Lowe's biggest mistake?

[OldNick]

I'm sure they were.

 

 

 

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.

I know Lowe thinks the world of himself but I didnt realise he also signed himself. I think you can change that to Rasiak ,Um

[um pahars]

I know Lowe thinks the world of himself but I didnt realise he also signed himself. I think you can change that to Rasiak ,Um

 

I think I'll leave it, as like you say I wouldn't put it past Lowe either signing himself as a player, coach or even manager;)

[Channon's Sideburns]

I think I'll leave it, as like you say I wouldn't put it past Lowe either signing himself as a player, coach or even manager;)

 

Perhaps Rupey would like to play upfront...who knows he may be better than DMcG...

[fos1]

I think I'll leave it, as like you say I wouldn't put it past Lowe either signing himself as a player, coach or even manager;)

 

How about appointing himself director of football !!!!

[jonah]

How about appointing himself director of football !!!!

 

I think Leon Crouch has already applied for that position:

 

"The plan we are working on now is my plan but there is a difference. I would have had experienced players, loan players and free transfers."

 

Or is that more of a team manager position?

[fos1]

I think Leon Crouch has already applied for that position:

 

"The plan we are working on now is my plan but there is a difference. I would have had experienced players, loan players and free transfers."

 

Or is that more of a team manager position?

 

Think your find that Crouch would leave the manager to manage like he did with Pearson !!

[OldNick]

Think your find that Crouch would leave the manager to manage like he did with Pearson !!

yep with Lm in the background adding his bit Lol

[Trumush]

In answer to the original thread I think Lowe's biggest mistake was not looking for the kind of investment that would sustain us as a top 10 premiership club,especially in 2003 when we were a good proposition.By not being wealthy enough to buy £7-10 million players or pay £20k + a week salaries it was inevitable that the only way was down . If I'm wrong and he activally sought that kind of investment, then his biggest mistake was not finding it; especially with his supposed contacts in the city.

[Tamesaint]

yep with Lm in the background adding his bit Lol

 

I wish we had Pearson and LM with us now to save us from relegation instead of these Dutch clogs.

[Gingeletiss]

In answer to the original thread I think Lowe's biggest mistake was not looking for the kind of investment that would sustain us as a top 10 premiership club,especially in 2003 when we were a good proposition.By not being wealthy enough to buy £7-10 million players or pay £20k + a week salaries it was inevitable that the only way was down . If I'm wrong and he activally sought that kind of investment, then his biggest mistake was not finding it; especially with his supposed contacts in the city.

 

I don't think he wanted it He was a big fish with the F.A., and enjoyed his status as a Premiership chairman......IMHO, he didn't want to sell that on to someone else, and thought he could blag his way through.........history now tells us how wrong he was.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

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

 

Nick - I am not going to elaborate on why MC felt threatened by Lowe except to say that's how she told me she felt. I do not have her permission to say anything further. Sorry.

 

At the meeting were all the ex directors (except Wiseman) who voted or supported Wilde and Crouch at the time of Lowe's departure inc LM and his wife.

 

And for Jonah's benefit - I apologise for saying Lowe never attended AGMs. He certainly was not at the AGM of December 2007 and I also recall him missing one other. So that means he has attended one by my reckoning.

 

I hope you will acknowledge the fact the minutes missed out my "with respect" remark when I questioned Lowe personally at the AGM and would like to point out again, it was the first time I had personally ever made that point to him.

Edited 18 February, 2009 by Fitzhugh Fella

[SW11_Saint]

In answer to the original thread I think Lowe's biggest mistake was not looking for the kind of investment that would sustain us as a top 10 premiership club,especially in 2003 when we were a good proposition.By not being wealthy enough to buy £7-10 million players or pay £20k + a week salaries it was inevitable that the only way was down . If I'm wrong and he activally sought that kind of investment, then his biggest mistake was not finding it; especially with his supposed contacts in the city.

I always think too much is made of Lowe being "something in the City" - lots of us work, or have contacts there, it doesn't mean that you are a major player (like a Gavyn Davies for example).

[Frank's cousin]

In answer to the original thread I think Lowe's biggest mistake was not looking for the kind of investment that would sustain us as a top 10 premiership club,especially in 2003 when we were a good proposition.By not being wealthy enough to buy £7-10 million players or pay £20k + a week salaries it was inevitable that the only way was down . If I'm wrong and he activally sought that kind of investment, then his biggest mistake was not finding it; especially with his supposed contacts in the city.

 

You make a very valid point, and I have always argued that it was this lack of funding that restricted what we could do...especially with constant rather naive 'back the manager' calls after the cup final... we spent all we had, but it would not have been enough to purchase Saha and Malbranque and break the wage ceiling...

 

The other issue with raising capital is the share dilution, LOwe himself was only a 6% shareholder and it would need the backing of all shareholders if say someone came in with a 20mil or so - the minimum really, yet out market cap at the time was only about £8mil (27p a share) so it would in effect have to have been a takeover and there were simply not those types about at that time...

[JohnnyFartPants]

I always think too much is made of Lowe being "something in the City" - lots of us work, or have contacts there, it doesn't mean that you are a major player (like a Gavyn Davies for example).

 

There will always be someone that has more than someone else but to be honest, having the money to buy the shares in the club that he has, going back to when we were a prem club, suggests he is doing better than many of us.

[OldNick]

Nick - I am not going to elaborate on why MC felt threatened by Lowe except to say that's how she told me she felt. I do not have her permission to say anything further. Sorry.

 

At the meeting were all the ex directors (except Wiseman) who voted or supported Wilde and Crouch at the time of Lowe's departure inc LM and his wife.

 

And for Jonah's benefit - I apologise for saying Lowe never attended AGMs. He certainly was not at the AGM of December 2007 and I also recall him missing one other. So that means he has attended one by my reckoning.

 

I hope you will acknowledge the fact the minutes missed out my "with respect" remark when I questioned Lowe personally at the AGM and would like to point out again, it was the first time I had personally ever made that point to him.

Thanks Duncan , I feel you should not have given the itimation that RL has done things of a 'threatening nature' if you cant elaborate. It could lead to many mistruths.

The 'with respect' never worried me because i doubt that it would be pertinent anyway.

It is always good when somebody is big enough to apologise on here, again I dont see it as a problem but Jonah may do.

can you tell us was Mrs McMenemy primed ready to ask the question or was it completely a surprise to you all that the question was asked?

[um pahars]

There will always be someone that has more than someone else but to be honest, having the money to buy the shares in the club that he has, going back to when we were a prem club, suggests he is doing better than many of us.

 

And do you know how many shares he has bought and how much that has cost him, compared to with how much he was paid by the Club.

 

PS I don't expect an answer, but before you make these outlandish claims it would be best to have an understanding of the sums involved, particularly in the context that SW11 was talking of.

[Channon's Sideburns]

There will always be someone that has more than someone else but to be honest, having the money to buy the shares in the club that he has, going back to when we were a prem club, suggests he is doing better than many of us.

 

JFP - 6% share ownership???

 

How much of that 6% has been issued shares by the PLC for his 'performance' in his previous tenure though??

 

Not trying to start an argument over this, but where's the evidence that he has bought all of that 6%?

 

If he had reinvested his 'pay-off' money in shares in SLH then fine...

 

To compare, Wilde bought 16% - doesn't make him a fantastic businessman though does it?

 

Oh hang on though...Leon has 10% and has a company built up from next to nothing to an International Specialist...apparently not fit to run this club though....DOH

Edited 18 February, 2009 by Channon's Sideburns

[OldNick]

And do you know how many shares he has bought and how much that has cost him, compared to with how much he was paid by the Club.

 

PS I don't expect an answer, but before you make these outlandish claims it would be best to have an understanding of the sums involved, particularly in the context that SW11 was talking of.

To be fair could he also put alongside it how much LM paid for shares and how much he took in wages. £400 and sold for £200,000 + I think the Richards article said let alone all the ambassador money.RL I assume was a full time member of staff when he took his salary.He did get his severence pay but that was down to the Wilde bunch hoodwinking the fanbase.

[JohnnyFartPants]

JFP - 6% share ownership???

 

How much of that 6% has been issued shares by the PLC for his 'performance' in his previous tenure though??

 

Not trying to start an argument over this, but where's the evidence that he has bought all of that 6%?

 

If he had reinvested his 'pay-off' money in shares in SLH then fine...

 

To compare, Wilde bought 16% - doesn't make him a fantastic businessman though does it?

 

Oh hang on though...Leon has 10% and has a company built up from next to nothing to an International Specialist...apparently not fit to run this club though....DOH

 

I merely said he is doing better than us. I can't afford to do what he has done.

[JohnnyFartPants]

And do you know how many shares he has bought and how much that has cost him, compared to with how much he was paid by the Club.

 

PS I don't expect an answer, but before you make these outlandish claims it would be best to have an understanding of the sums involved, particularly in the context that SW11 was talking of.

 

I said he is doing better than most. If you are one that is doing better than him then good for you and perhaps you could buy him out.

[Channon's Sideburns]

I merely said he is doing better than us. I can't afford to do what he has done.

 

Lowe's position it seems though has been based on the supposed 'wealth' of others - Askham, Richards, Windsor-Clive, Withers, Wilde...

 

The fact that he is supposedly this high powered city type seems a bit of a red herring - admittedly he may be academically superior to some of his 'backers' - after all why invest directly if you can get the power without it???

 

I think the idiots in the equation are Askham, Wilde et al...

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Thanks Duncan , I feel you should not have given the itimation that RL has done things of a 'threatening nature' if you cant elaborate. It could lead to many mistruths.

The 'with respect' never worried me because i doubt that it would be pertinent anyway.

It is always good when somebody is big enough to apologise on here, again I dont see it as a problem but Jonah may do.

can you tell us was Mrs McMenemy primed ready to ask the question or was it completely a surprise to you all that the question was asked?

 

Well, Mary told me she felt intimidated by him as we left that meeting. Later on in another conversation she told me of a couple of incidents which led to that feeling and I understand very well why she felt the way she did. What people read into that is up to them.

 

The "with respect" is important because Jonah was accusing me of childish behaviour at the AGM.

 

And no, AM made no mention of the photograph in the pre meet and neither did LM and there was no priming of questions by anyone. I did ask what they hoped to achieve at the AGM and the answer was to ask a series of relevant questions arising from the publication of the report. Unfortunately that plan seemed to go out of the window once Rupert opened the meeting (following apologies for it's lateness and Wilde's absence) by reading an anonymous letter which basically stated he was the best thing since sliced bread. Whether he was Crouch baiting or not, it was a singularly stupid and crass thing to do, and set the scene for the anarchy that followed.

[jonah]

Nick - I am not going to elaborate on why MC felt threatened by Lowe except to say that's how she told me she felt. I do not have her permission to say anything further. Sorry.

 

Duncan, did you have her permission to reveal that she felt threatened then? Or was it just too good an opportunity to miss? I think I will contact her to ask what she meant given it's now in the public domain.

 

And for Jonah's benefit - I apologise for saying Lowe never attended AGMs. He certainly was not at the AGM of December 2007 and I also recall him missing one other. So that means he has attended one by my reckoning.

 

You don't need to apologise for it, however I pointed it out given that you took umbrage with my reliance upon minutes despite me ensuring I acknowledged up front that I was assuming they were accurate.

 

As for missing the next 2 AGMs (assuming that is correct), I don't understand your point? Do you feel he should have attended? He didn't barrack the board when he did attend, and didn't disrupt future AGMs trying to get democratically elected board members removed by shouting them down as a minority. Given you think it's outrageous for him to take a holiday when we had Wilde as chairman living in the Channel Islands, then Dulieu as chairman living in Portugal, are you suggesting he should attend every AGM as a shareholder? What about Trant, Wilde and Thompson not even bothering to attend when they were Directors?

 

I hope you will acknowledge the fact the minutes missed out my "with respect" remark when I questioned Lowe personally at the AGM and would like to point out again, it was the first time I had personally ever made that point to him.

 

If you said that, great, not sure it quite offsets comments such as "you're not welcome" as if your minority view should be considered above those of the majority, but anyway. You still didn't answer the question about the apologies though - you already knew he had apologised and accepted his share of the blame didn't you? So why did you ask about it again?

[Channon's Sideburns]

Duncan, did you have her permission to reveal that she felt threatened then? Or was it just too good an opportunity to miss? I think I will contact her to ask what she meant given it's now in the public domain.

 

 

 

You don't need to apologise for it, however I pointed it out given that you took umbrage with my reliance upon minutes despite me ensuring I acknowledged up front that I was assuming they were accurate.

 

As for missing the next 2 AGMs (assuming that is correct), I don't understand your point? Do you feel he should have attended? He didn't barrack the board when he did attend, and didn't disrupt future AGMs trying to get democratically elected board members removed by shouting them down as a minority. Given you think it's outrageous for him to take a holiday when we had Wilde as chairman living in the Channel Islands, then Dulieu as chairman living in Portugal, are you suggesting he should attend every AGM as a shareholder? What about Trant, Wilde and Thompson not even bothering to attend when they were Directors?

 

 

 

If you said that, great, not sure it quite offsets comments such as "you're not welcome" as if your minority view should be considered above those of the majority, but anyway. You still didn't answer the question about the apologies though - you already knew he had apologised and accepted his share of the blame didn't you? So why did you ask about it again?

 

Jonah, you convieniently forgot about the barracking of Crouch's board at the 2007 AGM by Mike Richards and Andrew Cowen then????

 

The best bullies always try to get someone else to do it for them don't they???

[Frank's cousin]

Well, Mary told me she felt intimidated by him as we left that meeting. Later on in another conversation she told me of a couple of incidents which led to that feeling and I understand very well why she felt the way she did. What people read into that is up to them.

 

The "with respect" is important because Jonah was accusing me of childish behaviour at the AGM.

 

And no, AM made no mention of the photograph in the pre meet and neither did LM and there was no priming of questions by anyone. I did ask what they hoped to achieve at the AGM and the answer was to ask a series of relevant questions arising from the publication of the report. Unfortunately that plan seemed to go out of the window once Rupert opened the meeting (following apologies for it's lateness and Wilde's absence) by reading an anonymous letter which basically stated he was the best thing since sliced bread. Whether he was Crouch baiting or not, it was a singularly stupid and crass thing to do, and set the scene for the anarchy that followed.

 

 

Duncan, I think Jonah makes a fair point above. This could be considered an accustaion of somesort and unless its backed up or the details supplied, if its left hanging like this is particularly cynical. Either its in the domain or not, leaving its delicously ambiguous is a below the belt really.

[um pahars]

To be fair could he also put alongside it how much LM paid for shares and how much he took in wages. £400 and sold for £200,000 + I think the Richards article said let alone all the ambassador money.RL I assume was a full time member of staff when he took his salary.He did get his severence pay but that was down to the Wilde bunch hoodwinking the fanbase.

 

you need to look at the reply in it's context nickh and not just throw in random comments IMHO.

 

It was about it being a sign of Lowe's ability as a businessman, nit the merits or otherwise of the reverse takeover.

[OldNick]

Well, Mary told me she felt intimidated by him as we left that meeting. Later on in another conversation she told me of a couple of incidents which led to that feeling and I understand very well why she felt the way she did. What people read into that is up to them.

 

The "with respect" is important because Jonah was accusing me of childish behaviour at the AGM.

 

And no, AM made no mention of the photograph in the pre meet and neither did LM and there was no priming of questions by anyone. I did ask what they hoped to achieve at the AGM and the answer was to ask a series of relevant questions arising from the publication of the report. Unfortunately that plan seemed to go out of the window once Rupert opened the meeting (following apologies for it's lateness and Wilde's absence) by reading an anonymous letter which basically stated he was the best thing since sliced bread. Whether he was Crouch baiting or not, it was a singularly stupid and crass thing to do, and set the scene for the anarchy that followed.

I think none of the protagonists came out with any credit.Both sides seem to me approached the meeting set to wind up the other.

If MC felt threatened or uncomfortable I think that is wrong for her to feel so.It also makes it perfectly clear she would not be able to cope with any major job at the club, as we all know the fans or others can be very threatening.(not that I feel she has intention of doing so0

[OldNick]

you need to look at the reply in it's context nickh and not just throw in random comments IMHO.

 

It was about it being a sign of Lowe's ability as a businessman, nit the merits or otherwise of the reverse takeover.

perhaps but I like to point out that Cinderella is not a virgin

[um pahars]

I think none of the protagonists came out with any credit.Both sides seem to me approached the meeting set to wind up the other.

 

Which brings us right back to the beginning of the argument (which has been somewhat lost by all the diversions), that one example of where Lowe has handled the PR poorly since his return,

 

I think Jonah is the only poster who would argue that Lowe's performance at the AGM was anything other than poor PR.

[Frank's cousin]

I think none of the protagonists came out with any credit.Both sides seem to me approached the meeting set to wind up the other.

If MC felt threatened or uncomfortable I think that is wrong for her to feel so.It also makes it perfectly clear she would not be able to cope with any major job at the club, as we all know the fans or others can be very threatening.(not that I feel she has intention of doing so0

 

Which is why it becomes so impossible to support anyone - its such a paradox really -= because they all want teh same thing - admitedly perhaps for different reasons - a successful SFC - sopome believe LOwe only to 'line his pockets', but like many if we make teh champions league he can fill his boots as far as I'm concerned, MC, Crouch as fans want that success to so why the feck dont the recognise what they have in common for a chnage rather than what is pulling them apart... but being honest, us fans are no different really are we?

[OldNick]

Which brings us right back to the beginning of the argument (which has been somewhat lost by all the diversions), that one example of where Lowe has handled the PR poorly since his return,

 

I think Jonah is the only poster who would argue that Lowe's performance at the AGM was anything other than poor PR.

I suppose that may be the case although fans did ask that he said little and he has followed that wish.If RL had stood and hurled the abuse would he have been so well received as LC etc did?

I think that the AGM that RL LC and LM all behaved poorly add to that my old schoolfriend who did something silly but as jesture only not to hurt.The picture thing is comical, Im sure Thatcher took down Heaths picture, Blair Thatchers and brown sure would have taken down Blairs picture.Why the fuss at a AGM about that.

The pont was that the ambush was pre empted and left the anti brigade in chaos as their plan went awry.

The club was hurt by all.

[um pahars]

The club was hurt by all.

 

I don't doubt that for one minute.

 

But the point at hand was not the behaviour of Crouch, Chorley, Lawrie et al, instead we were discussing as to whether Lowe had managed the PR well since his return and one point against this was his performance at the AGM.

 

We were discussing whether Lowe's performance at the AGM was a PR success or a PR failure, and my conjecture was that it was very much a failure.

 

Now if others want to debate their bahaviour etc., then that's fine by me, and my opinion is that it was also found wanting, but let's not get distracted from this thread which was about Lowe's mistakes.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Duncan, did you have her permission to reveal that she felt threatened then? Or was it just too good an opportunity to miss? I think I will contact her to ask what she meant given it's now in the public domain.

 

 

 

You don't need to apologise for it, however I pointed it out given that you took umbrage with my reliance upon minutes despite me ensuring I acknowledged up front that I was assuming they were accurate.

 

As for missing the next 2 AGMs (assuming that is correct), I don't understand your point? Do you feel he should have attended? He didn't barrack the board when he did attend, and didn't disrupt future AGMs trying to get democratically elected board members removed by shouting them down as a minority. Given you think it's outrageous for him to take a holiday when we had Wilde as chairman living in the Channel Islands, then Dulieu as chairman living in Portugal, are you suggesting he should attend every AGM as a shareholder? What about Trant, Wilde and Thompson not even bothering to attend when they were Directors?

 

 

 

If you said that, great, not sure it quite offsets comments such as "you're not welcome" as if your minority view should be considered above those of the majority, but anyway. You still didn't answer the question about the apologies though - you already knew he had apologised and accepted his share of the blame didn't you? So why did you ask about it again?

 

Mark - I have already said I did not ask for him to apologise - I asked him to accept responsibility. There is a difference. However at no stage, ever before, have Rupert and I ever had a conversation about apologies or responsibility and I was not aware he had ever totally held his hands up to the fans or shareholders and said I take responsibility for this mess. I was giving him the chance.

 

As for MC, Mark - you just can't hack it can you. Why don't you ask Rupert how he used to act in her company. I presume you know him?

 

Instead of bemoaning the fact that his boorish behaviour has given me an opportunity to criticise him on this forum why don't you find out just what sort of things Rupert does when people don't do as he wants - go on go find out. I know from personal experience he likes to boast about how he browbeats and intimidates people You might get a bit of a shock to hear some stories at how he actually behaves. Or alternatively you can continue with your one man admiration society with your fingers in your ears and you head in the sand.

 

Unfortunately Mark you can't stand the fact that the man you have verbally wet yourself over for the past decade is a seriously flawed individual. You just can't stand the fact that your hero, the man you have slavishly praised for years, appears to be no more than a bullying, arrogant, pompous, pig-headed, ill-bred man who has not an ounce of humility in his body. Actually come to think of it the two of you are well-matched - a marriage made in heaven perhaps.

 

Apologies for being a little rude but the tone of all your posts are condescending and arrogant - so have some of your own medicine. Now go pick up the phone to Rupert. Go on!

[Wes Tender]

:-) 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.

 

As Alpine correctly points out, as an employee your time is probably more restricted by your work than by your inclination.

 

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.

 

Even though you are obviously well-educated, you suffer the same arrogance as those who run the club and are prone to disparage the opinions of those who disagree with you as being somehow intellectually challenged. The trouble with this philosophy is that those who run the club, currently need the fans more than the fans need those people who currently run the club.

 

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).

 

And as I said, blame might have been accepted, but apologies there have not been. I'm sure you're bright enough to know the difference between the two things.

 

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.

 

Yes, it is, as one has an effect on the other if you cared to think about it a little. Any company that treats its customers with contempt, very soon ceases to have many customers. Ask Gerald Ratner. As you weren't there, I can tell you that it wasn't a five second quote either, although I'm sure you are just using hyperbole to suit your view, but the point is that it is not a trivial matter when it was a deliberate ploy to wind up Lowe's detractors. It was highly unprofessional and extremely crass.

 

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,

 

Ah! So you have spotted the difference between a football club and other types of PLC. What a shame that the current board do not share your insight.

 

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.

 

Democratically elected? That's a good one! What we're talking of here is a bunch of accountants and solicitors who had been appointed to run the club by their predecessors who probably were members of the same lodge, or who did business together in their overlapping local spheres. They held shares nominally valued at £1, but saw fit to accept an immoral reverse takeover which massively increased the value of their shareholdings. The one person who currently propped up their return to power is the failed ex-chairman who had deposed them originally on a platform of giving back the club to the fans and then reneged on that agreement purely out of self-interest. Although the current board are in power because they hold a majority shareholding, democracy has very little to do with it.

 

 

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.

 

You really don't get it at all. It isn't a case of him having the right to read out that letter as he has your so-called democratic majority. It is a question of professionalism, knowledge of procedure and the correct way to behave in a meeting of the shareholders of the PLC.

 

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?

 

Equally of course, Lowe and Cowen could repay the substantial sum they were awarded as compensation when the Quisling ousted them, as the club are short of money and it didn't help having to pay the two of them for being the major cause of that situation.

 

As for the fan base, would you tell them to like it or lump it too? Before replying, kindly consider that under the severe financial straits that we find ourselves, the club ought to be desperate to keep attendances as high as possible. Presumably the posters on here are reasonably representative of the fan base as a whole. What do you reckon Lowe should do? Call them a load of juveniles, decry the care in the community system, call them Neanderthals? Is he clever enough to make the connection between treating his paying customers with respect, or is he the Gerald Ratner of the football world?

 

What do you think?

[OldNick]

Equally of course, Lowe and Cowen could repay the substantial sum they were awarded as compensation when the Quisling ousted them, as the club are short of money and it didn't help having to pay the two of them for being the major cause of that situation.

 

]

I cant understand that , tell us ANYONE who would do so. They were paid out because they lost their position due to a new group coming in.The fans that wanted them out at all costs and thats what they got.Ask any of theo thers who have taken money from the club and they wouldn't pay up as well

[Gingeletiss]

I cant understand that , tell us ANYONE who would do so. They were paid out because they lost their position due to a new group coming in.The fans that wanted them out at all costs and thats what they got.Ask any of theo thers who have taken money from the club and they wouldn't pay up as well

 

Yes Mr I won't listen...........we wanted them out at any cost, but, and here it is........but, we didn't want them back. Now, against most of our wishes, they are back, and if kicked out again, they will take even more money out of a club that can't afford to pay it.

[saintjay77]

not kept up with this thread but as its still going is it worth anyone putting an update or is it the usual point scoring and arguing between the usual suspects?

[Gingeletiss]

not kept up with this thread but as its still going is it worth anyone putting an update or is it the usual point scoring and arguing between the usual suspects?

 

 

Point scoring............what's new??

[alpine_saint]

I cant understand that , tell us ANYONE who would do so. They were paid out because they lost their position due to a new group coming in.The fans that wanted them out at all costs and thats what they got.Ask any of theo thers who have taken money from the club and they wouldn't pay up as well

 

Compare and contrast with Crouch who wasnt paid and didnt take compensation despite knowing the club needed the money.

 

Why is it still in doubt that Crouch, for all his failings, is better for the club than Lowe ?

[saintjay77]

Compare and contrast with Crouch who wasnt paid and didnt take compensation despite knowing the club needed the money.

 

Why is it still in doubt that Crouch, for all his failings, is better for the club than Lowe ?

 

IF the club was hemereging money faster while Crouch was here and IF he wasnt going to do enough about it as he thought someone will buy us next week then it doesnt really matter if he was taking money or not as the club would still sink faster than something that sinks very fast. How can that be better than anyone trying to stop the club losing that much money?

 

I know thats a big if and had he still been here after the offseason he may well have done everything needed to stop the rot. We will never know that but we do know that the other numpties figured the club was sinking fast and they needed to act. For Wilde to jump into bed with Lowe the situation had to be pretty convincing IMO. Its just a shame they couldnt all work together at stopping the rot and finding a buyer.

[jonah]

I was not aware he had ever totally held his hands up to the fans or shareholders and said I take responsibility for this mess. I was giving him the chance.

 

Duncan, I'm sorry but I don't believe that - I have responded to you claiming that before and I know we've had this conversation before on other lists. I even remember you trying to claim in 2006 that Lowe's offer to resign and acceptance of his share of the blame had not made it into the board minutes (which back then you claimed were always 100% accurate! ;-)) - so this has certainly been gone over before and it makes no sense to me why it was relevant or why you would drag it up again at the 2008 AGM.

 

Secondly, you ignored the question of whether MC gave you permission to reveal that she apparently "feels threatened" by Lowe given that she didn't give you permission to elaborate on the details. It comes across as a very underhand thing to post here, I would just like to clear up whether you revealed this without MC knowing or whether she said you could mention it without giving any more details? That seems a fair question in the circumstances.

 

As for MC, Mark - you just can't hack it can you. Why don't you ask Rupert how he used to act in her company. I presume you know him?

 

Hack what? No, I have never met or even spoken to RL. Of all the main shareholders and Directors, the only one I have ever met is LM when I was a kid - even that I'm not sure of, I know I met Ted Bates, but I'm not 100% sure LM was there. And I've met you.

 

why don't you find out just what sort of things Rupert does when people don't do as he wants - go on go find out. I know from personal experience he likes to boast about how he browbeats and intimidates people You might get a bit of a shock to hear some stories at how he actually behaves.

 

So tell us all how he behaves - caveat one, not your phone call story again; caveat two, factual events, not rumour or innuendo where you're not allowed to tell us any more details. I might well be shocked, so it's a good chance to help change my mind. I'm sure for balance you won't miss out similar stories of Crouch, McMenemy et al? You know, things like LM shouting at LC to "F*ck off" in the middle of a Southampton restaurant, etc. But I would genuinely be interested to hear *factual* stories.

 

I don't know what world you go about in every day Duncan, everyone has character flaws and I'm sure we could all have a lovely time identifying each others and exaggerating them to make our points - I get that directed at me every time I don't follow the sheep on here and I'm sure I'll get another lot in response to this!

 

Unfortunately Mark you can't stand the fact that the man you have verbally wet yourself over for the past decade is a seriously flawed individual.

 

I'm sure he has flaws aplenty, whether they are as big as those of LC, LM etc is another matter of course if it's a competition. However I learnt a long time ago not to judge someone's professional ability by their personal flaws - it's not a popularity contest. Oh sh*t, I've got that wrong haven't I, it's alway a popularity contest at Saints...

 

Apologies for being a little rude but the tone of all your posts are condescending and arrogant - so have some of your own medicine. Now go pick up the phone to Rupert. Go on!

 

Calm down Duncan, as I've said before you are very good at dishing it out (criticising me over using the minutes, stating RL didn't attend AGMs), yet don't seem able to handle anything you get back. When the red mist clears, you might read up above how I've said I'm perfectly happy if RL and the rest all left SFC - provided we have someone good enough to come in. You will probably also remember from other lists that I said I wanted RL to step down as chairman after relegation - my idol indeed (and an insult to Jimmy Page). As we know from the last Anyone-But-Lowe episode, that's easier said than done - certainly choosing people who apparently were "thrown off course" by Lowe reading out 5 seconds from a letter is not my idea of a sensible alternative!

[jonah]

Jonah, you convieniently forgot about the barracking of Crouch's board at the 2007 AGM by Mike Richards and Andrew Cowen then????

 

The best bullies always try to get someone else to do it for them don't they???

 

Oh right, so even though RL wasn't even there it's all his fault again! There's a surprise!

[Greenridge]

... I'm sorry but I don't believe that

 

...

 

Having trawled through this thread it's quite plain to see that you are up to your old tricks Jonah. You are a wind-up merchant of the highest order. When elements of a debate are presented to you (with decent circumstantial or references of integrity) you conveniently dismiss them as some kind of fantasy. Are you expecting a Magistrate or JP (no, not that Jan) to be in attendance whilst these various events take place.

 

You are tiresome, predictable and boring in the extreme.

[Frank's cousin]

Having trawled through this thread it's quite plain to see that you are up to your old tricks Jonah. You are a wind-up merchant of the highest order. When elements of a debate are presented to you (with decent circumstantial or references of integrity) you conveniently dismiss them as some kind of fantasy. Are you expecting a Magistrate or JP (no, not that Jan) to be in attendance whilst these various events take place.

 

You are tiresome, predictable and boring in the extreme.

 

Thats being rather disingenuous really... Jonah argues his case, UP responds and it goes round, both sides not giving an inch - surely the purpose of the forum and the debate, if bored by it dont read it, but I suspect that if JOnah argued his case so 'tiresomely, predictably and boringingly' AGAINST Lowe, he would bee seen as a wise font of all knowledge....? Our perception on this too easily swayed by the stance/POV and the 'boring tag is the convenient excuse for those you dont agree.

[Channon's Sideburns]

Oh right, so even though RL wasn't even there it's all his fault again! There's a surprise!

 

Convenient memory loss for you there Jonah.

 

If you re-read your own post earlier you claimed in response to Duncan along the lines of that 'you cannot recall Lowe ever giving the existing board any stick at the AGM'

 

Of course Lowe sent Cowen and Richards to do the questioning for him. I was sat at that AGM on the next row of seating to those two jokers and their questions were all written down for them to read from.

 

You not that naive are you?

 

I bet you love horse racing...they have blinkers on as well.

[jonah]

When elements of a debate are presented to you (with decent circumstantial or references of integrity) you conveniently dismiss them as some kind of fantasy.

 

I'm not sure which point you are referring to? MC feeling threatened by RL? Or RL having never attended an AGM whilst not chairman?

[Greenridge]

Thats being rather disingenuous really... Jonah argues his case' date=' UP responds and it goes round, both sides not giving an inch - surely the purpose of the forum and the debate, if bored by it dont read it, but I suspect that if JOnah argued his case so 'tiresomely, predictably and boringingly' AGAINST Lowe, he would bee seen as a wise font of all knowledge....? Our perception on this too easily swayed by the stance/POV and the 'boring tag is the convenient excuse for those you dont agree.[/quote']

 

My reference was to his exchange with FF not UP. You've completely missed the point with your dig about the 'boring' comment, perhaps you could read my post again. It's not the first and I'm sure won't be the last time that Jonah dismisses information out in front of him despite the source being of good character (we can never say 'fact'). The perpetual wind-up thus continues.

 

And, as for me not reading it if I find it boring then that is fair comment but I'd politely point to this pertanent thread

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=10141

[jonah]

and Richards to do the questioning for him. I was sat at that AGM on the next row of seating to those two jokers and their questions were all written down for them to read from.

 

Wow, so now not only did Lowe convince 2 other major shareholders to disrupt the AGM on his behalf (How did they disrupt it? A show of hands and a walk-out? Shouting down the board?), but apparently you can even recognise Lowe's hand-writing and identify the questions as his own. Curse that man for having questions, will we ever be rid of his evil plotting?!

 

Having a list of questions written down seems like an eminently sensible thing to do when attending an AGM. Perhaps if LC, LM et al had done the same they wouldn't have been "thrown off course" for the entire meeting by hearing a 5 second snippet from a letter? Another lesson on professionalism to be learned there I feel.

[Frank's cousin]

My reference was to his exchange with FF not UP. You've completely missed the point with your dig about the 'boring' comment, perhaps you could read my post again. It's not the first and I'm sure won't be the last time that Jonah dismisses information out in front of him despite the source being of good character (we can never say 'fact'). The perpetual wind-up thus continues.

 

And, as for me not reading it if I find it boring then that is fair comment but I'd politely point to this pertanent thread

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=10141

 

Fair enough, it happens, but both FF and UP etc do the same thing, focusing in on a perceived wekness rather than responding to everything in a post... as I said who we have more time for i do think is dow to what is being said, not the way its said.

 

I have never understood why we should shy away from controversy on here, everyone should argue their POV with conviction... and be prepared for the response. For me its more a case that it does often get too personal that is dissapointing. we all end up embroiled in it as It takes the patience of a saint (sic) to avoid getting drawn in.

Edited 19 February, 2009 by Frank's cousin

[Channon's Sideburns]

Wow, so now not only did Lowe convince 2 other major shareholders to disrupt the AGM on his behalf (How did they disrupt it? A show of hands and a walk-out? Shouting down the board?), but apparently you can even recognise Lowe's hand-writing and identify the questions as his own. Curse that man for having questions, will we ever be rid of his evil plotting?!

 

Having a list of questions written down seems like an eminently sensible thing to do when attending an AGM. Perhaps if LC, LM et al had done the same they wouldn't have been "thrown off course" for the entire meeting by hearing a 5 second snippet from a letter? Another lesson on professionalism to be learned there I feel.

 

Christ Jonah you must be dizzy with all that spinning.

 

Carry on...you're not making Lowe look any better. Such blind support is to be congratulated, but what do you think about Lord Lowe implementing the closing of corners that was already proposed by Crouch?

 

 

 

Or the continued support of the Bank and NU?

 

Or has that all only been achieved since May?

 

At the AGM, Cowen obviously had prepared in advance..Richards was clearly reading from a script and from the look on his face he wasn't familiar with the content.

 

Get over it, Leon is a more successful businessman than Rupert will ever be...if anything, this is A CLASS ISSUE - Leon has achieved more from a working class background and that grates with Rupey Baby....doesn't it??????

 

Or is it that Leon managed to bring the fans as one unit in his short period in charge (I guess that you weren't on the pitch at the Sheff Utd game celebrating with the rest of us) - and all Rupert can manage is to split the fans????

 

Oh BTW, before you start the only link between me and Leon is that we both originate from Lymington.