THE HJC is aware of an amendment to the new 2012/13 kit, which has recently been launched. The group has noted that the Hillsborough flames and “96” will now appear on the back of the shirt “after consultation with family members”.
No bereaved families involved with the HJC were contacted or consulted. Indeed, the first time we became aware of this was via the Supporters’ Committee minutes of their March meeting.
Once again LFC has chosen to ignore the HJC and their families. The continued refusal of the club to acknowledge the HJC is insensitive, divisive and deplorable. 96 is more than a number. LFC would do well to remember that.
who is the go-between at LFC… didn’t it used to be Brian Hall, who has now left..???
I like the new shirt. And the return to the old logo. But consulting the families would have been appropriate. Whether they would have agreed to the relocation of the flame and 96 at all is another matter. Not looking likely from their responses so far. That may have been the reason behind not consulting HJC. Seems this is a strategic decision of the club to move forward with the tragedy. You can’t forever live with the grief. Is it an own goal Or more like a catch 22 situation, i dont know. Can’t help but think it will get totally politicised. If this happens who knows were it will end.
I do worry a bit about the tone of the comments from the HJC. The content of much of what they say is valid but the way it’s expressed could be better.
Who wrote this? Why is it not on the official HJC Website?
Doesn’t seem official at all.
This just comes across as whiny, bitchy and completely unnecessary. In my eyes this is shows respect from LFC to the families.
“The continued refusal of the club to acknowledge the HJC is insensitive, divisive and deplorable. 96 is more than a number. LFC would do well to remember that.”
Makes me sick how they portray Liverpool not to give a fuck.
With all due respect to those affected by the avoidable attrocity at Hillsborough, why should they be consulted on Liverpool FCs new football kit?
OK, I’m going to take my life in my hands and comment here.
It does sound to me like the club has done this with the best of intentions, however clumsily, and some good should surely come of it.
It sounds to me like people need to get round a table and initiate some dialogue (no, it’s never too late, nor is it wrong to keep trying). Perhaps some kind of arbitration is required in this particular case?
It is simply too sad for words that there exists this bitter divide between two parties that should have THE closest working relationship, as a result of a tragedy which continues to effect the lives of many many people associated with the football club and on it’s peripheries.
I hope the club will take the comments by HJC in the correct spirit, and make this right, and I hope HJC will be open to any efforts made in that direction.
As a lifelong Liverpool supporter, I would suggest the events of this season have tested many loyalties, and frayed more than a few nerves, but I have never heard any kind of defeatism from true fans. I look forward to brighter days for all of us, not least all those affected by the Hillsborough disaster.
It’s not the first time I hear that LFC and HJC isn’t collaborating. And that is absurd. Why is that? And what is done to change that?
Am I the only person who thinks that the fact the number ’96’ is now on the shirt gives it more prominence?
The integration of the Hillsborough flame onto the crest was fantastic and exactly what should have been done for the last 20 years. However a whole new generation of Liverpool fans have grown up across the world (thanks to the EPL and Sky) these will unfortunately be unaware of the additional detail to the crest in the 90’s and its significance.
These shirts, due to be sold in their thousands worldwide, will now all feature two flames – larger than before – and the number ’96’.
Fans of Liverpool, or just of football, will hopefully recognise this deliberate design detail and curiosity will lead them to finding out the message behind it. Ultimately this can only lead to understanding, sympathy and support for the HJC.
The flames are still present.
It was insincere to move them without consulting the HJC.
Inclusion of the ’96’ is a big step forward.
The club crest will return once this ‘retro’ cycle of shirts ends.
I continue to be confused and disappointed by the clubs refusal to ackowledge the HJC in any way.
Has the club ever outlined the reasoning behind their stance? If so i’ve never seen it.
The Clubs attitude stinks….the memorial flame should be worn over the heart not stuck on the back of the collar
At the end of the day, the club are trying to do a good thing by commemorating and honouring the 96 on the new kit. I think it’s a really nice touch.
I don’t see how it’s necessary for the HJC to be so aggressive and negative in their statement because they weren’t invited to the party. The important thing here is that we remember those who died, and any attempt to do so should be welcomed and not slated like this.
I think that fact that the 96 are given a space on the shirt is commendable and a better gesture than just the standard badge with the flames.
The HJC does great work and should be acknowledged by the club but this post is completely unnecessary and overly negative.
Maybe it’s because I’ll never fully understand the pain they have suffered, but I really do not see what the issue is here. I could understand if this was like the t-shirts that went on sale that used the 96 as a saleable asset like the image of Gerrard or something. This is a discrete and respectable tribute in my humble opinion.
Keep up the good fight but I can’t help but feel this battle is one that doesn’t need to be fought.
They say the 96 is more than just a number. Well the 96 is more than just the HJC. Any attempt to raise awareness or honour the tragedy should be appreciated, even if it doesn’t involve them.
We’re all on the same side.
Have to say that while i have the utmost respect for the HJC, i can’t understand them coming out with such a damning statement over what is effectively LFC further highlighting their cause by giving the flames more prominence and adding 96 to the jersey. Can’t see why the families would have a problem with it and to suggest the club should have consulted all he families seems unrealistic, even in a basic logistical sense. Maybe the club have made a slight bags of it by not dealing directly with HJC but then again, that is a specific campaign for justice rather than remembrance.
Think the vast majority of LFC fans are very happy to see the 96 remembered in a more prominent way and i don’t understand why HJC are making a big deal out of what is essentially a well intentioned gesture from LFC which they have ‘no problem with’ but rather a problem with the way it was carried out. Seems over the top.
Nah ..but you wouldn’t…you weren’t there and don’t know JS about JS
Really like the kit design and the return to the Liverbird and LFC crest. Think it’s a nice touch specifying the eternal flames and 96 seperate to the usual club crest, gives it more importance – although I would have preferred it to be slap bang in the center of the chest area, not on the back. Anyone who isn’t happy can do what I’m doing though and have YNWA as the name on the shirt and 96 as the number, can’t make it more prominent than that!
Thanks for my new kit idea. Rock on
People are so keen to think badly of their club.
Margaret Aspinall from the Hillsborough Family Support Group on the new kit:
“We had a meeting with LFC, they came along to the HFSG for the simple reason that we are the vast majority of bereaved families.
“We had a full committee meeting with the club and all agreed to it, we chose the design. They had a few different designs and we were all happy with it.
“It might upset some bereaved families, but it is very, very difficult to please everyone.
“As long as the two flames and ’96’ were there, we were happy. The club couldn’t do anything else.”
Margaret Aspinall is not the voice of everyone…Has EVERY bereaved family been consulted or only the media friendly????? taking the flame off the badge is disrespectful…
Nor is the HJC the voice of everyone.
Those flames are Liverpool FC’s own iconography commemorating the disaster not the HJC’s.
So many comments spectacularly missing the point.
The HJC aren’t complaining about the new kit design or the fact that they weren’t consulted. They are highlighting the fact that the club stated the families of the 96 were consulted about the changes – understandably given the re-siting of the tribute to them – whereas the HJC, which represents many of the families, we’re not consulted at all.
So it is misleading of the club to suggest otherwise, and certainly makes me wonder why they would suggest it and further, question again why the club doesn’t recognise / engage with the HJC.
And if that shows the club in a bad light – which it surely must – people would be better asking the club questions instead of having a pop at the HJC.
Perhaps the issue that most LFC fans have trouble comprehending is that there are more than one group representing the families. I don’t know the difference between the HJC and the HFSG, and I will now do some research to find out – is it possible that the higher echelons of the club are unaware that there is a difference, particularly given the multiple changes at that level over the last few years.
The HFSG statement says that they represent “the vast majority” of the families – as such, it would make sense for FSG/Warrior to contact them. But the reasons that they haven’t discussed it with the HJC are only known by the club, and I would like to think that it is an ignorant mistake, rather than a calculated slight on the HJC.
Simply – no it is not possible that the higher echelons of the club are not aware that the HJC are separate to the HFSG.
I dont pretend to know why the club recognises one group above the other, but they’re well aware of both.
Perhaps, things will change following the departure of Mr. Cotton? There seem to have been many mistakes which can be laid at his table this season.
Regardless of the club’s mistake, it should have been kept in house. The statement seems like public airing of grievance. We LFC are constantly airing our dirty laundry in public. Like Deja vu really. But, i agree the club is negligent here. I am getting JFT and 96 in my Jersey numbers. Who says the number in the back is irrelevant.
So, ‘they were asked, we weren’t’, let’s have a good whinge about it. Small and petty from the HJC.
I think that is a point entirely well made.
Whether or not the bereaved families were consulted or not, the campaign for justice goes on and the memory of those who lost their lives will never be forgotten. Let’s not get bogged down by the negativity that this story is starting to trend. We have a new shirt from a new kit manufacturer and that’s the story. We want justice from the judiciary not from LFC.
or to be more accurate, Bob, the club should have said they had consulted the HFSG about the changes to the club badge – and not the families of the 96 – as they clearly didn’t.
The HJC merely pointing clarifying that weren’t consulted hardly comes across as ‘petty’, ‘small’ and as a ‘good whinge’.
This snippet from the BBC sport website makes it sound like the families are moaning that they were not consulted about moving the flames:
“…… but the decision not to consult some families over the decision to move the symbol honouring the dead, has angered many.”
I think this may be causing a lot of confusion.
This statement comes across not as families unhappy but as a group feeling like they have had their pride insulted. Despite my utmost respect for the fantastic work they have done, this really hasn’t given me a good impression of the group and I’m worried others outside of Liverpool will see it that way.
I’ll be honest I am concerned that this is a precursor to removing the flames and such from the shirt, at which point there will be a problem. In the meantime I’m confident the club have been respectful here.
How could they mate.
Can you imagine the shitstorm if they did.
I was unaware that the HFSG don’t represent all the families, and it would be interesting to hear why the families that align themselves with the HJC chose to go that way rather than with the majority. After all, it’s not like 2 different unions with collective bargaining agreements: what do they get from the HJC that they don’t get from the HFSG, who were after all the group formed in the immediate aftermath of the disaster?
“Design by committee” is never an easy job – it’s something I’ve had experience with in the past when it comes to sport kit. Too many voices all demanding to be heard. This bit going here, that bit under no circumstances going there. And you end up with a coalition of a kit that nobody wanted. At least the club spoke with the group representing the majority.
If the HJC *had* been consulted as well as the HFSG, how would their differences have been resolved? If by a vote, would it have to be some kind of block vote, split by the proportions of the families? God I’d hope not :-(
You never get a kit that pleases everybody, but it’s a shame that this shirt – which has generally had a positive reception, especially for this particular feature – should get such an angry response from some of the people it’s supposed to honour.
And you can hear it now. “Look at the Scousers – they’re even fighting over how to honour their dead.” :-(
Perhaps the club din’t consult with HJC because of shit like this? To besmirch the clubs name and the grand unveiling of our new kit by our new supplier does more dishonor to the memory than not consulting with ‘all’ the families but only the ‘majority’.
If you felt aggrieved, keep it in-house and have a word with the club. All you’ve done is sully our name in the press and that for me out-of-order.
What the statement also doesn’t say is that the HFSG *were* consulted. Because if it did say that then it would look even pettier.
As an aside, was it therefore the HFSG who organised the “Justice” mosaic and 6 minutes of chanting when we played Arsenal in the FA Cup back in 2007? Because I assumed it was the HJC, but that would be difficult if they’re not recognised…
The arrogance of the HJC and other such groups is unreal. Of course it was an awful happening, but you don’t have eternal creative say in what is a global brand. There are millions of LFC fans, and you don’t suddenly get to dictate how the club operates.
If anything I’d say LFC already do so much, and it’s insulting to suggest they’re not caring unless they hand over control of the club to third parties.
Plus it only serves to increase the ‘self-pity city’ tag, which sees others seeing us a sympathy-seeking, grief-embracing fools.
Might be a good idea to let people like/dislike comments. So many good reasoned comments on here. I myself like the new kit and feel that the 96 at the back gives a new prominence. It does not do us any good getting headlines like new kit controversy, infighting does indeed besmirch us all. We all want justice but please HJC moderate the tone and consider how we are viewed by others, we need to unify not divide.
Staggering the amount of people totally missing the point here, absolutely nothing to do with the design change.
And in regards to the HJC contacting the club directly, does anyone really think they haven’t tried countless times already?
Andy, perhaps you could expand on how many families the HJC represent? Are there other families not associated with either group?
You say that many of us commenting here are “totally missing the point”, yet you don’t quantify (for want of a better word) how much of a claim you have.
If the HFSG represented 49 families and the HJC represented 47, then we would be more likely to agree with you. Whereas if the HFSG spoke for 94 while the HJC spoke for 2, then I think you would be accused of overstating your case. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.
Andy, yes a number of people have missed the point with it not being about kit design (initiallyI was one of them) but now that this is in the public domain the public perception is one of in-fighting, division and whinging. I for one was not aware that the club has refused to acknowledge HJC, maybe if this position was explained better we would see a more sympathetic, understanding response from people.
Is this “the straw that broke the camels back” with regards to how HJC have been treated by the club? forcing this public statement, I admittedly know little about HJC and their history with the club, so I am unaware if this is a relationship that has soured or never existed. But for the record, regardless of any (problems) between the club and HJC, to be made aware of the changes via supporters committee minutes is deplorable.
I was wondering whether LFC consulted the larger Hillsborough Support Group for its opinions on the change, got these but when the person who wrote the press release did it, put in the ‘spoken to the families’ line rather than a ‘We consulted x’ line?.
Sadly its just provided the press with another internal fighting at LFC story.
Great. More shit we can disagree on. Have we not had enough of this in the last 4 years? FFS