Time is now up for Lowe & Wilde

[um pahars]

You don't believe that the execs would listen to the bigger shareholders do you!! They pushed the biggest shareholder out and marginalised the second biggest ffs

 

Ron, I really don't know why you're wasting your time with this fool.

 

He quite clearly hasn't got a Scooby about what was going on during that period, where the balance of power lied and the various battles that were being fought!!!!!!!

[Long Shot]

You don't believe that the execs would listen to the bigger shareholders do you!! They pushed the biggest shareholder out and marginalised the second biggest ffs

 

 

Absolutely correct. Crouch was "negated" by the executive coup soon after Wilde went. He opposed the Euell deal big time (because it was outrageous in monetary terms) but Hone persuaded Wiseman to vote for it. Crouch after becoming chairman actually made this club money after getting a nice packet from Scotland for Burley (they initially offered nothing) and then getting Pearson for a lot less annual salary than that compensation.

 

Crouch's only financial outlay as Chairman were the loans at the end of the season that ultimately kept us up.

 

Now, I am not saying Crouch is the "be all and end all" when it comes to being a Chairman and I think you will find he is the first to hold his hands up at some of the things that happened in the last half of the season when he was in charge but he has qualities that put him way ahead of Lowe and Wilde. For a kick off he is still prepared to put his own money in and two he actually cares about the club first and foremost. Whilst that last quality can be a hindrance and cloud judgement I still trust him more than Lowe and Wilde to do the right thing when all the chips are down. And I am confident Barclays think along similar lines which, when all said and done, is the most crucial fact right now.

[St Marco]

Absolutely correct. Crouch was "negated" by the executive coup soon after Wilde went. He opposed the Euell deal big time (because it was outrageous in monetary terms) but Hone persuaded Wiseman to vote for it. Crouch after becoming chairman actually made this club money after getting a nice packet from Scotland for Burley (they initially offered nothing) and then getting Pearson for a lot less annual salary than that compensation.

 

Crouch's only financial outlay as Chairman were the loans at the end of the season that ultimately kept us up.

 

Now, I am not saying Crouch is the "be all and end all" when it comes to being a Chairman and I think you will find he is the first to hold his hands up at some of the things that happened in the last half of the season when he was in charge but he has qualities that put him way ahead of Lowe and Wilde. For a kick off he is still prepared to put his own money in and two he actually cares about the club first and foremost. Whilst that last quality can be a hindrance and cloud judgement I still trust him more than Lowe and Wilde to do the right thing when all the chips are down. And I am confident Barclays think along similar lines which, when all said and done, is the most crucial fact right now.

 

Have to remember he also paid for some players wages and paid for the statue etc.. Crouch was a idiot and i'd rather he was not in charge but the flak he got and Mcmennemy was just idiotic. They care about the club and in the aftermath of the damage Lowe and Wilde done was nothing they could do. That board had their plans and were backed by the bank for them, i would just like to know what they were and would things be different or would it have been the same as now. Personally i think it would of been different. I can't see the bank wanting us to go under as they lose a vast amount of money. Stripping us of everything to simply pay the monthly bills has put us now in a relegation fight we probably can't win due to having lost our defensive rock, our total strike force and our man managing manager. We have replaced it with no defence,no attack and a manager who tacticly has no clue. If i was a bank manager would i think my investment will be paid back with those odds? Not a chance. And as the weeks go by expect to hear the "their was no other option" line used at every chance. Last year it was "we lost our three best players" this year it is "we had no choice". Which is obviously just excuses.

[um pahars]

Have to remember he also paid for some players

 

To be fair I don't think he did. He did offer, but then it turned into a fight with Hone.

 

There has never been any concrete evidence to date and it would be in the Annual Report if he did (although this years Accounts still haven't come out).

 

(Agree with alot of your other stuff though).

[Chez]

Stern was put out on loan because we could not afford his weekly wages.

 

Let's suppose he is on £10,000 per week. Quite possibly. There is a home game every other week (on average). The average adult will pay £24 for a ticket and £6 on beer/pies/program etc.

 

So simple maths:

 

(£10,000 / £30) * 2 = 666

 

(the multiply by two is to factor in that a home game every other week)

 

So my point is that if only and additional 666 adult, non-season ticket holders, now decide not to bother going to the home games because stern has gone then the net financial saving of giving him to Bristol is precisely zero. Well done Lowe. Another well thought out loan deal to save us money. Does Lowe ever bother to look at the income situation alongside the expenses and determine that there might just be a correlation?

 

Pathetic.

for starters I'd wager he's on a damn sight more than 10k a week. Add at least 5k and you'll be much closer, but the fact is 5000 fans have decided not to turn up so we can't afford to pay him. What we need is your 666 more people to come to games to be able to pay him not 666 existing supporters to keep coming.

 

The overdraft is increasing, what do you suggest we do to stop that?

Edited 26 October, 2008 by Chez

[70's Mike]

for starters I'd wager he on a damn sight more than 10k a week. Add at least 5k and you'll be much closer, but the fact is 5000 fans have decided not to turn up so we can't afford to pay him. What we need is your 666 more people to come to games to be able to pay him not 666 existing supporters to keep coming.

 

The overdraft is increasing, what do you suggest we do to stop that?

 

 

what about what other clubs do ?

 

sorry forgot there directors love their clubs and do not view them as a business opportunity

[Alain Perrin]

what about what other clubs do ?

 

sorry forgot there directors love their clubs and do not view them as a business opportunity

 

 

Lol - naive.

[70's Mike]

Lol - naive.

 

 

why

 

many clubs in the CCC and below rely on financial support from their owners by way of loans etc.

[Chez]

what about what other clubs do ?

 

sorry forgot there directors love their clubs and do not view them as a business opportunity

 

so your solution is for Lowe and Wilde to give away their hard earned cash to pay Stern John's over inflated wages. If you were in Lowe'sw exact same position can you honestly say you would do that? Let me answr that question for you. Not a chance in hell.

[70's Mike]

so your solution is for Lowe and Wilde to give away their hard earned cash to pay Stern John's over inflated wages. If you were in Lowe'sw exact same position can you honestly say you would do that? Let me answr that question for you. Not a chance in hell.

 

Personally no because i do not have enough money BUT many football clubs surive in this country because of loans from their Directors or owners.

Many Directors of small businesses (which SLH is) give personal guarantees regarding overdrafts etc.

We are now reaping the rewards of being a plc and a decision taken by Askham 11 years ago to maintain control by an underfunded takeover by people who were after a return from a football club which just does not happeen from top to bottom

[Chez]

why

 

many clubs in the CCC and below rely on financial support from their owners by way of loans etc.

 

we've loaned millions from Barclays, the problem is that money has been wasted and now debts must be repaid (or at least stop running up bigger ones).

[Alain Perrin]

What and he was just impersonation Hone when the phone rang to "discuss our overdraft

Come on why were the bank talking to Lowe in November 2007, that's an important thing to know.In fact it's the key.

 

They weren't, they were talking to shareholders with a controlling interest.

[Roman]

we've loaned millions from Barclays, the problem is that money has been wasted and now debts must be repaid (or at least stop running up bigger ones).

 

Would you like to define 'now' - because 'loans' to Barclays, in the form of the overdraft, have actually gone up, not down.

[70's Mike]

They weren't, they were talking to shareholders with a controlling interest.

 

 

not sure if that was true in November 2007

[Alain Perrin]

why

 

many clubs in the CCC and below rely on financial support from their owners by way of loans etc.

 

I agree, but they're not clubs that spent 23 years suckling from the Premiership honeypot. Player wages, the stadium and everything else started at a high cost base which most (even yo-yo) clubs don't have around their neck.

 

Very, very few clubs have individuals who would sustain losses like we have.

[Chez]

Personally no because i do not have enough money BUT many football clubs surive in this country because of loans from their Directors or owners.

Many Directors of small businesses (which SLH is) give personal guarantees regarding overdrafts etc.

We are now reaping the rewards of being a plc and a decision taken by Askham 11 years ago to maintain control by an underfunded takeover by people who were after a return from a football club which just does not happeen from top to bottom

 

I'm asking you if you had the same funds as Lowe would you waste it on Johns wages. I guarentee the answer will still be no and that's why Lowe should not be chastsied for not doing the same.

 

I certainly won't argue that Askham ****ed us.

[um pahars]

They weren't, they were talking to shareholders with a controlling interest.

 

Lowe has just over 5% of the shares, that is no controlling interest.

 

Even with his close allies it was something like 25%, which is no controlling interest (besides there is no legal tie in for Lowe's cabal, just a voluntary alliance which has no legal basis).

 

It is a valid point to be asking why Barclay's were discussing the Club's finances with someone who was a mere shareholder at that time.

[Chez]

Would you like to define 'now' - because 'loans' to Barclays, in the form of the overdraft, have actually gone up, not down.

 

Lowe appears to be doing everything he can to replace high earners with nippers on peanuts but suiters for Thomas, Skacel and John have just taken too long to appear.

 

Better John leave than Surman and Lallana forced to be sold. The worse nightmare is if both take place.

[Chez]

I agree, but they're not clubs that spent 23 years suckling from the Premiership honeypot. Player wages, the stadium and everything else started at a high cost base which most (even yo-yo) clubs don't have around their neck.

 

Very, very few clubs have individuals who would sustain losses like we have.

 

Agreed. People need to look at how relegation affected Bradford, who saddled themseles with horrificly high earners that crippled them when relegated (and didn't return immediately).

[Alain Perrin]

Lowe has just over 5% of the shares, that is no controlling interest.

 

Even with his close allies it was something like 25%, which is no controlling interest (besides there is no legal tie in for Lowe's cabal, just a voluntary alliance which has no legal basis).

 

It is a valid point to be asking why Barclay's were discussing the Club's finances with someone who was a mere shareholder at that time.

 

No but collectively the attendees do. My assumption is that the group empowered him (RL) to speak to the bankers prior to the meeting, otherwise there would be a similar question minuted to the one you're raising.

[Delmary]

Absolutely correct. Crouch was "negated" by the executive coup soon after Wilde went. He opposed the Euell deal big time (because it was outrageous in monetary terms) but Hone persuaded Wiseman to vote for it. Crouch after becoming chairman actually made this club money after getting a nice packet from Scotland for Burley (they initially offered nothing) and then getting Pearson for a lot less annual salary than that compensation.

 

Crouch's only financial outlay as Chairman were the loans at the end of the season that ultimately kept us up.

 

Now, I am not saying Crouch is the "be all and end all" when it comes to being a Chairman and I think you will find he is the first to hold his hands up at some of the things that happened in the last half of the season when he was in charge but he has qualities that put him way ahead of Lowe and Wilde. For a kick off he is still prepared to put his own money in and two he actually cares about the club first and foremost. Whilst that last quality can be a hindrance and cloud judgement I still trust him more than Lowe and Wilde to do the right thing when all the chips are down. And I am confident Barclays think along similar lines which, when all said and done, is the most crucial fact right now.

 

From 606 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A42670884):

 

I did hear a rumour that Barclays were not as worried about Saints finances under Crouch as they are under Lowe/Wilde.

 

The reason isn't the credit crunch, it was because Leon Crouch said he would personally underwrite Saints overdraft from his own funds. Something that Lowe and Wilde have refused to do.

[dubai_phil]

Absolutely correct. Crouch was "negated" by the executive coup soon after Wilde went. He opposed the Euell deal big time (because it was outrageous in monetary terms) but Hone persuaded Wiseman to vote for it. Crouch after becoming chairman actually made this club money after getting a nice packet from Scotland for Burley (they initially offered nothing) and then getting Pearson for a lot less annual salary than that compensation.

 

Crouch's only financial outlay as Chairman were the loans at the end of the season that ultimately kept us up.

 

Now, I am not saying Crouch is the "be all and end all" when it comes to being a Chairman and I think you will find he is the first to hold his hands up at some of the things that happened in the last half of the season when he was in charge but he has qualities that put him way ahead of Lowe and Wilde. For a kick off he is still prepared to put his own money in and two he actually cares about the club first and foremost. Whilst that last quality can be a hindrance and cloud judgement I still trust him more than Lowe and Wilde to do the right thing when all the chips are down. And I am confident Barclays think along similar lines which, when all said and done, is the most crucial fact right now.

 

 

Grudges are never good things. Rows and break-ups can also be hard at the time. But every so often, for the greater good, the people involved in such troubles DO pick the phone up and eat some humble pie in order to move things forward again towards a solution.

 

Maybe, just maybe a short term offer of some humble pie and a few quid will help the club survive long enough to get through the global crash when people have money to spend. they won't get 30mil for their shares in that new tomorrow, but they will all have saved the club and get something.

 

If Leon CAN help, maybe now is the time to make an offer, QUIETLY and behind the scenes (at first)

[um pahars]

No but collectively the attendees do. My assumption is that the group empowered him (RL) to speak to the bankers prior to the meeting, otherwise there would be a similar question minuted to the one you're raising.

 

Which attendees????

 

Wilde wouldn't even serve on the same board as him at that time, Crouch had (and still has) no time for him, so he was never in a position to be representing their interests at that time.

 

Why did Barclays talk to him about sensitive information. I doubt they would share the information with other shareholders, so why Lowe??

[dubai_phil]

Which attendees????

 

Wilde wouldn't even serve on the same board as him at that time, Crouch had (and still has) no time for him, so he was never in a position to be representing their interests at that time.

 

Why did Barclays talk to him about sensitive information. I doubt they would share the information with other shareholders, so why Lowe??

 

Or maybe it wasn't Lowe per se.....

Or maybe Lowe's grouping did still have some ties or contracts or underwriting with the bank, who can tell.

There were also still pro-Lowes still around in the club at the time, possibly including other Directors at the time. That's the trouble with factions, there are always some skeletons in the cupboard who smile and say yes sir while playing politics, BUT as an internet point scoring game I don't think much mileage can be gained for anyone going off down that road

[up and away]

You don't believe that the execs would listen to the bigger shareholders do you!! They pushed the biggest shareholder out and marginalised the second biggest ffs

 

I have no love for the past execs and I doubt anyone else would have appointed them, but lets look at what actually happened and on that I cannot find much wrong with their actions.

 

When they realised the initial over spend instigated by Wilde was not to be backed up by outside finances I imagine they were furious. For company executives to place a company in this position, as good as much leaves their future job prospects at zero. It was a close run thing at the time whether they resigned or tried to fix the problem. Fixing the problem entailed Wilde being out of the way and being allowed to bring the finances to some sort of order so they could leave with a chance of finding employment elsewhere.

 

Well with Wilde out the way, pikey Ted Rodgers looked at his stack of shares and everyone else’s round the table, so who was in charge now? The rows that went on during that period are infamous and set the tone for the period to come. The exec’s main concern was just getting the finances back to ground zero whilst others believed the football side should have priority, even if the execs fell foul of the regulations or their prospective careers.

 

We then had the master stroke of trying to install Thompson as chairman, which led to the other major shareholders being polled as to if they wanted Thompson as chairman and the direction of the club. Wilde sided with the execs and that was that. We then had the famous speech referring to Paul Allen, “Why should it not be him and why should it not be us” speech to the press, which left only two of the execs conducting any take over talks and the rest further isolated.

 

So to set the scene you now virtually had two groups who hated the sight of each other and contact would more than likely start WWIII than any meaningful dialogue. So the execs were to support George Burley as much as possible within the financial constraints of the cash flow. There was no real direction with the exception that once the financial buffers were in sight the foot went on the brakes.

 

I don’t believe the execs were the best thing for Saints at that time as there was no long term plan, but that does not mean any other set of execs would have been any different given the mandate and the hostile atmosphere things were being conducted in. Towards the end I really doubt if the execs cared any more and it showed, but I doubt you would have got a significantly different attitude from any other group subjected to the same events and emotions.

 

Throughout all of this no one has stood back and thought, “What is best for Saints?” With everyone caught up in his or her own battles and egos. Eventually Wilde realised how severe things were and for him, made what must have felt was the biggest decision he had made, siding with Lowe for the sake of the club. If Crouch had done likewise we would have had the best chance possible, but he was hunkered down in the bunker waiting for Olga to come knocking. Throughout all of this time if anyone had sided with Lowe and got the execs to set the finances onto a long-term strategy, it would have been done. An environment was created such that the unholy mess we now see before us was spawned and nurtured. It is how supposed adults allowed things to reach this state that is the biggest crime, all believing they were doing the best for the club, whilst singularly ruining it.

 

I notice you mention Euell, but Saga slips quietly by there. Any reason?

[Badger]

Maybe, just maybe a short term offer of some humble pie and a few quid will help the club survive long enough to get through the global crash when people have money to spend. they won't get 30mil for their shares in that new tomorrow, but they will all have saved the club and get something.

 

If Leon CAN help, maybe now is the time to make an offer, QUIETLY and behind the scenes (at first)

 

Interesting prospect.

 

But who do you think Leon would make such an offer to,the current board,or to Barclays ?

 

Is it likely that Barclays would co-operate with Crouch,a shareholder,without agreement from the board (in the same way as questions were raised earlier about RL speaking to the bank in November 2007) ?

[Roman]

Lowe appears to be doing everything he can to replace high earners with nippers on peanuts but suiters for Thomas, Skacel and John have just taken too long to appear.

 

Better John leave than Surman and Lallana forced to be sold. The worse nightmare is if both take place.

 

But - again! - the overdraft has gone UP, not down under Lowe.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Lowe weren't under pressure from Barclays to sell both - or whoever CAN be sold to bring the overdraft down.

 

Lowe can't make the figures balance because the faster he flogs off the players that would keep us in the CCC, the faster is the exodus from the turnstiles.

 

The vanishing fans are, as I've said elsewhere, the football equivalent of a run on the bank, and I don't think any other club in our division has suffered such a catastrophic decline in attendance.

 

When you factor in the sharp fall last year, and the decline the year before that, there are almost 10,000 missing fans.

 

In other words, it' a vicious circle. The faster Lowe cuts, the more the fans desert the club - therefore the more pressure he's under to make yet bigger cuts...etc.

[um pahars]

Or maybe it wasn't Lowe per se.....

Or maybe Lowe's grouping did still have some ties or contracts or underwriting with the bank, who can tell.

There were also still pro-Lowes still around in the club at the time, possibly including other Directors at the time. That's the trouble with factions, there are always some skeletons in the cupboard who smile and say yes sir while playing politics, BUT as an internet point scoring game I don't think much mileage can be gained for anyone going off down that road

 

Reason I mention it Phil is that when i first read those minutes and discussed it with others we all wondered whether it was fair that one shareholder (or small group of shareholders) was privy to unpublished price sensitve information.

 

It's quite a serious situation, whether it was via a pro Loweite still at the Club or whether Lowe was talking direct to Barclays.

 

IMHO it's something that need to be answered.

[dubai_phil]

Interesting prospect.

 

But who do you think Leon would make such an offer to,the current board,or to Barclays ?

 

Is it likely that Barclays would co-operate with Crouch,a shareholder,without agreement from the board (in the same way as questions were raised earlier about RL speaking to the bank in November 2007) ?

 

From his point of view it has to be an Olive branch to the others, not the bank, and a REAL pledge to work together. Otherwise we just go back into EGM and turmoil, and let's face it Leon could have done it before but didn't (mind you the black hole was much bigger then) and it will take a hell of a lot of humble pie on BOTH sides....

So needs a middle man and I bet the first approach would be "what work with that *** over my dead body" from both sides

[dubai_phil]

Reason I mention it Phil is that when i first read those minutes and discussed it with others we all wondered whether it was fair that one shareholder (or small group of shareholders) was privy to unpublished price sensitve information.

 

It's quite a serious situation, whether it was via a pro Loweite still at the Club or whether Lowe was talking direct to Barclays.

 

IMHO it's something that need to be answered.

 

Yep

 

But again, it is probably in about 4,000 shades of grey knowing our history and by the time anyone who may know a way to find out DOES find out, we'll have melted down over something else.....

[dubai_phil]

I have no love for the past execs and I doubt anyone else would have appointed them, but lets look at what actually happened and on that I cannot find much wrong with their actions.

 

When they realised the initial over spend instigated by Wilde was not to be backed up by outside finances I imagine they were furious. For company executives to place a company in this position, as good as much leaves their future job prospects at zero. It was a close run thing at the time whether they resigned or tried to fix the problem. Fixing the problem entailed Wilde being out of the way and being allowed to bring the finances to some sort of order so they could leave with a chance of finding employment elsewhere.

 

Well with Wilde out the way, pikey Ted Rodgers looked at his stack of shares and everyone else’s round the table, so who was in charge now? The rows that went on during that period are infamous and set the tone for the period to come. The exec’s main concern was just getting the finances back to ground zero whilst others believed the football side should have priority, even if the execs fell foul of the regulations or their prospective careers.

 

We then had the master stroke of trying to install Thompson as chairman, which led to the other major shareholders being polled as to if they wanted Thompson as chairman and the direction of the club. Wilde sided with the execs and that was that. We then had the famous speech referring to Paul Allen, “Why should it not be him and why should it not be us” speech to the press, which left only two of the execs conducting any take over talks and the rest further isolated.

 

So to set the scene you now virtually had two groups who hated the sight of each other and contact would more than likely start WWIII than any meaningful dialogue. So the execs were to support George Burley as much as possible within the financial constraints of the cash flow. There was no real direction with the exception that once the financial buffers were in sight the foot went on the brakes.

 

I don’t believe the execs were the best thing for Saints at that time as there was no long term plan, but that does not mean any other set of execs would have been any different given the mandate and the hostile atmosphere things were being conducted in. Towards the end I really doubt if the execs cared any more and it showed, but I doubt you would have got a significantly different attitude from any other group subjected to the same events and emotions.

 

Throughout all of this no one has stood back and thought, “What is best for Saints?” With everyone caught up in his or her own battles and egos. Eventually Wilde realised how severe things were and for him, made what must have felt was the biggest decision he had made, siding with Lowe for the sake of the club. If Crouch had done likewise we would have had the best chance possible, but he was hunkered down in the bunker waiting for Olga to come knocking. Throughout all of this time if anyone had sided with Lowe and got the execs to set the finances onto a long-term strategy, it would have been done. An environment was created such that the unholy mess we now see before us was spawned and nurtured. It is how supposed adults allowed things to reach this state that is the biggest crime, all believing they were doing the best for the club, whilst singularly ruining it.

 

I notice you mention Euell, but Saga slips quietly by there. Any reason?

 

Interesting analysis. My only issue with all of that mess is WHY oh WHY when we were actually playing quite well did the Execs feel the need to bring the warfare into the open by making that statement only hourse before an important football match, (in which we played like a popped balloon). It COULD have been made on the Monday morning and with a little more care over the wording, but they issued it to score points and our form collapsed from that moment onwards

[um pahars]

My only issue with all of that mess is WHY oh WHY when we were actually playing quite well did the Execs feel the need to bring the warfare into the open by making that statement only hourse before an important football match, (in which we played like a popped balloon). It COULD have been made on the Monday morning and with a little more care over the wording, but they issued it to score points and our form collapsed from that moment onwards

 

They did it in an attempt to scare supporters into accepting the SISU bid as being good for the Club, and in turn put pressure on the shareholders to accept the proposal.

 

Sadly, their plan backfired on them.

 

Hone, Hoos and others told me that the reason they did not implement Plan B was that they wanted to continue running the Club as a quasi Premiership club so that it was attractive to the many suitors they were trying to entice. Their plan was to make it look good for as long as possible in a hope that someone would come in (and SISU fitted the bill for them).

 

As an aside they also doubted the Club's ability to save on Plan B as they felt the cuts needed would probably end in relegation as the playing budget was one of the only area of variable costs that could be slashed (needless to say that if they ended up paying peanuts then they would get youngsters!!!!).

[dubai_phil]

They did it in an attempt to scare supporters into accepting the SISU bid as being good for the Club, and in turn put pressure on the shareholders to accept the proposal.

 

Sadly, their plan backfired on them.

 

Hone, Hoos and others told me that the reason they did not implement Plan B was that they wanted to continue running the Club as a quasi Premiership club so that it was attractive to the many suitors they were trying to entice. Their plan was to make it look good for as long as possible in a hope that someone would come in (and SISU fitted the bill for them).

 

As an aside they also doubted the Club's ability to save on Plan B as they felt the cuts needed would probably end in relegation as the playing budget was one of the only area of variable costs that could be slashed (needless to say that if they ended up paying peanuts then they would get youngsters!!!!).

 

 

And interesting that "other" interested investors at the time took a look at the books or the politics and ran screaming to the hills.......

 

Don't you just love that magic phrase "conflict of interest"

 

Why was it only us fans that wondered about whether SISU were just using us to improve their deal at Coventry????

Or does the "White Witch Curse" just turn everyone who walks into an office at SMS decide they want to bet the whole farm on Red every bl*ody time

[Weston Saint]

I notice you mention Euell, but Saga slips quietly by there. Any reason?

 

If at any time Crouch or Wilde had said to the execs to get the costs under control, it would of had to have been done, because it would of represented the largest share holding. Or do you still believe that Lowe / Cowen would not have insisted upon cuts?

 

I was replying to this statement.

 

I cannot comment about Saganowski as I have no knowledge. Do you?

[eelpie]

Your interesting post would make a good film.

 

Who would play Rupert?

 

Rowan Atkinson?

[um pahars]

I was replying to this statement.

 

But going back to your original point Ron, the Execs knew they were living on borrowed time and didn't give a fcluk what the Crouch and Wilde (and others) were saying.

 

They knew that from the day they kicked Wilde and then Crouch out that their cards were maked and it would only be a matter of time before they were kicked out of office.

 

In fact they even offered to resign at one point if their contracts were paid up in full.

[John Smith]

As much as it pains me to say this, Lowe isn't going anywhere. It took Wilde and Crouch to dislodge him, and now, there aren't enough shares left to buy a large enough slice to depose the Emperor.

 

This doesn't stop me believing that Lowe should step down. Being an incompetent fool, shouldn't be a pre-requisite for being a football Chairman. Being a blithering idiot, shouldn't be a requirement to become DoF. But, somehow, Lowe seems to be able to turn his failures into positives, gets followers to support his crusade and falls on his ar*e again by trying to be more clever than he obviously is.

 

Lowes little games have ruined this club and, will be the ruin of this Club. Administration is just around the corner. By continuing to turn up at SMS and pay your money is the equivalent of keeping your favourite pet alive on a life support machine. Sometimes it is cruel to keep something alive just for the sake of it. This is no life, put Saints out of their misery and leave Lowe alone in his palace that he built in his honour.

 

In the days of Emperors of the Greek empire, they would cut out the eyes of the emperor in order to replace him as it was claimed that an emperor could not lead if he was blinded. But we allow Lowe to continue, even though he is blinded by his own ego and his desire to trifle with our lives.

 

Lowe is not a positive thing for this club, he should go, but won't. This club is dying a slow and painful death, put it out of its misery I say, letting it squirm and gasp for air does nobody any good.

 

RIP Southampton FC.

[Delmary]

As much as it pains me to say this, Lowe isn't going anywhere. It took Wilde and Crouch to dislodge him, and now, there aren't enough shares left to buy a large enough slice to depose the Emperor.

 

This doesn't stop me believing that Lowe should step down. Being an incompetent fool, shouldn't be a pre-requisite for being a football Chairman. Being a blithering idiot, shouldn't be a requirement to become DoF. But, somehow, Lowe seems to be able to turn his failures into positives, gets followers to support his crusade and falls on his ar*e again by trying to be more clever than he obviously is.

 

Lowes little games have ruined this club and, will be the ruin of this Club. Administration is just around the corner. By continuing to turn up at SMS and pay your money is the equivalent of keeping your favourite pet alive on a life support machine. Sometimes it is cruel to keep something alive just for the sake of it. This is no life, put Saints out of their misery and leave Lowe alone in his palace that he built in his honour.

 

In the days of Emperors of the Greek empire, they would cut out the eyes of the emperor in order to replace him as it was claimed that an emperor could not lead if he was blinded. But we allow Lowe to continue, even though he is blinded by his own ego and his desire to trifle with our lives.

 

Lowe is not a positive thing for this club, he should go, but won't. This club is dying a slow and painful death, put it out of its misery I say, letting it squirm and gasp for air does nobody any good.

 

RIP Southampton FC.

He must be under immense pressure and wondering if returning was the right choice. I believe the major shareholders (including Askham and co) will drop him like a stone if his presence continues to be counterproductive. They did it with Branfoot.

[Delmary]

Surely a good time for a poll mods? Can the club ever move forward with Rupert Lowe at the helm? or something similar???

[Tamesaint]

Now, I am not saying Crouch is the "be all and end all" when it comes to being a Chairman and I think you will find he is the first to hold his hands up at some of the things that happened in the last half of the season when he was in charge but he has qualities that put him way ahead of Lowe and Wilde. For a kick off he is still prepared to put his own money in and two he actually cares about the club first and foremost. Whilst that last quality can be a hindrance and cloud judgement I still trust him more than Lowe and Wilde to do the right thing when all the chips are down. And I am confident Barclays think along similar lines which, when all said and done, is the most crucial fact right now.

 

 

Much of Long Shot's comments are precise and excellently sum up my thoughts. The final paragraph quoted above however is I think superb.

 

If we want to get rid of Lowe then Crouch has to be the executioner. He has the personal fortune and the love for the club that is now needed to sort us out. Like Long Shot, I do not necessarily agree with everything he does. But at least he is a fan and his appointment of Pearson last season was a masterstroke.

 

How does he get rid of Lowe? I do not know. But I am sure that he is hurting as much as we all are from the ineptitude of the "revolutionary new coaching scheme" & he must do whatever he can to save us from the inevitable consequences.

[Long Shot]

Much of Long Shot's comments are precise and excellently sum up my thoughts. The final paragraph quoted above however is I think superb.

 

If we want to get rid of Lowe then Crouch has to be the executioner. He has the personal fortune and the love for the club that is now needed to sort us out. Like Long Shot, I do not necessarily agree with everything he does. But at least he is a fan and his appointment of Pearson last season was a masterstroke.

 

How does he get rid of Lowe? I do not know. But I am sure that he is hurting as much as we all are from the ineptitude of the "revolutionary new coaching scheme" & he must do whatever he can to save us from the inevitable consequences.

 

 

I think LC accepts he is going to have to be the ultimate executioner but I also know he is desperate not to harm the club, especially now. It is a fine line to tread. There is a nice way of doing this and a not so nice way if you get my drift. But fan pressure has a part to play without a doubt. Barclays are aware that under Lowe it is an unhappy ship with no real direction and the problem will not be solved by selling off the family jewels, only delayed.

[OldNick]

Bring back Woggy, Ethel the tea lady and the four corners.

thats it when in the financial mire up the costs.

The four corners will only make the ground seem more empty and as far as I can see the kit always arrives for the team to wear.

RL is fine cutting the costrs but any involvement in the football selection etc would be no go as far as Im concerned.

[OldNick]

Surely a good time for a poll mods? Can the club ever move forward with Rupert Lowe at the helm? or something similar???

Being a person who has been sympathetic to RL regarding finances I believe while he is at the club the fans will not be united.

NP was a chance to unite the fans (i dont think he's a great manager ) but he for whatever reason left the club and so the fans had another wedge put in the way of unity.

[Saint J 77]

He must be under immense pressure and wondering if returning was the right choice. I believe the major shareholders (including Askham and co) will drop him like a stone if his presence continues to be counterproductive. They did it with Branfoot.

 

I would love to believe there was a chance that could be true but the likes of Askham and co growing a pair of balls and making a decision like that is very unlikely. They will probably more likely continue to bury their heads in the sand and keep believing everything will sort itself out with Lowes wonderful guidance of the club.

[Frank's cousin]

What to do when it looks like going pear shaped? The big question.

 

I must admit to feeling torn between conflicting opinions. For me, football has never been so important that I end up 'hating' and slinging the expletive at those that make mistakes (except Redflaps who is a budgie). I think its about WANTING whoever is in charge to succeed rather than fail that moulds the opinion of 'these things take time' and wanting stabilty - clutching at the straws of 'Utd almost sacked Fergie' etc, to justify faith in what we are doing... but as any fan, not seeing improvement despite acknowledging that kids will be inconsistent with it is starting to be worrying.

 

As you go down the leagues, its apparent that the styles needed to be successfull include guile and experience (as well as often a direct and unattractive approach) - its results through graft and physical commitment. Something that kids are always going to struggle with no matter how sweetly they pass the ball around when confidence is high.

 

Yet the other side welcomes the spirit of this - the fact remains we are simply in the crapper financially and savings are made wherever despite teh illogical nature of it - we are bare bones and there is something about being at the bottom and trying with a young fresh set of youth against the odds that appeals to the purist in me... yet...

 

I am not going to slag of anybody here - this is about the decisions made godd, bad and inbetween, NOT the personalities - slagging personalities and wishing for mythically saviours is the stuff of fantasy and makes for a blinkered perspective. JP I believe is up against it. Seems to me to be the sort of Ideal coach for youth development, and I certainly wont mock his ideals, because its a purists dream, yet its now appears naive to think it would work in this league from the off - Certainly if we suvive and manage to keep them all together we should see improvemnet next season, but those are two bloddy big ifs .... so what is plan B?

 

We know that the odds of staying up, improving and eventually being priomioted are increased with a) money, b) an manager with experience in this league, c) players experienced in this league d) luck, e) more money - we currently fail on all 5 of these.

 

So having seen Spurs boot their system out in favour of the the more orthodox (oldfashioned?) 'English' System, there appears to be a concensus we should follow suit - would Lowe and Wilde do this? I suspect no, 1) we dont ahve the cash to buy and pay teh wages of theose experienced players which is why we use the kids in the first place, and 2) Lowe do an about turn? never the guy's a stubborn git and will see this through to either it working long term or recuivership, whichever comes first - accept it you know its true.

 

So what can we do? Feck all about that, but it is times like these that fans prove their mettle. If we can hold our heads whilst..... I guess now is the time to put the support back in supporting and hang in there - Its easy to be a fan when riding high at Cardiff, but if we really are that 'same set of great fans', then is now not the time to prove it?

 

Tuesday, it will be cold, dark and likley a defeat, but hey whats new! get in there

 

COYRs

[Chez]

thats it when in the financial mire up the costs.

The four corners will only make the ground seem more empty and as far as I can see the kit always arrives for the team to wear.

RL is fine cutting the costrs but any involvement in the football selection etc would be no go as far as Im concerned.

 

I think people underestimate the damage that was done closing the Itchen corner.

[um pahars]

So what can we do? Feck all about that' date='[/quote']

 

Whilst I agree with alot of what you have written, I do feel you are wrong with this point.

 

IF (and it is a big if) people think that this experiment is not working and is doing more harm than good, and that a change would be better (be it boardroom, manager etc etc etc), then as supporters we do have power.

 

Protest, boycott, kick up a fuss etc etc etc are all ways of voicing our displeasure and can be a powerful tool if focussed in the right manner. Falling attendances would be the quickest way to get something done.

 

We are not neutered in all this, we do have power.

 

There is of course a danger of destabilising a very shaky liferaft, but at some point people will have to weigh up the risks of protesting/boycotting vs watching the Club slowly ebb away.

 

I'm horrified by what I see (and what I hear is going on at the Club), but am also acutely aware of how precarious our position is, so am not sure what the best way to proceed is. But that's not the same as saying their is nothing I (or others) can do about the situation.

[Fan The Flames]

I think people underestimate the damage that was done closing the Itchen corner.

 

Totally agree, this corner is as important to those who sit there as the northam.

The team’s decimated little chance of anything other than a relegation battle and the ***** Lowe back in charge. People may have been able to put up with all that but the club decides to smash up the last reason to come, i.e. sitting with your mates and having a laugh.

Clever businessman.

[Weston Saint]

I have never been and out and out opposer of Rupert Lowe. I could see we were in the mire and his way seemed the only real answer to our financial problems particularly as we have a respected Andrew Cowen in there hopefully fighting for reality. However I have recently fallen off the fence having heard little bits from many and varied respected people with one thing in common, they all are firm supporters of Southampton Football Club.

 

My gut feeling is that Lowe has won. There is nothing we can do. Under his stewardship Southampton FC is dying a horrible death. OK it might have happened under the previous regime, who knows. I hear (second hand I might add) even some of our young players are getting disillusioned although that may be as much down to the team inability as a unit.

 

I am going again tomorrow evening but there is no buzz, no desire, just a numbness and realisation that I am watching the death throws of a once proud football club.

 

I can understand the stay aways. It is not helping our financial position but it has to send an important message to Lowe and his backers. Hand over the Stewardship to someone else. Lowe himself will never give in to his ideals. Wilde has to see his damaging role in this. He needs to set the domino's falling. Resignation from the plc is the only way in my opinion. Do it please and do it soon or the little value you have left in your shareholdings will soon be worthless.

Edited 27 October, 2008 by Weston Saint
A day ahead of myself!!

[Weston Saint]

Totally agree, this corner is as important to those who sit there as the northam.

The team’s decimated little chance of anything other than a relegation battle and the ***** Lowe back in charge. People may have been able to put up with all that but the club decides to smash up the last reason to come, i.e. sitting with your mates and having a laugh.

Clever businessman.

 

I could see the reasons for the closures and idea first muted by Crouch. However the Itchen North had become a fortress of passionate fans in the last few seasons. The atmosphere has gone now. The malaise has even spread to the Northam. Sad times