Frank's cousin

Jeez UP.... cant you see the irony in your statement? presenting a POSSIBILTY as to WHY someone MIGHT have made a mistake IS NOT APOLOGISING FOR THEM, but merly presenting the alternative so that BOTH sides get an airing - that would in my definition be even handedness... its even in teh SAME feckin sentence wher teh mistake is acknowledged and criticised FFS..... why do you seem to WANT to push me into a particular position? IF I wanted Lowe and nothing but Lowe, I would feckin well say so, I hardly think you can believe I am a shrinking violet as far as expressing my opinin goes.... jeez...

I do see the irony..by the way But doing it agin? Nah, course i would, maybe I saw Ghandi too many times when growing up...every time they beat you to the ground you just get up again...eventually you ware them down ;-)

Perhaps, but I would still do it again if only to hear what they have to say...what i would not do again is all teh confidentiallity stuff, that was the worst of it because it made a mockery of the thing - had there been something really positive taht was sensitive, then fair enough, but just using us to bounce and idea off was unfair and cynical.

I have to say stanley, that in te CEO case, I cant answer as to the success - because 1) I dont know what state the finances were in when Lowe came back and 2) I dont know what state they are in now. If they have significantly improved, then he has been successful, if they have stayed teh same or gotten worse, then he has failed so far. As to teh Chirman (footballclub I presume), well I cant say I have seemn wilde do very much todate, he seems to remain very quiet.....

I appreciate your perspective and fully understand the concerns - the thing with SOS that made it a farce was that it was clear afterwards that we were being used as a sounding board, by Wilde to guage reaction should Lowe and he return - not necessarily bad, but made so by the preliminary agreemnet of confidentiality, which meant the SOS could not simply be a go between and communicate this with fans for them to make up their own minds. In a way it does not matter if the club were to try and use the parliament as a PR stunt or sounding board because the reps acting for teh fans would be mandated to fully disclose, thus giving the fans a non club spin version for tehir digestion...the way I see it anyway. Naturally, there will always be an element of the club selecting waht it wants out, but that does not stop questiosn going teh other way and a lot can be read into silence as well as answers.

True, and that is a good point. The thing this time is, there is a healthy degree of cynicism taht the club have to try and work to overcome, not by words but by actions. They key is for thsoe selected to be kept 'honest' by the fan base they represent.

If anything, once bitten twice shy, sure it was not in hindsight a great experience, but we learned a few things and that hopefully would ensure we are prewarned...however, if we continue in this overall vein of mistrust, how could we hope to ever achieve anything? Sure we all want a board that is made up of those untainted by the last few years, but we are at present stuck with the one we have, so is it not better to try and influence them, rather tahn just sling mud from the outside? Sure this is idealist, and maybe its unrealistic, but dont we have to at least try for the love of this club?

I will answer that as honestly as I can...seriously. 1) I would have no problem taking part in such a thing, but I dont think I would have the backing of several vocal doubters who for some bizarre reason believe I would bend over for Lowe - and I believe for this to work, those chosen/selected need to have at least the backing of the majority or at least if grudging respect of the majority. I have sat on the 'fence' or in Lowes pocket (depending on who you believe) for too long for some - also Wilde might object as I have not exactly been uncritical of him. 2) I am honest enough to admit it also appeals to my ego, and yes I do think I can understand all sides and RESPECT all sides, but its more important that those who stand have the respect of the fans, and not sure I qualify on that score given my percieved position. 3) Those selected have to represent the views of ALL fans, including thsoe opinions they dont personally agree with - thats the hardest part for anyone and I would struggle if fans demanded a single agenda of boardroom change - which as you see above I have suggested is not the purpose of such a parliament. So yes would not mind doing it, but cant see it happening can you? ;-)

You know me Wes gotta go with the minority view! ;-) Seriously though, its in part because if we want the moral high ground on issues with the club, we have to take these things with good grace and remain respectful for the opportunity, take it and use it to our best possible advantage - it may well be that it achieves nothing, but that does not mean we should not explore every avenue available to us, even if our own cynicism gives it a low chance of success, we should at least give it a chance. I ust get frustrated when its teh same fans complaining that the club ignore fans and dont offer communication, that are the first to snub such things, the trust etc when its offered... A helthy dose of realsim (and some cynicism) is indeed wise given the clubs history of teh PR spin, but that does not mean it should be ridiculed when offered.... we have a chanceto make this waht we want it to be.

I appreciate what you are saying, as afterall, be could hardly be accused of having grandiose ambitions under Lowe... I do still think that we should be 'prudent' because overspending in football is always a disaster waiting to happen. I agree Wigley was bewildering given the lessons that should have been learnt from Gray, but it MIGHT have been necessary because of the payout required for Sturrock...again a perplexing situation.. should Lowe have stuck by him and not with the players, or with the likes of Beattie? Hindsight suggests Sturrock as Beattie fecked off the moment he could go. As to the other shareholders - are they not equally culpable then, if not more so? I think its because the shareholders see the issues from a finance perspective first taht they see Lowe as teh best of options avaialble at this time, possibly for no other reason?

Thing is with those issues you mention, an good argument can be made from both sides of the divide, rwarding loyalty v employing inexperience, proven international player v not a manager selection, and the Dave Jones thing was a very difficult situation, and hardly one expected to be experienced in dealing with especially in such a business with the high media profile of football... There are those that will never acknowledge anything positive about Lowes time here because of the prejudice and issues with teh reverse takeover, for teh rest of us, it really comes down to HOW you judge these things, and from which perspective - The cop out is actually taking one side or the other in this case, as its difficult to except both POVs, but nonetheless both can be equally valid.

Not at all, you have 'debunked nothing' because you just dont get it - your obssession with Lowe is irritating for sure, but its your outlook that was being criticised here....

HOw do tyou feel when you get out of bed each morning? With so much bitterness, anger, hatred and resentment it must be pretty feckin miserable.... this is FOOTBALL we are talking about remember.

This post just about sums you up The inability to read and understand what is posted and respond appropriately, nowher have i excused anyone or anything, no where have I stated that the unrealistic expectations where excusable, and I never even mentioned attendance in this thread so why bring it up? Alpine I suggest you get yourself a new set of glasses because you are obviously struggling to READ what is said - you just prejudice your response based on what you want to believe I posted - you really are obsessed. Rallyboy has a completely different opinion to me as is obvious, but he asks a genuine rational question which I can respect, so I have given my reply to HIS post. Respect though for other opinions seems beyond you....

You ask a rational and fair question, so will do my best to answer from my perspective, although I am not as such a supporter of any particular individual, (depsite what Alpine might think). I think historically, it would be fair to give Lowe some credit for the changes the club went through as teh premierleague took off, whatever and who ever influenced teh new stadium, it finally ahpened under Lowe and the deal at about 4% interest was more than sustainable in the prem, it go done after 20 odd years of messing about. We were by the time te cup final came along lauded as an example of how a club should be run - in teh national media - as our only debts were teh infrastructure and not on wages and transfers which many other clubs were had as liabilities. In a way I was kind od supportive for two reasons: one I agreed with the nedd to 'Live within our means' - and not follow the risky path taken by other clubs, especially as we had no sugar Daddy, and If honest in part as a reaction to all the Bullsh!t and spin drivel from those highly prejudiced agaisnt him, who were coming out with teh continual rhetoric of 'lowe's back pocket' etc - mostly fans who disagreed with the 'prudent' approach or did genuinely ahve prejudices based on their understanding and ethical position on the shenanigans of the reverse takeover. But as I have said its been more to do with the prudent approach DESPITE also recognising that with everyone else spending big, you had to spend just to stand still - and our succession of managers etc had made some bad choices. Lowe's interference, I think was more born out of this hit and miss approach to teh spending - it probabl;y seemed to hime, as it does to us fans, that it almost seemed a random selection process - even Strachan made some awful buys etc... His biggets mistake came relegation year when i think he bellieved the squad was good enough to keep us up. And here again, if we are really honest they should have been, we WERE unlucky with injuries and we were had a poor manager unable to motivate, the playser also need to look at themselves about that year, but yes Lowe should have known Wigley was not up to teh standard and acted far sooner... although 'arry did have time, had he not vome in and told the media we were NOT good enough.. excellent motivation that! The whole 'lunatic fringe' crap PR suff is water of a ducks back to me, jeez I know i have been called alot worse and thats just on here... ;-) but some take it to heart and are offened by it. fair enough, but its hardly a huge issue its made out top be... but yes his communication and PR skills directed at fans has been appalling, and he is obviously to aloof and out of touch if he still does not recognise that. The whole EGM Wilde, Crouch thing just shows how none of them really appreciate the impact their infighting and behaviour has on the fans and the playing situation- they are all motivated by different levels of ego and self interest, but it is my belief that from a financial perspective right now we need teh tightest reign - FROM WHAT WE HAVE - that that is lowe at the moment, simply put, he seems the one most likely to prevent admin, just a gut feeling - probably because he is prrpared to ignore what fans think of him and make teh nasty decisons that impact on the playing side of things if it means financial survival - I dont think Crouch would go as far as he is too keen on being seen as the fans man. So its not about directly being a fan of or supporting Lowe, as many have said there are thousands of better qualified businessmen who could also do teh job alot better, but about supporting the approach, and given that of th three taht could wield power, I believe his is just that little bit more likely to sort out the mess. Naturally this is complicated by the fact that fans are saying that its because of LOWE they are staying away - I would say that number is limited, but fans are staying away because of the impact his approach is having on the playing side of things - thats fair enough. But, ultimately what you believe will depend on how much you believe the drastic cuts have been necessary or not. As to Dutch total football (with or without the kids) - well, OK I admit it was always going to stand very little chance ina division so heavily linked to a more direct game, but I did like the idea of us being the Arsenal of the CCC, the team that might lose, but play teh best stuff which is why it appealed to me... it was a darn sight more entertaining than we were used to. That again is not supporting Lowe, but liking an idea, one i still wish had succeeded and we were not only in the playoffs but having been lauded as the best footballing side - the way teh game should be played - but I guess we needed to walk again befor we could run. The rest of it is commonly known as bashing the Alpine and Stanley as they play the two backed beast together 'squeeling like pigs boy ' in their constant desire to see anyone who does not say they HATE lowe and Love Mr Crouch, being ridiiculed on here ;-)

Have to admit, thats a bloody good post, we do seem to be suffering from a huge amout of 'its not fair' syndrome from everyone at the club to us fans - I think its BECAUSE we spent so long in teh top flight, surviving + the odd bit of success, it just seems so hard to take as most current afns have never known teh days of lower league football, and whats worse is that this time around the differences between the top flight and the rest are so dramatically advanced....We need leadership to have this attitude, from teh boardroom, teh amnager, the players and the staff - lets give it some!

FC: why? You want some uptopian ideal democratic system ? Never work for the reasons we have seen above - too much history and mistrust, no respect - this has to be changed - we either take the opportunity or ignore and ridicule... Your choice, but i suspect that if that is the majority fan choice, then we will be stuck with what we have for a long time to come, because even if lowe is no longer in the boardroom, they wont let go until they have recouped some of the recent losses - to think they will is living in fantasy land

TBF none of us have a clue as to the real situation either last summer or now. Its clear that Ornageman and HOne,Hoos etc sanctioned spending of some 7 mil on an all out push for promotion under GB, possibly on the back of Wilde's initial indication that he had folk ready and willing to invest, and that subsequently Crouch in his eagerness to please fans from a footballing perspective was probably a little late in realing this back in - It was Crouch ousting Wilde - probably for not coming up with those investors that eventually led Wilde getting back into bed with Lowe to form the current board. I think Crouch WOULD have eventually also seen the writing on the wall and done the necessary financially, but would he have been willing to sacrafice popularity with fans gained by his support of the 'football first' by taking the very hard decsions? I dont know and its only speculation to believe we know the answer. We do know that Lowe HAS made some very unpopular decisons and he has probably used the financial situation as teh reason for why he introduced his continental set up now - we know he was always into that kinda thing, but teh timing was always wrong - he felt it was right now. How far Lowe has taken it beyond what was the minimum necessary I dont know and again its just speculation to assume he only did what was necessary or vice versa... OOH TERRRYHURLOCK makes a good point, but so does oncebitterne - why do we need to see iot all as black or white - the fact is until we have Concrete evidence one way or another - its definitely a shade of grey....

Those are fair points and indeed I have raised them in this thread - cant remember where now - the fact that one of the problems is their mistakes and thus inability to deliver. The obvious answer if they are clever is to bring someone else in who CAN deliver and help them make their money and massage theuir ego through success - but they still believe they are best placed to do this. Whilst they believe that, no amount of protest and rhetoric from fans will shift them, so do we work agaisnts it and in doing so put the club further at risk by witholding more revenue, or do we work with them to at least see us survive financially? Possibly using schemes such as this to present a united voice of constructive dialogue? My point on this thread is driven mostly by the simple fact that we should use this opportunity to FANs benefit, by being wise and selecting those who will be able to garner the respect necessary and gain the appropriate trust to be listended to in the first place and more importantly those behind whom ALL can feel comfortable uniting. That way the influence will come because of the financial muscle the fans hold if united.

Dont you see though Robbie that in effect you are saying that its more about Lowe than what he is actually doing ? That, a 'CEO could continue doing what we are now on teh financials'.... Surely you can see that thsi is the wrong way round and it should be about what is done NOT who is doing it? Your way just undermines the credibilty ion your argument because you amke it about personalities. This is the BIGGEST problem we have that divides fans - its become less about about the mistakes and teh actions, and more and more about personalities, and whilst that continues we wont get unity. You will find that 100% of fans will agree that some of Lowes actions were serious errors, on others about 80% etc but you wont get agreement if you focus on the personality rather than his actions.

Sorry, I see what you meant now... We wont be privy to what was said between Lowe and Wilde during thiose pre EGM meetings though, what demands Wilde had for support etc, nor are we aware of what Crouch would have wanted to side with Lowe - we have just made assumptions thats all, because naturally as Wilde and Crouch teamed up, it MUST be because of Lowe, rather than their demands being unreasonable? I dont know...Because I was not privy to these conversations, so just trying to point out that it 'could' have been different to how we WANT to believe it went. It is a bit ironic that now Wilde has exactly what we are led to believe he wanted when he first arrived...

You really are a comedy genius Alpine.... I am sure you never get criticised for providing too much 'length' to Stanley... ;-) The sad and pathetic thing is that you both know its has NOTHING to do with length and merely because you disagree with the content - you never seem to criticise the length of those posts that slag Lowe,Wilde or bend over and bite the pillow for Mr Crouch.... thankfully most posters are armed with enough intelligence to spot this inconsistency have learned to ignore your insults....

Thing is, NOt strichtly true at the time, MW wanted to be on the board and also for Lowe to split the executive CEO role from that of the chair - Lowe met with Wilde after he was making encouraging signals of 'evolution' not revolution' - Lowe refused to split the role (thus not allowing Wilde in as Chairman? - we are led to understand) which triggered the EGM. Crouch initially wanted to go with whoever would guarrantee him a place in the Directors Box... Had Wilde and Lowe got together initially? impossible to say how it would have panned out, we would not have spent anywhere near 7.5 mil that year on the 'word' that investors were waiting in the wings....

You both make a lovely couple - you should be very happy together, but with so much negativity in one place it mus be depressing...

Its easy to make short posts when you have nothing constructive to add....