saintjay77 Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 So all fans now contribute to the club so they should all have a say in the boardroom! No not all fans can afford to offer 2million unfortunately, at least he is prepared to put his money into save the club!! No PR spin as you said yesterday!! Bob, You can get the Soton Echo in Ringwood as I do !! But link on Forum now, so you can read for yourself that it was not PR spin yesterday !! But in reality it is PR spin. You could offer to buy half the club as long as I buy the other half. I cant afford it so I would have to say no but you would look better because at least you offered to do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 The article mentions the fact that any such deal would need a promise that Lowe and Wlide could not then just muscle back in again if they felt like it. This is not possible! No 'agreement' would be legally binding. The only way to stop them muscling back in is to buy their shares. Bloomin heck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 As I understood it, the meeting was during the day, JP quit late afternoon/early evening. Hmmm....back to 'not adding up' then.... i.e. if the outcome of Crouch's meeting with Lowe and Wilde was "nope, sorry, we don't like your plan Mr Crouch, especially the bit about changing the manager...." then Poortvliet would have surely known later that day that Lowe and Wilde, by virtue of turning Crouch away, had given him a vote of confidence (albeit indirectly)? Why walk away following such backing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 my source in the media has said that the echo had 2 stories ready to roll the first one being this.. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4078741.Crouch__Why_I_proposed_changes/ which is the one they ran with,the one that you have all been reading but there was another prepared if the deal was done. basically along the lines of my other post....this one.. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=8775 crouch has acquired £5mil to put into the club,he wanted lowe and wilde to put in £2mil each.the money was to pay the overdraft,believed to be in the region of £4.5mil? and the rest was to be spent on a decent manager who would be given the remainder to spend on players. paying the overdraft was priority as it 'unlocked the handcuffs' imposed by the bank. crouch obviously wanted something for his money and that was the immediate disposal of all the dutch lads to be replaced with a british manager he had already earmarked (unknown??) plus other conditions (as yet unknown) believed to be a watering down of power for wilde and lowe in some way?? this was all refused but JP was sacked/resigned and then wotte was given the job so something must have been agreed. this is just a rough few sentences that he told me but you get the gist of it. i have no reason not to believe him but there are far better itk's on here than me who are closer to LC so perhaps they can confirm or deny this stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 my source in the media has said that the echo had 2 stories ready to roll the first one being this.. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4078741.Crouch__Why_I_proposed_changes/ which is the one they ran with,the one that you have all been reading but there was another prepared if the deal was done. basically along the lines of my other post....this one.. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=8775 crouch has acquired £5mil to put into the club,he wanted lowe and wilde to put in £2mil each.the money was to pay the overdraft,believed to be in the region of £4.5mil? and the rest was to be spent on a decent manager who would be given the remainder to spend on players. paying the overdraft was priority as it 'unlocked the handcuffs' imposed by the bank. crouch obviously wanted something for his money and that was the immediate disposal of all the dutch lads to be replaced with a british manager he had already earmarked (unknown??) plus other conditions (as yet unknown) believed to be a watering down of power for wilde and lowe in some way?? this was all refused but JP was sacked/resigned and then wotte was given the job so something must have been agreed. this is just a rough few sentences that he told me but you get the gist of it. i have no reason not to believe him but there are far better itk's on here than me who are closer to LC so perhaps they can confirm or deny this stuff? This is the key line to me: "this was all refused but JP was sacked/resigned and then wotte was given the job so something must have been agreed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 This is the key line to me: "this was all refused but JP was sacked/resigned and then wotte was given the job so something must have been agreed." Yep,a comprimise was reached,Crouch wanted JP gone,Lowe wanted to continue with his grand Dutch plan,to somewhat save face,only thing was Crouch didnt get to appoint his own man in that scenario...for now. Somethings still need ironing out,the scenario has to suit all,unfortunately some parties are on their holibobs. All IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Hmmm....back to 'not adding up' then.... i.e. if the outcome of Crouch's meeting with Lowe and Wilde was "nope, sorry, we don't like your plan Mr Crouch, especially the bit about changing the manager...." then Poortvliet would have surely known later that day that Lowe and Wilde, by virtue of turning Crouch away, had given him a vote of confidence (albeit indirectly)? Why walk away following such backing? kind of goes against the idea that he was pushed too then doesnt it? IMO I think he has taken the view of the fans on board and judging the reaction on here after the vote of confidence he probably thought he is going to get stoned to death should he step out on the touchline in front of the fans again so thought he would go home to get stoned in style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 (edited) Yep,a comprimise was reached,Crouch wanted JP gone,Lowe wanted to continue with his grand Dutch plan,to somewhat save face,only thing was Crouch didnt get to appoint his own man in that scenario...for now. Somethings still need ironing out,the scenario has to suit all,unfortunately some parties are on their holibobs. All IMO. i believe that part of the £5mil crouch has to chuck into the hat is not all his own money and this may be the stumbling block.imo a better offer will be forthcoming but if it will be in time to save us will be another matter. this is all imo of course. Edited 27 January, 2009 by lordswoodsaints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 How about the other "bleeding obvious" Crouch wanted JP gone Crouch doesn't have 6mil But he may have it in about 6 or 8 weeks or something like that So then the appointment of Wotte makes a LOT of sense, because there are no guarantees the cash will be there, but it might be - suits BOTH sides to the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 (edited) How about the other "bleeding obvious" Crouch wanted JP gone Crouch doesn't have 6mil But he may have it in about 6 or 8 weeks or something like that So then the appointment of Wotte makes a LOT of sense, because there are no guarantees the cash will be there, but it might be - suits BOTH sides to the problem Thats how i see it. Lowe and Wildes position has become almost untenable,Crouch is now frantically scurrying around for significant funds,until that happens the comprimise with the change of coach/manager suits both parties in the short term. Lowe has got Wotte in the hot seat,but he knows he isnt up to the task but he is in a win win situation. If Wotte is good,great,Lowe will think he has been justified in the Dutch experiment,if hes tosh he will strike a deal with Crouch,so he has a face saving get out...in his opinion. All IMO. Edited 27 January, 2009 by saint lard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Yep,a comprimise was reached,Crouch wanted JP gone,Lowe wanted to continue with his grand Dutch plan,to somewhat save face,only thing was Crouch didnt get to appoint his own man in that scenario...for now. Somethings still need ironing out,the scenario has to suit all,unfortunately some parties are on their holibobs. All IMO. Yes but most successful business changes are not discussed in the Press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 I love this forum...... It must be the only place, where you can bring 2 x 5's together, and end up with half a dozen different results. FFS, there are some really big jumps of the imagination coming out here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 I love this forum...... It must be the only place, where you can bring 2 x 5's together, and end up with half a dozen different results. FFS, there are some really big jumps of the imagination coming out here. Agree. We'd have nowt to talk about if the club communicated in a transparent, consistent and unambiguous manner.... IMHO of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Going off at a tangent here, but I heard an item on the radio this morning about prepack administration and I recalled that some were thinking that this might be something RL had in mind. However, it looks like the rules are going to be more stringent now: http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/options/Pre-Packaged-Administration.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 We can only speculate on what finances Lowe and Wilde have available, but my suspician is that Wilde probably isn't in a position to invest but Lowe probably is. Lowe has syphoned hundreds of thousand each year from the club I believe he easily has that sort of money available, he probably wouldn't admit to it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe has syphoned hundreds of thousand each year from the club I believe he easily has that sort of money available, he probably wouldn't admit to it though Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe has syphoned hundreds of thousand each year from the club I believe he easily has that sort of money available, he probably wouldn't admit to it though Careful MrX, your internet persona does not exclude you from being sued you know!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 The only thing I think noteworthy in all this is that it seems that we've reduced our overdraft by a bit. Not bad eh !! As for loudmouth coming up with 6 million, well I don't think I'll hold my breath. Always the same sum with him 2 million, not a penny more not a penny less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Careful MrX, your internet persona does not exclude you from being sued you know!! oops does that count as slander then? it was only my opinion lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 oops does that count as slander then? it was only my opinion lol If your opinion is slanderous well then you can get sued for it. Unless of course you keep it to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 oops does that count as slander then? it was only my opinion lol Nope, never slander! Libellous, now that is another matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 (edited) I always understood that 'opinion' could not be considered to be slanderous, only stuff stated as being 'factual'. Look at this from Wiki. It would seem to suggest that internet fora are not 'publishers' and therefore not liable to the charge of libel. Slander is spoken, libel is published. "Slander and libel The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel[4][5] (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action. "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[6] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel." The debate whether Internet blogs or Bulletin Boards are publishers is a key subject being addressed, whereas an Internet based community is more akin to conversations in a bar or pub, with content being written as an ongoing dialog which is generally not edited or regulated such as in the publishing industry. "out-law.com" (August 8th, 2008)". Edited 27 January, 2009 by bridge too far Forgot to copy the extract <doh> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 I always understood that 'opinion' could not be considered to be slanderous, only stuff stated as being 'factual'. Look at this from Wiki. It would seem to suggest that internet fora are not 'publishers' and therefore not liable to the charge of libel. Slander is spoken, libel is published. "Slander and libel The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel[4][5] (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action. "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[6] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel." The debate whether Internet blogs or Bulletin Boards are publishers is a key subject being addressed, whereas an Internet based community is more akin to conversations in a bar or pub, with content being written as an ongoing dialog which is generally not edited or regulated such as in the publishing industry. "out-law.com" (August 8th, 2008)". Maybe, but the crux of the matter is that MrX says that it is a fact. He doesn't say probably,nor in his opinion (which is no excuse in the courts by the way) he says it as fact as if he knows that it has happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Maybe, but the crux of the matter is that MrX says that it is a fact. He doesn't say probably,nor in his opinion (which is no excuse in the courts by the way) he says it as fact as if he knows that it has happened. I beg to differ, m'lud "A defence recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation" http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 I beg to differ, m'lud "A defence recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation" http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation. It's a couple of lines further down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Careful MrX, your internet persona does not exclude you from being sued you know!! Yes I agree Lowe may have earnt loads of dosh but syphoned off is a little strong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corky morris Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Personally dont think Lowe has earnt anything from SFC! He was employed by SFC & its board, but actually earning what he was paid is a very very different thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 (edited) Personally dont think Lowe has earnt anything from SFC! He was employed by SFC & its board, but actually earning what he was paid is a very very different thing! Well he had a decent salary and a severage payment when he left that's for sure.Same as anybody else really. You can't say xx siphoned off money just because he got well paid or made redundant though. Edited 27 January, 2009 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 I think sometimes some of the contributors sail a bit close to the wind with their remarks. As much as I dislike, nay despise Lowe, I believe he has only taken out of the PLC what he was due in remuneration. Whether he was worth those payments is a toatally different matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 (edited) Moved to live thread Edited 27 January, 2009 by CanadaSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlin Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 I beg to differ, m'lud "A defence recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation" http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html But only if the opinion is based upon fact, and is not made with malicious intent. I currently have a copy of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists open in front of me. As with any media laws, there is a lot of grey area. Lawyers like this, as it gives them plenty of scope to argue. If things were black and white, they would not be able to rack up huge fees for court appearances. I quote from the above mentioned tome: "A judge said if you accurately report what some public man has done and then say: 'Such conduct is disraceful' that is merely an expression of your opinion, your comment on the person's conduct. "But the judge said that if you assert that the man has been gulty of disgraceful conduct and do not state what this conduct was this is an allegetion of fact for which there is no defence (other than the truth or privilege). It then cites a case in which the apparent rigour of the rule was relaxed by a judge's decision in 2006, to whit Lowe v Associated Newspapers. This is where Rupert went after The Evening Standard and lost. However, let's not forget that Rupert went after Martin Samuel in The Times, who in an opinion column described Lowe's treatment of Dave Jones as "shabby." Lowe won £250,000 in damages, despite The Times arguing the comment was an honestly held opinion, based on facts and not made with malicious intent. It took a jury less than three hours to blow that out of the water, which just goes to show what a complete lottery the UK's libel laws are. Incidentally, what chariy did Lowe donate the £250,000 damages to? I recall that he sued The Times effectively with the club's money. In other words, had he lost the damages would have been paid by the club (he argued that by defaming him, Samuel was also defaming the club). In return, he would donate any damages he won to charity. No doubt somebody will confirm which charity benefitted from this largesse..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Found this the other day....slander niot libel and worth taking to court? http://www.simkins.co.uk/ebulletins/lerSlandernotLibel.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Well he had a decent salary and a severage payment. "severage" as in harsh ? I think it is wrong to question his salary during his first spell with us, from memory it was VFM for a premiership chairman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 "severage" as in harsh ? I think it is wrong to question his salary during his first spell with us, from memory it was VFM for a premiership chairman. Severage as in cut off. Probably getting my many languages mixed up again and this word has not existed in English since Norman times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe and Wilde are understood to have refused Crouch’s offer. But they did give him the chance to stump up all the cash himself, promising they would resign and leave him to run the club if he did. Nothing mentioned about their shares? So they would resign and, at any given moment, collude (via their shareholding) to remove Crouch. And they thought he'd go for that? Perricks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe and Wilde are understood to have refused Crouch’s offer. But they did give him the chance to stump up all the cash himself, promising they would resign and leave him to run the club if he did. Nothing mentioned about their shares? So they would resign and, at any given moment, collude (via their shareholding) to remove Crouch. And they thought he'd go for that? Perricks!0 I think the text mentioned some sort of covenant that they wouldn't remove him if he put up the 6 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 0 I think the text mentioned some sort of covenant that they wouldn't remove him if he put up the 6 million. Apologies, my bad! I totally missed that point. Which is actually, in my estimation, why it didn't happen. They don't really want to relinquish control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 I think sometimes some of the contributors sail a bit close to the wind with their remarks. As much as I dislike, nay despise Lowe, I believe he has only taken out of the PLC what he was due in remuneration. Whether he was worth those payments is a toatally different matter Agreed - its why all those 'back pocket'comments are misleading and unhelpful - eg many have asked 'where has the money gone - its been mentioned so many times its become a mantra that even media commentators have asked the question - without checking the facts and it does influence fans attitudes - the simple answer being the audited accounts will give a clear picture - and auditors tend to spot ;missing millions; ;-) Also agreed that whether we believe he was worth the 400K package he was on when in the prem is a completely acceptable debate but also a seperate one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 But only if the opinion is based upon fact, and is not made with malicious intent. I currently have a copy of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists open in front of me. As with any media laws, there is a lot of grey area. Lawyers like this, as it gives them plenty of scope to argue. If things were black and white, they would not be able to rack up huge fees for court appearances. I quote from the above mentioned tome: "A judge said if you accurately report what some public man has done and then say: 'Such conduct is disraceful' that is merely an expression of your opinion, your comment on the person's conduct. "But the judge said that if you assert that the man has been gulty of disgraceful conduct and do not state what this conduct was this is an allegetion of fact for which there is no defence (other than the truth or privilege). It then cites a case in which the apparent rigour of the rule was relaxed by a judge's decision in 2006, to whit Lowe v Associated Newspapers. This is where Rupert went after The Evening Standard and lost. However, let's not forget that Rupert went after Martin Samuel in The Times, who in an opinion column described Lowe's treatment of Dave Jones as "shabby." Lowe won £250,000 in damages, despite The Times arguing the comment was an honestly held opinion, based on facts and not made with malicious intent. It took a jury less than three hours to blow that out of the water, which just goes to show what a complete lottery the UK's libel laws are. Incidentally, what chariy did Lowe donate the £250,000 damages to? I recall that he sued The Times effectively with the club's money. In other words, had he lost the damages would have been paid by the club (he argued that by defaming him, Samuel was also defaming the club). In return, he would donate any damages he won to charity. No doubt somebody will confirm which charity benefitted from this largesse..... I believe on appeal - as usually happens theis figure was reduced to 50K which was split amongst teh Saints in teh community charities... but Naturally the truth must be that it was used for an exec party in St Lucia...;-) (Unfounded and completely made up specultaion as a satirical comment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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