Lowe's biggest mistake?

[alpine_saint]

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']

 

Oh, the irony...

[saintjay77]

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.

 

The thing that gets up my nose is the way the slightest rumour against RL quickly turns into Mob tactics and everyone is shooting from the hip about how evil Lowe is. I understand why it happens as the guy has done himself no favours in winning any fans over to his way of thinking but I dont think that excuses it. It might not be so bad if the other 2 got the same treatment but it seems that reaction is just saved for Lowe.

 

I often agree with FC, Jonah, UP and FF as I cant find anything to be positive about RL but I also cant agree with the bully mentality that goes against him.

 

1 thing is for sure though and that is for us fans to have any chance of uniting the shareholders need to sell up and ship out. IMO they are all accountable and rarely have they done anything to improve our situation.

 

Why we get drawn into personal war's with each other when we all claim to want whats best for the club I will never know. Our time would be better spent if we all got together to find a way out of this mess rather than debating which muppet we should support with continuing with this mess.

[Frank's cousin]

Oh, the irony...

 

That suggests you dont actually appreciate the correct meaning of the word...;-)

[Frank's cousin]

The thing that gets up my nose is the way the slightest rumour against RL quickly turns into Mob tactics and everyone is shooting from the hip about how evil Lowe is. I understand why it happens as the guy has done himself no favours in winning any fans over to his way of thinking but I dont think that excuses it. It might not be so bad if the other 2 got the same treatment but it seems that reaction is just saved for Lowe.

 

I often agree with FC, Jonah, UP and FF as I cant find anything to be positive about RL but I also cant agree with the bully mentality that goes against him.

 

1 thing is for sure though and that is for us fans to have any chance of uniting the shareholders need to sell up and ship out. IMO they are all accountable and rarely have they done anything to improve our situation.

 

Why we get drawn into personal war's with each other when we all claim to want whats best for the club I will never know. Our time would be better spent if we all got together to find a way out of this mess rather than debating which muppet we should support with continuing with this mess.

 

I would agree on most of those points with the exception that they all MUST go. The reason for this is that I really struggle to understand why as fans we feel the ned to be so self indulgent about this - I appreciate and understand the 'emotional ownership' we feel towards our club and hense the anger and frustration when we see 'real' owners using it as a political football or what we perceive as a plaything for their egos, but the reality is that that what all these guys actually want is the same thing, success at the club because of what it would personally do for them, be it wealth, opportunitty or ego massage - and sure there are better more qualified folk out there, but these thre COULD do a reasonable job if they worked constructively together rather than trying to win opver fans in some crappy PR war - with all parties misfiring spectacularly - trouble is us fans being so self indulgent feel 'NOTHING can get better until they are all gone' - I would merely ay there will be no improvemnet until they feckin recognise that they need to work together and utilise all the combined skills they have in the most appropriate position - Thast what I believe the required change should be because simply cahnging the board mix to have another party outside ****ing in, or other tin pot locals with no cash leveraging some sort of takover aint going to make feck all difference to hat is happening on the pitch, whatever 'promises' we hear....

[alpine_saint]

That suggests you dont actually appreciate the correct meaning of the word...;-)

 

Of course it does.

[Frank's cousin]

Of course it does.

 

No the irony is in your own statement - critical of the 'boring' posts/posters, from you and true legend in the art of the rant that contributes nothing... and are thus boring

 

Although, actually now i come to think about it, I am wrong here as maybe I cant classiffy them as boring because of their entertainment value... ;-)

[jonah]

what do you think about Lord Lowe implementing the closing of corners that was already proposed by Crouch?

 

If you're going to call him Lord Lowe then it's only fair to call Leon Crouch Potato. I thought closing the corners was sensible - if it was Crouch's idea well done him. Of course when it's Crouch's idea it's sensible and great on here, when people thought it was Lowe's we had Primary School mathematics trying to show how it would cost the club money (LOL) and he had done it to "gain revenge" on the Itchen corner. As SJ just said, it's mob mentality.

 

Or the continued support of the Bank and NU?

 

NU are in no position to withdraw their support, I don't know why you would claim that - unless there is a trigger clause about change in board members which certain people have assured us isn't the case (count to 3 and wait for UP to appear), otherwise we make our payments on time end of story.

 

Re the bank support, the AGM was delayed whilst they tried to secure their support - clearly not something sorted out by Crouch (or disputed at the AGM when stated).

 

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)

 

Oh so that's why you were on the pitch - there I was in the stands celebrating scraping to survival by 20 minutes (hoorah) and you were celebrating Leon Crouch.

[alpine_saint]

No the irony is in your own statement - critical of the 'boring' posts/posters, from you and true legend in the art of the rant that contributes nothing... and are thus boring

 

Although, actually now i come to think about it, I am wrong here as maybe I cant classiffy them as boring because of their entertainment value... ;-)

 

Stop it now, my sides are hurting. Your lack of self-awareness is hillarious...

[Frank's cousin]

Stop it now, my sides are hurting. Your lack of self-awareness is hillarious...

 

Laugh all you like Alpine - 'self awareness' - now that IS ironic! ;-)

[alpine_saint]

Laugh all you like Alpine - 'self awareness' - now that IS ironic! ;-)

 

Congratulations Frank, you can have the last word, seeing as boring me into submission is so important to you.

 

Go fill yer boots. the floor is yours..

[Frank's cousin]

Congratulations Frank, you can have the last word, seeing as boring me into submission is so important to you.

 

Go fill yer boots. the floor is yours..

 

What a mighty victory over such a mighty opponent ! ;-)

[um pahars]

Diversions, tangents, scraping the bottom of the barrel, we've had them all on here.

 

The bottom line is that judging from the majority of responses on here, Lowe's PR has been found wanting since his return. Of course, there are some who still see no problem with it (:rolleyes:), but the whole idea of PR is winning over the masses, something that Lowe has so obviously failed on.

 

Whether it be from the opening gambit of the "Nine Points" letter which formally opened the battle (Oh, how those "Nine Points" should be reviewed again given the current debacle) through to his disastrous handling of the AGM, this has once again been shown as an area where Lowe is out of touch with his customers/supporters.

 

Therefore, IMHO the original inference that Lowe hasn't done too bad on that front falls down even when you only scratch the surface. He's got "better", but when you originally rivalled Ratner in your ability to alienate and discourage your customers, it was pretty hard to get worse.

 

Lowe should be defended for some of the things he has done for this Club and I have defended and supported him when it was justified, but the blinkered support of his behaviour at the AGM (albeit by only one poster) is, well, I don't want to appear rude, so let's just call it ill-judged:smt048:smt048

[Frank's cousin]

The only issue I have with this criticism of the AGM behaviour is that was this the correct environment to bring up the gripes that these fans did. It was not a fans forum but an official PLC AGM designed for shareholders to review the previous 12 months, approve the financial plans etc and ratify the board... as far as I am aware it was not an EGM called by disconted shareholders holding the board to account, nor a fans forum as a plave to air fans grievences.

 

This does not excuse rude, impatient or stupid behaviour on Lowes part, but its also begs the question as to whether Lowes critics were wise to use this particular forum to air these particular grievences?

[alpine_saint]

 

This does not excuse rude, impatient or stupid behaviour on Lowes part, but its also begs the question as to whether Lowes critics were wise to use this particular foru to air these grievences?

 

Jesus, where else do you suggest ?

 

Crouch is known to have made several direct approaches, only to be dismissed out-of-hand.

[Frank's cousin]

Jesus, where else do you suggest ?

 

Crouch is known to have made several direct approaches, only to be dismissed out-of-hand.

 

Alps, these are grown men, and despite what we want to believe they WILL talk to each other if they believe there is something positive or constructive in such a discussion. Its easy as we all know, to point the finger, but you wont get an audience without at least offering some sort of solution taht his viable and for which there is the necessary evidence.

 

As has been speculated when the SISU thing happened, when it became clear that it was really in their best interests to join together they did just that! Which COULD suggest that if Crouch does not get an audience, its because he is not presenting anything constructive? OK, you can argue that it took th trisk of personal interests being ******ed up to get them all to shake of theinfantile rubbish, but nonethese it proved it could be done.

[alpine_saint]

Alps, these are grown men, and despite what we want to believe they WILL talk to each other if they believe there is something positive or constructive in such a discussion. Its easy as we all know, to point the finger, but you wont get an audience without at least offering some sort of solution taht his viable and for which there is the necessary evidence.

 

As has been speculated when the SISU thing happened, when it became clear that it was really in their best interests to join together they did just that! Which COULD suggest that if Crouch does not get an audience, its because he is not presenting anything constructive? OK, you can argue that it took th trisk of personal interests being ******ed up to get them all to shake of theinfantile rubbish, but nonethese it proved it could be done.

 

What utterly ridiculous spin.

 

Everytime they have even slightly looked like converging, Lowe has runied it by insisting he is in charge in the new arrangement.

 

Christ, and you still claim to be balanced ? Every one of your posts takes the first opportunity to blame Crouch.

[JohnnyFartPants]

What utterly ridiculous spin.

 

Everytime they have even slightly looked like converging, Lowe has runied it by insisting he is in charge in the new arrangement.

Christ, and you still claim to be balanced ? Every one of your posts takes the first opportunity to blame Crouch.

 

Link please.

[Frank's cousin]

What utterly ridiculous spin.

 

Everytime they have even slightly looked like converging, Lowe has runied it by insisting he is in charge in the new arrangement.

 

Christ, and you still claim to be balanced ? Every one of your posts takes the first opportunity to blame Crouch.

 

I was not blaming Crouch Alpine, but pointing out that they WILL talk if they all see a common interest. I think at present (and yes this is speculation), its possible that crouch is not coming forward with anything new that will appeal to the Wilde/LOwe axis - thats not saying Lowe/wilde are right not to talk to him , just that its way it seems to appear... Please for once cant you just see, I am not defending Lowe/Wilde in this, but pointing out why I believe Crouch is getting no where?

 

Personally, its why I have a downer on Crouch, because I dont think he has anything new to offer apart from the fan friendly stuff - surely you can see I can hold this view irrespective of whether I believe lowe/wilde shold be where they are?

[JohnnyFartPants]

I was not blaming Crouch Alpine, but pointing out that they WILL talk if they all see a common interest. I think at present (and yes this is speculation), its possible that crouch is not coming forward with anything new that will appeal to the Wilde/LOwe axis - thats not saying Lowe/wilde are right not to talk to him , just that its way it seems to appear... Please for once cant you just see, I am not defending Lowe/Wilde in this, but pointing out why I believe Crouch is getting no where?

 

Personally, its why I have a downer on Crouch, because I dont think he has anything new to offer apart from the fan friendly stuff - surely you can see I can hold this view irrespective of whether I believe lowe/wilde shold be where they are?

 

Dear little Alps does have a problem understanding the difference between Lowe support and understanding anothers opinion on how things may be proceeding. It is weird but all part of his conspiracy character.

[Frank's cousin]

Dear little Alps does have a problem understanding the difference between Lowe support and understanding anothers opinion on how things may be proceeding. It is weird but all part of his conspiracy character.

 

Either that or he enjoys the wind up... trouble is, the more the extreme views on both sides become polarized, the more flak you get when one criticises one side despite not supporting the other - 'wet fence sitters' - in some folks eyes, but i just think there is feck all to choose between them anymore.

 

I supported Lowe for a long time, so thats prabably why I am seen that way (although if truth be told i supported what was being done, not the man himself - although I concede that there comes a time when the two are the same thing), but it is so very frustrating that if I dare to suggest any merit whatsoever in anything coming from the LOwe side either historcally or recently, or criticise anything from the camp Crouch, you can rely on Alps to come out both guns ablazing with a double barralled Lowe Luvvie shot. ;-) All good fun though!

 

I can go off on one too, and sure part of it is enjoying the verbal sparring, afterall what is the point of being on here if it does not have some entertainment value?

[OldNick]

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.

 

Well you had them out at any cost and it could be well the cost of the clubs existance. You may have been Little red riding hood and run into the arms of the wolf but me and a few others warned against 'anyone but Lowe'. I want him gone now as we will not unite with him.I doubt that as we are so divided we will ever do so, 1 thing is for certain the fans who warned against the Wilde bunch didnt boycott games and do marches ,we went along and supported the team because it was unimportant in the real world.

Who is going to own up that they bought one of the Wilde tee shirts then ?Lol

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Well you had them out at any cost and it could be well the cost of the clubs existance. You may have been Little red riding hood and run into the arms of the wolf but me and a few others warned against 'anyone but Lowe'. I want him gone now as we will not unite with him.I doubt that as we are so divided we will ever do so, 1 thing is for certain the fans who warned against the Wilde bunch didnt boycott games and do marches ,we went along and supported the team because it was unimportant in the real world.

Who is going to own up that they bought one of the Wilde tee shirts then ?Lol

 

I bet no one will ever own up to buying one of those Wilde T shirts now, let alone ever wear it again.

If I could get my hands on one I'd love to give it to Jonah as a Christmas present. Perhaps get Mikey to sign it.

[saintjay77]

I bet no one will ever own up to buying one of those Wilde T shirts now, let alone ever wear it again.

If I could get my hands on one I'd love to give it to Jonah as a Christmas present. Perhaps get Mikey to sign it.

 

Im guessing they have doubled up as toilet cleaners by now

[um pahars]

The only issue I have with this criticism of the AGM behaviour is that was this the correct environment to bring up the gripes that these fans did. It was not a fans forum but an official PLC AGM designed for shareholders to review the previous 12 months, approve the financial plans etc and ratify the board... as far as I am aware it was not an EGM called by disconted shareholders holding the board to account, nor a fans forum as a plave to air fans grievences.

 

This does not excuse rude, impatient or stupid behaviour on Lowes part, but its also begs the question as to whether Lowes critics were wise to use this particular forum to air these particular grievences?

 

Two things.

 

Firstly this debate was with reference to Lowe's perceived behaviour at the AGM. It's bad enough having Jonah divert the issue, without having you pop up with your little gems:rolleyes:. If you want to create another thread with regards Crouch's poor behaviour at the AGM or his worst mistakes then feel free to start another thread.

 

Secondly, you're obviously struggling with the concept of what goes on at AGM's and how for many shareholders/supporters it's the only time they get to question the board on their performance in recent months and their plans going forward.

 

AGM's aren't just supposed to be about approving accounts, appointing auditors etc, they're an integral part of how the Company and it's Board interacts with it's shareholders.

 

You would expect the Board to outline it's strategy going forward, outline where it has been and it is totally normal and good practice for shareholders to question the Board on either.

[um pahars]

Well you had them out at any cost and it could be well the cost of the clubs existance.

 

If you wanted to look for what will cost the Club's existence, then I think you would do better to look at (a) Why we lost tens of millions from the top line which put us into a position where our finances became untenable, and (b) Why we are going down to Division 3 and therefore almost definitley administration.

 

The two years in between these episodes also saw some ridiculous and reckless decisions (the second year being much worse than the first), but the overriding factors which could cost the Club's existence come eother side of these.

[saintjay77]

Two things.

 

Firstly this debate was with reference to Lowe's perceived behaviour at the AGM. It's bad enough having Jonah divert the issue, without having you pop up with your little gems:rolleyes:. If you want to create another thread with regards Crouch's poor behaviour at the AGM or his worst mistakes then feel free to start another thread.

 

Secondly, you're obviously struggling with the concept of what goes on at AGM's and how for many shareholders/supporters it's the only time they get to question the board on their performance in recent months and their plans going forward.

 

AGM's aren't just supposed to be about approving accounts, appointing auditors etc, they're an integral part of how the Company and it's Board interacts with it's shareholders.

 

You would expect the Board to outline it's strategy going forward, outline where it has been and it is totally normal and good practice for shareholders to question the Board on either.

 

So that is what is perceived as Lowes Biggest mistake?

[Channon's Sideburns]

If you're going to call him Lord Lowe then it's only fair to call Leon Crouch Potato. I thought closing the corners was sensible - if it was Crouch's idea well done him. Of course when it's Crouch's idea it's sensible and great on here, when people thought it was Lowe's we had Primary School mathematics trying to show how it would cost the club money (LOL) and he had done it to "gain revenge" on the Itchen corner. As SJ just said, it's mob mentality.

 

 

 

NU are in no position to withdraw their support, I don't know why you would claim that - unless there is a trigger clause about change in board members which certain people have assured us isn't the case (count to 3 and wait for UP to appear), otherwise we make our payments on time end of story.

 

Re the bank support, the AGM was delayed whilst they tried to secure their support - clearly not something sorted out by Crouch (or disputed at the AGM when stated).

 

 

 

Oh so that's why you were on the pitch - there I was in the stands celebrating scraping to survival by 20 minutes (hoorah) and you were celebrating Leon Crouch.

 

 

Jonah..whatever anyone's beliefs on who should be running this club, only someone with less than 1% love for this club could have failed to be moved by the scenes after the final whistle.

 

It reminded me of the days at The Dell on the last day of the season - remember once Ruddock just managed to get out alive holding one boot above his head - must have been 89/90..the season when he scored the pen against Newcastle.

 

Do you remember that?

 

UNITY

[um pahars]

So that is what is perceived as Lowes Biggest mistake?

 

Of that day;)

[Gingeletiss]

nickh..........I'll be honest, I was one of the 'anyone but Lowe' brigade, but I swear that I'd never buy a t shirt, let alone wear one. Now then, I've been honest, your turn............do you really think Lowe is doing a good job.....YES or NO

[Frank's cousin]

Two things.

 

Firstly this debate was with reference to Lowe's perceived behaviour at the AGM. It's bad enough having Jonah divert the issue, without having you pop up with your little gems:rolleyes:. If you want to create another thread with regards Crouch's poor behaviour at the AGM or his worst mistakes then feel free to start another thread.

 

Secondly, you're obviously struggling with the concept of what goes on at AGM's and how for many shareholders/supporters it's the only time they get to question the board on their performance in recent months and their plans going forward.

 

AGM's aren't just supposed to be about approving accounts, appointing auditors etc, they're an integral part of how the Company and it's Board interacts with it's shareholders.

 

You would expect the Board to outline it's strategy going forward, outline where it has been and it is totally normal and good practice for shareholders to question the Board on either.

 

Up again why the need to preface the points you are trying to make with another cheap shot.... anyway regardless of that in response.

 

1. You wil note in a previous post how I state quite clearly that anything anyone else did at the AGM was NO excuse for any bad behaviour on Lowe's part... but if debating that behaviour surely its only right to look at what might have provoked it? Its clear from the various descriptions they were all as bad as each other - I cant see anything wrong with making that point on this thread.

 

2. I know full well the purpose of the AGM, and fully appreciate that its an integral part of Shareholder board interaction - sorry but its purpose s NOT really for fans who are not shareholders, thats what the fan forums are for. - but this interaction needs to be conducted with civility surely if there are to be positive and constructive outcomes. If Lowe uses it as PR then that is very wrong, because it will become public and as such the fact that it then turned into a farce is a sad reflection on all parties - again I am not sure you deel that its wrong to encourage this thread to focus on both sides - they are linked afterall ??????

[Gingeletiss]

needs to be conducted with civility

 

 

Frank, I'm not about to get embroiled in your debate with UP. Just thought I'd pull this plum from your response, and say, that I agree with you....so do you think it's right fot the club Chairman, to be uttering statements like 'North London Yobo's' ..........just a thought that this respect you taldk about, cut's both ways.

[Frank's cousin]

Frank, I'm not about to get embroiled in your debate with UP. Just thought I'd pull this plum from your response, and say, that I agree with you....so do you think it's right fot the club Chairman, to be uttering statements like 'North London Yobo's' ..........just a thought that this respect you taldk about, cut's both ways.

 

It certainly does and I agree That is not the sort of behaviour of public slangings Lowe should be involved in.... but it alos shows how fickle we ALL are really, me included, because at the time, I would say the vast majority of fans would have thought it a good dig at Spurs for the poaching of our manager with only 7 games to go or so....

[70's Mike]

bored with all this now, lets go into admin and hopefully start again.

i cannot see things ever getting better with lowe, wilde and crouch involved in the present set up.

feel sorry for the younger fans but at 55 in april i have my memories of what this club is really about

[um pahars]

but if debating that behaviour surely its only right to look at what might have provoked it?

 

Would be interested to know what provoked his posturing and pontificating at the very start of the meeting. I wonder what made him open up the AGM in such a provocative and unnecessary manner.

 

Did he get an evil eye from Duncan, did Perry give him a secret V.

 

When you deliver the opening gambit and set the tone for the rest of the meeting, it's rather hard to imagine how you could have been provoked:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

sorry but its purpose s NOT really for fans who are not shareholders' date=' [/quote']

 

You really don't understand this, do you?:smt048

 

Fans who are not shareholders don't get admission to the AGM (or at least they shouldn't). Shareholders are the only ones entitled to gain admission, and shareholders are the only ones entitled to speak at AGM's.

 

What is wrong with shareholders, be they fans or not, asking questions of the board and hearing the board's response. It is a two way dialogue where the Board outlines it's plans and the shareholders get to question them and in the context of a football club PLC, it is extremely foolish to think that football issues will not be discussed, after all that's the main line of business!

 

That is what AGM's are for, not just the rubber stamping you seem to think they are.

 

- but this interaction needs to be conducted with civility surely if there are to be positive and constructive outcomes. If Lowe uses it as PR then that is very wrong' date=' because it will become public and as such the fact that it then turned into a farce is a sad reflection on all parties - again I am not sure you deel that its wrong to encourage this thread to focus on both sides - they are linked afterall ?????? [/quote']

 

They are of course linked and if you want to start another thread (or alternatively resurrect the old AGM thread) then go ahead.

 

This thread was discussing Lowe's Mistakes and there was conjecture that he had handled the PR well since his return, which judging by the response is a position oinly hled by Jonah, as the vast majority seem to think otherwise.

[Wes Tender]

- 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!

 

Look, I've already corrected you on this once. It wasn't five seconds. He had read out the entire letter and perhaps you might have read the minutes and somehow envisaged him as a speed reader.

 

If you're going to bandy about this sort of view in an attempt to discredit others, then you ought at least to check the facts, or else others will conclude that you are rather slapdash in your approach, rather like when you cited players at Pearson's disposal who had not even arrived at the club at that time.

[alpine_saint]

jonah's position grows ever more irational and discredited by the minute..

[Channon's Sideburns]

jonah's position grows ever more irational and discredited by the minute..

 

...ah yes, but only between office hours.

[SaintRobbie]

[Frank's cousin]

1. Would be interested to know what provoked his posturing and pontificating at the very start of the meeting. I wonder what made him open up the AGM in such a provocative and unnecessary manner.

 

Did he get an evil eye from Duncan, did Perry give him a secret V.

 

When you deliver the opening gambit and set the tone for the rest of the meeting, it's rather hard to imagine how you could have been provoked:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

 

 

2. You really don't understand this, do you?:smt048

 

Fans who are not shareholders don't get admission to the AGM (or at least they shouldn't). Shareholders are the only ones entitled to gain admission, and shareholders are the only ones entitled to speak at AGM's.

 

What is wrong with shareholders, be they fans or not, asking questions of the board and hearing the board's response. It is a two way dialogue where the Board outlines it's plans and the shareholders get to question them and in the context of a football club PLC, it is extremely foolish to think that football issues will not be discussed, after all that's the main line of business!

 

4. That is what AGM's are for, not just the rubber stamping you seem to think they are.

 

 

 

3. They are of course linked and if you want to start another thread (or alternatively resurrect the old AGM thread) then go ahead.

 

This thread was discussing Lowe's Mistakes and there was conjecture that he had handled the PR well since his return, which judging by the response is a position oinly hled by Jonah, as the vast majority seem to think otherwise.

 

Cant do the insert quote thing so here goes:

 

1. If what has been said is a true account of the events, Lowe is inded a tw*t for coming out with the 9 point plan to open the meeting - bound to antagonise - but given the very public criticism pre AGM, (much of it justified for sure) he proberly misguidedly felt it would be some kind of defence.

 

2. You have misinterpreted my this - I know its only shareholders but my comment was in response to your point that: 'Secondly, you're obviously struggling with the concept of what goes on at AGM's and how for many shareholders/supporters it's the only time they get to question the board on their performance in recent months and their plans going forward.' where you mention supporters - its not clear in your comment that you mean shareholders who ARE fans, its ambiguous - it could be assumed YOU did not get it, thats all. I have not indicated football should not be discussed but adults and all that should be able to do this without resorting to this sort of crap...

 

3. Not sure why you insist on an obvious link being on a seperate thread - if that applies here surely it should aply to all threads - in which case why do the likes of alpine et al, go on about only presenting one side as if its wrong on other threads - seems that these unofficial 'rules' change depending on what colour pants you are wearing ;-)

 

4. Indeed, and dont you just love this kind of patronizing comment

[Weston Saint]

Fans who are not shareholders don't get admission to the AGM (or at least they shouldn't). Shareholders are the only ones entitled to gain admission, and shareholders are the only ones entitled to speak at AGM's.

 

 

Sorry Steve but Chorley was there and he is not a shareholder is he? He was there on someone elses proxy as in previous years as far as I am aware. Not sure about Perry Mc. Bearing mind all their posturing about plc's I doubt it but am happy to be proved wrong!

[um pahars]

Sorry Steve but Chorley was there and he is not a shareholder is he? He was there on someone elses proxy as in previous years as far as I am aware. Not sure about Perry Mc. Bearing mind all their posturing about plc's I doubt it but am happy to be proved wrong!

 

SISA have about 4 shares. I presume that despite their stance they've bought these to ensure they get entry to such meetings.

 

I think Perry goes in as the shareholder representatve of SISA (although I think I rememebr he may even have a couple of his own for the same reason) and as you say Chorley goes as someone elses (???) proxy.

 

However, the rules are fairly strict in that only shareholders can/should speak at these meetings (proxy's certainly shouldn't be given an audience if you're going by the rules). I think (happy to stand corrected) it was at last years AGM when Wiseman waived this.

 

PS I'm not sure what the rules are regarding proxy's making gestures such as tossing 30 pieces of silver are!!!!!

[jonah]

If I could get my hands on one I'd love to give it to Jonah as a Christmas present. Perhaps get Mikey to sign it.

 

Don't really get the joke, but anyway - I'll swap the generous Xmas gift gesture for an answer to the question of whether MC said you could reveal that she felt threatened by RL?

[Wes Tender]

Don't really get the joke, but anyway - I'll swap the generous Xmas gift gesture for an answer to the question of whether MC said you could reveal that she felt threatened by RL?

 

Mary was only saying something very similar to what Wiseman had told the Echo about how Lowe ran a board meeting. I don't know what the fuss is about. Is anybody disputing that Lowe attempts to intimidate others to do his bidding? Would you like me to dig up Wiseman's article about Lowe's boardroom manner and post it on here, Jonah?

[saintjay77]

Look, I've already corrected you on this once. It wasn't five seconds. He had read out the entire letter and perhaps you might have read the minutes and somehow envisaged him as a speed reader.

 

If you're going to bandy about this sort of view in an attempt to discredit others, then you ought at least to check the facts, or else others will conclude that you are rather slapdash in your approach, rather like when you cited players at Pearson's disposal who had not even arrived at the club at that time.

 

To be fair I thought he set the tone for the AGM by reading a letter which has never been printed or revealed that he supposedly got that morning or something. The wording of the letter sounded like it was written by Scooby so you can imagine how it got everyones backs up.

 

That doesnt excuse what followed and Crouch and Co should have seen it as nothing more than pointless goading by Rupes and kept his cool. I think Rupes knew that if he said the right things Crouch would blow up from all his hot air and make a plank of himself. Unfortunatly Rupes didnt think about how stupid he would look for reading out the words of Scooby.

 

If the AGM was a boxing match then it would have just about been round 1 to Rupes and that was probably what was behind the whole idea. The rest of the fight would have been canceled as it turned into a complete farce with Chorley the spectator invading the ring and Crouch and his entourage throwing in the towel and walking out.

 

If Crouch had kept his cool I think the whole meeting would have gone the other way and Rupes would be left witha proper rosey cheeks.

[jonah]

Thanks for replying on Duncan's behalf, Wes, very public spirited of you. It's just a simple question in response to this:

 

"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."

 

That clearly implies he had her permission to say the first bit. And "threatened" is a strong word to use if you're not going to expand on the details. Since Duncan leaves it hanging by saying he doesn't have Mary's permission to expand upon it I wanted to know whether he had her permission to make that public in the first place or whether he chose to make it public without her knowledge. It only needs a "yes" or a "no". I would have thought you'd be keen to hear more about it, it can only harm Lowe's PR right?

[alpine_saint]

Don't really get the joke, but anyway - I'll swap the generous Xmas gift gesture for an answer to the question of whether MC said you could reveal that she felt threatened by RL?

 

Was your train to the office late today ?

[david in sweden]

Well, there has been quite a few but as I watched the Everton v Villa highlights and saw David Moyes on the touchline I remember how he nearly joined us in the summer of 2001.

He had agreed to be our new manager, but Lowe did not want him to bring his back room staff and so the arrangement fell through and Lowe returned to the cheaper Stuart Gray option.

 

For the sake of a few quid this decision was one of Lowe's worst if not the worst - although the Wigley and JP choices are pushing to be included.[/QUO

 

 

Its hard to find too many positve things to say about RL... isn't it Duncan?,

Certainly what Lawrie called " man management " skills seem to be a long way down on his CV looking at the turnover of managers, although he seems to have had a way with contracts and the ; sell-on clauses, 50% reduction after relegation and having former clubs stand for part salary was ingenious.

 

However, in my 45 years as a fan, He did at least have the foresight to build SMS, something which his many predecessors failed to accomplish.

I've heard stories that saints were; (A) given the site by a friendly council (B) at least we got it a a cut rate price © his lodge friends opened up a lot of doors to get it built, but neverthe less we have a magnificent stadium

(even if i don't get to visit so often these days ) ...shame about the results !

 

Surely the many Board members who had gone before could have done as much, but didn't have the vision. Maybe Mary Corbett has a likely explanation why we didn't ..but at least I'd chalk that one up on the plus side for RL.

[OldNick]

nickh..........I'll be honest, I was one of the 'anyone but Lowe' brigade, but I swear that I'd never buy a t shirt, let alone wear one. Now then, I've been honest, your turn............do you really think Lowe is doing a good job.....YES or NO

Keeping Jan too long a big fat NO.Getting the runaway finances in check YES

Upsetting the fanbase NO

Uniting the fanbase NO

Dividing the fanbase YES

It will never be just a Yes or No Ginge. I want the club unified as much as anyone but it has to be done in a way that keeps the club out of administration.

I was told that we had to go into Administration by Feb 26th to get all things ready for the 10point deduction this season. Therefore i would suggest that the next 2 games may well tell our fate.

Now of course if we have to go into Administration my first YES then gets called into question.Afterall we can only judge from the littel info we have and do not know the full picture.

[OldNick]

Mary was only saying something very similar to what Wiseman had told the Echo about how Lowe ran a board meeting. I don't know what the fuss is about. Is anybody disputing that Lowe attempts to intimidate others to do his bidding? Would you like me to dig up Wiseman's article about Lowe's boardroom manner and post it on here, Jonah?

Wes I suggest you know the implications of feeling physically threatened to MC compared to say LC saying it. It makes RL look like a woman beater and so carries much more weight in my book.

A claim like that can only fuel a image to serve whose purpose?

I picked up on the claim as i found it uncomfortable to think that MC felt as though RL was likely to pin her to a wall with a fist in her face threatening her.

Surely that needs to be corrected. What is your understanding of feeling physically threatened?

[Channon's Sideburns]

To be fair I thought he set the tone for the AGM by reading a letter which has never been printed or revealed that he supposedly got that morning or something. The wording of the letter sounded like it was written by Scooby so you can imagine how it got everyones backs up.

 

That doesnt excuse what followed and Crouch and Co should have seen it as nothing more than pointless goading by Rupes and kept his cool. I think Rupes knew that if he said the right things Crouch would blow up from all his hot air and make a plank of himself. Unfortunatly Rupes didnt think about how stupid he would look for reading out the words of Scooby.

 

If the AGM was a boxing match then it would have just about been round 1 to Rupes and that was probably what was behind the whole idea. The rest of the fight would have been canceled as it turned into a complete farce with Chorley the spectator invading the ring and Crouch and his entourage throwing in the towel and walking out.

 

If Crouch had kept his cool I think the whole meeting would have gone the other way and Rupes would be left witha proper rosey cheeks.

 

 

If the AGM was a boxing match I think Leon would have wiped the floor with him TBF...