Wes Tender Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 You keep right on believing that Wes, it won't work, didn't work before ,won't work now.At best he'll blow the fuse (Jan) which will buy him a bit more time. Which mass boycott are you talking about? I appear to have missed it. Yes, sacking JP would buy him a little breathing space, but he would have to take all the flack for appointing him in the first place, which would be hard for the arrogant tosser. But who would he replace him with? Unless our fortunes improved quickly under somebody who knew what they were doing, Lowe would soon be back to square one. We'll have worked ourselves into a position where we don't need to sell millions of season tickets, a lot more contracts are up in June, the academy is full of hopefuls. Lowe has just 1 objective this season, survival, he doesn't give a rats arse about the rest.We will survive financially,he will make it so. No he won't. He might without a mass boycott, but there's no way that he would if one was well observed and therefore effective. As I said, matters would be out of his hands as the income stream would be reduced below sustainable levels and it would be the bank and loan note holder who decide. If we can stay in the CCC there is a whole new gravy train next season. +£3 million in guaranteed extra TV money is worth almost 9000 ST sold to moaning minnies in the stands, he wants that revenue stream,he will take the measures necessary to obtain it,; with or without the fans. Then if you want to see football next season well you'll have to buy a ticket for each match.ST prices will probably be so attractive in March that hardcore fans will fall over themselves to get them. And you think that that TV revenue will enable us to sustain our financial obligations without a decent take-up of STs and without having a set number of bums on seats? I'm already buying a ticket match by match, but if he's still here, I will very seriously consider not going whilst he remains. And whereas he has never reduced ST prices in all the time he's been here, regardless of the drop in division, you suddenly think that he'll do that next season? Anyway, unless there is some drastic change, we will not survive, certainly not under the Dutch clown. Lowe isn't an amateur, the people organising all these protests probably are. Lowe might not be an amateur when it comes to any sort of normal business, but he has absolutely no idea of running a business in the entertainment industry. There is sufficient expertise within the ranks of the fan base to organise and galvanise the support and it will emerge to make useful contributions. Probably a plus that this isn't being organised by past antagonists who have blotted their copybooks.
CanadaSaint Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 As much as I wish them good luck, I think there are only three ways in which this group can make any impact: 1) By gathering enough shares to pose a threat to Lowe and his controlling group (or convincing a large chunk of that group to desert him), 2) By finding a basis for a court challenge based on abuse of minority shareholders rights - and pursuing it, 3) By garnering enough publicity to unsettle Lowe (or to unsettle the major debt holders to the point at which they act). The odds are heavily stacked against all three, especially as they don't seem to be developing any kind of alternative to Lowe. So that leaves us in the same place - drifting towards the tragic relegation/administration combo. Still, good luck to them.
70's Mike Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Publicly Askham,Withers,Windsor Clive,Cowan, Inheritors of Tony Dye,perhaps Richards,whoever Tom Scott sold the 550K shares he took off Lowe's Old Man and probably a bit from Singh as well to(nobody probably, probably just buried in an offshore maze) Marland is mixed up in there somewhere, other "business associates" of Lowe and or any of the bunch named above, Lowe's family, their family, family's of all of aforenamed etc etc.Don't forget the rights issue wasn't fully taken up by the "rightees".A lot probably got spirited away into dark dank places where no-one would ever think of looking for them. Singh has cashed in who know where those 4.62% went etc etc. you make it sound like a skate family, now who was ruperts sister
Big Bad Bob Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 you make it sound like a skate family' date=' now who was ruperts sister[/quote'] His mother I believe!!
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 I bet Richard Chorley turns up, whether he's a shareholder or not and bogarts the meeting.How do they actually know who's a share holder and who's not. I am but my name isn't on any publically viewable list anywhere.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 His mother I believe!! Don't go there Bob, you know he gets tetchy about stuff like that.
um pahars Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Keep on thinking that way then Derry.I would wager that some of the 20% are well and truly "aligned". I studied this for a long ,long time,just out of interest really,even looked up the family connections of some of the "non-entitys". You'd be surprised.Obviously they're all independant people backing their judgement in each case :rolleyes::rolleyes: I'm sorry Window Cleaner, but I think you are wide of the mark on this one. Wilde owns circa 16% and The Lowe cabal 26%. This is made up of Lowe (& family), Askham, Richards, Withers, Cowen, Marland and a couple of others). http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=9955 You can rest assured that there is no tie in for shares over this 42%, because if there was, then they would haver said as much when they called the EGM (and if it was above 50% of the issued shares, then they woudln't have even bothered calling one). The 42% ceratinly makes them fairly secure, because alhtough there is 58% up for grabs, it would be mighty difficult to drag them all out (and that's also assuming they would all be anti Lowe). However, that does not mean they untouchable. If compiling 42% against them proves to be difficult, then of course the other scenario is the withdrawal of support from the current 42%. Askham, Richards and a few others certainly waivered back in the Branfoot days when protests, boycotts and stayaways started to have an impact.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 (edited) I'm sorry Window Cleaner, but I think you are wide of the mark on this one. Wilde owns circa 16% and The Lowe cabal 26%. This is made up of Lowe (& family), Askham, Richards, Withers, Cowen, Marland and a couple of others). http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=9955 You can rest assured that there is no tie in for shares over this 42%, because if there was, then they would haver said as much when they called the EGM (and if it was above 50% of the issued shares, then they woudln't have even bothered calling one). The 42% ceratinly makes them fairly secure, because alhtough there is 58% up for grabs, it would be mighty difficult to drag them all out (and that's also assuming they would all be anti Lowe). However, that does not mean they untouchable. If compiling 42% against them proves to be difficult, then of course the other scenario is the withdrawal of support from the current 42%. Askham, Richards and a few others certainly waivered back in the Branfoot days when protests, boycotts and stayaways started to have an impact. Whatever Um, you're always right. Just can't be bothered any more today. I will re-iterate, if you now want to control SLH and thus SFC there are 2 routes. Via Wilde or Via Lowe all the rest are dead ends. If they don't want to sell then you ain't going to get control. That's it on this subject for today. Have a nice meeting. Just add here that document is very carefully worded. At no time was the impression given that anyone controls in concert or not more than 30% of the total issue.For obvious reasons. Edited 23 January, 2009 by Window Cleaner
aintforever Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 If we can stay in the CCC there is a whole new gravy train next season. +£3 million in guaranteed extra TV money is worth almost 9000 ST sold to moaning minnies in the stands, he wants that revenue stream, That's ****ing typical, 3mill extra and we will be on -10 at the bottom of League 1 without a penny to scratch our ass with.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 That's ****ing typical, 3mill extra and we will be on -10 at the bottom of League 1 without a penny to scratch our ass with. No ,because we only get the 4 million TV money if we're in the CCC. There's nowhere near that in league 1.
aintforever Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 No ,because we only get the 4 million TV money if we're in the CCC. There's nowhere near that in league 1. That's what I meant, the extra money would give us a chance to sort ourselves out but Lowe's Dutch gamble is going to ruin any chance of that. Surely if there is that much more money it would have been worth paying for a decent manager this season - that would have been a sensible gamble.
um pahars Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Whatever Um, you're always right. Just can't be bothered any more today. No need to get stroppy when faced with some facts. Facts are that if they had more than 42% support when they approached the Club back in March then you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have said so. Lowe isn't shy in coming forward and if he had any more than 50%+1, then he would have been telling the world because it would have been a fait accompli. I will re-iterate, if you now want to control SLH and thus SFC there are 2 routes. Via Wilde or Via Lowe all the rest are dead ends. If they don't want to sell than you ain't going to get control. That's it on this subject for today. Have a nice meeting. If you want to control SLH all you need to do is gain a majority support of the shareholders voting in an EGM. At the moment the 42% makes the current position fairly stable (for reasons I mentioned above), but : a) It is not an unassailable position and neither would it be impossible to pull together a seperate cabal that could get near this figure (it's starting from a position of 20% with Crouch, Corbett's & McMenemy) without any movement in Lowe's 42%. Difficult, but certainly not impossible b) Movement away from the Lowe cabal would make the position very interesting. If Richards and Askham wavered, then that would be a 14% swing with the Lowe cabal only guaranteed 35% and the Crouch axis then totalling 27%. Of course there are many more permutations and there would also have to be much humble pie eaten and partnerships forged between former enemies, but if Wilde can backtrack on everything he has stood for, then only a fool would say it is an impossibility that things could move again. Outside of that, then an alliance between other shareholders is no bad thing, as: a) A decent wedge could start seeking representation on the PLC board, b) A decent wedge can start to make life difficult for the current board (votes of no confidence, EGM's called etc etc etc) c) It would be a base from which to build if the Lowe cabal did start to break.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 No need to get stroppy when faced with some facts. Facts are that if they had more than 42% support when they approached the Club back in March then you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have said so. Lowe isn't shy in coming forward and if he had any more than 50%+1, then he would have been telling the world because it would have been a fait accompli. If you want to control SLH all you need to do is gain a majority support of the shareholders voting in an EGM. At the moment the 42% makes the current position fairly stable (for reasons I mentioned above), but : a) It is not an unassailable position and neither would it be impossible to pull together a seperate cabal that could get near this figure (it's starting from a position of 20% with Crouch, Corbett's & McMenemy) without any movement in Lowe's 42%. Difficult, but certainly not impossible b) Movement away from the Lowe cabal would make the position very interesting. If Richards and Askham wavered, then that would be a 14% swing with the Lowe cabal only guaranteed 35% and the Crouch axis then totalling 27%. Of course there are many more permutations and there would also have to be much humble pie eaten and partnerships forged between former enemies, but if Wilde can backtrack on everything he has stood for, then only a fool would say it is an impossibility that things could move again. Outside of that, then an alliance between other shareholders is no bad thing, as: a) A decent wedge could start seeking representation on the PLC board, b) A decent wedge can start to make life difficult for the current board (votes of no confidence, EGM's called etc etc etc) c) It would be a base from which to build if the Lowe cabal did start to break. But there you've a fundamental error in your assumptions. The totality of the holdings of Crouch,Corbetts and McMenemy don't even shape up to Wilde's professed holding.McMenemy is a very minor shareholder. Don't even start me on Patrick Trant who wheedled his way into the board room on the back of a (supposed) promise that he would buy up Lowe's shares.
um pahars Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Just add here that document is very carefully worded. At no time was the impression given that anyone controls in concert or not more than 30% of the total issue.For obvious reasons. You need to go and have a look at what a Concert Party means, how it is defined and then compare that to what they declared in thr EGM requisition e.g. letters of support, which are a million miles away from being deemed a Concert Party. They could havce solicited support for 50%+1 and it would still nto be deemed as a Concert Party.
um pahars Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 But there you've a fundamental error in your assumptions. The totality of the holdings of Crouch,Corbetts and McMenemy don't even shape up to Wilde's professed holding.McMenemy is a very minor shareholder. Don't even start me on Patrick Trant who wheedled his way into the board room on the back of a (supposed) promise that he would buy up Lowe's shares. A fundamental error. Crouch holds just under 10%, the Corbett's 6%, McMenemy (& wife) 1% and a couple of others bring it close to 20% as a starting point. If you want to round down and call it 19%, then it's hardly a fundamental error. What would be a fundamental error would be claiming Lowe has more than 42% locked in.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 A fundamental error. Crouch holds just under 10%, the Corbett's 6%, McMenemy (& wife) 1% and a couple of others bring it close to 20% as a starting point. If you want to round down and call it 19%, then it's hardly a fundamental error. What would be a fundamental error would be claiming Lowe has more than 42% locked in. THat total shareholding comes to less than 17%, it's nothing to do with 19% and I don't think the Corbetts actually total a full 6% It's about 9.95+5.4+0.58 if the truth be known, not 20%, not 19% not 17% but a rough 16% ie less than Wilde.
um pahars Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Don't even start me on Patrick Trant who wheedled his way into the board room on the back of a (supposed) promise that he would buy up Lowe's shares. Would be very interested to know where Trant ever promised to buy Lowe's shares. He certainly indicated he would be willing to invest in a share issue, thereby injecting funds in the Club (one which he later reneged on), but that's totally different from offering to buy Lowe's shares.
um pahars Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 (edited) THat total shareholding comes to less than 17%, it's nothing to do with 19% and I don't think the Corbetts actually total a full 6% It's about 9.95+5.4+0.58 if the truth be known, not 20%, not 19% not 17% but a rough 16% ie less than Wilde. You're out on Crouch's by a bit, out by over 0.5% on the Corbett's (some are within the Cheviot Asset Management's figure), plus add a few close supporters (I'll admit I added them in my second post), and you're at a starting point of 20%. Anyway, hardly a fundamental error:rolleyes::rolleyes:. A fundamental error would be claiming Lowe had more than 42% locked in or that hios position was unassailable, which his EGM requisition clearly showed was not the case. Edited 23 January, 2009 by um pahars
NickG Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 so in summary -Lowe and Wilde together, everyone else is irrelevant!
70's Mike Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 so in summary -Lowe and Wilde together, everyone else is irrelevant! almost right except it is Lowe plus the muppets and Wilde
thorpie the sinner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Oh my God, post 666!!! We are doomed, doomed I tell ya!!!
um pahars Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 so in summary -Lowe and Wilde together, everyone else is irrelevant! Well, unless someone really can work miracles and pull together 42% of dissenting voices (difficult? most definitely, impossible? no), then as long as Lowe's cabal of 26% and Wilde stick together then they are in control. However, any cracks in that support and it becomes a totally different story. Wilde is the kingmaker here. If he changes his mind again, then it could well be all change!!!!!
WealdSaint Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Well, unless someone really can work miracles and pull together 42% of dissenting voices (difficult? most definitely, impossible? no), then as long as Lowe's cabal of 26% and Wilde stick together then they are in control. However, any cracks in that support and it becomes a totally different story. Wilde is the kingmaker here. If he changes his mind again, then it could well be all change!!!!! Cowan & Askham possibly as well. Less likely....but not impossible
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Well, unless someone really can work miracles and pull together 42% of dissenting voices (difficult? most definitely, impossible? no), then as long as Lowe's cabal of 26% and Wilde stick together then they are in control. However, any cracks in that support and it becomes a totally different story. Wilde is the kingmaker here. If he changes his mind again, then it could well be all change!!!!! Steve you are right. Wilde remains the kingmaker, the worrying thing is he is starting to feel the heat - leaving 20 mins before the end of the game shows he is rattled and I gather Lowe hardly bothers talking to him now. If he performs one more U turn our club could yet be saved.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 As much as I wish them good luck, I think there are only three ways in which this group can make any impact: 1) By gathering enough shares to pose a threat to Lowe and his controlling group (or convincing a large chunk of that group to desert him), 2) By finding a basis for a court challenge based on abuse of minority shareholders rights - and pursuing it, 3) By garnering enough publicity to unsettle Lowe (or to unsettle the major debt holders to the point at which they act). The odds are heavily stacked against all three, especially as they don't seem to be developing any kind of alternative to Lowe. So that leaves us in the same place - drifting towards the tragic relegation/administration combo. Still, good luck to them. 1 and 3 together with the atmosphere and demonstrations could be assumed as far as the board and banks are concerned as the effluent hitting the oscillator. I fear relegation more than administration as cloth and measure will be the name of the game.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Steve you are right. Wilde remains the kingmaker, the worrying thing is he is starting to feel the heat - leaving 20 mins before the end of the game shows he is rattled and I gather Lowe hardly bothers talking to him now. If he performs one more U turn our club could yet be saved. This could certainly put the pressure on in any event, together with the planned demonstrations and negative publicity, especially being now publically reviled. Did you or your wife know Brian Howards girlfriend, longhaul cabin staff at BA.
CanadaSaint Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 1 and 3 together with the atmosphere and demonstrations could be assumed as far as the board and banks are concerned as the effluent hitting the oscillator. I fear relegation more than administration as cloth and measure will be the name of the game. Dave, I fear that relegation and administration will go hand in hand, in that order or the reverse order. Steve you are right. Wilde remains the kingmaker, the worrying thing is he is starting to feel the heat - leaving 20 mins before the end of the game shows he is rattled and I gather Lowe hardly bothers talking to him now. If he performs one more U turn our club could yet be saved. Duncan, if Wilde is that unnerved by a bit of heat from the fans (partially aimed at him) is it likely that he'd be willing to step into the kitchen (running the club as opposed to propping Rupert up)?
RoswellSaint Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 1 and 3 together with the atmosphere and demonstrations could be assumed as far as the board and banks are concerned as the effluent hitting the oscillator. I fear relegation more than administration as cloth and measure will be the name of the game. Are you not at the meeting?
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Dave, I fear that relegation and administration will go hand in hand, in that order or the reverse order. Duncan, if Wilde is that unnerved by a bit of heat from the fans (partially aimed at him) is it likely that he'd be willing to step into the kitchen (running the club as opposed to propping Rupert up)? I'm not sure about the administration bit Bill, I think if we go down, we may go down again. Administration would be an awful situation, but it would cause Lowe a big problem. Wilde won't work with Crouch and would need him to take over again. I couldn't see Lowe letting that happen.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Are you not at the meeting? I'm not a shareholder, I saw it in last nights Echo and put it on here to try and publicise it.
John B Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Steve you are right. Wilde remains the kingmaker, the worrying thing is he is starting to feel the heat - leaving 20 mins before the end of the game shows he is rattled and I gather Lowe hardly bothers talking to him now. If he performs one more U turn our club could yet be saved. Yes saved from Lowe But will it be saved financially? A few more through the gates . A different manager other players All cost money
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Jan Portvliet has resigned, Mark Wotte is head coach. www.saintsfc.co.uk
dubai_phil Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Steve you are right. Wilde remains the kingmaker, the worrying thing is he is starting to feel the heat - leaving 20 mins before the end of the game shows he is rattled and I gather Lowe hardly bothers talking to him now. If he performs one more U turn our club could yet be saved. FF the problem is that this only moves the deckchairs around again. Wilde cannot control the club with his shareholding alone, Crouch may put some short term cash in, but the REAL problem becomes once again fractured ownership and it makes it very difficult for somebody to take the club over from outside (if they could be found) and also buys us what? time until the end of the season? Wilde didn't find investment, Crouch didn't find investment (despite ALL his contacts and hope of Salz) they STILL haven't found somebody to back them so when we move the deckchairs we are lost AGAIN. All 3 have to stop fighting and all 3 bring in PROPER professionals with a mandate, otherwise we buy a few months and TBH Lowe & Wilde may be able to do that anyway. It's a MESS and moving deckchairs between the 3 amigos has Failed Failed and Failed. We need Lowe out but MORE important we need a GODDAM MANAGER WHO KNOWS HOW TO PLAY EFFIN FOOTBALL and HOW TO GET HIS SQUAD MATCH FIT.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 FF the problem is that this only moves the deckchairs around again. Wilde cannot control the club with his shareholding alone, Crouch may put some short term cash in, but the REAL problem becomes once again fractured ownership and it makes it very difficult for somebody to take the club over from outside (if they could be found) and also buys us what? time until the end of the season? Wilde didn't find investment, Crouch didn't find investment (despite ALL his contacts and hope of Salz) they STILL haven't found somebody to back them so when we move the deckchairs we are lost AGAIN. All 3 have to stop fighting and all 3 bring in PROPER professionals with a mandate, otherwise we buy a few months and TBH Lowe & Wilde may be able to do that anyway. It's a MESS and moving deckchairs between the 3 amigos has Failed Failed and Failed. We need Lowe out but MORE important we need a GODDAM MANAGER WHO KNOWS HOW TO PLAY EFFIN FOOTBALL and HOW TO GET HIS SQUAD MATCH FIT. I think your letter published in the Echo tonight could have concentrated his mind.
exit2 Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 my mate is there. I text to ask how many there his reply 300 minus 293!!!
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 my mate is there. I text to ask how many there That's a shame, I hope there are a few more at the demonstration. Maybe it will be the start of something, they need to publicise it better next time, with some lead in time.
dubai_phil Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 I think your letter published in the Echo tonight could have concentrated his mind. Yep, it's a lousy job but someone has to do it. Next trick a rabbit out of a hat. When I master that I will cause Thunderstorms and torrential rain in the desert. ..... OK I was asleep and got woke up because the villa got hit by lightning! Wouldn't mind but the bugger called my bluff I had to pay 7.99 plus taxes for his ticket home!
cambsaint Posted 24 January, 2009 Posted 24 January, 2009 It appears to me that Lowe has very little power on his own. The man with the real power is Wilde, if he withdraws his support from the Lowe camp and returns to fornm an alliance with Crouch then the power shifts back immediately. Ergo all protests should be directed at Wilde -the kingmaker, Lowe in reality is his puppet. I have asuspicion that for all his faults and misjudgements Wilde is still afgan at heart, which Lowe and his get rich quick at any cost mayes weren't. BTW for Wilde to be able to buy his way into Jersey he would have needed very considerable liquid assets in addition to his residential property, and unless they have all gone belly up he probably is still able to rescue us along with others. NB I have no inside knowledge except a little about Jersey property law.
fos1 Posted 24 January, 2009 Posted 24 January, 2009 It appears to me that Lowe has very little power on his own. The man with the real power is Wilde, if he withdraws his support from the Lowe camp and returns to fornm an alliance with Crouch then the power shifts back immediately. Ergo all protests should be directed at Wilde -the kingmaker, Lowe in reality is his puppet. I have asuspicion that for all his faults and misjudgements Wilde is still afgan at heart, which Lowe and his get rich quick at any cost mayes weren't. BTW for Wilde to be able to buy his way into Jersey he would have needed very considerable liquid assets in addition to his residential property, and unless they have all gone belly up he probably is still able to rescue us along with others. NB I have no inside knowledge except a little about Jersey property law. Wildes house in Jersey is now a hotel !!!
VectisSaint Posted 24 January, 2009 Posted 24 January, 2009 Other than the fact that it appears there were only 7 at the meeting does anyone have any news on what actually happened?
John B Posted 24 January, 2009 Posted 24 January, 2009 my mate is there. I text to ask how many there his reply 300 minus 293!!! Well that seems to be a waste of time As a matter of interest how many shares did the seven have?
Saint Richard of Woolston Posted 24 January, 2009 Posted 24 January, 2009 Oh dear. 7000 shares and 7 attendees. Rupert must be losing sleep tonight. Can't see Wilde hopping over the fence again - whatever he thinks of Lowe, he has to tough it out where he is. Crouch would never trust him again. The rest of the dance, saying who owns what to the nearest .00001%, is all a waste of time until a Mr Big comes in and acts. Chances of that - .00001% IMHO, although I am sure Bean Counter will take issue with my rounding. So, in summary, we are where we are. We have no money so options are limited both on and off the pitch. How about dropping all the posturing for three months or so and getting behind the team? No? Didn't think so.
um pahars Posted 24 January, 2009 Posted 24 January, 2009 Chances of that - .00001% IMHO, although I am sure Bean Counter will take issue with my rounding. I'm sure Window Cleaner won't call it a fundamental error and will let you roundings ride;) So, in summary, we are where we are. We have no money so options are limited both on and off the pitch. How about dropping all the posturing for three months or so and getting behind the team? No? Didn't think so. I was all for getting behind Poortvliet. Every game I have been to this season I have got behind the team and supported Poortvliet. Hell, even Jan himself has said this before the Doncaster match "The fans have supported us very well this season and it's up to us now to give them something back. But now Poortvliet has been sacked, so we must have other options on that front, so why not hope we have options on the CEO front? Lowe certainly didn't go with your concept of sticking with what you've got regarding the manager and supporting him for three months, so please don't have a pop at those with a similar train of thought regarding the CEO.
Saint Richard of Woolston Posted 24 January, 2009 Posted 24 January, 2009 The odd time I pop on here, let me assure you that I shall have no problem in expressing an opinion, even if it does not concur with you or others. Sorry if it offends. And if you and others think the support v Donny was adequate and gives the team the best chance of survival then I will even defend your right to that opinion. Also, if swiping at everything the Club and/or those who run it is a way to salvation in your opinion, I am more than happy that you express it. Although it may mean I consider you to be even more barkingly mad than I already do. Taking slices off the club and people involved is entirely counter-productive for now. Only in my humble opinion, of course.
um pahars Posted 24 January, 2009 Posted 24 January, 2009 (edited) The odd time I pop on here, let me assure you that I shall have no problem in expressing an opinion, even if it does not concur with you or others. Sorry if it offends. It certainly doesn't offend me, just find it rather starnge how you call for us to rally around someone/something, when 24 hrs earlier it was OK for those in charge to refuse to rally around the manager they appointed. And if you and others think the support v Donny was adequate and gives the team the best chance of survival then I will even defend your right to that opinion. Also, if swiping at everything the Club and/or those who run it is a way to salvation in your opinion, I am more than happy that you express it. Although it may mean I consider you to be even more barkingly mad than I already do. There can be no doubt that the atmosphere at the Donny game was unsavoury, but after such a pathetic return from home games this season I think it was always going to blow at some point. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be somewhat naive. Additionally, I think it would be worthwhile adding that none of the vitriol was aimed at the players, who have received nothing but support for their endeavours (DMG excepted, who has had some stick). Up until then however, the support at SMS has been relagtively good. Numbers attending are another matter, but as has been discussed at great length elsewhere, the key in driving numbers up is a successful team under a successful manager and board. Football is all about having and espousing opinions, always has been and always will be. You could call the moans about Poortvliet's inadequacies, swipes, I would say they were people calling it right (and being realistic & honest, and certainly not negative as some portrayed). And as for suggesting that swiping will bring us salvation, then I am afraid it is you who are taking such a huge leap and making things up that don't exist. No one, and certainly not myself, has ever suggested that moaning on here will have anything more than a minimal effect on the Club, good or bad. I prefer direct and positive action as opposed to words when it is required. Taking slices off the club and people involved is entirely counter-productive for now. Only in my humble opinion, of course. I do not take slices off of the Club, I merely assess and judge those who are temporary custodians of our Club. Was it counter productive to remove Poortvliet? Why did we not maintain the staus quo with regards the manager and rally around him for the next 3 months? I would suggest he was pushed because those in power finally realised he was underperforming and that it would be more beneficial to replace him than persist with him. Why is it counter productive to hold an equivalent view with regards the current CEO? Edited 25 January, 2009 by um pahars
Saint Richard of Woolston Posted 25 January, 2009 Posted 25 January, 2009 You are a wonderful cure for insomnia, Steve.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now