Out In The Cold
By Sandra Ireland
From Issue 46, Spring 2000
I am a shareholder. The behaviour of the Liverpool
Board shames me. It acts in my name, and what
it does is just the same as if I were doing it
myself. How would you feel if persons you trusted
to act on your behalf had, without your knowledge
and certainly without your consent, behaved shamefully
towards a respected, honoured group of people
who had already suffered much?
I hope you never find out, but I did in March
1999 when I was horrified to discover that the
Board of LFC were totally refusing to deal with
or even acknowledge the Hillsborough Justice Campaign.
That stance is a continual source of distress
to bereaved families and survivors who see, in
the H.J.C., an organisation that they feel gives
them the kind of help and support they so badly
need. In October 1998, members of the H.J.C. met
with Rick Parry to ask for recognition. They have
had neither response nor acknowledgement from
him or our club. I was so appalled that I wrote
and spoke to Peter Robinson and Rick Parry, asking
that the matter be referred to the Board. In May
1999, Mr Parry confirmed that the Board had decided
to continue to ignore the H.J.C., while again
not having the decency to advise them of this
stance.
I could not believe that this shameful decision
would be acceptable to other shareholders and
I was determined to raise the matter at the Annual
General Meeting. On a freezing cold December evening,
Steve Dooling (a survivor) and John Glover (a
bereaved father) stood outside Anfield, handing
out leaflets asking shareholders to persuade the
Board to deal decently with the H.J.C. It is sad
that only ten years after Hillsborough, our club
has no qualms whatsoever in freezing out a survivor
and a bereaved father - indeed, reducing them
to standing outside like outcasts or beggars,
braving the elements.
At the AGM, Peter Robinson answered on behalf
of our club. And what an answer it was; astonishingly,
on what anyone would surely understand to be a
sensitive issue, his manner was aggressive, offensive
and brutally dismissive. He said that this was
not an appropriate matter for the AGM, and that
our club could not be dealing with groups which
were "springing up all over the place".
He said they could not deal with two groups that
had similar or overlapping views, and in any case
he could not understand why the Family Support
Group had split and why there had to be two groups
anyway!
I felt I had to interrupt this flow of arrogant
nonsense. I told him this was precisely an appropriate
matter for the AGM, because it reflected on the
good name of all shareholders and of our club.
It was ridiculous to suggest that groups were
springing up all over the place - this was clearly
untrue, since there are only two. He knew perfectly
well why the FSG split: because the Straw/Stuart
Smith whitewash was the last straw for people
who had long been calling for a proactive stance.
He also knows full well that the two groups could
not happily blend back together because the FSG
had expelled the H.J.C.'s founder members! As
for saying Liverpool FC was incapable of dealing
with organisations of similar or overlapping views,
they do this routinely every day as part of their
normal business. In recent years, Liverpool games
have been screened live by the BBC, ITV, Channel
5, SKY, Eurosport and numerous foreign networks
- apparently, they can deal with different groups
if there's money involved………
Ignoring all of this, Robinson blithely restated
the Club's position and, after a somewhat stunned
silence, David Moores moved the meeting hastily
on. No comment, no explanation. Despite Moores,
Robinson and the rest of the Board clearly hoping
the matter would go away, I was delighted to discover
after the meeting that the views I expressed were
shared by so many other shareholders present.
I was with two members of the H.J.C., Sheila Coleman
and the chairman Kevin Robinson, and throughout
the remainder of the evening we were continuously
approached by shareholders expressing their concern
at the situation and their support for the H.J.C.
- two were also survivors and they were particularly
upset at the Board's stance.
Why has the present situation arisen? Why is the
Board behaving so badly? All the H.J.C. are after
is an avenue of dialogue with the club, space
in the programme from time to time and basically
to receive the same treatment that is afforded
to the FSG. Oh, and a signed football - the club
couldn't even give them that when asked. As several
shareholders said, somewhat incredulously, "Is
that all?!" Yes, that's all - not a lot really,
is it? Our club's rejection wounds and distresses
members of the H.J.C. deeply. Its acceptance would
mean a great deal. There is no difference between
the bereaved of the FSG and the bereaved of the
H.J.C. - they have all lost the people they loved.
Why should only one group be welcome at Anfield?
In October 1998, Rick Parry maintained Liverpool's
impartiality; this does not square with the Board's
current stance.
The H.J.C. have never asked our club for money
- they are self-financed, well-run and well-managed.
Volunteers do all this. They have a large and
growing membership. They do proven excellent work.
They have never insulted or attacked our club.
I have heard nothing but silly and fatuous excuses
from Rick Parry or Peter Robinson, and I am at
a loss to understand why the Board has got itself
into this position or what good they think it
does our club. Peter Robinson has stated his concerns
about the H.J.C. being "political" (whatever
that may mean) - does that really excuse their
refusal to deal with them? I seem to recall that
at one of the Memorial Services at Anfield, Trevor
Hicks said the Family Support Group intended to
"remain within the political arena".
Indeed, Phil Hammond once threatened to stand
against George Howarth in Knowsley in protest
at the Scrutiny/Whitewash. Since the FSG has on
more than one occasion declared itself to be "political",
and our club maintains a supportive relationship
with them, why is this a perceived obstacle to
a similar relationship with the H.J.C.?
What happens now? Well, after the AGM many angry
shareholders said they would be contacting our
club. David Moores said the Board would be discussing
the issue again, so let's wait and see! What can
you do? You could contact the H.J.C. or even join
them - all are welcome. You could contact our
club and tell them what you think. I know I've
used that phrase throughout this article but that's
what it is: our club. Board members come and go,
but supporters are supporters for life. We are
its' lifeblood and it ours'. Why should we allow
any Bereaved Families or Survivors, who still
suffer from injustices inflicted by those outside
Anfield, to suffer more pain from further injustices
inflicted by those inside Anfield?
|
