Why was Lowe at tonights match?

[Gemmel]

I don't understand, can you explain this to me?

 

The club on a number of occassions bought shares in themselves. Fairly common practice in a lot of PLC's, but i guess the posters point was that didn't help the transfer kitty.

[swannymere]

The club on a number of occassions bought shares in themselves. Fairly common practice in a lot of PLC's, but i guess the posters point was that didn't help the transfer kitty.

 

Ok, what sort of sums are we talking about? £10M?

[Topcat]

Ah that old chestnut. "The moment he left the club" [shares were suspended on 1 April 2009] - aside from the reduced price tickets, Our first three league attendances the following season, when the fans had every opportunity to support the new regime, were 20k, 19k and 17k, which were exactly the kind of attendances the club had been getting immediately before Administration.

 

Compare apples with apples.

 

First 3 home Championship games of the season 2008/9 with Lowe back in charge = 49,470

 

First three home FL1 games without Lowe = 56,342. 2,290 extra per home game increase. Then factor in the much smaller crowds brought by the away team and the "home" component was certainly up by 4,000 in the period you selected. Thereafter it grew.

[Window Cleaner]

Ok, what sort of sums are we talking about? £10M?

 

Far less than that, you'd have to ask Jonah though, try a quick question on Saintslist, you'll get an answer.

[Gemmel]

Ok, what sort of sums are we talking about? £10M?

 

No, nothing like those figures. I seem to remember one tranche costing 400k or thereabouts.

[swannymere]

No, nothing like those figures. I seem to remember one tranche costing 400k or thereabouts.

 

So nothing that would have made a difference in the transfer market then, sound like people with chips on their shoulders about 'well-spoken' people getting their knickers in a twist.

[Saint_John]

No, nothing like those figures. I seem to remember one tranche costing 400k or thereabouts.

Share Buybacks

Sept 2004 - 450,000 at 44p

http://www2.hemscott.com/scripts/AFXnewstory.dll/text?EPIC=SOO&SerialNumber=359&NewsType=CDP&Indate=28/09/2004

 

Oct 2002 - 1,120,000 at 24p

http://www2.hemscott.com/scripts/AFXnewstory.dll/text?EPIC=SOO&SerialNumber=1637&NewsType=CDP&Indate=14/10/2002

 

June 2002 - 2,746,153 at 30p

http://www2.hemscott.com/scripts/AFXnewstory.dll/text?EPIC=SOO&SerialNumber=2186&NewsType=CDP&Indate=19/06/2002

 

May 2002 - 400,000 at 35p

http://www2.hemscott.com/scripts/AFXnewstory.dll/text?EPIC=SOO&SerialNumber=2794&NewsType=AFR&Indate=14/05/2002

 

The Sept 2004 one, although a small amount of money, followed only a couple of weeks after Steve "out of his depth" Wigley was appointed head coach/manager (23 Aug) .

Imo it showed where his prioirties were

(Q/ The Share Price drops from 50p to 44p between 8th and 28th Sept OR give the new Manager the money ?

A/ Share Buyback )

[Frank's cousin]

Strange how some wont let this go... mistakes made cost us in footballing terms under lowe, Wilde and CRouch with the last two also making financial errors... some would argue that the PLC status actually saved us in the end... It meant that the financial controls in place kept us breaking even - yes there were obvious limitations on the footballing side in that the club decided to borrow and invest in infrastructure (stadium./academy) which were long term rather than what many Prem clubs have done and borrow to invest in playing staff in the hope it ensures survival... each will have their own thoughts on this, but for me it was the right way to run the club.

 

I shudder to think what may have happened had not had the PLC regs to adhere to when Lowe left as we saw very quickly how money in teh bank was spent rapidly on a do or die campaign to get us back up... one of those classic cases of had it been successful we would have all praised Crouch and Wilde, but as it failed, it ultimately led to our financial downfall. I think the communication on his return was something shameful as he it was never made clear to fans the harsh realities of our situation, the Pearson non-contract renewal or the truth about the finances that meant we were going to have to make do with the academy lads... but thats history... but as someone above has already said, the fact that we DID have the infrastructure in place, did not crap on our own dorstep in terms of the tax man, local businesses and charities - not to mention spunking 100mil on players - meant despite being in the third tier with -10 points we were still an attactive proposition for Markus because the potential versus investment was very good value... and that is in no small part to teh fact that we did for many years try and keep the finances under control - even at teh expense of ****ing off fans with minimal transfer spending in comparison to other prem clubs... would we really have attracted Markus if still at the Dell?

 

Finally some of those down teh M27 have had teh gall to suggest its no different to their situation!... even suggesting we ripped off AVIVA... but if you consider what they did receive + the years of interest payments, it was not such a big loss for them to incur. The only slight brown stuff that sticks is that we did spend that 7 mil in the CCC that we should have really kept for the potential rainy day IMHO, but that cant be laid at Lowe's door.

[um pahars]

some would argue that the PLC status actually saved us in the end... It meant that the financial controls in place kept us breaking even - yes there were obvious limitations on the footballing side in that the club decided to borrow and invest in infrastructure (stadium./academy) which were long term rather than what many Prem clubs have done and borrow to invest in playing staff in the hope it ensures survival... each will have their own thoughts on this' date=' but for me it was the right way to run the club. [/quote']

 

Frank, I'm not really sure what you are saying here. The strategy we followed was not driven/forced/influenced by being a PLC, it was a policy the "board" decided to follow (for good or for bad). They could just have easily followed a more of a "Bolton" route and gone short term over long term. It was their choice.

 

I think hindsight has shown that the PLC structure/requirements etc probably didn't suit the footballing world (the markets certainly seem to have fallen out of love with it), but I wouldn't really say the PLC itself was overly good or bad for us and it wasn't the overiding factor in our demise(it had its plusses and certainly its minuses), instead it was the poor strategies and poor decisions made by those in charge.

 

(PS have to say there was a lot more in your post that I disagreed with, but TBH I'm trying to forget the nightmare of our recent past!!!!)

[aintforever]

Strange how some wont let this go...

 

It's nothing to do with not letting anything go. I havn't given Lowe a moments thought in years until this thread popped up but that doesn't change my opinion of him.

 

All this "could be like pompey" stuff is ****** as well, if not being as bad as them muppets is a sign of success then virtually every club chairman that has ever existed has been a success.

 

Fact is appointing Steve Wigley as manager of an established Premier League club was, and still is, probably the worst footballing decision ever made by any Premier League club chairman ever. I struggle to think of a worse appointment. Then there is lunatic decisions like making a rugby coach director of football, it's not exactly a surprise that the vast majority of Saints fans still think he's a c*nt.

[Window Cleaner]

 

Fact is appointing Steve Wigley as manager of an established Premier League club was, and still is, probably the worst footballing decision ever made by any Premier League club chairman ever. I struggle to think of a worse appointment. Then there is lunatic decisions like making a rugby coach director of football, it's not exactly a surprise that the vast majority of Saints fans still think he's a c*nt.

 

Especially as he'd already made a similar appointment on a previous occasion and it was a complete and utter firk up as well, cost us over 2 million £ to get rid of the idiots to boot.

[Jonnyboy]

What about this Dean chap at Blackburn?

[Smirking_Saint]

Do you know I never understood that transfer. There we were no money and out of the blue we find a million pounds. And Arsenal have forever been waiting in the wings. I think there were more than two parties involved in that deal.

 

Wouldn't be the first time a Lowe signing has had some cash skimmed off into nowhere..............DELGADOOOOO

 

And to think, we could have had forlan for 300k at the time.

[dune]

He wore some really smart suits/jackets imo.

 

[um pahars]

He wore some really smart suits/jackets imo.

 

 

Once again I have to disagree with you.

 

I personally found his choice of neck apparel to be extremely wanting, often wearing the "Club" tie invariably worn four-in-hand. Not impressed.

 

Additionally, his choice of slacks and most definitely shoes were most definitely below par.

 

On the suit front, the odd time he wore his double breasted ones made him look somewhat rotund, whilst his jackets often displayed a very poor cut to them.

[dune]

You have no style.

[gonzo]

Considering he came in and immediately got rid of an excellent young manager, purely out of spite because he was appointed by his arch nemesis Crouch, replacing said manager with a "revolutionary coaching set up" headed by a couple of clowns, many would say that RL was to blame for the relegation.

 

And don't get me started on him allowing Saints to go into administration just a few days after the cutoff date for the points penalty to carry-over to the next season.

 

 

Have you not learned to read? Barclay's put us into admin, not Lowe.

[Thedelldays]

Have you not learned to read? Barclay's put us into admin, not Lowe.

to be fair..he SHOULD have put us on notice of admin...much like argyle did in time to take the hit that season

[dune]

to be fair..he SHOULD have put us on notice of admin...much like argyle did in time to take the hit that season

 

Very true.

[gonzo]

to be fair..he SHOULD have put us on notice of admin...much like argyle did in time to take the hit that season

 

Maybe so, but maybe Lowe thought he could avoid it? Maybe he was given assurances by Barclays that were then rescinded?

 

Nobody will ever know exactly what occured. But I do wish people who blame Lowe entirely for administration would take a few moments to get their facts straight. There were a lot of things he got wrong, a number of bad decisions he made. But it was not his decision to place Saints into administration.

[Gemmel]

On the suit front, the odd time he wore his double breasted ones made him look somewhat rotund, whilst his jackets often displayed a very poor cut to them.

 

He has lost a load of weight.... super slimmed down version.

 

But the arguments over his dress sense are irrelevant. He could be dressed by the worlds finest designers, in the worlds best materials, but whilst he still wears glasses that magnetically break at the bridge of the nose, on a chain, allowing him to pop them every so oftem, so that one half of glasses hangs down either side, I fear we will not see him in GQ or FHM in the near future.

[um pahars]

, but whilst he still wears glasses that magnetically break at the bridge of the nose, on a chain, allowing him to pop them every so oftem, so that one half of glasses hangs down either side, I fear we will not see him in GQ or FHM in the near future.

 

Deary me, what a fashion faux pas, almost on a par with the four-in-hand tie knot.

[Foxstone]

He wore some really smart suits/jackets imo.

 

 

Classic UKIP voting apparell don't you think ?

[dubai_phil]

to be fair..he SHOULD have put us on notice of admin...much like argyle did in time to take the hit that season

 

No he shouldn't. Because at THAT time we were safe and he had people potentially bringing in investment. HE had accepted 2pence a share, but then history won't show the whole story. The story is still how our bank manager pulled the plug, what meeting or event caused THAT to happen and how the same manager turned up working for our administrator within weeks

 

Right now my opnion on Rupert - he has brought his lad up right - he is a Saints fan, and we should welcome his kid to the massive, but let's face it, we really would prefer Dad to stay at home

[Capel Saint]

Maybe so, but maybe Lowe thought he could avoid it? Maybe he was given assurances by Barclays that were then rescinded?

 

Nobody will ever know exactly what occured. But I do wish people who blame Lowe entirely for administration would take a few moments to get their facts straight. There were a lot of things he got wrong, a number of bad decisions he made. But it was not his decision to place Saints into administration.

 

The problem was that Lowe was told by Barclays that the overdraft limit was going to be reduced from £5m to £4m and didn't think that the bank were serious until it was too late. A PLC to me was a huge mistake as the only way to raise cash for the business is to issue more sales or for a loan. It also allowed the potential of others to take control as we saw when Wilde and Crouch fought for control once they had bought enough shares. He did also appoint some bad managers such as Wigley, Redcrapp and the Dutch Duds.

 

Also to balance it a little he did appoint some good managers such as Hoddle and Strachan, sold players for top cash such as Richards (RIP) and Beattie and kept the club fairly in the black. He did also oversee moving the club to St Marys and the Academy.

 

So my view is that he did good and bad and shouldn't take the whole blame for the demise of the club until we were saved. I much prefer to have the club in private hands which means a stable boardroom, no debt and owners that want to turn the club around, on and off the field.