Lowe's biggest mistake?

[saint1977]

I can't believe what a bunch of whingeing bl**dy women there are on this site - RL reads out a complimentary letter to start the AGM and you're all aghast. So he's a bit of a prat to read it out, so what, it was a letter and he wanted to read it... it's his perogative actually. It wouldn't surprise me if he did it on purpose to rub Crouch's nose in it - it's a shame you didn't get so uppity about having a chairman who couldn't spell the name of the club, who didn't even have the bottle to attend the AGM! And still you see nothing untoward in the antics of Crouch & Co? This is exactly why I think (some) fans are ruining the club.

 

Do you know where Newcastle United hold their AGM? Is it at their stadium at a convenient time for fans and local shareholders? No, they hold it first thing in the morning in the City. You think RL indulging himself by reading one piece of one letter at the AGM is outrageous? Try looking at some other companies where the chairman uses the AGM and annual report to give their thoughts on the world and politics.

 

Trouble is Jonah, both sides are at it on here and objectivity has gone out of the window. Some of the stuff Duncan has posted about 2002/3 is a bit much as well, if we're going to criticise Lowe (rightly) for 2004-9 (barring 2 seasons where his friends sniped from the sidelines), let's give the bloke credit for 1999-2003 where he got things pretty right. Having said that, you'd do better at currying some favour on here by not always defending the indefensible from Lowe. His AGM behaviour was a joke and everyone knows it.

[OldNick]

The great thing about football is we keep the score. It is not like a concert or play, where people can have different opinions as to whether it's any good. There are facts and results that tell us whether a team/Manager is any good.

 

You can not tell me Donny Rovers, Blackpool, Barnsley and others have a much higher wage bill than we did.With reasonable cut backs, sensible signings, and a proper Manager, we should have stayed in this league. The fact we're not going to, can only be down to the Manager and the people who run the Club.The buck must stop somewhere, you can not keep blaming supporters or previous regimes for mismangement THIS season.

 

The trouble is a lot of our players are such a high wage for their quality we cant get the wage bill down easily.

So the mismanagement only started this season Lol. it started decades ago, we highs and very many more lows.We then had a time of changing of managers for various reasons (not all our own making) and we got relegated again for various reasons.Yes RL made some appalling mistakes but he was not the only one to blame. The Wilde bunch came around and a vast majority of fans chose him.It is funny that the fans are wanting to apportion blame to the chairman for bad decisions and then convieniently fail to see their own MASSIVE mistake.

RL should go for his staying with Jan too long and sadly also not down to his importance but as the fans will never be united with him.

I have been told that the fans protests do not faze him and in a way he enjoys being the pantomime villain, I doubt marches or singing songs about him will get him to step down.

He probably believes that we will get out of it still and if so all those defeatists will have to eat a bit of humble pie.

I will not be persuaded that the unrest is there solely because of who is chairman , I firmly believe that it is due to the fact that we are facing relegation and so turn our angst against whoever we can thrash out at.He is somebody we can all aim our anger at.

[OldNick]

I think the thing you, and Jonah, seem to be misunderstanding is that this, in my humble opinion, is not a "Lowe v Crouch/McM" debate. Frankly, I do not think any of them are fit to run the club - we need an entire new board, with fresh ideas and god help us, Money! It's doubtful we'll get them.

 

If you held a gun to my head and asked who I thought the "lesser of the two (several) evils" were I'd probably have to plump for Crouch, but again, I think we deserve better than any of the current or recent past encumbents.

 

Of course fans will bicker about things (just listen to 606!), and the seriousness of the "problems" will vary depending on each clubs predicament - Man Utd fans probably ***** about how often they change their kit, not being able to get tickets to games etc. But to start casting back 20 years to prove that "Rupert is no worse than those who used to run the club" is a poor defence, and, as I mentioned, rather juvenile.

I do understand and I also have sqaid on here it should be 1 out all out. The debate does get polarised to RL/LC .I have noticed in the last few weeks where people like myself have mentioned the others in the background that posts are now becoming more prevailent about the damage they have done.

I think the White Witch should be recalled to lift the curse on us again.

[Gemmel]

Try looking at some other companies where the chairman uses the AGM and annual report to give their thoughts on the world and politics.

 

jonah, some of the points you make are valid, but then you discredit them with your orignal statement of how professional lowe was at the AGM. It is just the flip side of the coin, to those the fans that truly believe lowe has stashed millions of sfc money away to retire on some tropical island.

 

Whatever anybodies thoughts on lowe are, i just can't believe anybody would seriously consider those actions as professional. It actually makes no difference whether the letter was fake or not, the idea of a CEO / Chairman addressing an AGM with an annymous letter saying "stick with it", "stand by your policies", is bizarre to the extreme, which is what your post above seems to allude to, so please feel free to cite examples of other CEO's doing the same thing, i'm not after point scoring, just geniunely intrigued as to whether any other chairman in any other walk of life or business, has thought this was a good idea.

The fact that he suddenly thinks fans opinions or thoughts carry any weight is curious, based on his previous comments and actions.

 

Can you imagine if Fred Goodwin or Andy Hornby , had approached the treasury committee with annoymous letters saying they were right to buy ABN abro and that their lending polices were sound

[jonah]

As you have fairly stated, you were there at the AGM and I was not - I am indeed only going off the minutes so am happy to be corrected if you think the details are wrong:

 

Lowe by reading out the ridiculous letter that claimed he was the only one who could unite the club set the tone unfortunately by angering a large proportion of shareholders present

 

Well from the minutes I have, he had just explained the club had only just reached agreement with its lenders and he was trying to resolve the issues which he thought was best achieved through unity - to which end he read:

 

"it says keep the faith in your head coach and his staff, keep the faith in your team and in your youth policy and yourself…

 

Seriously, unless that's not what he read out I can't see the big deal. Crouch interrupted him by heckling which led onto the first speaker/question (not you) who actually asked a sensible question about selling players.

 

if my memory serves me well I asked him when he was going to accept some responsibility for our current situation.

 

Asking him when he was going to accept responsibility (and "some of the blame" according to the minutes) is something you've asked before isn't it? And you've had the answer before because I know I've replied to your insistence over this before:

 

"The club has been accused over the last few years of having too many managers and the board has not got the last two appointments right," he said. "We have to accept responsibility."

 

"As the person at the top of the organisation I have to take my share of that responsibility."

 

"I have to take some of the blame and I do, I accept it."

 

So my question to you stands (ignoring the interpretation of my use of the word "apology") - why did you ask the same question again when you already knew the answer(s)?

 

I spoke as calmly as anyone there and included the expression "with respect" when I asked him to resign.

 

Again, as I've acknowledged, I wasn't there but the minutes make no mention of you saying "with respect", only that you said:

 

"You are not welcome, you don’t unite the club and the sooner you are gone the better. "

 

...which is not quite the polite point you would have us believe is it?

 

In hindsight LC could have maintained his temper but he was increasingly getting frustrated by Lowe not really giving him the chance to complete what he was saying.

 

That is because an AGM is not a soapbox for the former chairman. Did RL shout down MW or the board at previous AGMs? No.

 

Incidentally LM's statement/come question was made in a very dignified manner as was Mary Corbett's - the trouble is you just don't like what they said and you choose to accuse them of acting in a manner that is actually factually untrue.

 

Not really, according to the minutes Lawrie said

 

"With respect, to the club that is, I’m pleased you know my name – you must recognise me from the picture!"

 

Neither polite nor professional based upon the exacting standards people appear to be demanding from Lowe. He even complained "In the ten years you had ten managers", presumably without realising that in *his* time on the board of SFC he managed 7 managers in just 5 years!!

 

As for the picture of him holding the cup not being in the boardroom - it's just so petty, really, it's not like it's a fans museum or a public area even. LM has been the biggest albatross around the club's neck since he returned in the early 90s (?) because he tries to control everything - which is a terrible shame as I like many others I'm sure was in complete awe of him in the 70s and early 80s, and those days at the Dell were the best by a mile. But sadly that was then, this is now. Fancy charging your own club £75k pa to be an ambassador. And as for your anti-Lowe meeting before the AGM, well it doesn't surprise me but it does sadden me.

[jonah]

You claim Lowe's conduct was "professional" and yet you then claim he read it out "on purpose, to rub Crouch's nose in it". That's hardly "professional" is it?

 

No it wouldn't be, but I don't for one minute think he did do it for that reason - I think he just genuinely thought it followed on as a "rallying call" that he was coming in to try to stabilise the club financially. He was hardly going to read out a letter from Duncan was he? :-)

[um pahars]

I can't believe what a bunch of whingeing bl**dy women there are on this site - RL reads out a complimentary letter to start the AGM and you're all aghast. So he's a bit of a prat to read it out, so what, it was a letter and he wanted to read it... it's his perogative actually. It wouldn't surprise me if he did it on purpose to rub Crouch's nose in it - it's a shame you didn't get so uppity about having a chairman who couldn't spell the name of the club, who didn't even have the bottle to attend the AGM! And still you see nothing untoward in the antics of Crouch & Co? This is exactly why I think (some) fans are ruining the club.

 

And with this response you've just lost any credibility on this thread.

 

I can see no way of reconciling your claims that he acted in a professional manner with your subsequent assertions above.

 

Being a prat to read it out, doing it on purpose to rub Crouch's nose in it, it's his perogatiove to do what he likes etc is hardly the behaviour of a Chairman of a listed PLC company at it's AGM.

 

There are many things to praise Lowe for (and I was more than happy to do so in the earlier stages of this tenure) and there are many things to criticise him for, but your continual blinkered support for him just discredits some of your other more valid points.

 

Considering you are quick to accuse others of a lack of objectivity and even handedness, maybe you should take a look in the mirror in the first instance with regards this issue.

Edited 17 February, 2009 by um pahars

[alpine_saint]

And with this response you've just lost any credibility on this thread.

 

I can see no way of reconciling your claims that he acted in a professional manner with your subsequent assertions above.

 

Being a prat to read it out, doing it on purpose to rub Crouch's nose in it, it's his perogatiove to do what he likes etc is hardly the behaviour of a Chairman of a listed PLC company at it's AGM.

 

There are many things to praise Lowe for (and I was more than happy to do so in the earlier stages of this tenure) and there are many things to criticise him for, but your continual blinkered support for him just discredits some of your other more valid points.

 

Considering you are quick to accuse others of a lack of objectivity and even handedness, maybe you should take a look in the mirror in the first instance with regards this issue.

 

heheheheh

[Fitzhugh Fella]

As you have fairly stated, you were there at the AGM and I was not - I am indeed only going off the minutes so am happy to be corrected if you think the details are wrong:

 

 

 

Well from the minutes I have, he had just explained the club had only just reached agreement with its lenders and he was trying to resolve the issues which he thought was best achieved through unity - to which end he read:

 

"it says keep the faith in your head coach and his staff, keep the faith in your team and in your youth policy and yourself…

 

Seriously, unless that's not what he read out I can't see the big deal. Crouch interrupted him by heckling which led onto the first speaker/question (not you) who actually asked a sensible question about selling players.

 

 

 

Asking him when he was going to accept responsibility (and "some of the blame" according to the minutes) is something you've asked before isn't it? And you've had the answer before because I know I've replied to your insistence over this before:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my question to you stands (ignoring the interpretation of my use of the word "apology") - why did you ask the same question again when you already knew the answer(s)?

 

 

 

Again, as I've acknowledged, I wasn't there but the minutes make no mention of you saying "with respect", only that you said:

 

"You are not welcome, you don’t unite the club and the sooner you are gone the better. "

 

...which is not quite the polite point you would have us believe is it?

 

 

 

That is because an AGM is not a soapbox for the former chairman. Did RL shout down MW or the board at previous AGMs? No.

 

 

 

Not really, according to the minutes Lawrie said

 

"With respect, to the club that is, I’m pleased you know my name – you must recognise me from the picture!"

 

Neither polite nor professional based upon the exacting standards people appear to be demanding from Lowe. He even complained "In the ten years you had ten managers", presumably without realising that in *his* time on the board of SFC he managed 7 managers in just 5 years!!

 

As for the picture of him holding the cup not being in the boardroom - it's just so petty, really, it's not like it's a fans museum or a public area even. LM has been the biggest albatross around the club's neck since he returned in the early 90s (?) because he tries to control everything - which is a terrible shame as I like many others I'm sure was in complete awe of him in the 70s and early 80s, and those days at the Dell were the best by a mile. But sadly that was then, this is now. Fancy charging your own club £75k pa to be an ambassador. And as for your anti-Lowe meeting before the AGM, well it doesn't surprise me but it does sadden me.

 

Lowe's acceptance of blame go back nearly 4 years now and were never made in front of me or to me, therefore I do not regard my pressing the point 3 years on, face to face at an AGM to be unreasonable, especially as I had never done so before.

 

I can assure you Mark I said "with respect" - at that stage I was very aware of AGM protocol and the need to be civil - the fact it was not reported in the minutes just shows how dangerous it is to form views on behaviour by simply reading minutes.

 

The pre-meet breakfast was not for anti Loweites perse - it was a chance to form some sort of coherent organised response to the figures by a group of people who were involved in some of the figure work and decisions at the time. There was little anti Lowe rhetoric and certainly no sign of any planned walk out. I seem to remember Leon saying saying something about a vote in no confidence from the floor but that was about it. I have spent several hours in Crouch's company and I am surprised at how un vitriolic he is about Lowe to be frank. The only person who mentioned Lowe to me, specifically was Mary who told me how she found Lowe so intimidating - sometimes even physically so. She said she felt apprehensive about questioning him in public and appeared frightened. I have since found out why.

 

Oh and no Lowe never acted that way to other Chairmen at an AGM but only because he never attended one when he wasn't Chairman.

[jonah]

And with this response you've just lost any credibility on this thread.

 

Considering you are quick to accuse others of a lack of objectivity and even handedness, maybe you should take a look in the mirror in the first instance with regards this issue.

 

I'm sorry, are there 2 Um Pahars in the room? Where is the one who deliberately lied about share proxies in order to help remove Lowe? Credibility indeed!

 

I guess it's about expectations - when I see RL holding an AGM what do I expect? Do I expect fan-friendly rhetoric? No, I expect a generally (there's that word again) professional chairing of a formal meeting with a guaranteed "oops" moment somewhere. What on earth did people expect differently?

 

As another example, when I see a discussion about an AGM of our club at a time when we are on the brink of administration, thanks to the financial mis-management of a bunch of no-hopers brought to power by the fans, what do I expect from the failed bean-counter? Incisive analysis of the finances and the roles of those who ran the club for the previous 2 years? No, I expect a completely OTT reaction to a completely inconsequential and meaningless 5 second quote from a letter read out by a part-time chairman. That's a bit more than an "oops" moment. The only thing that's missing is alpine or ottery popping in to nod sagely.

[um pahars]

No, I expect a generally (there's that word again) professional chairing of a formal meeting with a guaranteed "oops" moment somewhere. What on earth did people expect differently?

 

And a professional charing of a meeting is not what took place.

 

I have spoken to a number of people, many of whom would describe themselves as indifferent to Lowe and a couple who are lowe supporters (one of whom is very, very close to the man), and to a person they were apalled at Lowe's behaviour and in particular the antagonistic and confrontational way that he started the meeting.

 

Your defending of this behaviour is very seriously misplaced and displays the severe lack of objectivity and even handedness that you so often demand form others.

 

Your prefix and suffix to the part above just adds to your lack of credibility on the matter.

 

It's a shame, because responses such as this just nullify the good points that you often make when you get out of your blinkered and defensive mindset (a trait you would appear to share with Lowe himself).

[SW11_Saint]

... thanks to the financial mis-management of a bunch of no-hopers brought to power by the fans, what do I expect from the failed bean-counter? Incisive analysis of the finances and the roles of those who ran the club for the previous 2 years?

Surely it was the shareholders who brought Wilde/Crouch to power? Isn't that what a Plc. is all about?

 

Again, blaming our financial meltdown on the 12 months or less that Crouch was at the helm is naive in the extreme. He didn't cover himself in glory by any stretch of the imagination, but to suggest the mismanagement that had gone on for several years before had no beaing on our financial position is ludicrous...

[jonah]

Lowe's acceptance of blame go back nearly 4 years now and were never made in front of me or to me, therefore I do not regard my pressing the point 3 years on, face to face at an AGM to be unreasonable, especially as I had never done so before.

 

Let me get this straight - despite *knowing* that he had accepted the blame more than once, the problem was that his apologies were nearly 4 years old and not to you personally? So you wanted a newer one just for you?! Come on, you can't be serious? When do I get my one?

 

just shows how dangerous it is to form views on behaviour by simply reading minutes.

 

A little inconsistent bearing in mind threads you have started recently beginning with "I get the impression...". And how do you explain this:

 

Oh and no Lowe never acted that way to other Chairmen at an AGM but only because he never attended one when he wasn't Chairman.

 

I hope your books are more accurate Duncan - AGM November 2006, this was the one where neither Trant nor Thompson, having helped bring Wilde to power, bothered to turn up or even offer their apologies. Rupert Lowe was there, as was Andrew Cowen and David Windsor-Clive. Did he shout down the chairman? No.

[jonah]

Surely it was the shareholders who brought Wilde/Crouch to power? Isn't that what a Plc. is all about?

 

Again, blaming our financial meltdown on the 12 months or less that Crouch was at the helm is naive in the extreme. He didn't cover himself in glory by any stretch of the imagination, but to suggest the mismanagement that had gone on for several years before had no beaing on our financial position is ludicrous...

 

I don't blame Crouch directly for the mismanagement, it was achieved by a whole host of people who voted in Wilde and his hired helps. Of all the things you can throw at RL, like reading scurrilous letters the fiend, I don't think you can honestly say he wouldn't have got a proper grip on the finances over the last 2 years - there is no way in the world we'd have been having to delay our AGM whilst we begged lenders to keep us a going concern.

 

As far as shareholders being in power, yes that is generally the idea - hence why Crouch was the kingmaker for Wilde, and an arse for trying to remain in power when a majority asked him to leave. And why he was an arse stomping about at the AGM asking Lowe to resign when the shareholders have voted him in. If he doesn't like it, he should buy some more shares and save the stomping for the Preston match ;-)

[Channon's Sideburns]

As you have fairly stated, you were there at the AGM and I was not - I am indeed only going off the minutes so am happy to be corrected if you think the details are wrong:

 

 

 

That is because an AGM is not a soapbox for the former chairman. Did RL shout down MW or the board at previous AGMs? No.

 

No Jonah, he had Mike Richards and Andrew Cowan to do that for him last year - sat at the back like naughty schoolboys, taunting Dave Jones and Wiseman.

[Thedelldays]

to be fair..jonah makes some good points regardless if you take his stance

[SW11_Saint]

As far as shareholders being in power, yes that is generally the idea - hence why Crouch was the kingmaker for Wilde, and an arse for trying to remain in power when a majority asked him to leave. And why he was an arse stomping about at the AGM asking Lowe to resign when the shareholders have voted him in. If he doesn't like it, he should buy some more shares and save the stomping for the Preston match ;-)

On this we can agree - if you have enough shareholders behind you, you take the reigns and there's no point crying about it when they get taken away democratically. Perhaps the biggest culprit in all of this is Wilde, as Kingmaker for Lowe after "swapping sides". There has to be some serious character flaws there.

 

As I have said before, I will wait in vain for someone to arrive on a white charger and rid the club of the lot of them...

[OldNick]

to be fair..jonah makes some good points regardless if you take his stance

I enjoy reading his jousts with UM and FF always entertaining.

[um pahars]

I don't blame Crouch directly for the mismanagement, it was achieved by a whole host of people who voted in Wilde and his hired helps. Of all the things you can throw at RL, like reading scurrilous letters the fiend, I don't think you can honestly say he wouldn't have got a proper grip on the finances over the last 2 years - there is no way in the world we'd have been having to delay our AGM whilst we begged lenders to keep us a going concern.

 

Once again you seem to absolve Lowe for his part in the downfall of the Club's finances.

 

Lowe's decisions (including the appointment of Wigley) were the ones that contributed to relegation which wiped tens of millions off the top line.

 

It is that loss of millions that is the fundamental driver of our financial problems. Of course, poor cost control exacerbated the problem, but that does not alter the fact that losing tens of millions from the top line was what fcked this Club over.

 

He didn't get a grip on finances in that first season down when almost £10m cash went out the door on normal operations (even after receiving the parachute payment). There were times when "we didn't know where the next penny was coming from" and negotiations with our biggest creditors started in earnest the minute we went down.

 

The idea that this Club was financially robust when Lowe left is fantasy land stuff.

 

Of course others came in and exacerbated, perpetuated & contributed to our fragile position, but once again your failure to acknowledge any role Lowe played in this scenario shows a serious lack of objectivity.

 

As far as shareholders being in power, yes that is generally the idea

 

But the poster was countering your assertion that it was the fans that brought them to power, so good to see you've corrected yourself.

 

When Lowe gets voted out it's the fans fault, when Crouch gets voted out it's shareholder voting power. At least try and be even handed and objective!

 

an arse for trying to remain in power when a majority asked him to leave.

 

The second time in a couple of weeks that you have made the repeated the same inaccuracy.

 

When Lowe & Wilde recquisitioned the EGM last season they did not have a majority support in asking Crouch to leave (if they did, then they wouldn't have even bothered with an EGM;)).

 

 

Seems we've moved on somewhat from this morning when we were discussing Lowe's biggest failings.

 

It looks as though we have a degree of agreement over the appalling decision to appoint Wigley, but have failed to get agreement over Poortvliet.

 

I just fail to see how you can still support the appointment and tenure of Poortvliet and suggest that our poor performances this season have had nothing to do with his poor management.

Edited 17 February, 2009 by um pahars

[OldNick]

The pre-meet breakfast was not for anti Loweites perse - it was a chance to form some sort of coherent organised response to the figures by a group of people who were involved in some of the figure work and decisions at the time. There was little anti Lowe rhetoric and certainly no sign of any planned walk out. I seem to remember Leon saying saying something about a vote in no confidence from the floor but that was about it. I have spent several hours in Crouch's company and I am surprised at how un vitriolic he is about Lowe to be frank. The only person who mentioned Lowe to me, specifically was Mary who told me how she found Lowe so intimidating - sometimes even physically so. She said she felt apprehensive about questioning him in public and appeared frightened. I have since found out why.

 

Duncan I find your claim about MC being 'physically' intimidated quite disconcerting.Are you saying he has laid hands on her in a threatening way?

Can you enlighten us alos to the 'people who were involved in the figure work and figures at the time'?

This meeting seems quite interesting and perhaps even enlightening, was LM there as well?

[OldNick]

 

He didn't get a grip on finances in that first season down when almost £10m cash went out the door on normal operations (even after receiving the parachute payment).

The idea that this Club was financially robust when Lowe left is fantasy land stuff.

 

This is where I have issues with your stance at times Um.

Surely you agree that the club after 27years of being in the PL would be structured in a way that it would have far higher costs than the majority who have yo-yo ed over a period of time.Contracts would still to be honoured and of course you would understand that we couldnt dismantle the PL set up straight away just in case we did go back up in the first season, that would be stupid. Therefore a little leeway could be allowed for that in those figures.

I also thought that there was a war chest waiting before Wilde turned up and some was spent on Rasiak, but it is a grey area when and who did buy him

[Stax]

Wigley.

 

Agreed Wigley.

[um pahars]

This is where I have issues with your stance at times Um.

Surely you agree that the club after 27years of being in the PL would be structured in a way that it would have far higher costs than the majority who have yo-yo ed over a period of time.Contracts would still to be honoured and of course you would understand that we couldnt dismantle the PL set up straight away just in case we did go back up in the first season, that would be stupid. Therefore a little leeway could be allowed for that in those figures.

I also thought that there was a war chest waiting before Wilde turned up and some was spent on Rasiak, but it is a grey area when and who did buy him

 

We are not the only ones to suffer from the nightmare of falling out of the top flight and I never for one minuite suggested we were, it was just an honest reflection of the problems that befall any "established" team that suffers relegation.

 

But it is that massive drop in revenue that is the main driver of all our financial troubles (in fact the current Football Club Chairman doesn't even think we can wash our face in this division on normal operations).

 

And for me, Lowe played his part (I would add that IMHO, a massive part), in our fall from the top flight, particularly when you consider that many think the appointment of Wigley to be his worst decision.

 

So for Jonah to once again cast blame on everyone apart from Lowe seems to display a serious lack of objectivity. It is this lack of objectivity and even handedness that renders many of Jonah's other points (many of which are good) somewhat impotent as you tend to read them knowing there will be some serious bias involved.

 

 

As for the warchest, here is something I posted a while back:

 

 

Because the Club that started out that 2006/7 season was one that Lowe left and was still haemoraghing cash. Those that took over stemmed the flow somewhat in their first year, but then failed in their second year (in fact they probably added to the position).

 

Here was Hone said about the warchest, and how the signings of the summer after Lowe were funded (the bits between Hone's quotes are the reporters bit).

 

"What was clear pretty quickly after coming into the company was that there was no reserves, what some might call a warchest," said Hone.

"Money that had been brought in by player trading was just used to keep the company afloat."

 

Saints' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit.

 

During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m.

 

"If not for selling players, the losses would be absolutely horrendous," Hone added.

 

So without any warchest', how have Saints paid for their manager's close season rebuilding.

 

"It's in staged payments for the players, but it's been done on debt by and large," Hone revealed

 

 

(P.S. Rasiak, the £2million fee and his four year contract with a commitment of something like £3m was a Lowe decision completed in early May, almost a month before Lowe left)

Edited 17 February, 2009 by um pahars

[OldNick]

We are not the only ones to suffer from the nightmare of falling out of the top flight and I never for one minuite suggested we were, it was just an honest reflection of the problems that befall any "established" team that suffers relegation.

 

But it is that massive drop in revenue that is the main driver of all our financial troubles (in fact the current Football Club Chairman doesn't even think we can wash our face in this division on normal operations).

 

And for me, Lowe played his part (I would add that IMHO, a massive part), in our fall from the top flight, particularly when you consider that many think the appointment of Wigley to be his worst decision.

 

 

As for the warchest, here is something I posted a while back:

 

 

Because the Club that started out that 2006/7 season was one that Lowe left and was still haemoraghing cash. Those that took over stemmed the flow somewhat in their first year, but then failed in their second year (in fact they probably added to the position).

 

Here is something I posted a while back when some idiot was claiming there was a kitty left behind. It sort of stopped that claim in its tracks!!!!!!!

 

Here was Hone said about the warchest, and how the signings of the summer after Lowe were funded (the bits between Hone's quotes are the reporters bit).

 

"What was clear pretty quickly after coming into the company was that there was no reserves, what some might call a warchest," said Hone.

"Money that had been brought in by player trading was just used to keep the company afloat."

 

Saints' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit.

 

During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m.

 

"If not for selling players, the losses would be absolutely horrendous," Hone added.

 

So without any warchest', how have Saints paid for their manager's close season rebuilding.

"It's in staged payments for the players, but it's been done on debt by and large," Hone revealed

 

 

(P.S. Rasiak, the £2million fee and his four year contract with a commitment of something like £3m was a Lowe decision completed in early May, almost a month before Lowe left)

Thanks for digging that out Um

The staged payments for the other buys are even more scary when Hone would have seen us £17 m down the year before.It makes the spending even more reckless than I had thought.

[trousers]

Some quality multi-quoting techniques on this thread.

[um pahars]

Thanks for digging that out Um

The staged payments for the other buys are even more scary when Hone would have seen us £17 m down the year before.It makes the spending even more reckless than I had thought.

 

For their first season here, I don't think Hone/Wilde's approach was a million miles away from what Lowe was proposing.

 

It was all about giving it one last push at getting promotion during the parachute payment, a time when we had to exploit every possible advantage over our rivals, in a hope that we would get to the only place where the numbers really work i.e. the Premiership.

 

In fact Lowe had set his stall out by signing Rasiak (and others) and he had also been upfront in his support of Burley and the fact that he was prepared to back Burley in the transfer market.

 

The general consensus in that first summer was that they probably spent £2m more than lowe had intended (naughty perhaps, but not something that was going to take the Club over the edge - that came the following summer!!!). That first season also saw costs reduced and net debt down to it's lowest level for years so it wasn't all a spendfest.

 

The really stupid stuff came when they failed to implement Plan B the next summer, although Dave Jones tried to pass this off as a mere blip at the last AGM (so who was telling the truth??).

Edited 17 February, 2009 by um pahars

[Window Cleaner]

For their first season here, I don't think Hone/Wilde's approach was a million miles away from what Lowe was proposing.

 

It was all about giving it one last push at getting promotion during the parachute payment, a time when we had to exploit every possible advantage over our rivals, in a hope that we would get to the only place where the numbers really work i.e. the Premiership.

 

In fact Lowe had set his stall out by signing Rasiak (and others) and he had also been upfront in his support of Burley and the fact that he was prepared to back Burley in the transfer market.

 

The general consensus in that first summer was that they probably spent £2m more than lowe had intended (naughty perhaps, but not something that was going to take the Club over the edge - that came the following summer!!!).

 

Then they kicked Wilde out and it went barmy.

[um pahars]

Then they kicked Wilde out and it went barmy.

 

Quite.

 

The failure to implement Plan B was something I never got my head around. I think personal feuds, egos, SISU, and a number of other motivations were in play and the wellbeing of the Club was a second consideration.

 

It would be worthwhile putting Dave Jones under the spotlight about this one as he was a key part of that Executive team, although I also accept that Hone was as domineering as Lowe is. Whilst Lowe was scathing of this, Jones called it a blip at the AGM (I bet that was an interesting lunch afterwards).

 

It will also be interesting to see the Interim Accounts (they are due out soon), as that will give us an idea of how much it has been possible to save, and therefore possible to gauge how much was overspent (after allowing for the blip factor Jones alluded to e.g. Claus and other commitments), so we can at least quantify how much they "cost" us.

[Tamesaint]

Its always funny at this time of day to read threads like this when Jonah has been active on the forum. He always disappears about 5.00pm - its as though his mother has called him in for tea and told him to stop messing around on that forum!!

 

I wonder why he didn't answer the question to name another AGM where the chairman started the meeting by reading out a congratulatory letter. Perhaps he will answer it tomorrow when he is next allowed out to play.

[Wes Tender]

I enjoy reading his jousts with UM and FF always entertaining.

 

Well, he wasn't there at the AGM on his own admission. I was there, as were the other two. Therefore he can read the minutes all he likes until he is word perfect, but there are two faults with reading the minutes and accepting them as an accurate account of events.

 

Firstly, they are not verbatim. I can confirm that Duncan did indeed say "with respect" to Lowe. There, Jonah, you now have a witness statement to prove that the minutes were not verbatim, so anything further you read in the minutes might not be the complete story.

 

Secondly, the minutes of the meeting do not properly convey mood any more than the posts on this forum do. We have little emoticons to aid the nuances, but I doubt that the minutes contain those.

 

Belittle all those who consider Lowe's crass behaviour in reading out that letter all you like. The fact remains that it was not the behaviour of any responsible and respectable chairman of a PLC. It was most unprofessional.

 

You also need to know the difference between accepting blame and saying sorry. Accepting blame does not fulfill the criteria of an apology.

[aintforever]

LOL at Jonah arguing about a meeting he wasn't even at!

 

What a plonker.

[Delmary]

No it wouldn't be, but I don't for one minute think he did do it for that reason - I think he just genuinely thought it followed on as a "rallying call" that he was coming in to try to stabilise the club financially. He was hardly going to read out a letter from Duncan was he? :-)

Are you a member of the God Squad or Freemasons? Just trying to understand your posts;)

[Whitey Grandad]

According to some on here, Lowe's biggest mistake was being born.

[OldNick]

Well, he wasn't there at the AGM on his own admission. I was there, as were the other two. Therefore he can read the minutes all he likes until he is word perfect, but there are two faults with reading the minutes and accepting them as an accurate account of events.

 

Firstly, they are not verbatim. I can confirm that Duncan did indeed say "with respect" to Lowe. There, Jonah, you now have a witness statement to prove that the minutes were not verbatim, so anything further you read in the minutes might not be the complete story.

 

Secondly, the minutes of the meeting do not properly convey mood any more than the posts on this forum do. We have little emoticons to aid the nuances, but I doubt that the minutes contain those.

 

Belittle all those who consider Lowe's crass behaviour in reading out that letter all you like. The fact remains that it was not the behaviour of any responsible and respectable chairman of a PLC. It was most unprofessional.

 

You also need to know the difference between accepting blame and saying sorry. Accepting blame does not fulfill the criteria of an apology.

So the minutes are not accurate.

I can see why fans find it upsetting.RL certainly knows how to get under some peoples ribs,I suispect he knew exactly what he was doing and it probably knocked the anti's off their pre arranged track. Clever really, perhaps not required although just as needless as bringing up about a picture for the boardroom

[Mole]

You also need to know the difference between accepting blame and saying sorry. Accepting blame does not fulfill the criteria of an apology.

 

I think Lowe models himself on Gordon Brown. They are both abject failures that cannot bring themselves to admit they have made big mistakes.

[SW11_Saint]

So the minutes are not accurate.

I can see why fans find it upsetting.RL certainly knows how to get under some peoples ribs,I suispect he knew exactly what he was doing and it probably knocked the anti's off their pre arranged track. Clever really, perhaps not required although just as needless as bringing up about a picture for the boardroom

If what you say were true - yes, very clever; a Plc Chairman purposely going out of his way to aggitate and annoy his shareholders and customers. What a shining light he is to British Commerce...

[CB Fry]

As opposed to your options a and b, neither of which offers the option that Moyes might have suceeded and stayed. According to you he'd either be crap or slightly better than crap...

They're not lame or guesses are they?

 

I know the thread has moved on to the usual boardroom politics stuff, but just excersising my right of reply.

 

If you actually read my post I explain my position re Moyes and I don't say he'd be "crap". I am a massive Moyes fan and hope he gets the job at Old Trafford when it comes up. I think he would have been brilliant for Saints.

 

My point is there is no point whining about him not being Saints manager all those years ago because the three seasons following were excellent seasons for us - two solid mid table finishes and the eighth place finish. We did just fine without him.

 

Moyes being brilliant for us would have delivered much the same as Gray/WGS/Luggy - solid mid table, a cup run, one stand out season. I think that is precisely what he would have delivered.

 

And if he delivered that he would have been appointed manager of Villa, or Everton or Man City or Celtic within those three years. And if he did better quicker he would have left, quicker.

 

Why?

 

a) Moyes is fearsomely ambitious.

b) He has nearly walked from Everton for lack of transfer funds and the club not matching "his ambitions".

c) He would have fallen out with Lowe because of lack of transfer funds and because of his own ambitions.

d) Gordon Strachan did leave us when he felt the club could not match his ambitions, and Lowe couldn't keep him.

 

IE - three years down the line we would not really be any better off than the course of action we did take.

 

The other option of Moyes being rubbish at Saints (not impossible) would mean he would have been sacked so again, no better.

 

 

Not appointing David Moyes did not lead to our relegation because the three years following that decision were good seasons.

 

I think that's a bloody good premise based on facts and the subsequent behaviour of the people in question - Lowe, and Moyes.

 

I repeat - throwing forward from there is lame guesswork, especially as you disagreeing with me suggests that you think Lowe would have thrown transfer money at Moyes to keep him in year four and five? That's Luvvie talk where I come from...

Edited 17 February, 2009 by CB Fry

[um pahars]

If what you say were true - yes, very clever; a Plc Chairman purposely going out of his way to aggitate and annoy his shareholders and customers. What a shining light he is to British Commerce...

 

Agree 100%.

 

And to think that this little tt for tat started over the premise that Lowe had handled the PR correctly since his return.

 

Now given his performance at the Headline event, i.e. the AGM, I think it is fair to suggest that nothing much has changed on the content side of his PR.

 

He's wound down the intensity and number of columun inches, that's for sure, but think much of that has to do with the fact that it's gone shockingly bad this season and no amount of Chris Iwelumo quotes can gloss over that simple fact.

[The9]

Lowe's biggest mistake is signing quantity not quality in 2005.

 

Unfortunately he hasn't learned from this and still seems more than capable of bloating the squad up with crapola reserve teamers who won't improve the first team, judging by the purchases of Smith and Pulis (and possibly Molyneux though it's a little soon to write him off just yet).

[jonah]

Its always funny at this time of day to read threads like this when Jonah has been active on the forum. He always disappears about 5.00pm - its as though his mother has called him in for tea and told him to stop messing around on that forum!!

 

:-) To be honest it's just a case of having more to my life than trying to argue the toss against a mob mentality 24 hours a day. It's only football, and there really are more important things in life than villifying someone trying to do their best for a football club. Some of the "arguments" on here are so juvenile it's worrying just how poor our education system has become, whilst others just prove that our Care In The Community program is failing badly.

 

I see Duncan also disappeared even earlier after incorrectly trying to claim Lowe had never attended an AGM when not chairman, and again not answering the question about why he keeps demanding personal apologies after 4 years. But of course, no balance here to question that is there (and none expected either).

 

I wonder why he didn't answer the question to name another AGM where the chairman started the meeting by reading out a congratulatory letter.

 

Funnily enough, I don't keep a list of such incidents to hand - if you want examples of bizarre behaviour from Directors then get off your backside and go and have a read of some AGM minutes. Try looking at companies like Panther, Meldex, Minmet for starters. There are plenty of quirky Directors, you show me a balanced, normal millionaire chairman. But as usual, the majority on here will continue to focus on a 5 second quote from a letter rather than the bigger picture... which is why the club is in such a mess, it's obviously far more important to worry about the letter than it is to worry about the club's finances.

 

The one thing which is different about a football club over other listed companies is that normally people hold shares in the company because they like the way it is run and its prospects - if not, they sell up. With us it's obviously different and hence the AGM is viewed differently by those fans who don't agree with how it's being run, or who think the democratically elected Directors and Chairman should resign simply because they ask them to at an AGM - frankly, they're the ones who are unprofessional (and stupid really) to do such a thing. Hence when the Chairman reads out a letter supporting the direction the company has taken, there are people present who don't agree - that doesn't make it unprofessional... it's not fan-friendly rhetoric in the eyes of those who oppose Lowe, but why should it be? For those who think he *is* doing the right thing, they were in agreement with that letter (like the first person who spoke) - and as they have democratically elected that board, they're the majority too.

 

So it's just sour grapes from the minority, and as I've said before if they don't like it they need to shut up or put up - there is nothing to stop LM spending the £150k he earnt from the last 2 seasons on Saints shares is there - that would be 882,000 shares which is half as many as Lowe. Corbett could also buy some to swing the balance her way if she was that incensed with the club's direction - but has she ever bought a single share?

[alpine_saint]

Its always funny at this time of day to read threads like this when Jonah has been active on the forum. He always disappears about 5.00pm - its as though his mother has called him in for tea and told him to stop messing around on that forum!!

 

I wonder why he didn't answer the question to name another AGM where the chairman started the meeting by reading out a congratulatory letter. Perhaps he will answer it tomorrow when he is next allowed out to play.

 

I reckon its more like his (PR) office is only open 9 to 5...

[alpine_saint]

:-) To be honest it's just a case of having more to my life than trying to argue the toss against a mob mentality 24 hours a day. It's only football, and there really are more important things in life than villifying someone trying to do their best for a football club. Some of the "arguments" on here are so juvenile it's worrying just how poor our education system has become, whilst others just prove that our Care In The Community program is failing badly.

 

You truly are an obnoxious little shiit.

 

I wonder if your employer would be happy that "only football" is interesting enough to steal from him, but not interesting enough for your spare time ?

[Greenridge]

There seems to be a sense of inevitability that Lowe will lead SFC into a second relegation. This would surely make his position untenable however do you think he will step aside if this comes to pass?

[OldNick]

There seems to be a sense of inevitability that Lowe will lead SFC into a second relegation. This would surely make his position untenable however do you think he will step aside if this comes to pass?

As tme goes on and he holds on I get the feeling he will stay.

Ihave been told that the protests dont faze him.i myself wouldnt need the aggro but he seems to get inspiration from it and almost then wants to stay to prove people wrong.Reverse psycology sing his name and he'd walk...only kidding

[OldNick]

 

That first season also saw costs reduced and net debt down to it's lowest level for years so it wasn't all a spendfest.

 

The really stupid stuff came when they failed to implement Plan B the next summer, although Dave Jones tried to pass this off as a mere blip at the last AGM (so who was telling the truth??).

2 queries Um, So the first season down saw costs reduced, who do you put that down to?

What was Plan B the next summer?

[OldNick]

Duncan I find your claim about MC being 'physically' intimidated quite disconcerting.Are you saying he has laid hands on her in a threatening way?

Can you enlighten us alos to the 'people who were involved in the figure work and figures at the time'?

This meeting seems quite interesting and perhaps even enlightening, was LM there as well?

Duncan this may have been lost in other posts, could you answer these as it is disconcerting news

[OldNick]

 

"Money that had been brought in by player trading was just used to keep the company afloat."

 

Saints' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit.

 

During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m.

 

(P.S. Rasiak, the £2million fee and his four year contract with a commitment of something like £3m was a Lowe decision completed in early May, almost a month before Lowe left)

Um surely like the way Hoos was preparing to buy future transfers by staged payments I know that the sales in some cases were the same.eg Walcott who we know LC went cap in hand to get the payments in at much reduction early.

I agree if Lowe signed Rasiak it was an expensive deal, but if that is a riticism why then do we have the other posts saying he didnt try and invest, it cuts both ways.

[um pahars]

Some of the "arguments" on here are so juvenile it's worrying just how poor our education system has become, whilst others just prove that our Care In The Community program is failing badly

 

When you start trotting out lines such as these above, then it's the surest sign that you've lost the argument. If you could steer clear of the insults, rhetoric and try not to change the subject, then we might get more of a worthwhile debate (or argument).

 

But as usual, the majority on here will continue to focus on a 5 second quote from a letter rather than the bigger picture....... Hence when the Chairman reads out a letter supporting the direction the company has taken, there are people present who don't agree - that doesn't make it unprofessional...

 

Many focus on the bigger picture. Indeed, even on this thread there is some sensible reasoning and debate, even if individuals don't share the same viewpoint.

 

But this one instance was just a small part of the initial discussion regarding Lowe where you asserted he had handled the PR well since his return. Something that given the furore over his approach to the AGM would suggest otherwise - and there are also a number of other quotes and statements that would suggest he still hasn't mastered the PR side of things (e.g. his gambit in the Annual Report with Chris Iwelumo must be one of his classics).

 

Of course it's all about people's opinions, but you have been the only person I know (and I am happy for others to sign up to that view) who has thought his behaviour and antics at the AGM was befitting of the role and context.

[um pahars]

2 queries Um, So the first season down saw costs reduced, who do you put that down to?

What was Plan B the next summer?

 

Not privy to either nickh, so sorry on the factual stuff and can only give you my opinion/insight.

 

With regards the first, the biggest was player wages, which came down by a couple of million.

 

Our wages for the second half of the first season down were just as high as for the first six months, so there never seemed to be that much movement that season, even though we were selling off ex Prem players through the season (may have been due to contractual issues though).

 

They then dropped by a couple of million under Hone in the second season down.

 

Hone & others were also critical of some of the contracts and overheads (as well as income streams) the Club was running with, but they never went into detail of what they were, or what sums were involved.

 

I'm sure there were contributions from Lowe/Cowen just as there were from Hone/Wilde to the drop in costs.

 

As I said in my post above, I honestly didn't see much difference in the way the most of the Club was run post Boardroom change in the summer of 2006 with regards finances etc, particularly when you look at Rasiak's signing and the other promises about supporting Burley, along with Lowe & Cowen's assertion that we need to earn repromotion during the parachute period, which is why I then find it rather irksome that people blast everything Hone/Wilde did in that first season, when arguably is wasn't a million miles away from what Lowe/Cowen were planning.

 

Indeed their time for implementation of Plan B was the summer 2007, which brings us nicely on to your second question.

 

As for Plan B, it was something everyone alluded to (Lowe, Cowen, Wilde, Crouch aneven Hone & co). I don't think it was a Top Secret Plan kept in the safe, more a strategy to reduce costs at the same time as the second parachute payment ended.

 

What it entailed, what sums it involved and over what period it would be implemented was never defined, and I also imagine different individuals had/have a different perception of what it might entail and there are obviously a myriad of ways of how it could be implemented.

[um pahars]

Um surely like the way Hoos was preparing to buy future transfers by staged payments I know that the sales in some cases were the same.eg Walcott who we know LC went cap in hand to get the payments in at much reduction early.

 

I'm sure they were.

 

I agree if Lowe signed Rasiak it was an expensive deal, but if that is a riticism why then do we have the other posts saying he didnt try and invest, it cuts both ways.

 

Lowe was most definitely a Lowe signing. He was on loan for us for the second half of the season and was made permanent a month before Lowe left office.

 

What your saying is fair to those who said he didnt try to invest, but I'm not one of them;). I was always of the mind that Lowe/Cowen's approach that summer wasn't that different to what Wilde/Hone did.

 

Lowe made a number of statements regarding backing the manager in the transfer market that summer.

 

He also alluded to a "warchest" or reserves which some people took to be a sum of money locked away ready to use, when in reality this was just a "term" which identified an agreement to spend a certain amount of cash in the transfer market, which as Hone pointed out would have to be funded by debt.