What did Duncan (Fitzhugh Fella) say on Radio Hampshire?

[stthrobber]

From what I have been told I think you might be being economical with the truth ! Well so my contacts tell me.

 

What do you mean? That we're better looking or that we had special treatment?

 

I can assure you that we are better looking and we did not ever have any form of special treatment. Ask the people that know, ie me, and I'll quite happily tell you the truth. I have no agenda and no reason to lie about it.

 

PM if if you like, though I'm just off to work now, but I will reply later

[Gordon Mockles]

I agree that no one can know the true figure. I do think there are many who use Lowe as a convenient excuse for nagging wife / credit crunch / young children etc. etc.

 

In terms of true noble sacrifice I suspect we are talking 100's.

 

Utter tripe! Are you oblivious to the simple facts? I do agree in part, many on here (me included to be fair) dislike Lowe so much (for many reasons) that we may be mildly blinded by scorn BUT I always try to remain realistic and keep a sense of perspective. However, Considering Lowe is the instigator of removing Pearson and appointing the new, untested/inexperienced/highly risky Dutch regime, The total reliance on youth (poor use of loans - injured & inexperienced players), loaning out the leading goal scorers, corners closed, lack of media contact, poor relations with the customer base, etc. etc. then he is wide open to criticism and results speak for themselves. It’s been said over and over again so I won’t elaborate.

 

However, results and the culmination of factors represent nearer 10,000 staying away imho (if you consider season ticket holders that aren’t in attendance – I know well over a dozen currently staying away, off the top of my head). Regardless of semantics, the figure is in the thousands and a largely significant portion of that exodus is down to the return of Rupert Lowe and his wildly controversial decisions (which he must have known would divide the fan-base). That, twinned with the pitiful results, are directly attributable to Lowe (and Wilde, seeing as he wanted the football director title!). Certainly not a figure of hundreds staying away, that's a crazy figure.

 

They supposedly lead *cough* our club so they take full responsibility for results (despite minimal contact with the fans as they don’t seem to respect the “customer” very highly).

 

I assume most of the posters on this thread are the same people who so intelligently sang "we want Rupert out" when our 11 players went 2-0 down on Saturday. Thankfully the normal fans got behind the team and drowned you all out. It's good to know some people still go to support the team and club. Then again, I'm sure another 12 months of concerted vitriol and you will be able to sing "we want Barclays out" against Rochdale next season.

 

Slightly arrogant. Whilst I agree, the 11 players on the pitch merit (and need) support; in your mind, supporters are not supporters if they are against a chairmanship that they feel is destroying the club, and vocally vent their disapproval against it. Football is a passionate game. Ideally, I’d save the protests until after the game but, seeing as we were losing and tensions were high, I understand their frustration. It was pretty loud in the Itchen, from what I heard. Good on them! Many are showing their disapproval by not even attending. Which is worse in your book? I sympathise with both trends, in retrospect. Saints supporters have had a raw deal for more than long enough.

 

However, don’t confuse supporter’s frustration (after all, we are Southampton and it is football) with lack of support. After all, they are at the game supporting the club and they aren’t happy to sit on the fence and watch our demise in shoulder shrugging nonchalance. Some set their standards higher than relegation form Coca-Cola Championship! It just depends in which shade of grey you like to see things.

Edited 17 November, 2008 by Gordon Mockles
Added a section.

[Beckster Von Doodle]

There is plainly something that people can do if they are not happy with the fare that they are currently served and that is stay away. As things stand, whatever their reasons, that is a fact.

 

So what wages do you think were saved by removing Stern John, Rasiak, Saganowski, Inigo Idiakez, Ostlund, Powell and so on, conservatively on this list alone I would guess at £2-3m a year from the cost base.

 

What do you think we are paying the likes of Schneiderlin, Perry, Wotton, and a couple of other loanees? My conservative gues again would £500k-£1m.

 

There are other ways of cutting the costs and they shut parts of the ground and discontinued the bus travel. Which has saved a tiny proportion of the above. This was the way to cut costs in a big way, which is what we had to do.

 

I am not being contrary when I say that actually in this climate Barclays probably couldn't give two hoots where we are in the league or what league we are in as long as they get their money. They ar not in the football business they are in the finance business and Saints would not be the first or last viable business shut down even though some investment would (might) see things improve - they will probably see it as minimising their risk.

 

I am sure we will never see eye to eye as to the way forward, but from your post you are a Lowe out at any cost person. I will ask the question directly - who do we replace Lowe with and what do you expect them to do different?

 

The plans Lowe is referring to are long terms plans to financially stabilise the club, football is secondary in some respects as much as you can separate the actual business from what happens in the balance sheet, the only short term answer is investment, to bring the loan players back and pay their wages, to pay off the overdraft and to continue to operate within our means which unless the investment is significant will mean selling our players and of course that will mean our better players because they are only ones people will want.

 

Yes, Lowe needs to get out, yes we need investment, yes we need to have our senior players back, yes I would like things to be different. They're not, there is little we can do about it without money so staying away is only hurting those that will not have a club left to watch, will not show a decent return for potential investors, will not pay the wages of those you identify we need and so. It IS a vicious circle and trying to break it by removing Lowe with no replacement is not the answer, neither is replacing him with one of the other recent incumbents.

 

Until someone steps out of the shadows with a real plan, and some money shuffling the deck in these financially difficult times will only bring us under closer scrutiny and tighter deadlines from the bank.

[Wes Tender]

I am sure we will never see eye to eye as to the way forward, but from your post you are a Lowe out at any cost person. I will ask the question directly - who do we replace Lowe with and what do you expect them to do different?

 

This has all been answered before by me and others. Who would I replace Lowe with? A board of directors independent of the major shareholders, with somebody like Salz as Chairman for a start. I'm sure there must be others equally capable and respected. They would have the moral authority to make a rallying cry to the supporters that Lowe/Wilde cannot and the deeply divisive element would be gone from running the club.

 

What would they do differently? Well, for a start they might appoint a manager who knows the English game and would play it, instead of the bizarre experimental stuff we have had to endure so far this season. So a formation that the players are comfortable with, combined with a team consisting of a mix of youth and experience. And again, as others are getting fed up of pointing out, it doesn't seem necessary to have gotten rid of all three of John, Rasiak and Saganowski when we have obviously spent money or wages on getting in all those other players. Unless you can prove to me that we couldn't have had fewer of them and afforded at least one decent proven striker that we had previously on our books, then I will continue to believe that we have mucked things up royally by this foolish strategy.

[Sundance Beast]

This has all been answered before by me and others. Who would I replace Lowe with? A board of directors independent of the major shareholders, with somebody like Salz as Chairman for a start. I'm sure there must be others equally capable and respected. They would have the moral authority to make a rallying cry to the supporters that Lowe/Wilde cannot and the deeply divisive element would be gone from running the club.

 

What would they do differently? Well, for a start they might appoint a manager who knows the English game and would play it, instead of the bizarre experimental stuff we have had to endure so far this season. So a formation that the players are comfortable with, combined with a team consisting of a mix of youth and experience. And again, as others are getting fed up of pointing out, it doesn't seem necessary to have gotten rid of all three of John, Rasiak and Saganowski when we have obviously spent money or wages on getting in all those other players. Unless you can prove to me that we couldn't have had fewer of them and afforded at least one decent proven striker that we had previously on our books, then I will continue to believe that we have mucked things up royally by this foolish strategy.

 

To be fair asking anyone who they would replace Lowe with is missing the point and just takes us down the avenue of discussing the merits of potential replacements regardless of their likelihood of accepting such a role.

 

The bottom line is that Lowe IMO is the best of the known alternatives and in fact is the only credible candidate at the moment based on his experience as a football chairman alone. That said should a new candidate arrive then and only then can we assess if that person could make a positive difference.

 

During Crouch's thankfully short but ill-conceived reign I would have been very happy to see Salz takeover just for his gravitas but at the sametime you have to question the shrewdness of a man of his obvious qualities buying into the club unless it was to rescue it post adminsitration which still must be avoided. Not sure if Wes is alluding to Salz being appointed along with an independent board of directors as paid employees of an investor but if so it would be diffcult to see the logic in this for Salz taking into account his other commitments. If so who is the potential investor? More conjecture and pointless debate.

 

Personally, I think having shareholders on the main board actually helps them to be more considered in their decision making as ultimately if the company performs well they will benefit and share ownership schemes remain a popular and rewarding culture in many companies (Lehman Brothers excepted). The issue is to ensure you have a board of influential and demanding non-shareholding non-executive directors with the bite to advise and correct when necessary. Previous non-execs in my opinion have had about as much kudos and clout as the Teletubbies.

 

The comment about the strikers is well made but until someone can categorically say that it was for financial reasons and how much those 3 were on a week collectively then its simply conjecture and we could argue about it for weeks without resolution. My guess is they were probably taking out about 30k pw in total and any replacement we have brought in we are not paying that much, we would hope. Lowe for all his alledged faults is not stupid and cutting costs is an obvious strength and whilst we have a chance of staying up and avoiding administration then surely for now that is something to build on. Arguably our biggest mistake has been the reliance or misconception that Svensson and Lancashire would be our defensive wall. Any money we have surely must be spent on the defence and we were making that mistake when Burley had £7m burning a hole in his pocket so hardly a stick to beat Lowe with.

 

In short no matter how much we discuss the merits of Lowe and potentially better solutions Lowe is the only one visibily trying to keep this club alive at this moment in time. Therefore, until challengers to the current set up throw their hat in the ring why don't we all simply get on with the job of supporting the club in it's hour of need. I can guarantee it will be more productive than some of the twoddle being peddled as support on other threads.

[Long Shot]

To be fair asking anyone who they would replace Lowe with is missing the point and just takes us down the avenue of discussing the merits of potential replacements regardless of their likelihood of accepting such a role.

 

The bottom line is that Lowe IMO is the best of the known alternatives and in fact is the only credible candidate at the moment based on his experience as a football chairman alone. That said should a new candidate arrive then and only then can we assess if that person could make a positive difference.

 

During Crouch's thankfully short but ill-conceived reign I would have been very happy to see Salz takeover just for his gravitas but at the sametime you have to question the shrewdness of a man of his obvious qualities buying into the club unless it was to rescue it post adminsitration which still must be avoided. Not sure if Wes is alluding to Salz being appointed along with an independent board of directors as paid employees of an investor but if so it would be diffcult to see the logic in this for Salz taking into account his other commitments. If so who is the potential investor? More conjecture and pointless debate.

 

Personally, I think having shareholders on the main board actually helps them to be more considered in their decision making as ultimately if the company performs well they will benefit and share ownership schemes remain a popular and rewarding culture in many companies (Lehman Brothers excepted). The issue is to ensure you have a board of influential and demanding non-shareholding non-executive directors with the bite to advise and correct when necessary. Previous non-execs in my opinion have had about as much kudos and clout as the Teletubbies.

 

The comment about the strikers is well made but until someone can categorically say that it was for financial reasons and how much those 3 were on a week collectively then its simply conjecture and we could argue about it for weeks without resolution. My guess is they were probably taking out about 30k pw in total and any replacement we have brought in we are not paying that much, we would hope. Lowe for all his alledged faults is not stupid and cutting costs is an obvious strength and whilst we have a chance of staying up and avoiding administration then surely for now that is something to build on. Arguably our biggest mistake has been the reliance or misconception that Svensson and Lancashire would be our defensive wall. Any money we have surely must be spent on the defence and we were making that mistake when Burley had £7m burning a hole in his pocket so hardly a stick to beat Lowe with.

 

In short no matter how much we discuss the merits of Lowe and potentially better solutions Lowe is the only one visibily trying to keep this club alive at this moment in time. Therefore, until challengers to the current set up throw their hat in the ring why don't we all simply get on with the job of supporting the club in it's hour of need. I can guarantee it will be more productive than some of the twoddle being peddled as support on other threads.

 

Good to see you post without resort to insults and some of your words ring true enough except the bit I have highlighted in bold.

How is he doing that exactly? He has been invited to put money in to help stave off administration but declined. I gather Wilde did too which leaves Crouch as the only one fundamentally doing something active to keep the club alive.

Also there is a tenet of believe among the more cynical intelligentsia on this forum that Lowe would - should administration arrive - actually relish it because he would be able to blame the stay away fans and then from out of the ashes engineer a bigger controlling interest than he has now.

[Teddy Nutkins]

Good to see you post without resort to insults and some of your words ring true enough except the bit I have highlighted in bold.

How is he doing that exactly? He has been invited to put money in to help stave off administration but declined. I gather Wilde did too which leaves Crouch as the only one fundamentally doing something active to keep the club alive.

Also there is a tenet of believe among the more cynical intelligentsia on this forum that Lowe would - should administration arrive - actually relish it because he would be able to blame the stay away fans and then from out of the ashes engineer a bigger controlling interest than he has now.

Please God no !! ........By the way good post Sundance.

[Roman]

Why has Sundance gone all corporate? And how long will it last? Very disappointing.

 

But really, however 'measured' the language, it's the same old guff about TINA (There Is No Alternative, © M Thatcher). It's all a bit like refusing to take the plane off auto-pilot as it flies towards a mountain.

[saint1977]

Why has Sundance gone all corporate? And how long will it last? Very disappointing.

 

But really, however 'measured' the language, it's the same old guff about TINA (There Is No Alternative, © M Thatcher). It's all a bit like refusing to take the plane off auto-pilot as it flies towards a mountain.

 

Actually, whilst I may not agree with Sundance's conclusion, he deserves credit for a well-reasoned and very creditable post. Long may it continue.

[up and away]

Good to see you post without resort to insults and some of your words ring true enough except the bit I have highlighted in bold.

How is he doing that exactly? He has been invited to put money in to help stave off administration but declined. I gather Wilde did too which leaves Crouch as the only one fundamentally doing something active to keep the club alive.

Also there is a tenet of believe among the more cynical intelligentsia on this forum that Lowe would - should administration arrive - actually relish it because he would be able to blame the stay away fans and then from out of the ashes engineer a bigger controlling interest than he has now.

 

This really makes me laugh "Crouch as the only one fundamentally doing something active to keep the club alive"

You are quickly forgetting the idiots master plan has always been the 100% backing of the takeover fairy.What you should explain here is that he is not putting any money in at the present, having to wait until administration wipes out all those debts and costs he cannot afford to deal with. I suppose the fact he has not even indirect influence over the finances, can be seen as a major positive step, because this one has had is arm in to the hilt on where we find ourselves now. As has been shown true over all these past few years, only all of them working together makes any sense. But that would never fit with the agenda, let alone the ego.

[Wes Tender]

To be fair asking anyone who they would replace Lowe with is missing the point and just takes us down the avenue of discussing the merits of potential replacements regardless of their likelihood of accepting such a role.

 

The bottom line is that Lowe IMO is the best of the known alternatives and in fact is the only credible candidate at the moment based on his experience as a football chairman alone. That said should a new candidate arrive then and only then can we assess if that person could make a positive difference.

 

When Lowe arrived, he had nil experience of being a football chairman and yet he only gained that experience with the passage of time. Arguably, his past record is detrimental to his CV, as is Wilde's, as both failed in the remit to keep the club in the top echelons of the game where we had been for 27 years. Although any future candidate for the chairmanship would not have to have had experience of running a football club, people like Salz have had experience on the boards of companies much more illustrious than this club and at a higher level than both Lowe and Wilde and indeed any of the other directors formerly associated with the board. Accordingly, their contacts and influence is far greater too.

 

During Crouch's thankfully short but ill-conceived reign I would have been very happy to see Salz takeover just for his gravitas but at the sametime you have to question the shrewdness of a man of his obvious qualities buying into the club unless it was to rescue it post adminsitration which still must be avoided.

 

If what you say was what Salz might be contemplating then I would agree. But what would be the feeling if Lowe and Wilde could be forced to stand aside and Salz was made chariman with a board comprising similar big hitters known and respected in the business world?

 

Not sure if Wes is alluding to Salz being appointed along with an independent board of directors as paid employees of an investor but if so it would be diffcult to see the logic in this for Salz taking into account his other commitments. If so who is the potential investor? More conjecture and pointless debate.

 

Why do they have to be appointed as paid employees of an investor? Why can't they be appointed by the PLC? Of course, ideally we would find an investor, but as you say, any with half a brain would wait to see whether they could pick us up on the cheap from the administrator. That investor might want to play with his very own train set, or he might be a very busy man and appoint a decent board of skilled executives to do it on his behalf. As for Salz's other commitments, he could fulfill his duties in two days a week, just like Lowe does.

 

Personally, I think having shareholders on the main board actually helps them to be more considered in their decision making as ultimately if the company performs well they will benefit and share ownership schemes remain a popular and rewarding culture in many companies (Lehman Brothers excepted). The issue is to ensure you have a board of influential and demanding non-shareholding non-executive directors with the bite to advise and correct when necessary. Previous non-execs in my opinion have had about as much kudos and clout as the Teletubbies.

 

This can be argued both ways. It could be that the non-shareholding directors would be more independent. Part of the problems of disunity have been caused by ego battles between the main shareholders and their factions. It has torn the club apart. Granted that the last lot of executives weren't brilliant, but neither have the recent boards been up to much either. That board was appointed by Wilde and perhaps it needs to be a board agreed by all of the major shareholders but not in the pocket of any of them so to speak.

 

The comment about the strikers is well made but until someone can categorically say that it was for financial reasons and how much those 3 were on a week collectively then its simply conjecture and we could argue about it for weeks without resolution. My guess is they were probably taking out about 30k pw in total and any replacement we have brought in we are not paying that much, we would hope. Lowe for all his alledged faults is not stupid and cutting costs is an obvious strength and whilst we have a chance of staying up and avoiding administration then surely for now that is something to build on. Arguably our biggest mistake has been the reliance or misconception that Svensson and Lancashire would be our defensive wall. Any money we have surely must be spent on the defence and we were making that mistake when Burley had £7m burning a hole in his pocket so hardly a stick to beat Lowe with.

I agree that it is obvious to most of us that the defence is one problem and lack of scoring the other. But where you say that Burley made mistakes by not addressing our defensive weaknesses so it is hardly a stick to beat Lowe with, I don't agree. I disagree purely on the grounds that you and I and the majority of fans can see that defence is our glaring weakness since during Burley's time and yet nobody on the board seems to have addressed that shortcoming. Surely people who do not learn from mistakes are almost as culpable as those who made those mistakes.

 

In short no matter how much we discuss the merits of Lowe and potentially better solutions Lowe is the only one visibily trying to keep this club alive at this moment in time. Therefore, until challengers to the current set up throw their hat in the ring why don't we all simply get on with the job of supporting the club in it's hour of need. I can guarantee it will be more productive than some of the twoddle being peddled as support on other threads.

 

I personally continue to go to home matches, but for how long remains to be seen. I tire of attending to watch us lose yet again. I don't blame others who have decided not to attend, as that is their prerogative. It is up to the board to try and establish why attendances are falling and address those reasons accordingly.

[Wes Tender]

And likewise, a good post, Sundance, even if we have differences of opinion on some things.

[stevegrant]

He has been invited to put money in to help stave off administration but declined. I gather Wilde did too which leaves Crouch as the only one fundamentally doing something active to keep the club alive.

I was made aware of the possibility of Crouch making such an "invitation" (I'd probably call it more of an ultimatum, personally!) on the day of the Swansea game by someone quite close to Crouch and my words to him (as they always are when I hear such rumours - I'm sure he's bored of hearing the same thing from me every time ) were "I'll believe it when I see it". If it has happened, then fair play. However, I would have thought that Crouch would have made Barclays aware of the invitation/ultimatum/offer along the lines of "There's a conditional offer to inject new capital into the company based on the two major shareholders currently on the board matching it, but they have declined the opportunity to do so", which could make Barclays force Lowe/Wilde's hands in a "put up or shut up" (i.e. put money in or resign) way. By the look of it, that hasn't materialised.

 

Also there is a tenet of believe among the more cynical intelligentsia on this forum that Lowe would - should administration arrive - actually relish it because he would be able to blame the stay away fans and then from out of the ashes engineer a bigger controlling interest than he has now.

I don't understand the logic in that argument, really. While he may be able to engineer a bigger stake than he currently has if the club was in administration by making an offer to buy the club at a (presumably) much-reduced rate, it would also assume that nobody else was able to place a better offer for the creditors, which - given Leon Crouch's supposed willingness/happiness to lose part of his own personal fortune on ensuring the future of SFC - seems highly unlikely. It's far more likely that the Fulthorpe group, if it turns out they're not just a bunch of timewasters, would then be brought into play as it wouldn't require as much investment to buy the club in administration as it would right now. Also, if we were to go into administration, the club's asset pool would be stripped bare by the administrators in order to satisfy the creditors. In reality, that means goodbye to all of our better players, and it probably means goodbye to Jackson's Farm and quite possibly the necessity of some sort of hideous sale-and-leaseback deal on St Mary's. From that position, I don't believe there would be much/any chance of Lowe being financially better off post-administration, which is the claim that people seem to be throwing his way.

[trousers]

Why has Sundance gone all corporate? And how long will it last?

 

Until the office junior in the PR department that uses the 'Sundance Beast' user id moves back onto photocopying duties?

[Master Bates]

Until the office junior in the PR department that uses the 'Sundance Beast' user id moves back onto photocopying duties?

 

[Wade Garrett]

Actually, whilst I may not agree with Sundance's conclusion, he deserves credit for a well-reasoned and very creditable post. Long may it continue.

 

 

You might as well give him credit for not robbing a bank.

[saintwarwick]

Good to see you post without resort to insults and some of your words ring true enough except the bit I have highlighted in bold.

How is he doing that exactly? He has been invited to put money in to help stave off administration but declined. I gather Wilde did too which leaves Crouch as the only one fundamentally doing something active to keep the club alive.

Also there is a tenet of believe among the more cynical intelligentsia on this forum that Lowe would - should administration arrive - actually relish it because he would be able to blame the stay away fans and then from out of the ashes engineer a bigger controlling interest than he has now.

 

So what Crouch actually doing to keep this club alive and do you know for certain that Lowe and Wilde are not looking for backers?

[sadoldgit]

But that is a totally different (and reasonable) response to our current predicament.

 

Just saying, "Look at Watford, Charlton and Norwich, they're shiy7 as well, and they aint got Lowe" is just ridiculous, irrelevant and lame.

 

The one solution that might be there short term is to relieve the manager of his position. A new guy may have to work within the same constraints and with the same playing squad, but may be able to squeeze better results (he might start with two up front at home for starters!!!!!!!).

 

Steve, it is not "ridiculous, irrelevant or lame" at all. These are all similar sized clubs with similar aspirations. Charlton were even held up by those who know on here as being the club we should have been a few seasons ago.

 

It is no accident that we are all where we are. Other simliar sized clubs currrently in the Prem will be where we are in a few years time. This has nothing to do with Lowe, as much as you (and your nephew) may wish to believe it. It is all about the game being controlled by money and the big clubs.

 

No matter who runs this club, unless they are stupid rich they will have faced and will face the same economic constraints that the last boards have.

 

You and many like you told us that anyone than Lowe would be better. Well we went down that road andf they actually made matters worse.

[um pahars]

What happens at other clubs has no bearing whatsoever to what happens to us. Just because other clubs have fallen on hard times doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and accept crap managers, crap chairman and crap players.

 

"They're rubbish, so we might as well just be as bad":rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

It is no accident that we are all where we are. Other simliar sized clubs currrently in the Prem will be where we are in a few years time. This has nothing to do with Lowe, as much as you (and your nephew) may wish to believe it. It is all about the game being controlled by money and the big clubs..

 

You're quite right it was no accident, rather it was as a direct result of a number of poor decisions which culminated in relegation. And the person overseeing the majority of those poor decisions (and particularly those that had the most negative impact) was Lowe.

 

I have no problem with the issue of relegation, the meritocracy of the league system or that the league table never lies, but I also believe you shouldn't bury your head in the sand and ignore what saw us relegated (mainly because I would not like to see those mistakes repeated!!!).

 

No matter who runs this club, unless they are stupid rich they will have faced and will face the same economic constraints that the last boards have.

 

They may well face the same economic constraints, but that does not mean they have to make the same stupid mistakes that we made, mistakes which have cost us millions and mistakes which look as if they are being repeated again, ultimately seeing us hurtle towards oblivion.

 

In your world it would appear that you have no control over your own destiny and you just have to accept your fate.

 

IMHO, that's defeatist and negative.

 

We may not have a divine right to dine at the top table, but that certainly doesn't mean we just accept our fate down here and don't give it our best shot at getting back up there.

 

Then again when we were there last time you reckon we were merely a poor team:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Beckster Von Doodle]

This has all been answered before by me and others. Who would I replace Lowe with? A board of directors independent of the major shareholders, with somebody like Salz as Chairman for a start. I'm sure there must be others equally capable and respected. They would have the moral authority to make a rallying cry to the supporters that Lowe/Wilde cannot and the deeply divisive element would be gone from running the club.

 

What would they do differently? Well, for a start they might appoint a manager who knows the English game and would play it, instead of the bizarre experimental stuff we have had to endure so far this season. So a formation that the players are comfortable with, combined with a team consisting of a mix of youth and experience. And again, as others are getting fed up of pointing out, it doesn't seem necessary to have gotten rid of all three of John, Rasiak and Saganowski when we have obviously spent money or wages on getting in all those other players. Unless you can prove to me that we couldn't have had fewer of them and afforded at least one decent proven striker that we had previously on our books, then I will continue to believe that we have mucked things up royally by this foolish strategy.

 

Unfortunately they may not have the mandate from the major shareholders the first time they made a difficult or unpopular decision. The board cannot act independently of the shareholders, especially where a significant minority is owned by three people of differing views.

 

Please see my ealrier post regarding what Rasiak, John and Saganowski may cost and what those that have arrived cost. You are right it would seem obviuos to me to, but if we only have one striker in Rasiak and he gets injured what happens then? So I can see the flip side too. However one proven goal scorer is better than none I suppose.

[Alain Perrin]

To illustrate where the money was/is going I have heard the following:

 

Stern John was on £17K a week of which S/land were paying part of his wages for year 1. I suspect we are now subsidising part of his wage at Bristol City to get the bulk of his wage off the books.

 

That's 2000 season tickets....

[Wes Tender]

Unfortunately they may not have the mandate from the major shareholders the first time they made a difficult or unpopular decision. The board cannot act independently of the shareholders, especially where a significant minority is owned by three people of differing views.

 

Please see my ealrier post regarding what Rasiak, John and Saganowski may cost and what those that have arrived cost. You are right it would seem obviuos to me to, but if we only have one striker in Rasiak and he gets injured what happens then? So I can see the flip side too. However one proven goal scorer is better than none I suppose.

 

The current board don't necessarily have a mandate either. What if Wilde disagrees with a decision by Lowe? Does he tell Lowe that Crouch would have been with him and that therefore the shareholdings of the two of them would outvote Lowe's cabal? The essence of having an independent board comprised of people respected not only locally but nationally for their sharp business accumen would mean that most would accept that any decisions taken by them, although perhaps unpalateable for some, would be for the good of the club and not based on petty spite and ego as now. If any decision is proposed that any major shareholder disagrees with, then as now, they can register their disapproval with the board and naturally if the number of shares represented by those individuals together forms a majority opinion, then the board would be obliged to act in accordance with the wishes of those shareholders.

 

Just to speculate a bit on a hypothetical situation, could you see such a board proposing that we jettisoned a manager who in a short time had made marked improvements to a failing team and was popular with the fans? Could you then see them replacing him with somebody who was a relatively unknown foreigner, totally inexperienced in British football and at a lower level in his native country anyway?

 

Regarding having one decent striker from the three that we used to have until we loaned them out, yes, they might get injured, in much the same way that McGoldrick might too. But like you, I believe that it would be nice to have a striker here who knows where the net is and has a proven ability of scoring goals with regularity.

[Sundance Beast]

The current board don't necessarily have a mandate either. What if Wilde disagrees with a decision by Lowe? Does he tell Lowe that Crouch would have been with him and that therefore the shareholdings of the two of them would outvote Lowe's cabal? The essence of having an independent board comprised of people respected not only locally but nationally for their sharp business accumen would mean that most would accept that any decisions taken by them, although perhaps unpalateable for some, would be for the good of the club and not based on petty spite and ego as now. If any decision is proposed that any major shareholder disagrees with, then as now, they can register their disapproval with the board and naturally if the number of shares represented by those individuals together forms a majority opinion, then the board would be obliged to act in accordance with the wishes of those shareholders.

 

Just to speculate a bit on a hypothetical situation, could you see such a board proposing that we jettisoned a manager who in a short time had made marked improvements to a failing team and was popular with the fans? Could you then see them replacing him with somebody who was a relatively unknown foreigner, totally inexperienced in British football and at a lower level in his native country anyway?

 

Regarding having one decent striker from the three that we used to have until we loaned them out, yes, they might get injured, in much the same way that McGoldrick might too. But like you, I believe that it would be nice to have a striker here who knows where the net is and has a proven ability of scoring goals with regularity.

 

Wes, with regard to the release of Pearson, I believe that even your hypothetical board of independence would have concluded that Pearson was not the man for the job. I don't think he made 'marked' improvements in a failing team although I do think he managed to eke just enough improvement to ensure our survival but it was a very close thing to say the least. Secondly, solutions that are popular with the fans are not always what is best for the club. IMO Crouch and his close circle of advisors have proved that point but I acknowledge there has to be a balance to avoid a fan protest. I think you may conclude that if Saints or any other club made decisions on what was popular with the fans then we all would be knocking on the door of the 'poorhouse'.

 

Pearson, seemed to show an ability to motivate seasoned professionals and those holding the purse strings knew ony too well that to cut our operating costs and appease the banks players of this type were going to be released. Your proposed board structure would have been no different especially if they were as shrewd and business savvy as you suggest. Therefore, in their analysis I think it was reasonable to conclude that Pearson's own effectiveness would be diminished and I think they probably looked at his use or lack of use of players like Lallana last season. He scored a massive goal for us at WBA but what impact could a player like that have had if used earlier in Pearson's campaign?

 

The crux of the issue then comes down to the fact that were the board right to appoint the Dutchmen or go for a more established manager from the English game who was available at the time? It's easier to argue a case for JP and Wotte from a youth point of view until you assess the quality of the league they were operating in but Wotte's expereince at PSV could be argued to be better than many other options including Pearson.

 

What other experienced managers were available or willing to move to Saints in the close season with a CV showing a proven ability to develop and use youth players. Neil Warnock? Cotteril? Dowie? I'm no expert on the merits of experienced managers but my guess is that we couldn't afford an English manager with that level of ability and even if we decided to gamble a portion of our available credit (if any) then that would hardly sit well with our bankers insisting on drastic cost cutting and financial prudence for their continued support.

 

My personal position from day 1 with regard to short term targets, has been our survival in the CCC and avoid administration at all costs. What the club has not been very good at is communicating the probablity that this is indeed their own realistic targets and perhaps a less guarded approach from them would be more appropriate. Some of JP's decision have been strange but the man is a rookie manager in the 5th most difficult league in Europe and if you consider the salary and money thrown at Burley then in that context JP's performance can be put down to rookie mistakes and we can be confident its not the case of some arrogant old school manager unwilling to change his 'successful' blueprint for football maangement.

 

Time is all we have in an excess at the moment and if JP can help the club achieve it's apparently modest but not insignificant targets for this season then that will be a job well done. I remain convinced he can and this club will turn the corner in the next 5 years provided we continue to batten down the hatches and the fans recognise and understand our shortcomings but continue their much needed support nonetheless.

[Wes Tender]

Wes, with regard to the release of Pearson, I believe that even your hypothetical board of independence would have concluded that Pearson was not the man for the job. I don't think he made 'marked' improvements in a failing team although I do think he managed to eke just enough improvement to ensure our survival but it was a very close thing to say the least. Secondly, solutions that are popular with the fans are not always what is best for the club. IMO Crouch and his close circle of advisors have proved that point but I acknowledge there has to be a balance to avoid a fan protest. I think you may conclude that if Saints or any other club made decisions on what was popular with the fans then we all would be knocking on the door of the 'poorhouse'.

 

Pearson, seemed to show an ability to motivate seasoned professionals and those holding the purse strings knew ony too well that to cut our operating costs and appease the banks players of this type were going to be released. Your proposed board structure would have been no different especially if they were as shrewd and business savvy as you suggest. Therefore, in their analysis I think it was reasonable to conclude that Pearson's own effectiveness would be diminished and I think they probably looked at his use or lack of use of players like Lallana last season. He scored a massive goal for us at WBA but what impact could a player like that have had if used earlier in Pearson's campaign?

 

The crux of the issue then comes down to the fact that were the board right to appoint the Dutchmen or go for a more established manager from the English game who was available at the time? It's easier to argue a case for JP and Wotte from a youth point of view until you assess the quality of the league they were operating in but Wotte's expereince at PSV could be argued to be better than many other options including Pearson.

 

What other experienced managers were available or willing to move to Saints in the close season with a CV showing a proven ability to develop and use youth players. Neil Warnock? Cotteril? Dowie? I'm no expert on the merits of experienced managers but my guess is that we couldn't afford an English manager with that level of ability and even if we decided to gamble a portion of our available credit (if any) then that would hardly sit well with our bankers insisting on drastic cost cutting and financial prudence for their continued support.

 

My personal position from day 1 with regard to short term targets, has been our survival in the CCC and avoid administration at all costs. What the club has not been very good at is communicating the probablity that this is indeed their own realistic targets and perhaps a less guarded approach from them would be more appropriate. Some of JP's decision have been strange but the man is a rookie manager in the 5th most difficult league in Europe and if you consider the salary and money thrown at Burley then in that context JP's performance can be put down to rookie mistakes and we can be confident its not the case of some arrogant old school manager unwilling to change his 'successful' blueprint for football maangement.

 

Time is all we have in an excess at the moment and if JP can help the club achieve it's apparently modest but not insignificant targets for this season then that will be a job well done. I remain convinced he can and this club will turn the corner in the next 5 years provided we continue to batten down the hatches and the fans recognise and understand our shortcomings but continue their much needed support nonetheless.

 

I am happy to read a well thought out and reasoned response and whereas my opinion regarding isues like Pearson v Poortvliet differs from yours, of course the reality of who would have done the better job between them will never be known. The situation therefore of whether an independent board would have retained the services of Pearson is also conjecture.

 

I take issue partly on whether the board would benefit from paying too much attention to what is popular with the fans. Granted that they must be free to get on with the running of affairs as that is what they are there for and they have to walk a tightrope of attempting to regain promotion at best and avoiding relegation at worst, whilst also trying to remain solvent. The only aspect of pandering to the wishes of the fans comes from the premise put crudely, that the club is a business and relies almost entirely at the moment for its income from bums on seats. Therefore the product must be priced at the right level and constitute value for money in terms of entertainment and customer satisfaction will keep them returning.

 

But the one thing that stood out from your reply, was that you didn't poo poo the idea of an independent board to replace the current warring factions of the shareholders. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this and the opinions of others. In view of the unity of purpose that could be achieved and because it would then be possible to unite the fan base and call on them to support the club in desperate times, surely it is an avenue that we should explore as an alternative to the slow progression towards administration and relegation that we are facing presently.

[70's Mike]

Wes

The problem i see with an Independent Board would be they would always be looking over their shoulders at all the major shareholders waiting for them to "sack" them at an EGM/AGM if they disagreed with decisions.

 

Our problem lies in the split of our shares between relatively few individuals who can group together to gain control as we have seen over the last few years. IMO these shareholders (about 10 people) see the club as their plaything and run us as a private company.

Most PLC's do have Independent boards but they also have a diverse shareownership

[Frank's cousin]

I think the question of TINA is one that we maybe dont fully expand upon.... the thing we have to remember is that whilst there are MANY out there who are perhaps better qualified than Lowe and Wilde in being :

 

1) CEO of PLC

2) Chairman of a football club - understanding of the commercial and cultural pressures associated with the balancing the financial v footballing requirments of the club as a buisness

 

At present no one has come forward to take their place. No whether we like it or not (and most dont) Lowe and Wilde in partnership with Lowe biddies have a large enough shareholding to do as they wish (within the leagl and regulatory requirements of a PLC.) I have absolutely NO DOUBT that if some one or group cam forward with a strong commercial and footballing plan and the cash to back it up and buy the shares at a reasonable amount, then Lowe and Wilde would welcome them.

 

Please dont be so naive to suggest that Lowe and Wilde sghould in effect give away their shares for the good of the club - to someone who might have scraped together 15 mil of VC or consortium funding and if given the club could use this to 'invest' i the team.... its fantastical and silly - will never happen and anyway it would require the agreement of all shareholders not just wilde and Lowe....

 

So the only way to really get Lowe out is to buy him out which will cost at least 55p a share, and offered to all his cronies, or for another coup and change by Crouch with Wilde changing aliegence again.... it wont happen or you could not make it up.... so what is the best way forward? to get change, but without the Merry-go-round? There is only one really if we want change... that is to have a club that is both viable, strong on the park financially and on the pitch so it is attractive to those who have the funds to realise its potential.... at the moemt the only folk 'potentially interested' as sniffers around, with no real funds who are probably only ever going to be interested if we go into admin and they buy the club for £1 - no one will be seriously entertained if they cant show proof of cash - and not the kind that is raised through borrowings that will be set against the club as a company, thus increasing the debt a la Man U - Wilde has catagorically stated this is pointless.

 

I cant believe that there are a few that would welcome admininstration IF it meant getting rid of Lowe as I really cannot see how we would be able to recover - the best way to get rid of Lowe is funnily enough success - promotion and the premiership, when we become attractive again to those with serious money and Lowe and Wilde can waltz off with a suitable profit.

 

I guess maybe I ma syaing is that if you want rid of Lowe, supporting teh club even more financially is ironically likely to have more effect than not - especially as it would have a positive impact on the side rather than admin, relegation and no potential future... as they say its a funny old game.

[70's Mike]

After reading Franks post i think i will give up after watching for 47 years because basically we are stuck as we are for ever.

Because no one is going to pay 55p a share , assuming that is Lowe/Wilde bottom price.

The team will improve , will be sold to finance business, rebuild, sale, rebuld sale.

[jonah]

The question of an independent boad is an interesting one. Firstly, I have to say I think it is simply unrealistic as any board has to have representation of its major shareholders - people may not agree with that, but that's the way it is... who in their right mind would own a sizeable chunk of a company and not seek some form of representation on that board? It's also part of the chapter and verse regarding corporate governance, but that's a mis-used weapon at the best of times so not something I want to use exclusively as a reason!

 

The other problem with an entirely independent board is that they are, well, independent. That doesn't make sense - whose interests are they working in? The shareholders? Seemingly not. Their own? Well if they aren't shareholders themselves then not really. What you are in danger of ending up with is a group of people whose interests are *not* aligned with the shareholders, yet they hold sufficient power to do what they like, even to their own personal benefit. Needless to say I would classify the Dulieu, Hone, Hoos and Oldknow board like this. Both execs and non-execs should be encouraged to have a holding in the company - if they are confident in their management of the club, there is no reason not to have a small investment in it themselves.

 

What I would like to see is for the existing major shareholders to sell down their holdings. I would like a change to the Articles of Association to limit any control over shares to 9.99% or even 4.99%. This would massively limit the control that any individual had over the club (MW or LC in recent times), and any "controlling group" would then need at least 11 people in agreement - people always have different ideas, but a consensus is as good as it gets. Beyond that the board should be the regular composition of execs and non-execs - provided we don't end up with as many as Wilde used!

 

The overriding issue will still remain that everyone involved at present (RL, MW, LC, Wiseman, Richards, Askham, etc) are all tarnished - people will always personalise the arguments about decisions as it's easy to do. Hence I still remain of the opinion that for now the best (only) thing to do is to get back on an even keel and get the club into a financially safe state. Once we have done that, the larger shareholders can start to sell down their holdings and new faces can be brought in. The problem even then is that this will take years, and we know fans aren't patient enough to look beyond Saturday, let alone a 3 year plan.

[70's Mike]

The question of an independent boad is an interesting one. Firstly, I have to say I think it is simply unrealistic as any board has to have representation of its major shareholders - people may not agree with that, but that's the way it is... who in their right mind would own a sizeable chunk of a company and not seek some form of representation on that board? It's also part of the chapter and verse regarding corporate governance, but that's a mis-used weapon at the best of times so not something I want to use exclusively as a reason!

 

The other problem with an entirely independent board is that they are, well, independent. That doesn't make sense - whose interests are they working in? The shareholders? Seemingly not. Their own? Well if they aren't shareholders themselves then not really. What you are in danger of ending up with is a group of people whose interests are *not* aligned with the shareholders, yet they hold sufficient power to do what they like, even to their own personal benefit. Needless to say I would classify the Dulieu, Hone, Hoos and Oldknow board like this. Both execs and non-execs should be encouraged to have a holding in the company - if they are confident in their management of the club, there is no reason not to have a small investment in it themselves.

 

What I would like to see is for the existing major shareholders to sell down their holdings. I would like a change to the Articles of Association to limit any control over shares to 9.99% or even 4.99%. This would massively limit the control that any individual had over the club (MW or LC in recent times), and any "controlling group" would then need at least 11 people in agreement - people always have different ideas, but a consensus is as good as it gets. Beyond that the board should be the regular composition of execs and non-execs - provided we don't end up with as many as Wilde used!

 

The overriding issue will still remain that everyone involved at present (RL, MW, LC, Wiseman, Richards, Askham, etc) are all tarnished - people will always personalise the arguments about decisions as it's easy to do. Hence I still remain of the opinion that for now the best (only) thing to do is to get back on an even keel and get the club into a financially safe state. Once we have done that, the larger shareholders can start to sell down their holdings and new faces can be brought in. The problem even then is that this will take years, and we know fans aren't patient enough to look beyond Saturday, let alone a 3 year plan.

 

Interesting Jonah

 

Problem is no one is likely to pay what the existing shareholders would want for their shares?

[Sundance Beast]

I am happy to read a well thought out and reasoned response and whereas my opinion regarding isues like Pearson v Poortvliet differs from yours, of course the reality of who would have done the better job between them will never be known. The situation therefore of whether an independent board would have retained the services of Pearson is also conjecture.

 

I take issue partly on whether the board would benefit from paying too much attention to what is popular with the fans. Granted that they must be free to get on with the running of affairs as that is what they are there for and they have to walk a tightrope of attempting to regain promotion at best and avoiding relegation at worst, whilst also trying to remain solvent. The only aspect of pandering to the wishes of the fans comes from the premise put crudely, that the club is a business and relies almost entirely at the moment for its income from bums on seats. Therefore the product must be priced at the right level and constitute value for money in terms of entertainment and customer satisfaction will keep them returning.

 

But the one thing that stood out from your reply, was that you didn't poo poo the idea of an independent board to replace the current warring factions of the shareholders. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this and the opinions of others. In view of the unity of purpose that could be achieved and because it would then be possible to unite the fan base and call on them to support the club in desperate times, surely it is an avenue that we should explore as an alternative to the slow progression towards administration and relegation that we are facing presently.

 

Wes, firstly in my previous posr today i should have said that board's cannot make decisions solely based on what is popular with the fans. You are right that in effect we are the leisure industry and we need to reflect the desires of our customers but I don't think that extends to influencing decisions over the appointment of personnel.

 

Ticketing policy is another thing altogether and I would support any cut price scheme that require a commitment from both sides other than one off purchases. I believe the club have announced a half-season ticket scheme that will deliver benefit to both fan and club but whether thay have pitched it attractively enough remains to be seen. I think their approach may again have been a little reserved and whilst I would not support reducing tickets for one off games like they have for Forest (it does not promote any loyalty from the fan) I would support (as a season ticket holder) the selling of a half season ticket for the last 13 games for around £150 (c.50% saving). This would be a strictly one off to increase numbers and allow non-season ticket holders the opportunity to buy one and take advantage of the early renewal system in March. I think this would represent intent on both sides to nuture and renew a productive customer relationship.

 

My views on your proposal of an independent board is simply that assuming we are talking about working within the confines of the plc stucture then I would prefer to have shareholders running the business and extending that share ownership thoughout the company. I simply believe that if you own something you'll work harder to look after it.

 

However, I would like to see your board installed as non-executive directors charged with the responsibility of ensuring the company is managed in the best interests of all shareholders, as they should be and IMO failed in the past. Ultimately, they would be judge and jury and would effectively eliminate the power struggle that has proven to be so divisive. That said I still firmly believe that Lowe is the best person certainly of the major shareholders to currently run the club. If there was a person available who had a majority shareholding or had the backing of the majority then I would support their appointment provided their experience and potential stacked up against Lowe just as you would if you performed your due-diligence on any candidate within your own company.

 

Dreams are not borne out of pragmatism but at the moment I do think we have to be a touch pragmatic to help put us back on the road to recovery. Unfortunately, some fans have become unbearlingly dogmatic in their anti-Lowe stance which IMO wont help us as a club achieve either our current practical aims or realise the hope of our dreams. It's that dogmatic approach that actually results in the level of activity on this forum falling off the edge of a cliff everytime we win.

 

The dream maybe to replace Lowe and there is a time when it is right for anyone of us to move on in life but it would be an enornmous folly to allow someone to move on without even a suitable sticky plaster to tape over the gap. I just hope the refusal of some to even support the club because of Lowe and that have created this unpleasant civil war within us will not hinder the dream of many of having a new chairman, owner or board. It will take a brave group or individual to take it on at the moment and for that I don't think we can blame Lowe. Lets face it when you strip it down he his just a man trying to do his job and protect his interests as a shareholder of the company which employ him. I always ask myself would I do any different in his shoes? Seems to me to be doing most of the things I wanted to be done during Crouch's reign so on balance I'm happy if not ecstatic about the currrent situation given the known alternatives.

[eelpie]

The bottom line is that Lowe IMO is the best of the known alternatives and in fact is the only credible candidate at the moment based on his experience as a football chairman alone. That said should a new candidate arrive then and only then can we assess if that person could make a positive difference.

 

The bottom line is not whether Lowe is the best available or not - based on his 'experience' as a football chairman - his current policy is negative and fatally flawed. Instead of rebuilding a lean, economical squad based on specialist abilities, he has assembled a very large squad which mixes promising talent with unplayable mediocrities. We now have too many players wasting time and money (including loan players like Peckhart) while key positions in defence and upfront have been disposed of. Result - too many goals conceded and not enough scored. this is why the paying public are deserting the club. This is why his policy has floundered and why we are even further towards administration than Lowe would want. He is failing in his objectives.

[Greenridge]

 

The dream maybe to replace Lowe and there is a time when it is right for anyone of us to move on in life but it would be an enornmous folly to allow someone to move on without even a suitable sticky plaster to tape over the gap. I just hope the refusal of some to even support the club because of Lowe and that have created this unpleasant civil war within us will not hinder the dream of many of having a new chairman, owner or board. It will take a brave group or individual to take it on at the moment and for that I don't think we can blame Lowe. Lets face it when you strip it down he his just a man trying to do his job and protect his interests as a shareholder of the company which employ him. I always ask myself would I do any different in his shoes? Seems to me to be doing most of the things I wanted to be done during Crouch's reign so on balance I'm happy if not ecstatic about the currrent situation given the known alternatives.

 

I think they are very fair comments SB and I don't think too many would disagree with you. We have been down the 'anything but Lowe' route before and that didn't work out for a number of reasons. What I really struggle to come to terms with however is that as long as Wilde, Crouch and Lowe hold their respective share-holdings we will always be in this state of uneasy truce and stability will remain a pipe-dream. If we can make some positive improvements in results then the crowds will return, yes a few will stay away until Lowe leaves and of course then are many other factors hitting people's wallets right now which no doubt will effect attendances at all clubs, not just SFC.

[Snowballs2]

The bottom line is not whether Lowe is the best available or not - based on his 'experience' as a football chairman - his current policy is negative and fatally flawed. Instead of rebuilding a lean, economical squad based on specialist abilities, he has assembled a very large squad which mixes promising talent with unplayable mediocrities. We now have too many players wasting time and money (including loan players like Peckhart) while key positions in defence and upfront have been disposed of. Result - too many goals conceded and not enough scored. this is why the paying public are deserting the club. This is why his policy has floundered and why we are even further towards administration than Lowe would want. He is failing in his objectives.

 

Lets face it Lowe will not go until he either completes the ruination of the club / PLC or someone gets so desperate that they pay a crazy amount for his shares.

Without question he is the most hated and devisive person within the club.

To reunite the support and increase the income we have to find a way to get him out.

There are better alternatives, the name of Saltz has been quoted on here many times. I believe he would be prepared to come in and help.

If its all about money then the choice is simple, we need Lowe out for revenues to improve.

[Wes Tender]

Now this is turning into a really interesting debate along the lines of possible alternatives to the suggestion that there are no alternatives to the current situation.

 

As things stand, although some say that Lowe is the best person to run the club, many others say that because of past history and the way that things have gone since his second incarnation, that he is certainly not the best to run us, as there will not be unity whilst he has any say in things. There are others who adopt the same position over Crouch and Wilde.

 

Accepting that the most important issue facing the club at the present time is the disunity of both the shareholders and the fans, then I suggested the independent board as a way of solving that problem. Where it is suggested that without the independent directors owning shares, they might not act in the best interests of the shareholders, why should that be so? As things stand, they have to act in the best interests of the PLC on behalf of a consensus of the shareholders. Are they to act on the behest of say the Lowe faction and totally ignore the wishes of Wilde, Crouch, Mary Corbett, etc? What is required is a board who will look at the big picture and have some notions of what needs to be done to maximise revenue whilst reducing overheads and at the same time attempting to make the team as attractive as possible to watch, but with a realistic chance of winning games and at an entrance price that will encourage greater attendances.

 

With a change of board to one without any of the major shareholders, as I said, we might get some unity back to the club. If we were also to ditch the mad experiment and play a team comprising the best of the youngsters with a blend of experience, addressing the shortcomings in defence and attack, we could start winning some matches and gaining greater attendances. We could bury our differences and strive together to dig the club out of this hole and having avoided relegation, begin to build a team that can get us promoted next season.

 

The ball is in Lowe and Wilde's court. Provided that they are prepared to step aside to heal the deep divisions, they can keep their shareholdings and influence some of the policy making by the board who will need to pay lip service at least to their wishes. But the club will be run along more conventional lines that have stood the test of time and the divisive elements will take a back seat in the interests of unity.

 

If it makes them feel any better, any of the shareholders with more than a 3% shareholding can have a seat in the Director's box and maybe if they are sat together, the different factions might actually start to talk to each other.

[Sundance Beast]

Lets face it Lowe will not go until he either completes the ruination of the club / PLC or someone gets so desperate that they pay a crazy amount for his shares.

Without question he is the most hated and devisive person within the club.

To reunite the support and increase the income we have to find a way to get him out.

There are better alternatives, the name of Saltz has been quoted on here many times. I believe he would be prepared to come in and help.

If its all about money then the choice is simple, we need Lowe out for revenues to improve.

 

I'm sorry Doug but your posts have become the epitome of the dogma that pervades this forum that I mentioned in my previous post today and has no basis in the reality of our situation.

 

Lowe isn't going to go until a suitable alternative is assured. Put yourself honestly in his shoes are you going to deliberately ruin the club as you infer or turn down a reasonable offer for your shares? Those shares incidentally represents the work you have put into the club aand regardless of how your efforts have been perceived you have undeniably worked hard at trying to get it right and may feel you have a right to be rewarded by hanging on to them until you feel the time and price is right.

 

He probably is the most hated and devisive person at the club but where would we be now under Crouch's leadership? Again put yourself in his shoes and ask why you are so hated and is it a fair assessment. Apart from his blue-blooded background has he got it so wrong to be villified by the unrealistic minority?

 

Why can't we reunite with Lowe in charge? If he is the enemy then surely it is better to reunite before he leaves if only to give confidence to the new incoming chairman who would surely look at the role at the moment as a poisoned chalice. Any new owner is unlikely to be keen to buy into a club on its knees and with a disunited fanbase so the best way to get Lowe out is surely to unite now and at the very least support the team.

 

There are not better alternatives. I understand that Salz was an advisor to Crouch and has not exactly thrown his hat in the ring so saying we would like him to be our chairman is a bit like saying we would like John Terry to be at the heart of our defence. Until there is known intent to, as a minimum voice a public interest in the job then the alternatives remain one of the 3 IMO.

 

If it is all about the money then the choice Doug is indeed simple. United we stand, divided we fall and then and only then will Lowe be able to move on as a strong customer base with associated strong revenues will improve the good will on the balance sheet for anyone mad enough to get involved, we are afterall in the grip of a global downturn.

[um pahars]

Now this is turning into a really interesting debate along the lines of possible alternatives to the suggestion that there are no alternatives to the current situation.

 

Have to agree Wes in that at last there are some decent exchanges of ideas (and I'll take my fair share of blame for being an antagonistic little shytte at times:rolleyes:).

 

So here's my thoughts:

 

1. If we're talking about representaion on the board then currently one large tranche of shares. i.e. Crouch's 10% (or something like 16%+ if you include his closest supporters) has no representation on the board. If we think representation is a good thing, then it should probably be consistent.

 

2. I too am yet to be convinced of the problems of having some independent Directors and/or Chairman on board.

 

So would it be possible to have an Independent Non Executive Chairman, a non alligned CEO, retain the FD & have representation from the three larger groups as Non Execs?????

 

And maybe I'm being really picky, but given the "Lowe" factor over unity, couldn't Mike Richards and/or Cowen represent that shareholding group????

 

3. I see no reason why Lowe must retain both the positions of CEO & Chairman, and being honest I would much rather he held neither role.

 

Firstly as a CEO he has made too many errors in recent years on an operational basis, and secondly at Chairman level I don't think he has the independence, the respect or the personality for such a role at this Club.

 

4. So although a balance of Independence and shareholder representation could be the way forward, how would this actually work in practice???

 

How do we arrive at the big decisions over the manager, the strategy, transfer policy???

 

How would Crouch react if the majority voted for a French duo playing the youth as our next managerial set up??? How would Lowe/Cowen react if the the majority voted for a Geordie duo playing 35 year olds???

 

Would they accept a majority vote, would a consensus develop or would you just task the CEO to deliver in much the same way as a manager is tasked to deliver on the pitch.

 

I personally think something needs to be done as I just don't tink the current set up is delivering on or off the pitch. I also fear that we may soon have to bite the bullet with regards Jan, so potentially the next decision we have to make could be so important for the future of this Club.

[Roman]

Lowe isn't going to go until a suitable alternative is assured.

 

He probably is the most hated and devisive person at the club but where would we be now under Crouch's leadership?

 

Why can't we reunite with Lowe in charge?

 

There are not better alternatives.

 

Just popped out of sub-editing retirement to do you a favour, Sundance. This is the gist, I think. As I say, it all amounts to TINA.

 

But what your post fails to address is what happens when it all goes t1ts up finance-wise, and overdraft-wise - as, depressingly, it shortly will by all accounts.

 

That's what the club will have to plan for - not stumbling on as we are.

 

And no amount of saying 'get behind the club' will do the trick because the rot is much deeper than that.

[Beckster Von Doodle]

Have to agree Wes in that at last there are some decent exchanges of ideas (and I'll take my fair share of blame for being an antagonistic little shytte at times:rolleyes:).

 

So here's my thoughts:

 

1. If we're talking about representaion on the board then currently one large tranche of shares. i.e. Crouch's 10% (or something like 16%+ if you include his closest supporters) has no representation on the board. If we think representation is a good thing, then it should probably be consistent.

 

Agreed - I have always thought the best way to unite people going forward is for all three of the main players to issue a strategy which they are all signed up to.

 

2. I too am yet to be convinced of the problems of having some independent Directors and/or Chairman on board.

 

So would it be possible to have an Independent Non Executive Chairman, a non alligned CEO, retain the FD & have representation from the three larger groups as Non Execs?????

 

And maybe I'm being really picky, but given the "Lowe" factor over unity, couldn't Mike Richards and/or Cowen represent that shareholding group????

 

Is David Jones or whatever the FD's name is/was still there? Cowen is not the best communicator and can come across as flippant if you don't know the guy, but I think he waould be a more acceptable face than Lowe.

 

Perhaps the three monkeys could all be non-execs with and independant CEO

 

3. I see no reason why Lowe must retain both the positions of CEO & Chairman, and being honest I would much rather he held neither role.

 

Firstly as a CEO he has made too many errors in recent years on an operational basis, and secondly at Chairman level I don't think he has the independence, the respect or the personality for such a role at this Club.

 

If we are talking about a considered way forward then I totally agree, we will argue for ever about the reasons, but this is what I have been trying to advocate as an alternative to the knee jerk 'Lowe out' stance.

 

4. So although a balance of Independence and shareholder representation could be the way forward, how would this actually work in practice???

 

How do we arrive at the big decisions over the manager, the strategy, transfer policy???

 

How would Crouch react if the majority voted for a French duo playing the youth as our next managerial set up??? How would Lowe/Cowen react if the the majority voted for a Geordie duo playing 35 year olds???

 

Would they accept a majority vote, would a consensus develop or would you just task the CEO to deliver in much the same way as a manager is tasked to deliver on the pitch.

 

I personally think something needs to be done as I just don't tink the current set up is delivering on or off the pitch. I also fear that we may soon have to bite the bullet with regards Jan, so potentially the next decision we have to make could be so important for the future of this Club.

 

If the three monkeys were non-execs they would have the input in the relevant meetings for the main footballing decisions - the gripe would still be that none of them were qualified to make such decisions and Lowe would probably have the most experience.

 

Whatever the strategy people have got to realise that cash is king at the moment and regardless of the ins and outs I bet the wage bill is significantly lower than at the end of last season. I am not sure the football side can be balanced right now as we are walking on eggshells with the bank I expect.

 

But critically I really think that this sort of debate is what we should all be having, on here, in relevant forums, and then a representative body like the trust should take this forward to the board with proposals and reasons.

 

It would take a huge campaign from the trust to reengage itself with the normal supporter and maybe a very narrow objective to achieve that - what we do not want to do is turn it into a Lowe out campaign as I think he does have something positive to offer, not as a figurehead but from a business perspective and maybe even a footballing perspective if others are able to question the reasons for the decision.

 

If we can engage people with this sort of positive campaign, then maybe we as supporters can beging to heal the rifts withing the fan base and in the process regain some pride in our club by making it a truly family club with the board and supporters working towards an acceptable position through understanding.

[um pahars]

Agreed - I have always thought the best way to unite people going forward is for all three of the main players to issue a strategy which they are all signed up to.

 

 

 

Is David Jones or whatever the FD's name is/was still there? Cowen is not the best communicator and can come across as flippant if you don't know the guy, but I think he waould be a more acceptable face than Lowe.

 

Perhaps the three monkeys could all be non-execs with and independant CEO

 

 

 

If we are talking about a considered way forward then I totally agree, we will argue for ever about the reasons, but this is what I have been trying to advocate as an alternative to the knee jerk 'Lowe out' stance.

 

 

 

If the three monkeys were non-execs they would have the input in the relevant meetings for the main footballing decisions - the gripe would still be that none of them were qualified to make such decisions and Lowe would probably have the most experience.

 

Whatever the strategy people have got to realise that cash is king at the moment and regardless of the ins and outs I bet the wage bill is significantly lower than at the end of last season. I am not sure the football side can be balanced right now as we are walking on eggshells with the bank I expect.

 

But critically I really think that this sort of debate is what we should all be having, on here, in relevant forums, and then a representative body like the trust should take this forward to the board with proposals and reasons.

 

It would take a huge campaign from the trust to reengage itself with the normal supporter and maybe a very narrow objective to achieve that - what we do not want to do is turn it into a Lowe out campaign as I think he does have something positive to offer, not as a figurehead but from a business perspective and maybe even a footballing perspective if others are able to question the reasons for the decision.

 

If we can engage people with this sort of positive campaign, then maybe we as supporters can beging to heal the rifts withing the fan base and in the process regain some pride in our club by making it a truly family club with the board and supporters working towards an acceptable position through understanding.

 

Fccukc me, this is turning into a love in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

When the Executives were ousted last December, the scenario I outlined above was one that I was pushing for.

 

1. Find an Independent Chairman who the fans could support,

 

2. Employ a non alligned empowered CEO,

 

3. Keep the FD (Jones) for continuity,

 

4. And then have Non Execs representing the three shareholding factions (e.g. Wilde, Crouch and Richards &/or Cowen as that stake is 26%ish). I wouldn't have had the divisive Lowe as a Non Exec, certainly not as Chairman and no way as CEO.

 

Instead, Crouch couldn't find a way of involving the others (and the other two couldn't find a way of working with each other anyway) and so we missed that option and instead got two former enemies kicking out a common foe leaving us with Lowe making the big decisions again. Quality all round.

[sadoldgit]

What happens at other clubs has no bearing whatsoever to what happens to us. Just because other clubs have fallen on hard times doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and accept crap managers, crap chairman and crap players.

 

"They're rubbish, so we might as well just be as bad":rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

 

 

You're quite right it was no accident, rather it was as a direct result of a number of poor decisions which culminated in relegation. And the person overseeing the majority of those poor decisions (and particularly those that had the most negative impact) was Lowe.

 

I have no problem with the issue of relegation, the meritocracy of the league system or that the league table never lies, but I also believe you shouldn't bury your head in the sand and ignore what saw us relegated (mainly because I would not like to see those mistakes repeated!!!).

 

 

 

They may well face the same economic constraints, but that does not mean they have to make the same stupid mistakes that we made, mistakes which have cost us millions and mistakes which look as if they are being repeated again, ultimately seeing us hurtle towards oblivion.

 

In your world it would appear that you have no control over your own destiny and you just have to accept your fate.

 

IMHO, that's defeatist and negative.

 

We may not have a divine right to dine at the top table, but that certainly doesn't mean we just accept our fate down here and don't give it our best shot at getting back up there.

 

Then again when we were there last time you reckon we were merely a poor team:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Can't be arsed to cross swords with you or your nephew and his smiley faces anymore, but I never said we were poor. I think I said we were often average or below and some times poor and that is supported by our empty trophy cabinet and league positions.

 

Perhaps you are on the wrong fans site Steve?

[Long Shot]

Agreed - I have always thought the best way to unite people going forward is for all three of the main players to issue a strategy which they are all signed up to.

 

 

 

Is David Jones or whatever the FD's name is/was still there? Cowen is not the best communicator and can come across as flippant if you don't know the guy, but I think he waould be a more acceptable face than Lowe.

 

Perhaps the three monkeys could all be non-execs with and independant CEO

 

 

 

If we are talking about a considered way forward then I totally agree, we will argue for ever about the reasons, but this is what I have been trying to advocate as an alternative to the knee jerk 'Lowe out' stance.

 

 

 

If the three monkeys were non-execs they would have the input in the relevant meetings for the main footballing decisions - the gripe would still be that none of them were qualified to make such decisions and Lowe would probably have the most experience.

 

Whatever the strategy people have got to realise that cash is king at the moment and regardless of the ins and outs I bet the wage bill is significantly lower than at the end of last season. I am not sure the football side can be balanced right now as we are walking on eggshells with the bank I expect.

 

But critically I really think that this sort of debate is what we should all be having, on here, in relevant forums, and then a representative body like the trust should take this forward to the board with proposals and reasons.

 

It would take a huge campaign from the trust to reengage itself with the normal supporter and maybe a very narrow objective to achieve that - what we do not want to do is turn it into a Lowe out campaign as I think he does have something positive to offer, not as a figurehead but from a business perspective and maybe even a footballing perspective if others are able to question the reasons for the decision.

 

If we can engage people with this sort of positive campaign, then maybe we as supporters can beging to heal the rifts withing the fan base and in the process regain some pride in our club by making it a truly family club with the board and supporters working towards an acceptable position through understanding.

 

 

Appreciate you are giving this a sensible debate but there are two flaws if you don't mind me saying.

I honestly don't think Lowe remaining will add anything. Whatever skills he has will never have a positive effect on the club and any business acumen he does possess is totally negated by his many weaknesses. I know this is a subjective view but please your well thought rationale loses itself as soon as you hang your hat on Lowe remaining. Also I truly think the Trust to be a busted flush. Can't knock them for trying but over the last 2 years just when we have really needed a strong coherent supporters' voice it has been sadly lacking. No wonder people like Wilde are keen for the Trust to get involved because it means they can become just another smokescreen for people like him to hide behind.

 

I don't know who to blame for the Trust's woeful performance - I know NI tries to do a decent job (pat on back) but either he has been badly supported or deliberately mislead.

 

Apart from that I do appreciate you are trying to contribute sensibly without malice and that is to be welcomed. If only more were like that on here.

[um pahars]

Can't be arsed to cross swords with you or your nephew and his smiley faces anymore, but I never said we were poor. I think I said we were often average or below and some times poor and that is supported by our empty trophy cabinet and league positions.

 

Perhaps you are on the wrong fans site Steve?

 

And there I was commenting on how good it was to see some debate and alternative viewpoints:rolleyes:

 

And of course you never said we were poor when we were in the top flight:rolleyes:

 

I remember a couple of forays into Europe under Ted Bates and some success with McMenemy and a FA Cup Final under Strachan. Other than that we have been poor or average.

[Wes Tender]

I find a lot of what Um Pahars says to be pretty close to my thoughts if we couldn't manage to get a totally independent board. At the very least there should be an independent Chairman and Chief Executive. It might be acceptable that each of the three major shareholders / groups were represented by a non-executive director, but preferably they wouldn't themselves be on the board as they have demonstrated an inability to act together without their egos interfering. In particular, you only have to read what Wiseman has said about the way that Lowe behaves in a boardroom to realise that the best place for him is nowhere near ours when the aim is unity.