect for the traditions and culture of our national game.

If you are correct on the choice of ground I will still stick with the rest of my comments. I am sure to a Texas capitalist like Hicks the money surrender would sound silly. Should be Parry's job to tell him "the traditions and culture of [y]our national game".

But let me see how this works? Did Arsenal give half their money to Burnley? Everton to Oldham? Is the criteria that you have had criminal and incompetent financial leadership and then you get all the money??? How do your traditions work?

[revelationx]

Anti-Liverpool agenda? WTF? And what in God's name have Leeds, Parma and Fiorentina got to do with anything? You can't possibly lump those club's financial plight in with Luton's.

If we end up in the same division as Luton next season then, yes, we will play them at our own expense at Kenilworth Road as gate receipts are no longer split between the hosts and the visitors for league fixtures.

A couple of points to take into account here regarding your utterly ludicrous comparison:

1. Shrewsbury Town are already at the top of Luton Town's creditors list as we are owed £300,000 for the transfer of Davey Edwards at the end of last seson. We've currently received nothing from them.

2. £100,000 is enough to pay our entire squad's wages for a month. The same figure wouldn't even cover Gerrard or Torres's wages for a week.

The fact is that Liverpool can more than afford to give this money away. Most big clubs do it when they play away to smaller clubs in the FA Cup, particularly if the smaller club is in trouble financially. It was clubs like Liverpool who petitioned the league to get rid of the 50/50 split of gate receipts in the league in the first place (thereby making it inestimably harder for smaller clubs to compete) so it's a bit much of them to begrudge Luton this money.

Also, the corrupt running of Luton Town has absolutely zilch to do with this. The club's finances are now in the hands of administrators whose job it is to ensure that income is distributed legally and creditors are paid off fairly. Luton Town's players haven't been paid in 9 weeks. These aren't overpaid prima donnas who earn more in a week than most do in a year. These are ordinary guys with mortgages, bills to pay and kids to feed. This money wouldn't go to paying bungs or corrupt dealings, it would go towards those guys' living. Surely even the most hard hearted Premiership fan can't begrudge people like that the right to eat?

You are displaying an anti-Liverpool agenda by continuing to criticize Liverpool for not financially supporting Luton. LFC have no duty or responsibility to forgo their share of gate receipts. Similarly Liverpool have no obligation to bail out Leeds or anyother club who through mismanagement and corruption have gone bankrupt. Luton Town are the club that have failed to meet their financial obligations not Liverpool. Luton are bankrupt because they have signed players on wages that the club cannot afford, coupled with corruption in the board and financial irregularities in dealing with numerous transfers in recent years. Your anguish at the plight at the club should be directed towards those issues rather than attempting to criticise Liverpool who have not acted inappropriately.

It is Luton who have signed players on an average salary of £60,000 per year despite not being able to support such wages. It is not Liverpool who have behaved dishonestly and corruptly. It is not Liverpool who have sacked their manager for attempting to air the corrupt practices at board level. It is not Liverpool who have an obligation to meet the wages of the Luton employees. It would be nice for Liverpool to donate money to Luton Town and help them out. They can afford it. However they have no obligation to do so and your attempts to imply such here are misplaced and stink of an agenda.

I don't begrudge Luton the money but the fact is they are not entitled to it. Any donation made by Liverpool is up to the club. There is no obligation there. In addition it would be inappropriate to anounce the existence of a financial gift to Luton before the tie was concluded as this would smack of bribery.

As for the Press, they will continue to criticise Rafa, the club and the new owners regardless of any actions taken, statements made or the facts of the matter. The truth and the Press rarely coincide.

I have no wish for misfortune for Luton Town Football Club at all. It is they who have got themselves into a mess and they should not expect Liverpool to bail them out.

[CCSC_STRIKER20]

I am sure this is one of those things that the Yanks don't get because I don't get it. Like Chance says, they could have asked to play at Anfield and got more money. But they wanted it both ways -- get all the money and play on their tight, crap ground in hope of an upset. In actuality all the money is TV money and I am sure the Yanks don't get why they should split the money. Frankly, this is another bit where I blame Parry. Presumably this is what they pay him for, to understand the mores of the natives.

Wouldn't this decision be made by Parry and not by H and G anyways? I blame Parry, like always.

[Grinners89]

Wouldn't this decision be made by Parry and not by H and G anyways? I blame Parry, like always.

Given that Rafa is the face of the club and he WILL take a lot of the bs from the media...if all this is true...does it seem like Parry is trying to get Rafa sacked, because it certainly seems like that to me.

[Twenty26Six]

This thread is BS, and it's being shut down. Slag us off in the prem forums.

If Luton was concerned, they wouldn't have tried to beat us at home. They would have asked for a switch of venue.