Fitzhugh Fella

That has really angered me - desribing the marchers as young kids is very patronising and reminds me when Branfoot made a similar remark when referring to the car park protests. Wotte and Lowe are perfect bedfellows - both out of touch and arrogant.

I bet no one will ever own up to buying one of those Wilde T shirts now, let alone ever wear it again. If I could get my hands on one I'd love to give it to Jonah as a Christmas present. Perhaps get Mikey to sign it.

Sorry, I was discussing my info with someone who knows more about the repercussions of administration and it was his view that this would probably be the end of the club. Perhaps I should not have combined the two bits of info in one post or at least made made it clearer that b does not neccesarily follow a in this case. I understand what you meant now.

was not posting misleading info - merely passing on what came from an absolute impeccable source. I have no idea what happens next if we go into the prophesised administration, true, but should that have stopped me posting?

Thats actually quite funny, Frank

Can't answer the question really - I have no real knowledge of these sorts of things, perhaps someone else?

And I think you can vouch for my source, Ron?

Unfortunately I have to be careful because I don't want to drop anyone in it. Based on what I have recently been told I think the club is now only a whisker away from going under and although this liklihood has been speculated upon in depth on this forum, I think the major players have now accepted the inevitable. And that could well mean, in this financial climate, the end of SFC. It is that serious. And please don't let anyone believe that the club would once again arise from the ashes of administration because, in the present climate the chances of us emulating Leeds or even P*mpey are remote. Hope that is spelt out less theatrically for you? So not much point us all arguing about the merits of Lowe, Crouch and Wilde any more.

And Ron - I gather the end could well be nigh, from what a little birdie told me today. Am I correct in saying the next board meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday, which would be 3 weeks after the last one?

Didn't he used to drink in the Fitzhugh?

Mark - I have already said I did not ask for him to apologise - I asked him to accept responsibility. There is a difference. However at no stage, ever before, have Rupert and I ever had a conversation about apologies or responsibility and I was not aware he had ever totally held his hands up to the fans or shareholders and said I take responsibility for this mess. I was giving him the chance. As for MC, Mark - you just can't hack it can you. Why don't you ask Rupert how he used to act in her company. I presume you know him? Instead of bemoaning the fact that his boorish behaviour has given me an opportunity to criticise him on this forum why don't you find out just what sort of things Rupert does when people don't do as he wants - go on go find out. I know from personal experience he likes to boast about how he browbeats and intimidates people You might get a bit of a shock to hear some stories at how he actually behaves. Or alternatively you can continue with your one man admiration society with your fingers in your ears and you head in the sand. Unfortunately Mark you can't stand the fact that the man you have verbally wet yourself over for the past decade is a seriously flawed individual. You just can't stand the fact that your hero, the man you have slavishly praised for years, appears to be no more than a bullying, arrogant, pompous, pig-headed, ill-bred man who has not an ounce of humility in his body. Actually come to think of it the two of you are well-matched - a marriage made in heaven perhaps. Apologies for being a little rude but the tone of all your posts are condescending and arrogant - so have some of your own medicine. Now go pick up the phone to Rupert. Go on!

Well, Mary told me she felt intimidated by him as we left that meeting. Later on in another conversation she told me of a couple of incidents which led to that feeling and I understand very well why she felt the way she did. What people read into that is up to them. The "with respect" is important because Jonah was accusing me of childish behaviour at the AGM. And no, AM made no mention of the photograph in the pre meet and neither did LM and there was no priming of questions by anyone. I did ask what they hoped to achieve at the AGM and the answer was to ask a series of relevant questions arising from the publication of the report. Unfortunately that plan seemed to go out of the window once Rupert opened the meeting (following apologies for it's lateness and Wilde's absence) by reading an anonymous letter which basically stated he was the best thing since sliced bread. Whether he was Crouch baiting or not, it was a singularly stupid and crass thing to do, and set the scene for the anarchy that followed.

Nick - I am not going to elaborate on why MC felt threatened by Lowe except to say that's how she told me she felt. I do not have her permission to say anything further. Sorry. At the meeting were all the ex directors (except Wiseman) who voted or supported Wilde and Crouch at the time of Lowe's departure inc LM and his wife. And for Jonah's benefit - I apologise for saying Lowe never attended AGMs. He certainly was not at the AGM of December 2007 and I also recall him missing one other. So that means he has attended one by my reckoning. I hope you will acknowledge the fact the minutes missed out my "with respect" remark when I questioned Lowe personally at the AGM and would like to point out again, it was the first time I had personally ever made that point to him.

I think it arose from his duels with Dennis Hollywood. Remember Docker Walker getting Summerbee sent off at the Dell - the Milton loved it.

Glad you think that is a result! Presumably tongue in cheek but at the end of the day it aint funny.

Lowe's acceptance of blame go back nearly 4 years now and were never made in front of me or to me, therefore I do not regard my pressing the point 3 years on, face to face at an AGM to be unreasonable, especially as I had never done so before. I can assure you Mark I said "with respect" - at that stage I was very aware of AGM protocol and the need to be civil - the fact it was not reported in the minutes just shows how dangerous it is to form views on behaviour by simply reading minutes. The pre-meet breakfast was not for anti Loweites perse - it was a chance to form some sort of coherent organised response to the figures by a group of people who were involved in some of the figure work and decisions at the time. There was little anti Lowe rhetoric and certainly no sign of any planned walk out. I seem to remember Leon saying saying something about a vote in no confidence from the floor but that was about it. I have spent several hours in Crouch's company and I am surprised at how un vitriolic he is about Lowe to be frank. The only person who mentioned Lowe to me, specifically was Mary who told me how she found Lowe so intimidating - sometimes even physically so. She said she felt apprehensive about questioning him in public and appeared frightened. I have since found out why. Oh and no Lowe never acted that way to other Chairmen at an AGM but only because he never attended one when he wasn't Chairman.

The hypocracy of your first paragraph is breathtaking Mark. What's good for the goose etc. So Lowe can wind Crouch up but Crouch can't wind Lowe up?

Mark, I would like to correct some errors, speaking as someone who was there at the AGM. (At least you can't accuse me of being a cyber warrior who is unprepared to face up to the object of his criticism in person). I wasn't going to say anything at the AGM - at least I had nothing planned. I attended a pre-meet of the anti Lowe speakers you mentioned and there was no pre-determined plan for them to act the way they did or say the things they did. Lowe by reading out the ridiculous letter that claimed he was the only one who could unite the club set the tone unfortunately by angering a large proportion of shareholders present (and yes I am a shareholder now, have been for quite a while). To now say he acted in a "very professional manner" Mark, makes me think you are mischief making and imo certainly undermines some of your more lucid points. I was the first to speak after Lowe's recital of the anonymous letter and I did not ask him to apologise as you state, if my memory serves me well I asked him when he was going to accept some responsibility for our current situation. I spoke as calmly as anyone there and included the expression "with respect" when I asked him to resign. If you still think that my behaviour is childish and unacceptable then I can't help that but I would rather you based your accusations on what you actually saw and heard rather than believe the words of others. I believe I was perfectly polite and indeed he responded to me in a polite and calm manner even if he did not pick up on my question of accepting responsibility. In hindsight LC could have maintained his temper but he was increasingly getting frustrated by Lowe not really giving him the chance to complete what he was saying. Incidentally LM's statement/come question was made in a very dignified manner as was Mary Corbett's - the trouble is you just don't like what they said and you choose to accuse them of acting in a manner that is actually factually untrue. And finally the straw that broke the camel's back for many at the meeting. Anne McMenemy asked the question about the photograph. Petty? A waste of time? Well you can argue until the cows come home on the validity but she made her point calmly and succinctly and, the very least Lowe could have done, was give her a civil reply. To answer that there was nowhere else to hang a picture of a train given to them by Doncaster FC was an insult. You may not like the Mcmenemys (and I accept he is far from whiter than white) but even you, Mark, I would hazard a guess, would not insult a woman old enough to be our parent. As for Wilde - you are right - the oily coward long ago slipped beneath my radar - give me Lowe in the trenches standing next to me any day of the week. Trouble is right now the pair of them are standing clenched buttock to buttock - and talking of arses I hope Rupert is covering his.

I gather he is into dog-breeding these days - less stress!

It is tricky I admit. I mentioned the crowd unrest at the Ipswich match which sparked Lowe's first removal. Obviously I had to say something along the lines "the fans showed their displeasure at the way the Chairman was running the club". It is relevant but the on pitch issues are our main priority when writing a book like ITN, which is very statistic orientated. If you look at page 230 however which covers the Branfoot protests you will find the anti-protests are mentioned and crowd scenes with banners are featured and there is a picture of the Branfoot hope you die fanzine. SISA also get a mention. It's just a questiion of balance. At the time I don't recall anyone sticking up for Branfoot like there are some (on here in particular) now who would disagree with me and still support Lowe. I do find it hard writing about Lowe objectively at present which is one reason I have an editor go over everything with a fine toothcomb. He seems to bring out the worst in everyone. (Lowe that is not David Bull) So to sum up I would report fan unrest if it was significant and factual. The Swansea march may well feature in the end of season write-up depending I guess on what happens to us as a club and Lowe as Chairman. You can't write history in the present tense and a period of perspective makes things clearer. Certainly since Lowe's arrival and the reverse takeover the political upheavels have increased 10 fold. In the old days a big crisis in the board room was when they ran out of salmon paste sandwiches or a director's wife over imbibed in the pre-match sweet sherry.

Mark, you talk about Lowe handling the PR well since his return - do you include his performance at the AGM in this and do you think going fishing and then skiiing in the same month missing 2 vital home matches good PR?

Dell Days, I am not knocking the trip to the final or the short jaunt into Europe. I enjoyed the Millennium (sp) experience as much as anyone but some on here use the fact that we beat a few also ran clubs inc Millwall, Wolves, Norwich and Watford to justify Lowe's ten years at the club. And Strachan screwed up the Final with his poor tactics, so he didn't come out of the whole run smelling of roses either. (I will admit the Spurs home tie was an exception to the above but it was a one off) Being the historian doesn't stop me expressing a view btw. I am also very careful with any criticisms in the books - you will not find anything anti Lowe in anything so far published or in the future - I have to concentrate on facts. For instance there is no mention of the pre-match march in my write up of the Swansea game or fans fighting fans v Doncaster. Perhaps one day a book about the decline of Saints could be written but I doubt it would get past the lawyers. Crouch and Lowe's legal eagles would be all over it not to mention the execs.

I think quite a few did - SISA, Chorley et al. No doubt some were preferring to deride them for so doing so. Just because we got to a Cup Final (with a bit of luck and home draws only to then flunk it) does not absolve all the rest of the crap, we have had to suffer under the deranged Lowe. Our European run wasn't exactly glorious or long-lived either, but Jonah still likes to hang his hat on it.

Absolutely spot on with this - Redknapp will get results but has to be allowed to do it his way (for good and bad) - he was hardly likely to have been able to do this while sharing an office with SCW.

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing but just because it exists shouldn't preclude us asking or wondering what life would have been like had Lowe accepted Moyes's demands to bring his backroom staff. Would we be where we are, lower even? I would hope and wager not. Gray was a cheap option both financially and morally. I remember holidaying in Devon that summer and spending a whole day fishing with my dad with most of the conversation being dominated by who would Lowe chose to be our new manager in our new stadium. There were lots of names being touted. Redknapp was interviewed but hastily discarded. Moyes was keen to come but all the time we both had a nagging dread that Lowe would take the option that would be the financially friendly route and employ Gray on a lower salary. Plus of course by then Lowe was already eyeing becoming more involved in the football side of things (he liked the continuity idea of a DoF role) and Gray would have been far more malleable than a grumpy, ambitious jock. No contest really. Part of me thinks just as Lowe never was going to appoint Redknapp, he was never going to take Moyes but wanted to show the fans he was casting his net. I remember an Echo sports journo at the time told me Gray was always going to get the nod and so it proved.