Do you like Lowe?

[krissyboy31]

Do I want RL to stay? Not for a second longer and hope to god there is somebody out there willing to buy his shares, to rid this club of him for good.

Do I think he is the right person to run the club? From my answer above, you'll not be surprised to hear that I don't.

Do I like him? I don't know the man, so couldn't say. But I hate what he has done to the club, don't like the way he has treated certain people associated with the club and its fan-base and do not like his completely arrogant demeanor. So I imagine that if I did know him, the answer would also be no.

[NickG]

what a pointless topic we all know that you are a lowe lovie and now with this thread desperate to drum up any last remanent of support for your hero (the duck hunter supreme)lowe,lets get him out, get our club and support back.and perhaps you could go with him!end of.

 

did you ever manage to follow the plot in Grange Hill or was it a bit complicated?

[Micky]

Can I say a big and genuine thank you to Micky and saint1977 for offering the first real intelligent debate on the issue I've seen on this site for a very long time.

 

And also a thank you to Stanley for once more demonstrating that he has nothing intelligent to offer to the issue and should be disregarded as a troll.

 

My pleasure. Have been supporting the team for over 40 years now, so have seen the good and the bad - what most fail to appreciate is that we have no devine right to always be a top flight club. It appears some cyber warriors on here are happy to continually mock and hurl personal insults, brave people behind a keyboard.

 

Do I support Rupert Lowe, probably yes - at the moment. But only because as I have said before, there appears to be nobody wishing to take over the reigns (with or without investment). Many on here have indicated that it should not be difficult to find somebody with the skillset to make a decent CEO, and I agree - the problem remains that nobody seems to be forthcoming.

 

My opinion may differ from that of the majority - but it is, just that - my opinion, and it is out there for everybody to see.

 

Many thanks for your kind acknowledgement.

[um pahars]

Do I support Rupert Lowe, probably yes - at the moment. But only because as I have said before, there appears to be nobody wishing to take over the reigns (with or without investment). Many on here have indicated that it should not be difficult to find somebody with the skillset to make a decent CEO, and I agree - the problem remains that nobody seems to be forthcoming.

 

The principle of finding a new CEO is probably no different to finding a new manager.

 

When the majority on here were saying replace Poortvliet, I certainly don't remember there being a flood of managers throwing their hats in the ring. Instead, the Board decided that Poortvliet's time was up and at the same time decided on a replacement.

 

The same is true of a CEO.

 

You won't get CEO's throwing their hats into the ring until there is a vacancy, or until the Board go on the search for one.

 

It's probably not the job it once was, it carries difficulties (a fractured supporter base, a fractured shareholder base, difficult trading position and a poor league position), but for some it would still be a very attractive proposition, not least because the potential is there and arguably you're in a no lose situation.

 

Sorry, but your last line does not reflect the situation out in the real world, as the problem remains that nobody amongst the ruling cabal seems to want to replace the CEO.

[OldNick]

hello,Lowe luvie!

ILL in the HEAD SAINT comes up with a gem.

[Saint Richard of Woolston]

The entire point of this, surely, is that Lowe has to be replaced by somebody better than him. Unlike 2006 when he clearly was not.

 

And nor do I believe Crouch, backed by his friends from the Sports & Social Committee of the local Social Club, will deliver anything better than noise, hot air and bluster. Real fan (whatever that means) or not, Lowe's replacement needs do be able to deliver a little more than the kind of rhetoric old Leon spouts, bless him.

 

As to whether I like Lowe, I think that is a non-issue. FWIW on the occasions I have met him, he has always been very polite and charming. That does not make him the right man, however.

 

The truth is I would have Beelzebub as Chairman if he could get the club moving in the right direction and (maybe a harder task altogether) rid the club of the 'attention seeking' element amongst its 'supporters' that thinks it has all the answers (whilst barely understanding the questions) and unite the fans once again into supporting the team.

[saintjay77]

The entire point of this, surely, is that Lowe has to be replaced by somebody better than him. Unlike 2006 when he clearly was not.

 

And nor do I believe Crouch, backed by his friends from the Sports & Social Committee of the local Social Club, will deliver anything better than noise, hot air and bluster. Real fan (whatever that means) or not, Lowe's replacement needs do be able to deliver a little more than the kind of rhetoric old Leon spouts, bless him.

 

As to whether I like Lowe, I think that is a non-issue. FWIW on the occasions I have met him, he has always been very polite and charming. That does not make him the right man, however.

 

The truth is I would have Beelzebub as Chairman if he could get the club moving in the right direction and (maybe a harder task altogether) rid the club of the 'attention seeking' element amongst its 'supporters' that thinks it has all the answers (whilst barely understanding the questions) and unite the fans once again into supporting the team.

 

 

Blimey that post made allot of sence and also like UP said, no-body will come forward looking for a job that is not available yet.

 

The problem we have however is that Rupes has done the job for over 10 years so will think that he is more than capable of doing this role. While he has the support of a majority of shareholders there is nothing we can do. The opposition's answer doesnt seem any more attractive than the current plan so the title tattle arguments will continue to go back n forth until either someone on the outside comes in with a better plan or the numb skull's in charge take probably the best idea out there and run with it. They of course will have to think they came up with the idea them selves so if anyone on this board are close enough to plant a seed then please do so. All sides would need to think this is there idea and all sides would have to think that this idea would be better and work better than any of themselves being in charge for 5 mins.

[SaintRichmond]

what good is it to put all the money in and still get relegated...lol

 

great idea stanley..

 

 

 

Be fair guys ..... Mandaric had a bit of bad luck

 

He appointed Ian Hollowhead

[Micky]

The principle of finding a new CEO is probably no different to finding a new manager.

 

When the majority on here were saying replace Poortvliet, I certainly don't remember there being a flood of managers throwing their hats in the ring. Instead, the Board decided that Poortvliet's time was up and at the same time decided on a replacement.

 

The same is true of a CEO.

 

You won't get CEO's throwing their hats into the ring until there is a vacancy, or until the Board go on the search for one.

 

It's probably not the job it once was, it carries difficulties (a fractured supporter base, a fractured shareholder base, difficult trading position and a poor league position), but for some it would still be a very attractive proposition, not least because the potential is there and arguably you're in a no lose situation.

 

Sorry, but your last line does not reflect the situation out in the real world, as the problem remains that nobody amongst the ruling cabal seems to want to replace the CEO.

 

Wouldn't disagree with any of that UP - and I did agree to the point somewhere else on the thread that ridding ourselfs of Lowe would still leave the rest of the motley crew in place.

 

I accept that nobody is going to sling their hats in for managers jobs whilst there are still incumbants in office, but when it comes to the running of clubs, people wishing to inject cash will make their intentions known.

 

As for the Poortvliet situation, well we just didn't give any potential candidates time to make their aspirations known - Poortvliet was out and five minutes later Woote was in - just another day at SMS!

 

Be fair guys ..... Mandaric had a bit of bad luck

 

He appointed Ian Hollowhead

 

Bad luck or bad judgement...? Careful what you wish for though, some on here are intimating that they believe that both of the named gentlemen cdajfu...!

[saint1977]

Can I say a big and genuine thank you to Micky and saint1977 for offering the first real intelligent debate on the issue I've seen on this site for a very long time.

 

And also a thank you to Stanley for once more demonstrating that he has nothing intelligent to offer to the issue and should be disregarded as a troll.

 

Cheers buddy, glad to see fans having some sensible exchanges of opinion rather than shouts of "Lowe Luvvie" or the Sundance approach. I can understand the position of those who are wary of replacing Lowe, we jumped on the Wilde horse last time and came a real cropper. That said, I do get frustrated when I read that we need to buy Rupert out or that there needs to be an alternative. In the short-term, there doesn't but obviously at some stage we do need to unpick the share gridlock created by Askham and people are going to have to sit down in the same room who frankly can't stand each other. Actually, if the main shareholders did that now, we really could avoid administration. Judging by the behaviour of all concerned at the AGM, I don't hold out much hope. Meanwhile, as has been the case at SFC since the late 1980s, the fans are somewhere down in 100th place on the club's (and those sniping from the sidelines) list of priorities.

 

The whole club is like a once close-knit family that has gone really bad. The fans could be the only element left that could make something of it.

[saint1977]

The entire point of this, surely, is that Lowe has to be replaced by somebody better than him. Unlike 2006 when he clearly was not.

 

And nor do I believe Crouch, backed by his friends from the Sports & Social Committee of the local Social Club, will deliver anything better than noise, hot air and bluster. Real fan (whatever that means) or not, Lowe's replacement needs do be able to deliver a little more than the kind of rhetoric old Leon spouts, bless him.

 

As to whether I like Lowe, I think that is a non-issue. FWIW on the occasions I have met him, he has always been very polite and charming. That does not make him the right man, however.

 

The truth is I would have Beelzebub as Chairman if he could get the club moving in the right direction and (maybe a harder task altogether) rid the club of the 'attention seeking' element amongst its 'supporters' that thinks it has all the answers (whilst barely understanding the questions) and unite the fans once again into supporting the team.

 

 

I agree with the overwhelming majority of that, I still think that Lowe is easy to replace as a club employee. Who could replace him? Put a decent advert in one of the broadsheets and see who you get. In the current climate, there are some seriously good people that were unfortunate enough to go down on rotten ships. The standard may well be higher than 2006. Also, I'm not keen on Crouch as a Chairman but what about Salz? Much more gravitas and likely to know the right people to negotiate us through the stormiest of short-term waters. Doesn't come with the baggage of the other candidates as well. Perhaps he is overestimated but he can't do any worse than Wilde or Askham!

[CB Fry]

Be fair guys ..... Mandaric had a bit of bad luck

 

He appointed Ian Hollowhead

 

 

Six managers in one calendar year is not "bad luck".

 

You would never be so stupidly forgiving with our current chairman, so why the doe eyed hero worship of Milan?

[saintjay77]

Six managers in one calendar year is not "bad luck".

 

You would never be so stupidly forgiving with our current chairman, so why the doe eyed hero worship of Milan?

 

secret Skate?

[sadoldgit]

If you have never met the man you can hardly make a valid judgement.

 

You might not like what he does or how he presents himself but to make a decision based on those things is highly subjective.

 

I don't want him to stay.

 

Out of Wilde Crouch and Lowe I think he is the best thing for the club but there is always someone out there better.

 

Do I like him? I'd be interested to have a pint or two with him to see what makes him tick but don't think he would be on my Christmas card list based on what I THINK I know of him.

[RinNY]

Do I want Lowe to stay? In an ideal world, no; but before saying he should definitely go, I'd like to have a much better sense of what the alternative is. Last time I just wanted him out, and the results were not good. This time, I want to be sure we'd be getting someting better, because despite what the Lowe-loathers think, there are worse possibilities, and stability is at least better than change without improvement.

 

Do I think Lowe is best for the club? Best is the wrong term here: he is not best in any ideal sense, but it is quite likely, I'd say, that he is better than the real alternatives that are out there now. If there truly is a better alternative, I'll be delighted to learn about it, because I too would ike to see the end of our current depressing era.

 

Do I like Lowe? Pointless question: I don't know the man and don't particularly expect or even care ever to know him. Do I like his style as chairman may be what is meant: I'm not bothered by it as some are, but I don't actually like it either.

[SFC Forever]

The question shouldn't be about Lowe and whether we like or dislike him.

The question should be who will replace him and will this person be able to improve our overall position once in place

Crouch doesn't have enough money to get us moving forward with regard to our finances. If he did or had access to someone with the needed readies he would surely have acted by now. At the meeting he had with Lowe and Wilde he was told basically come up with the readies and our shares are yours. As noted on threads on here.

This being the case who can rescue us from the "Lovable Lord Lowe"?

 

But in answer to your question I neither like him or any member of the board, for what they are doing to our club.

[1965onwards]

Well RinNY Lowe has brought such stability hasn't he?

 

All the best players loaned or sold.

 

Yet another manager.

 

Crowds way down.

 

On the brink of releagtion and administration.

 

We are lucky to have him.

[um pahars]

I accept that nobody is going to sling their hats in for managers jobs whilst there are still incumbants in office, but when it comes to the running of clubs, people wishing to inject cash will make their intentions known.

 

But I'm not talking about people who wish to inject cash, mainly because I think you'd either have to be stupidly rich, ot just stupid, to invest in us.

 

I'm talking about a salaried CEO to take over from another salaried CEO.

 

There are as many CEO's/MD's out there as there are managers, and there is no real difference in the recruitment of either. They are out there if there is a will to go and find one.

[Micky]

But I'm not talking about people who wish to inject cash, mainly because I think you'd either have to be stupidly rich, ot just stupid, to invest in us.

 

I'm talking about a salaried CEO to take over from another salaried CEO.

 

There are as many CEO's/MD's out there as there are managers, and there is no real difference in the recruitment of either. They are out there if there is a will to go and find one.

 

Again - I wouldn't disagree with you - but the fact remains that no matter how simple a process we might see it to be - there are obvious problems because it just hasn't happened, and doesn't look likely to. For your scenario to occur it appears that the rest of the board need to ouste Lowe themselves - not looking likely.

 

I understand what you are saying, but it appears to me that a CEO bringing nothing (but business acumen) to the table is hard to find, or reluctant to make themselves known. A CEO bringing acumen and a large 'wedge of wonga' to invest is nigh on impossible...!

[um pahars]

Again - I wouldn't disagree with you - but the fact remains that no matter how simple a process we might see it to be - there are obvious problems because it just hasn't happened, and doesn't look likely to. For your scenario to occur it appears that the rest of the board need to ouste Lowe themselves - not looking likely.

 

I absolutely agree, in that for Lowe to be removed there would need to be a withdrawal of support for him by either Wilde or a few others.

 

Until that point, then no one is going to put themselves forward for a job that is not vacant, and similarly no one is going to go hunting for someone when they can't promise them a job.

 

but it appears to me that a CEO bringing nothing (but business acumen) to the table is hard to find, or reluctant to make themselves known.

 

But this is something that I cannot agree with in any shape or form as it just doesn't stand up to any semblence of scrutiny.

 

How do you think other Club's recruit their CEO/MD?

 

There are as many CEO's/MD's out there as managers, so there must be a market in potential candidates out there.

 

You won't find anything if you don't want to look for it.

[Micky]

 

But this is something that I cannot agree with in any shape or form as it just doesn't stand up to any semblence of scrutiny.

 

How do you think other Club's recruit their CEO/MD?

 

There are as many CEO's/MD's out there as managers, so there must be a market in potential candidates out there.

 

You won't find anything if you don't want to look for it.

 

UP - I agree that 'he' is out there, I agree that there are probably hundreds of suitable candidates to do the job. The problem remains, you cannot go looking for somebody to fill the post whilst Lowe still reigns.

 

It is not a straight forward 'situation vacant' scenario, 'Please apply here'.

 

If Lowe goes - I agree that there will probably no end of suitably qualified candidates to sit at his desk - it's the getting 'Lowe to Go' that is problematical.

 

Mind you though - if it does happen, I would still actually prefer somebody who did have fair bit of 'wonga' in his back pocket...!!

Edited 12 February, 2009 by Micky
Problematical spelling ;)

[um pahars]

UP - I agree that 'he' is out there, I agree that there are probably hundreds of suitable candidates to do the job. The problem remains, you cannot go looking for somebody to fill the post whilst Lowe still reigns.

 

It is not a straight forward 'situation vacant' scenario, 'Please apply here'.

 

If Lowe goes - I agree that there will probably no end of suitably qualified candidates to sit at his desk - it's the getting 'Lowe to Go' that is problematical.

 

Absolutely.

 

There are probaly a number of suitable alternative candidates out there, but the issue is that first of ll those with power have to accept the need for a change.

[benjii]

But I'm not talking about people who wish to inject cash, mainly because I think you'd either have to be stupidly rich, ot just stupid, to invest in us.

 

I'm talking about a salaried CEO to take over from another salaried CEO.

 

There are as many CEO's/MD's out there as there are managers, and there is no real difference in the recruitment of either. They are out there if there is a will to go and find one.

 

Perhaps a full time CEO might be a step in the right direction too?!

[RinNY]

Well RinNY Lowe has brought such stability hasn't he?

 

All the best players loaned or sold.

 

Yet another manager.

 

Crowds way down.

 

On the brink of releagtion and administration.

 

We are lucky to have him.

 

We are not lucky to have him, nor -- if you bothered to take off your blinkers and read instead of just assuming -- did I suggest anything of the sort. But the situation you describe has not just been brought about by Lowe, it has been coming about for a number of years, for only part of which has Lowe been in charge. I don't buy the "anyone is better than Lowe" argument. Because this "Anyone" will face the same problems of debts, lack of funds, having to operate on a shoe-string with whatever youth players and free veterans we can get, that have put us where we are this season: why not try telling us how YOU think someone would do things better? I know: get an experienced CCC manager, because they ALWAYS succeed, don't they. Except that they don't -- as witness the likes of Pardew and Dowie and plenty of others this season and last.

 

Just getting in a "professional" Managing Director, as some are advocating, suggesting that there are "any number" of good ones who will be lining up for the job, is not necessarily the solution. We tried it, with the Hone/Hoos pair, and it did not work.

 

Saints need a major infusion of cash, to settle the overdraft, finance the stadium debt, and make money available to upgrade the playing staff. When you know where that money can realistically come from, you'll have something worthwhile to impart here. Untill then, all your anti-Lowe claptrap is just venting of spite and farting into the wind.

 

We do not just need Lowe out: in itself, that is pointless. We only need Lowe out if there is genuinely a better alternative out there to replace him. I haven't seen any suggestion that there is, and that's not because Lowe is great, or has stature, or beause I "luv" him or any of the other nonsense. It's because SFC is in deep crap, and it'll take someone/something special to do more and better than is being done now to get us out of it.

[Big Bad Bob]

We do not just need Lowe out: in itself, that is pointless. We only need Lowe out if there is genuinely a better alternative out there to replace him. I haven't seen any suggestion that there is, and that's not because Lowe is great, or has stature, or beause I "luv" him or any of the other nonsense. It's because SFC is in deep crap, and it'll take someone/something special to do more and better than is being done now to get us out of it.

 

Edited 13 February, 2009 by Big Bad Bob
Swapped for smaller and more boring image :(

[um pahars]

Just getting in a "professional" Managing Director, as some are advocating, suggesting that there are "any number" of good ones who will be lining up for the job, is not necessarily the solution. We tried it, with the Hone/Hoos pair, and it did not work.

 

When we replaced Wigley, his replacement did not work out, but I can't believe for one minute that people were therefore advocating we stick with Poortvliet "because the last time we repalced a crap manager it didn't work".

 

Sit back and think aboiut it logically. Are you really saying that just because we didn't get a suitable replacement last time around, then it should preclude us from trying to get it right this time?

 

It's an absolutely ridiculous (and rather backwards and defeatist) argument.

 

A new CEO and/or Chairman will not be a guarantee of success, but it might just be the only hope we have, as the current regime is just taking us backwards.

 

If people argue that Lowe has some traits and a strategy that they belive in, then although I may nto agree with some of them, it is actually a logical position, but the idea of sticking with someone who is sht just because last time it didn't work out is somewhat lame.

 

Saints need a major infusion of cash, to settle the overdraft, finance the stadium debt, and make money available to upgrade the playing staff. When you know where that money can realistically come from, you'll have something worthwhile to impart here. Untill then, all your anti-Lowe claptrap is just venting of spite and farting into the wind.

 

And what is the solution in the absence of the above, because from where I'm sitting, I can't see any major infusion of cash on the horizon?

 

So you're just advocating maintaining the staus quo and dying a slow lingering death (or it might actually come quite quickly if we carry on at this rate).

 

Hardly a strategy that's got me excited.

 

We do not just need Lowe out: in itself, that is pointless. We only need Lowe out if there is genuinely a better alternative out there to replace him. I haven't seen any suggestion that there is, and that's not because Lowe is great, or has stature, or beause I "luv" him or any of the other nonsense. It's because SFC is in deep crap, and it'll take someone/something special to do more and better than is being done now to get us out of it.

 

And when you (and the rest of us) discuss ridding the Club of a failing manager, do you only sanction it if you've got the replacement lined up, vetted and approved???

 

Or do you accept that there probably is someone out there who could hopefully do a better job?

 

To write "if there is genuinely a better alternative out there to replace him. I haven't seen any suggestion that there is" sounds rather ignorant of the big wide world out there. A big wide world where there are probably as many CEO's/MD's as there are managers (in and out of work).

 

I don't think it will be a walk in the park for whoever comes in to replace Lowe, or Poortvliet (or Wotte), but to trot out the same lazy line that no one has been presented for your approval is disengenuous, at best.

[RinNY]

When we replaced Wigley, his replacement did not work out, but I can't believe for one minute that people were therefore advocating we stick with Poortvliet "because the last time we repalced a crap manager it didn't work".

 

Sit back and think aboiut it logically. Are you really saying that just because we didn't get a suitable replacement last time around, then it should preclude us from trying to get it right this time?

 

It's an absolutely ridiculous (and rather backwards and defeatist) argument.

 

A new CEO and/or Chairman will not be a guarantee of success, but it might just be the only hope we have, as the current regime is just taking us backwards.

 

If people argue that Lowe has some traits and a strategy that they belive in, then although I may nto agree with some of them, it is actually a logical position, but the idea of sticking with someone who is sht just because last time it didn't work out is somewhat lame.

 

 

 

And what is the solution in the absence of the above, because from where I'm sitting, I can't see any major infusion of cash on the horizon?

 

So you're just advocating maintaining the staus quo and dying a slow lingering death (or it might actually come quite quickly if we carry on at this rate).

 

Hardly a strategy that's got me excited.

 

 

 

And when you (and the rest of us) discuss ridding the Club of a failing manager, do you only sanction it if you've got the replacement lined up, vetted and approved???

 

Or do you accept that there probably is someone out there who could hopefully do a better job?

 

To write "if there is genuinely a better alternative out there to replace him. I haven't seen any suggestion that there is" sounds rather ignorant of the big wide world out there. A big wide world where there are probably as many CEO's/MD's as there are managers (in and out of work).

 

I don't think it will be a walk in the park for whoever comes in to replace Lowe, or Poortvliet (or Wotte), but to trot out the same lazy line that no one has been presented for your approval is disengenuous, at best.

 

 

Your basic assumption is that Lowe is doing a terrible job: you're entitled to that opinion of course, and there's a case to be made for it. But I'm not sure it's true all the same. Yes, the team are doing pretty badly, but that isn't necessarily down to the people running things at board level, nor is it in any way clear that other people running things at board level would produce better results. Because absent major funds, whoever we have at board level can do only one of two things: spend money SFC doesn't have and gamble on success on the field bailing us out, which the Wilde/Hone/Hoos regime tried; or keep costs down to a sustainable level, which Lowe has done. And actually, given the economy and the input from the bank holding the SFC overdraft, only the latter is actually possible. So I really do not believe that any other CEO would do things significantly differently than Lowe. Perhaps you have a case to make against that?

 

Now, there is, it's true, one thing a different CEO might do, and that's have a different manager. Poortvliet did not work out. The jury is still out on Wotte. Many of you insist that if only Pearson had been kept, or if only Lowe had hired Billy Davies, or Ian Dowie, or (fill in your preferred name here) all would be much better at SFC. Maybe; or maybe we'd be even worse off, below Charlton and 8 or 10 points adrift. Nobody knows; but what we do know is that any other manager would have been faced with the same kind of squad (youngsters, loanees and freebies), the same finances, and greater success would not have been guaranteed. Managers who have succeeded at one place fail at another frequently.

 

I don't think trying the Poortvliet/Wotte team was an obviously bad or wrong approach to try, though it has proved so far to be unsuccessful. I don't know, and neither does anyone else, if any other manager or managerial team would have done better. However, what one can say is that the team manager has a much greater impact on how the team does than the CEO, so that changing the manager when the team is doing badly makes sense; but changing the CEO only makes sense if there is a way to make the business perform in a better way. Because the CEO runs the business end. Again, I haven't seen any indication that there is, absent major new funds, an alternative to the business model Lowe is pursuing. Most of the criticism aimed at Lowe falls into two categories: the usual criticism that the board/CEO of every club that performs poorly comes in for, and the particular spite aimed at Lowe because of the personal dislike many at SFC have for him, whether based on class, on his personality, on his manner, or whatever. Since I really don't care whether Lowe is or is not pompous, or arrogant, or upper class, or whatever exactly your beef may be, it comes down to whether there is a better way to manage the club's business. If it's on field performance that's the issue, criticism belongs with manager and players, not CEO.

[broncoboy]

Your basic assumption is that Lowe is doing a terrible job:

 

Yes,

 

On what measure would you judge him to be a success?

[um pahars]

With all due respect RinNy, it would now appeat that you have changed track and rather than arguing that there is no alternative out there (which is quite frankly ridiculous), you're now now arguing that someone else couldn't do any better.

 

A subtle, but succinct change in your position.

 

The argument as to whether or not someone else could do better is purely hypothetical and subjective either way, but that's a world away from saying:

 

"if there is genuinely a better alternative out there to replace him. I haven't seen any suggestion that there is"

 

and

 

"We tried it, with the Hone/Hoos pair, and it did not work."

 

So I really do not believe that any other CEO would do things significantly differently than Lowe. Perhaps you have a case to make against that?

 

I think the case against tha has been made very strongly on here in recent months in numerous threads.

 

My simple reply (because to be honest I think the case has been so well argued) is Jan Poortvliet, the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up, the strategy of youth and ultimately our legue position!!!

 

Now, there is, it's true, one thing a different CEO might do, and that's have a different manager.

 

QED, but there is also a different strategy with regards transfers (in and out), diferent priorities, a different coaching structure, different wages policy, different pricing structure and a whole host of different ways of running a football club, even given the financial constraints that we have to work in.

 

There are no guarantees that this would produce better results, but just as saying there are no alternatives to Lowe, it's rather naive to suggest things couldn't be done differently.

 

However, what one can say is that the team manager has a much greater impact on how the team does than the CEO, so that changing the manager when the team is doing badly makes sense; but changing the CEO only makes sense if there is a way to make the business perform in a better way. Because the CEO runs the business end.

 

The CEO of a football club, and I believe it's even more acute at our Club, is central to everything on and off the pitch.

 

Our CEO was at the forefront of dispensing with Pearson and employing Poortvliet and Wotte. He is involved in footballing issues (the only debate is to what extent) and he was central in installing the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up and the strategy that accompanied it.

 

Ultimately our CEO appointed the manager.

 

Again, I haven't seen any indication that there is, absent major new funds, an alternative to the business model Lowe is pursuing.

 

Then as I have said above, I think you're being rather naive if you don't think there are a number of different approaches/strategies/decisions that could have been made, with of course the managerial issue being the single biggest of them.

 

Most of the criticism aimed at Lowe falls into two categories: ........ and the particular spite aimed at Lowe because of the personal dislike many at SFC have for him, whether based on class, on his personality, on his manner, or whatever.

 

Without wanting to appear too rude, the line that people are against Lowe for any other reason other than his failings is somewhat cheap, lazy and insulting to those who hold well founded and thought views on his tenure as CEO/Chairman. I fully accept a very small minority have issues with his background, but the vast majority judge him in a rationa and balanced manner, and by the standards he himself requested, i.e. on results.

 

If it's on field performance that's the issue, criticism belongs with manager and players, not CEO.

 

And if you think that off the field issues do not have a major impact on on the filed issues (appointment of manager, transfers in/out, overall strategy etc etc etc), then I think you somewhat misjudge the impact the CEO, the board and their decisions have on a football club.

[Kingsbridge Saint]

I used to think Rupert was just a half decent sort of bloke trying to do the right thing by us. But I now realise he is just a Loser. As such he should do the decent thing and bugger off to screw up someone elses club.