I've been pretty impressed with Lowe.

[Fan The Flames]

Nick G you are about six pages too late, this thread is interesting and you have to butt in with childish goading. FFS just PM Alpine.

[NickG]

look you saw how frustrating it was when he made things up -now you are saying this boardroom stuff is still interesting! - you are just as bad!

[70's Mike]

Hone and co maintained their position due to the power vacuum at the Club, caused by the continual infighting amongst the shareholders.

 

As for why they never implemented Plan B immediately after the parachute payments ran out, then I have to agree that it has never been fully explained.

 

The only answer I got from someone very senior at the Club was that the idea was to run the Club as a quasi Premership club until the January transfer window as this would make it more attractive to prospective buyers (SISU???), but if no buyer came forward by then, then the drastic cutbacks would then be made at that point (the January window as noted by Hone in his doomsday speech).

 

I' not overly comfortable with that response for a number of reasons, but hey ho.

 

Hone, Dulieu and co effectively had control the minute they forced Wilde to resign back in February 2007. If he hadn't have jumped then he would have been forced out as the entire PLC board (inc Crouch) were against him regarding his constant failure to secure the funding which he kept inferring was just around the corner.

 

The upshot of this was that it meant the roud robin of shareholders was complete with:

 

Lowe hating Wilde for instigating the EGM and removing him.

 

Lowe hating Crouch for supporting Wilde and removing him.

 

Wilde hating Lowe for "not running the Club correctly"

 

Wilde hating Crouch for being party to forcing him to resign.

 

Crouch hating Lowe for getting us relegated (and all the other stuff).

 

Crouch hating Wilde for being a charlatan.

 

It was this three way split and continual fighting that allowed Hone and co to remain in situ and carry on regardless.

 

No two groupings of shareholders were prepared to align themselves together as they weren't even on speaking terms.

 

Furthermore, any change in the boardroom might mean that one of their enemies might get their seat back, something all three of them couldn't handle, so instead they all sat back and let Hone defer Plan B.

 

PLC boards run companies, shareholders don't.

 

And that is exactly what our PLC board did. They ran the company as they saw fit.

 

Hone and co knew it was only short term until the major shareholders finally sorted themselves out, but whilst the three groupings weren't prepared to work together they were left alone to do as they saw fit.

 

They obviously had some contact with the major groupings, e.g. Hone and Crouch argued at every opportunity (regradless of whether it was in the Club's best interests), Wilde and Lowe were consulted over removing Crouch from the football board (but neither Lowe nor Wilde asked about Plan B at that time, they were more interested in sticking the knife into Crouch!!!).

 

It was only in the Autumn of 2007 that the shareholders got together after the SISU approach focussed their minds.

 

However, even then the animosity amongest the shareholders still shone through as noted in the Runnymede minutes with the action points including : Wilde to decide if he is prepared serve on a board with Lowe, and Lowe to decide if he is prepared to serve on a board with Wilde!!!!!!

 

 

i see no one has argued with that yet

[up and away]

PLC boards run companies, shareholders don't.

 

And that is exactly what our PLC board did. They ran the company as they saw fit.

 

The shareholders give the board their position and can take it away at any time. Just calling an EGM and with either Crouch or Wilde voting alongside Lowe would be sufficient. It would not even come to a vote, they would be on their bikes within the month, compensation sorted and gone.

 

The executives were stupid enough to believe Wilde, that is their only real crime. The rest of it just comes down to doing their jobs in a hostile and confrontational environment.

 

I have no love for the executives but that does not mean you can blame anything that ailed Saints at the time. Go back and look at what they were charged to do and that is what happened. Look at their major statements and they look even far more honest today than what they did at the time.

 

If any 2 of the major share holders asked for costs to be reigned in, it would have happened. As those 2 shareholders can request an EGM if their wishes were not acted upon and that is the end of the executives. That simple.

[um pahars]

The shareholders give the board their position and can take it away at any time.

 

On a day to day and even a month to month basis (and even longer in reality) the PLC Board runs the show. You isolate and ignore your shareholders at your peril (as Hone ultimately found out), but the day to day business transactions and short to medium term strategy is set by the PLC Board.

 

Wilde, Crouch and Lowe had no power as long as they all sat in seperate camps and Hone knew that.

 

Having spoken to him at length over this time, he was running the show with no recourse to any of them (although he was also aware it would eventually come to an end).

 

Just calling an EGM and with either Crouch or Wilde voting alongside Lowe would be sufficient. It would not even come to a vote, they would be on their bikes within the month, compensation sorted and gone.

 

But as I said, none of the large three would call an EGM because (a) they were not working together and were never sure they would be supported, and (b) they couldn't agree what would replace it.

 

Even at the Runnymede meeting in November every permutation for a new PLC Board put forward by each of the three shareholding groups could not be agreed on. Every time one of them put forward an alternative Chairman or CEO, one or both of the others rejected it.

 

It was this stalemate that kept Hone in a job for so long.

 

The executives were stupid enough to believe Wilde, that is their only real crime. The rest of it just comes down to doing their jobs in a hostile and confrontational environment.

 

I have no love for the executives but that does not mean you can blame anything that ailed Saints at the time. Go back and look at what they were charged to do and that is what happened. Look at their major statements and they look even far more honest today than what they did at the time.

 

If any 2 of the major share holders asked for costs to be reigned in, it would have happened. As those 2 shareholders can request an EGM if their wishes were not acted upon and that is the end of the executives. That simple.

 

Up until last summer, I would have to say that the Executives ran the Club fairly well. The financial results they delivered for that first year were relatively good (if you're able to understand that in context as you seem to struggle with it).

 

However, their decision not to implement Plan B when the paachute payments ended was, IMHO, a crass decision. Then was the time to retrench, but instead they carried on as before in the forlorn hope that SISU (or someone else) would prefer to buy a Club that looked the part.

 

Ultimately that decision probably put a few extra million on the debt, so unsure how you condone such a strategy.

 

Additionally, I'm still perplexed as to how you think Crouch was the main architect for all our financial woes. It just shows a serious lack of understanding of where the power has been over recent years.

 

Crouch was an accomplice in the early Wilde days and he was one of three shareholders who fought amongst themselves and in doing so let Hone loose in the post parachute days, but his failings pail into comparison when compared to the main protagonists of recent years.

[up and away]

On a day to day and even a month to month basis (and even longer in reality) the PLC Board runs the show. You isolate and ignore your shareholders at your peril (as Hone ultimately found out), but the day to day business transactions and short to medium term strategy is set by the PLC Board.

 

Wilde, Crouch and Lowe had no power as long as they all sat in seperate camps and Hone knew that.

 

Having spoken to him at length over this time, he was running the show with no recourse to any of them (although he was also aware it would eventually come to an end).

 

 

 

But as I said, none of the large three would call an EGM because (a) they were not working together and were never sure they would be supported, and (b) they couldn't agree what would replace it.

 

Even at the Runnymede meeting in November every permutation for a new PLC Board put forward by each of the three shareholding groups could not be agreed on. Every time one of them put forward an alternative Chairman or CEO, one or both of the others rejected it.

 

It was this stalemate that kept Hone in a job for so long.

 

 

 

Up until last summer, I would have to say that the Executives ran the Club fairly well. The financial results they delivered for that first year were relatively good (if you're able to understand that in context as you seem to struggle with it).

 

However, their decision not to implement Plan B when the paachute payments ended was, IMHO, a crass decision. Then was the time to retrench, but instead they carried on as before in the forlorn hope that SISU (or someone else) would prefer to buy a Club that looked the part.

 

Ultimately that decision probably put a few extra million on the debt, so unsure how you condone such a strategy.

 

Additionally, I'm still perplexed as to how you think Crouch was the main architect for all our financial woes. It just shows a serious lack of understanding of where the power has been over recent years.

 

Crouch was an accomplice in the early Wilde days and he was one of three shareholders who fought amongst themselves and in doing so let Hone loose in the post parachute days, but his failings pail into comparison when compared to the main protagonists of recent years.

 

Why is it you are having so much of a problem with something so basic. If any 2 of the major 3 shareholders did not like the direction the executives were taking, they could remove them at any time. We have seen several examples of this in recent times, so it should not be difficult to understand the mechanics.

[OldNick]

I' not overly comfortable with that response for a number of reasons, but hey ho.

 

 

The upshot of this was that it meant the roud robin of shareholders was complete with:

 

Lowe hating Wilde for instigating the EGM and removing him.

 

Lowe hating Crouch for supporting Wilde and removing him.

 

Wilde hating Lowe for "not running the Club correctly"

 

Wilde hating Crouch for being party to forcing him to resign.

 

Crouch hating Lowe for getting us relegated (and all the other stuff).

 

Crouch hating Wilde for being a charlatan.

 

 

 

The first line I kept as you realise it was not a good response but the 'Hey Ho' remark was an acceptance of the goings on even though you were not happy. If RL had given you such a reply would you have been so understanding?

 

 

The list is artisitc licence as LC was nearly going to back RL but decided to at the last moment and the word hate is probably not the case.

[Wes Tender]

Why is it you are having so much of a problem with something so basic. If any 2 of the major 3 shareholders did not like the direction the executives were taking, they could remove them at any time. We have seen several examples of this in recent times, so it should not be difficult to understand the mechanics.

 

Um Pahars has given good reasons why it wasn't so easy for the major shareholders to remove the executive directors. Also, is Lowe classed as a major shareholder with his paltry 6% or so? No. He is only a force if his shares are allied to those of his cohorts. And even then that grouping would need the alliance of another major shareholder to rid the club of the execs. As you consider it all to be so basic, then likewise you must accept that either it was difficult to remove the execs because of those reasons that Um Pahars has given, or else the major shareholders did not think that their unhappiness with the execs was at the level that they thought that they needed to be removed. Which was it in your opinion?

[um pahars]

The first line I kept as you realise it was not a good response but the 'Hey Ho' remark was an acceptance of the goings on even though you were not happy. If RL had given you such a reply would you have been so understanding?.

 

The Hey Ho was actually used to infer that this was an entirely seperate area. Something we could debate elsewhere, but here I was focussing on why Crouch was the architect of our financial downfall (not) as opposed to the merits (or not) of Hone carrying on spending as normal.

 

And if you're comparing a throwaway comment on a noddy internet message board with the formal quotes of a PLC Chairman and lead person of our football Club, then I have to say you must have a very faint grasp of reality!!!!!

 

The list is artisitc licence as LC was nearly going to back RL but decided to at the last moment and the word hate is probably not the case.

 

From day one Leon Crouch acquired his shareholdings to remove Rupert Lowe. If you ever spoke to Crouch from the period he bought his wedge of shares until the aborted EGM then you would realise he was never going to back Lowe. He certainly had issues with some of Wilde's team, but he was never going to back Lowe.

 

Of course "hating" is OTT but it is there just to get the point across.

[OldNick]

The Hey Ho was actually used to infer that this was an entirely seperate area. Something we could debate elsewhere, but here I was focussing on why Crouch was the architect of our financial downfall (not) as opposed to the merits (or not) of Hone carrying on spending as normal.

 

And if you're comparing a throwaway comment on a noddy internet message board with the formal quotes of a PLC Chairman and lead person of our football Club, then I have to say you must have a very faint grasp of reality!!!!!

 

 

 

From day one Leon Crouch acquired his shareholdings to remove Rupert Lowe. If you ever spoke to Crouch from the period he bought his wedge of shares until the aborted EGM then you would realise he was never going to back Lowe. He certainly had issues with some of Wilde's team, but he was never going to back Lowe.

 

Of course "hating" is OTT but it is there just to get the point across.

At least you have stopped doing the juvenile smileys.

So 'hey ho' means take it to another thread does it. So you say this is a Noddy internet forum but spend ages writing out replies!!! Where werer the formal quotes anyway? You were making a comment that LC gave a poor response and you were prepared to give him slack that is all I was commenting on. To be fair you were not using your postas a anti RL theme.

 

I do not agree that LC was never going to side with RL in fact there was much concern with some fans that he was so undecided which way he was going to fall.

If you are intimating that you have the ear of LC that would not surprise me with the way you balance your replies.

[ottery st mary]

At least you have stopped doing the juvenile smileys.

So 'hey ho' means take it to another thread does it. So you say this is a Noddy internet forum but spend ages writing out replies!!! Where werer the formal quotes anyway? You were making a comment that LC gave a poor response and you were prepared to give him slack that is all I was commenting on. To be fair you were not using your postas a anti RL theme.

 

I do not agree that LC was never going to side with RL in fact there was much concern with some fans that he was so undecided which way he was going to fall.

If you are intimating that you have the ear of LC that would not surprise me with the way you balance your replies.

 

In that case um pahars could be Big Ears in more ways than one on this Noddy forum.

[OldNick]

In that case um pahars could be Big Ears in more ways than one on this Noddy forum.

You could be right OSM

[um pahars]

So 'hey ho' means take it to another thread does it.

 

Yes because that is what it meant and that is what I said it meant.

 

Unless of course you know better than me what I was thinking FFS.

 

 

So you say this is a Noddy internet forum but spend ages writing out replies!!!

 

Yes it is a noody internet forum, but also an engaging one at times.

 

You were the one somehow trying to compare an answer I gave on here to one that a Chairman of a PLC might give and how it woud be received.

 

Sometimes you come across as a bit dim, adn tis is one of those occasions.

 

Where werer the formal quotes anyway?

 

Do you easily forget what you post???

 

You were the one saying what would I be happy if Lowe gave such a reply which is a ridiculous challenge in the context of a message board.

 

You were making a comment that LC gave a poor response and you were prepared to give him slack that is all I was commenting on.

 

No I wasn't.

 

The reply I received at the time was not from Crouch and I did not give the person slack when they replied to me.

 

I was not at all content with the reply they gave and I challenged them at the time (what I have already explained, but which has been somewhat lost on you, was that my responses were not concerned about why one pursued that route, more to do with trying to ascertain why U & A thinks Crouch is the architect of all our financial woes).

 

Once again you're gibbering on about something of which you have no knowledge.

 

I do not agree that LC was never going to side with RL in fact there was much concern with some fans that he was so undecided which way he was going to fall.

 

If you are intimating that you have the ear of LC that would not surprise me with the way you balance your replies.

 

I have never intimated I have the ear of Leon Crouch.

 

I think you get first prize for getting so much, so wrong in just one post.

 

HTH

[um pahars]

I do not agree that LC was never going to side with RL in fact there was much concern with some fans that he was so undecided which way he was going to fall.

 

You don't have to agree with me and you may be right that some fans had concerns that he was undecided, but having spoken to him and others at the time I am firmly of the opinion that he was never going to side with Lowe I the run up to that EGM.

 

Now if I had to decide who I was going to believe with he options being (a) nickh and others who had not spoken to Crouch and others at this time, or (b) someone who had spoken to Crouch and others at that time, then I think I would probably pump for (b).

[OldNick]

You don't have to agree with me and you may be right that some fans had concerns that he was undecided, but having spoken to him and others at the time I am firmly of the opinion that he was never going to side with Lowe I the run up to that EGM.

 

Now if I had to decide who I was going to believe with he options being (a) nickh and others who had not spoken to Crouch and others at this time, or (b) someone who had spoken to Crouch and others at that time, then I think I would probably pump for (b).

well thats fine but your earlier post saying there is no way he'd have gone with RL is incorrect.

[OldNick]

Yes because that is what it meant and that is what I said it meant.

 

Unless of course you know better than me what I was thinking FFS.

 

 

 

 

Yes it is a noody internet forum, but also an engaging one at times.

 

You were the one somehow trying to compare an answer I gave on here to one that a Chairman of a PLC might give and how it woud be received.

 

Sometimes you come across as a bit dim, adn tis is one of those occasions.

 

 

 

Do you easily forget what you post???

 

You were the one saying what would I be happy if Lowe gave such a reply which is a ridiculous challenge in the context of a message board.

 

 

 

No I wasn't.

 

The reply I received at the time was not from Crouch and I did not give the person slack when they replied to me.

 

I was not at all content with the reply they gave and I challenged them at the time (what I have already explained, but which has been somewhat lost on you, was that my responses were not concerned about why one pursued that route, more to do with trying to ascertain why U & A thinks Crouch is the architect of all our financial woes).

 

Once again you're gibbering on about something of which you have no knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

I have never intimated I have the ear of Leon Crouch.

 

I think you get first prize for getting so much, so wrong in just one post.

 

HTH

So we are supposed to know that Hey ho means go to another thread...right. Just trying to cover up or move the goal posts how unusual for you.Who knows what you are thinking because it is so wound up trying to make your mate look good whatever you put things like 'Hey ho' we have our own Larry Grayson on this Noddy site.

 

It is ironic when you put'Sometimes you come across as a bit dim, adn tis is one of those occasions.' and then type it that way. lol

 

'I have never intimated I have the ear of Leon Crouch' 1st post

 

 

'someone who had spoken to Crouch and others at that time, then I think I would probably pump for' Next post

 

HTH lol

[um pahars]

trying to make your mate look good

 

Usual gibberish.

 

Who is this mate I'm trying to look good.

[um pahars]

It is ironic when you put'Sometimes you come across as a bit dim, adn tis is one of those occasions.' and then type it that way. lol

 

PMSL

 

I missed the nit picking of typos he first time I read your post:smt064

 

I wonder whether we would stand for Lowe making typos:rolleyes:

[OldNick]

PMSL

 

I missed the nit picking of typos he first time I read your post:smt064

 

I wonder whether we would stand for Lowe making typos:rolleyes:

it is always amusing though UMP when people are calling others dim and then doing something stupid.you would find dozens in my posts if you go back but it was funny.Then you go and do it again in the above.

[OldNick]

Usual gibberish.

 

Who is this mate I'm trying to look good.

Its too high brow for you obviously, those smileys do make you seem very young are you a teenager? I do think you would be more creditable if you didnt use the frills , always HTH

[um pahars]

it is always amusing though UMP when people are calling others dim and then doing something stupid.you would find dozens in my posts if you go back but it was funny.Then you go and do it again in the above.

 

Well considering you find it difficult to discern between opinion on a message board and the actions of a PLC Chairman, I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised at your lack of ability to be able to discern between typing errors and a fundamental lack of nous and understanding of a subject.

 

PS I was within about 6 ft of my "mate" last night as he overtook me on West Quay Road. I'd do anything to protect him .

[OldNick]

Well considering you find it difficult to discern between opinion on a message board and the actions of a PLC Chairman, I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised at your lack of ability to be able to discern between typing errors and a fundamental lack of nous and understanding of a subject.

 

PS I was within about 6 ft of my "mate" last night as he overtook me on West Quay Road. I'd do anything to protect him .

Ahhh so you did know who your mate was, see you are not as slow as you seem. You hiding behind the smileys to try and make a point that you cant with your arguement are still there.

HTH

[Rattlehead]

Surely this yawnfest can go over to PM?

[um pahars]

You hiding behind the smileys to try and make a point that you cant with your arguement are still there.

 

If you could possibly rephrase that again in English, then I would only be more than happy to engage you in an arguement [sic] (pretty easy to be the pedant you see).

[OldNick]

If you could possibly rephrase that again in English, then I would only be more than happy to engage you in an arguement [sic] (pretty easy to be the pedant you see).

Again it is too difficult for you to understand.You carry on hiding behind your smiley /rolleyeye things as your message is weak.

[St Marco]

Just re-found this thread looking back.

 

The ironic thing is nothing has actually changed since then. We're still in the relegation zone, we're still playing ****. We still have a cheap manager etc etc

 

How fitting that those who are so vocal about being right have been proven so wrong.

 

Seriously what were some of you thinking?!

[hypochondriac]

Erm I was never vocal about being right. How quickly things change though eh? Such a shame that we got so bad.

[hypochondriac]

Over-rated? Hardly. I don't think it is possible for most people to have a lower opinion of the man! I certainly would prefer him not to be involved. I'm just saying he is behaving much better than I thought he would.

 

I've already stated that I would rather be relegated enjoying the performances we have had this season than go through all of last season and feel like I've just wasted a season ticket.

 

Boo. We ended up relegated and since I wrote this I haveenjoyed about 2 performances. What a crummy season

[Topcat]

Relegation, hypochondriac was just one of many things Lowe got wrong. He brought us administration and soon a 10 point deduction. Lowe could have hardly done a worse job. There was no area that he did not fail in. He has become the worst Chairman in our history.

[hypochondriac]

Tell me other clubs close to administration who have such a good youth system? RL has taken the bull by the horns and taken a brave decision. The romantic opinion people have of NP does astound me. I dont think he was a bad choice but he did flirt with relegation with us.He was helped by the fact we looked doomed after the D&G time and his first results.He made a couple of good loan signings ,something we cant afford now and then stayed up on the last day. Doing the same thing did that make Merrington,Ball, or Dave Jones great managers in our eyes? I dont think so.

TRhe debate of course is not about NP, but I dont beleive he would have been a cost effective manager in the situation we are in.Leicester will no doubt walk their league but it wont be down to wheeling and dealing on a shoestring.

 

This made me lol though. As I said Rupert has to take the blame for his bad decisions if we are relegated.

[hypochondriac]

Relegation, hypochondriac was just one of many things Lowe got wrong. He brought us administration and soon a 10 point deduction. Lowe could have hardly done a worse job. There was no area that he did not fail in. He has become the worst Chairman in our history.

 

Very true! Perhaps the early promise makes it even harder to swallow.

[Delmary]

This made me lol though. As I said Rupert has to take the blame for his bad decisions if we are relegated.

Where's that reverse gear?

[hypochondriac]

Where's that reverse gear?

 

No that is rubbish (Um Pahars will love this post!) Rupert had many options (one of which was to keep Pearson on). He chose to go down this route so he is fully deserving of criticism if we get relegated.

 

Or not...

[SFC Forever]

Relegation, hypochondriac was just one of many things Lowe got wrong. He brought us administration and soon a 10 point deduction. Lowe could have hardly done a worse job. There was no area that he did not fail in. He has become the worst Chairman in our history.

 

He worked long and hard to do just that.

BECOME THE WORST CHAIRMAN IN OUR HISTORY.

[St Marco]

It goes to show also how much a difference a year can make. Hopefully if we are relegated this time next year we will be talking about how we are looking forward to the CCC again!

[dubai_phil]

Relegation, hypochondriac was just one of many things Lowe got wrong. He brought us administration and soon a 10 point deduction. Lowe could have hardly done a worse job. There was no area that he did not fail in. He has become the worst Chairman in our history.

 

That is crass and completely unfair......

 

Lowe should be judged by the much higher standards at which he aspired to reach....

 

As a result, I think history will now show that

 

He will be remembered as probably the worst Chairman in The History of English Football

 

With thanks to last night's evening out sponsors Carlsberg.....

[Papa Shango]

Speaking of Lowe, is anyone listening to 606 now? Someone claiming to be a Saints fans said fans should stop protesting against Rupert Lowe and get behind the team on Monday, wtf?

 

He also said Lowe did a good job and wasn't to blame for any of our troubles lol.

[simonsaints1]

Yes i heard that.It was laughable.

Lowe's pr spin doesn't let up does it.

The muppet was bleating on about the need to show our support.

What do you think we've been doing all season and in very trying circumstances.

I repeat my challenge, has anyone actually met a lowe luvie in person ?

I would love a debate!

[St Paul]

Perhaps Lowe's supports could explain what they consider failure to be, because I call relegation and admin failure.If that's not Lowe failing I dread to think what is.

[um pahars]

Not the best of threads to be dredging up in this time of togetherness and unity (that's not to say I didn't have a giggle at some of the posts back then!!!).

[Halo Stickman]

Speaking of Lowe, is anyone listening to 606 now? Someone claiming to be a Saints fans said fans should stop protesting against Rupert Lowe and get behind the team on Monday, wtf?

 

He also said Lowe did a good job and wasn't to blame for any of our troubles lol.

 

:smt119

 

The BBC should ban Lowe from ringing 606!

[trousers]

Well what does everyone else think? Since he came back, I fully expected the worst. His plan seemingly made no sense and his choice of manager was very odd. I sat back and waited for Lowe to take centre stage again, issuing pathetic statements and patronising OS comments. We have had a few to be honest but then we also had similar things under Crouch and Wilde. Just recently Rupes has taken a back seat. I haven't heard much from him other than football related comments.

 

After the bible passages and cringeworthy quotes of his old regime, I have thus far been pleasantly surprised. It seems that he has learnt some lessons at the very least. That can only be a good thing for our club.

 

Threads that people may regret raising...part 2.... ;-)