s0108787 Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 why the.. when you have stated it was a guess..? nothing is stopping these people talking to the echo is there....stating their intentions and putting more pressure on lowe... you fellas need to lighten up. Dn't take things so seriously. :cool:
Block 5 Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 it is ok wanting lowe out...but for who...? TDD, you have hit the nail on the head mate. We all want Lowe out........ but the reality is that there really isn't anyone to step in to the vacuum left behind. What are the alternatives? 1. Crouch? Been there, done that. 2. A super rich buyer? Dream on. 3. A buyer fronting a consortium of tyre kickers? Enough said. 4. Er..... 5. That's it.
um pahars Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 so, we just go with any old then. Where has anyone remotely suggested that. You need to stop twisting people's words to suit your own position. It is not difficult to consider we go out into the big wide world and recruit a salaried CEO. Thousands of companies do it on a regular basis and probably every other Football Club has done it in recent years (Off the top of my head I can think of recent(ish) changes at Derby, Everton, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man Utd, Charlton, etc etc etc). No one is suggesting any old then at all, and it is a rather flippant reply to try and say they were IMHO. who interviews them then..? I'm sure people could come up with a panel that could include some from the existing board, major shareholders and even influential and respected outsiders. How about Cowen, Wilde, Crouch and Bransgrove. If we can't manage to pull together an interview panel, then we really havent got a chance to keep alive. where have I failed to see the other side of the coin...where have I said lowe is better or should stay...where have I backed lowe..? this is not crouch v lowe it is to see if we have a real alternative that is a clean sweep and we can forget this sorry mess... If you really believe that out in the big wide world that there is not one person who could fill the position of a CEO for a mid size football club, then I have to say you must have rather parochial view of life down here. Lowe is a busted flush and if the only reason we are sticking with him is because we don't know what the alternative is, then we might as well chuck it all in now. It's a defeatist and rather tired and flawed argument that it would not be possible to find a CEO out there to replace Lowe. It os quite frankly a rather stupid notion. Just think about this. When Lowe eventually goes, be it in two weeks or two years, how would we go about replacing him? The world will survive without Lowe and just like many other clubs, we will just have to go out and recruit someone else. The way you are reacting is as though we will have to fold and shut up shop as it will be impossible to recruit a new CEO.
krissyboy31 Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 TDD, you have hit the nail on the head mate. We all want Lowe out........ but the reality is that there really isn't anyone to step in to the vacuum left behind. What are the alternatives? 1. Crouch? Been there, done that. 2. A super rich buyer? Dream on. 3. A buyer fronting a consortium of tyre kickers? Enough said. 4. Er..... 5. That's it. It's actually my opinion that there are several local business men waiting in the wings to do the job but they are not prepared to buy the Lowe axis, or Wilde's shares because the money goes staight into their pockets and not into the club. That is why I personally think that administration is our best option.
saintstr1 Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 The club could head-hunt just about anyone if they had the money. However, in the current climate it would have to be either a CEO who is doing well at a lower league standard, one currently out of work, someone looking to invest and become owner/chairman (ahem!), or may be someone from another sport. In an ideal world, someone like Adam Pearson or Rod Bransgrove. The guy at MK Dons would be good, if he could be persuaded he's taken them as far as he can and he could potentially have a Prem Club if he came here. I think he would disagree and say that MK Dons have as much chance of becoming a premier club as Saints have, In fact probably more chance at the moment.
NickG Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 Well, obviously the major shareholders, as they have the greatest vested interest. As demonstrations and boycotts gather speed and strength, so it becomes clearer each day that the current scenario cannot be permitted to continue. In the event of administration, the choice of a new board will rest with the administrators, so at least things are still in the hands of those major shareholders at the moment. If they don't act soon, they will not have any say in the future running of the club, as their shareholdings will have gone and the paying customers of the business will make it clear to the administators that they don't want any of the charlatans to be involved in the club's future. panel made up of Wilde and another appointed by a group of shareholders, guy called Lowe - wonder who they would appoint!
Wes Tender Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 panel made up of Wilde and another appointed by a group of shareholders, guy called Lowe - wonder who they would appoint! Well, it would not be any of their own cabal and it should also reflect a unanimous choice too, as otherwise there would be no point in it. It definitely should not under any circumstances be Richards, Cowen or any of those associated with the reverse takeover or any previous board. We advertise for an independent chairman and chief exectutive and then it is fair that the major shareholders make their choice. Provided that the chosen candidate is acceptable to all, then what is the problem?
NickG Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 the problem is the major shareholders have made their choice!
WealdSaint Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 I'm still not convinced that Crouch is not the answer. Esp if he was actually given time to build a team around himself
derry Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 I agree but lowe got slated a few years back by suggesting combining the jobs of the football board and the PLC board...he got slated for trying to have too much power And in retrospect they were right. His ego and micromanagement without accountability ruined this club. There should be no more executive directors. Make every department head report to the board not to a CEO.
Weston Saint Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 (edited) Chairman will likely be a non executive and someone with a support for Saints but with a business and financial background. Bransgrove would be a good pick but he is too busy with RoseBowl plc development (Andrew Cowen has been very helpful to him in this respect) Salz may be another candidate but he has spurned previous attempts and is unlikely to take up the position without investment in place. Davies may be? CEO or Managing Director will need paying and I would have thought to get someone up to the task of rescue and driving forward we need to be paying something like £250,000 - £350,000 a year. (Euell goes at the end of the season so savings there will more than pay for this) He does not have to be a captain of industry but a proven track record is essential. There is a Saints supporter and season ticket holder out there with such qualifications but he is busy rescuing another company at present. I am unable to disclose his name as I have no idea if he would take on the task without investment. Another, Trevor Birch does have the proper credentials but he was approached some time ago and would not consider without investment in place. That will be our problem. Could Salz and my unnamed star be the future? I fear that without investment the answer is sadly no. But if we drop to the next tier of Chairman and Executives we are likely to get into the Lowe or Crouch experience level. Would we be any better off? Who knows. Change at any cost is not the answer. We tried that once and it was a complete failure and why we are in the mess we find ourselves. Edited 21 February, 2009 by Weston Saint spelling
um pahars Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 Who knows. Change at any cost is not the answer. We tried that once and it was a complete failure and why we are in the mess we find ourselves. That is not the main reason why we are in the mess we find ourselves. It certainly is one of the reasons, but it is also not the main reason (done to death elsewhere but millions off the top line, and then this seasons charade are higher up the pecking order). And because we never managed it last time shouldn't preclude us from doing it again. After all when we replaced Wigley we never got it right. Are you suggesting we should never have got rid of Poortvliet just because we didn't do it right before? Of course not. It's a pretty backward and negative argument and instead of worrying about emulating the mistakes of the past we should be trying twice as hard to get it right this time. Apart from that, I agree with quite a bit of your post above;)
Weston Saint Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 (edited) That is not the main reason why we are in the mess we find ourselves. It certainly is one of the reasons, but it is also not the main reason (done to death elsewhere but millions off the top line, and then this seasons charade are higher up the pecking order). And because we never managed it last time shouldn't preclude us from doing it again. After all when we replaced Wigley we never got it right. Are you suggesting we should never have got rid of Poortvliet just because we didn't do it right before? Of course not. It's a pretty backward and negative argument and instead of worrying about emulating the mistakes of the past we should be trying twice as hard to get it right this time. Apart from that, I agree with quite a bit of your post above;)I did not say change was wrong. I said change at any cost. Big difference. And our reduced income could have been handled better. Edited 21 February, 2009 by Weston Saint added last line
SaintRobbie Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 the problem is the major shareholders have made their choice! AND they shall be held as accountable when the histories are written.
Daren W Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 that will take us forward..? crouch? you have to be joking who else is there..? last time we got lowe out at all costs and some predicted it would not work and lowe would be back (and got royally laughed at)....and here we are in 2009 with lowe in charge.. it is ok wanting lowe out...but for who...? Well ask yourself who thought of Rupert Lowe as a premier league chairman ten years ago? You obviously don't require experience to be a chairman and as there's a recession out there, we're not stuck for well qualified applicants. Put an ad in the FT and see how many superbly qualified people apply.. you'd be stunned...
um pahars Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 I did not say change was wrong. I said change at any cost. Big difference. Fair enough, and going about recruiting his replacement in a professional manner should not constitute change at any cost. To be honest the way these two bumbled in last Spring/Summer is they it shouldn't have been done!!!!
Weston Saint Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 Fair enough, and going about recruiting his replacement in a professional manner should not constitute change at any cost. To be honest the way these two bumbled in last Spring/Summer is they it shouldn't have been done!!!!Fully agree, my call was to those who just want to get rid of Lowe without thinking the alternative through. Anyway, lunch and then I am off to the game.
SaintRobbie Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 Well ask yourself who thought of Rupert Lowe as a premier league chairman ten years ago? You obviously don't require experience to be a chairman and as there's a recession out there, we're not stuck for well qualified applicants. Put an ad in the FT and see how many superbly qualified people apply.. you'd be stunned... Agree.
SaintRobbie Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 Fully agree, my call was to those who just want to get rid of Lowe without thinking the alternative through. Anyway, lunch and then I am off to the game. Why would you replace Lowe when he deflects the blame away from yourself for this farce, when you dont give a **** about the club anyway? i.e. Askham et al.
1965onwards Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 It is perfectly obvious that you do not know who is out there and available until you look. We have never looked. The luvvies pathetic "there is no alternative" is just the usual bull****.
benjii Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 The OP poses the question of the pig-ignorant about business. It's like the "the fans are to blame for where we are because we didn't appoint Hoddle" morons. There are hundreds of potential candidates. Hundreds.
Saint_clark Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 i find it amazing that people would be willing to put their faith into a man that made the very single mistake (and the biggest of all decisions) that lowe did and gets slated for by appointing dodd and gorman... Difference being that Dodd and Gorman got sacked when it was clear they were sh*t. Lowes ego means he cannot go this.
Rod Le Shearer Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 Where has anyone remotely suggested that. You need to stop twisting people's words to suit your own position. It is not difficult to consider we go out into the big wide world and recruit a salaried CEO. Thousands of companies do it on a regular basis and probably every other Football Club has done it in recent years (Off the top of my head I can think of recent(ish) changes at Derby, Everton, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man Utd, Charlton, etc etc etc). No one is suggesting any old then at all, and it is a rather flippant reply to try and say they were IMHO. I'm sure people could come up with a panel that could include some from the existing board, major shareholders and even influential and respected outsiders. How about Cowen, Wilde, Crouch and Bransgrove. If we can't manage to pull together an interview panel, then we really havent got a chance to keep alive. If you really believe that out in the big wide world that there is not one person who could fill the position of a CEO for a mid size football club, then I have to say you must have rather parochial view of life down here. Lowe is a busted flush and if the only reason we are sticking with him is because we don't know what the alternative is, then we might as well chuck it all in now. It's a defeatist and rather tired and flawed argument that it would not be possible to find a CEO out there to replace Lowe. It os quite frankly a rather stupid notion. Just think about this. When Lowe eventually goes, be it in two weeks or two years, how would we go about replacing him? The world will survive without Lowe and just like many other clubs, we will just have to go out and recruit someone else. The way you are reacting is as though we will have to fold and shut up shop as it will be impossible to recruit a new CEO. well said. I`m impressed someone actually bothered to explain the situation to the OP. either he is the most stupid,slowest entity in the world..or he is on a plain wind-up mission. in either case the making of this thread is just complete and utter nonsense and waste of web-space. all the answers which the original poster couldnt find within his own limited brain,are really obvious and self-evident for all thinking beings.
St Landrew Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 Sir Richard Branson should forget Buying F1 Honda and take on a real challenge. Now that certainly would be the dream ticket. Obviously, if there is an open field of choice, we'd want someone from outside to come in and sweep away the whole sorry mess to start again. In fact, I suspect, if you asked Leon Crouch, he'd want exactly the same thing. However, if it is a choice from those who have been here before, done whatever job they could or did, and are willing to go again, then it has to be Leon Crouch. He could then preside over the club's fortunes until someone else came along, and I feel that he is more committed, not just to Saints, but to pursuing investment, and the betterment of the club.
Mr X Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 Who takes over? Someone who does not refer me as a customer. Someone who does not bully it's staff. Someone who does not claim that the club is bigger than Spurs. Someone who does not sit next to the manager on live games. Someone who does not come up with stupid comments about catering and a radio station. Someone who does not take a pathetic gamble and employ two Dutch nobodies. Someone who interfers with team matters. And finally someone who is not a complete FULLSTOP You want sonome that interferes with team matters? thought we already had somone who takes care of that
Thedelldays Posted 21 February, 2009 Author Posted 21 February, 2009 Difference being that Dodd and Gorman got sacked when it was clear they were sh*t. Lowes ego means he cannot go this. lowe has done that in the past with sturrock...who like dodd and gorman should never have been given the job... he also did it with gray too
Pilchards Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 You want sonome that interferes with team matters? thought we already had somone who takes care of that Oops me bad! Called working nights and bring **** for brains. Btw Well said Um and Daren. Just think a new change and the missing 10,000 fans back and I would even say 26k for division one games.
John Smith Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 that will take us forward..? crouch? you have to be joking who else is there..? last time we got lowe out at all costs and some predicted it would not work and lowe would be back (and got royally laughed at)....and here we are in 2009 with lowe in charge.. it is ok wanting lowe out...but for who...? who interviews them then..? OK, if you you are serious about this process, define the process and the criteria that you are suggesting. Supply a list of candidates and let us chose. If you then say there is a process for interviews, define that process for interviews, who is on that panel and what is the criteria they will be following. If you cannot do this and then someone says Crouch, how can you say no. That defeats any criteria that you have specified. And if someone suggests another name that hasn't come forward, you can;t say they haven't shown interest. Come on TDD, this is just a ridiculous criteria you have laid out. Argumentative? Antagonistic? And like I said the other day, that;s what most do on here to gain a response. But, if you want serious suggestions, 'define' the selection criteria or suggest a selection list. Don't make your cake and eat it, share it around.
RinNY Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 Saltz or Davies For feck's sake! If either Salz or Davies had the slightest interest in owning/running Saints, they've had years nowe to make their move. If you really want anyone to believe there is someone out there who both can and will oust Lowe, take over, and do a better job, at the very least you have to give a name or names that aren't instantly ludicrous! Forget Salz and Davies, it is never going to happen. At least those who tout Crouch are touting a man who really cares and really would take over if he could.
RinNY Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 It is perfectly obvious that you do not know who is out there and available until you look. We have never looked. The luvvies pathetic "there is no alternative" is just the usual bull****. Speaking as a non-Lowe-luvvie, there are any nuimber of alternatives out there, That has never been at issue. What is at issue that you need an alternative who has the wherewithall to buy out Lowe and/or the shareholders who back him, or has the persuasive ability to get those shareholders to stop backing Lowe and back him instead, and in addition has the proven ability to do a different and BETTER job than Lowe. And time has shown that there are at present no such alternatives out there. As things stand, we are stuck with Lowe, probably at least until the end of the season, and probably for longer if we stay up. And as the financial situation stands, I'm not sure anyone could do a significantly better job than Lowe, as bad as things have been; at best you might get someone who is more popular with the fans. But I've never thought it the Chairman's job to be popular with the fans, myself.
trousers Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 Saltz or Davies must have missed the bit where they have claimed recently that they are remotely interested must have missed the bit where they have claimed recently that they would not be interested if certain major shareholders weren't on the scene...
Thedelldays Posted 21 February, 2009 Author Posted 21 February, 2009 must have missed the bit where they have claimed recently that they would not be interested if certain major shareholders weren't on the scene... must have...suggest they get their cheque books out...should not be a problem for such successful business men like them..after all, we are worth feck all now
um pahars Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 What is at issue that you need an alternative who has the wherewithall to buy out Lowe and/or the shareholders who back him, or has the persuasive ability to get those shareholders to stop backing Lowe and back him instead, . I quite agree that unless someone buys them all out then someone/something has to convince them to do something about it. and in addition has the proven ability to do a different and BETTER job than Lowe. And time has shown that there are at present no such alternatives out there. And as the financial situation stands, I'm not sure anyone could do a significantly better job than Lowe, as bad as things have been; . But I remain totally unconvinced with the three statements above. a) I'm sure there are many others who could do a better or different job than Lowe, there are also other who do a worse job, the trick will be getting out and recuiting the better ones. b) I refuse to accept that there are no alternatives out there. c) I refuse to accept that Lowe is the only person who could work under such constraints and that there isn't someone out there who could do a better job (after all his performance this season has been appalling and we've already ripped up the original script). I fully accept that those in charge need to accept there has to be a change before a change takes place, but there a multitude of alternatives out there. And given his fck up of a record to date, I struggle to believe that no one else could have done a better job.
brmbrm Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 Oh FFS not this stupid question again? DellDays: why don't you try Googling "headhunter chief executive SME" and you will get billions of hits. All we want is a semi-decent manager. We do NOT want someone to meddle with the football team, just someone to quietly manage the way the set-up is run. Or if you are more upmarket, don't include the SME. Geez, rolly eyed things.
RinNY Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 I quite agree that unless someone buys them all out then someone/something has to convince them to do something about it. But I remain totally unconvinced with the three statements above. a) I'm sure there are many others who could do a better or different job than Lowe, there are also other who do a worse job, the trick will be getting out and recuiting the better ones. b) I refuse to accept that there are no alternatives out there. c) I refuse to accept that Lowe is the only person who could work under such constraints and that there isn't someone out there who could do a better job (after all his performance this season has been appalling and we've already ripped up the original script). I fully accept that those in charge need to accept there has to be a change before a change takes place, but there a multitude of alternatives out there. And given his fck up of a record to date, I struggle to believe that no one else could have done a better job. You misunderstand me: my point is there's no sign of Lowe losing backing or being willing to step aside, ergo there is no sign of any realistic alternative. Folk here can talk all they like about terrific potential CEOs that could be hired, but it ain't going to happen unless Lowe is willing to step aside or can be pushed out. Which means it'll take share-buying power, or share-holder persuasion. Do you see that happening? I don't. Moreover, I don't see any real alternative to the fiscal policies and youth/loan/free transfer squad policy being pursued. At best a new CEO might be less obnoxious to those fans who despise Lowe, and might hire a new manager. But again, experience shows you can sign a Harry Redknapp and still get relegated, you can sign a Billy Davies and still lose 6 or 7 games out of 8 or 10 (or whatever excactly it is), as Forest are doing. I'm afraid that until season's end, we are what we are, and we can only hope that Wotte and the players we have can avoid relegation, or (depending how much one hates Lowe) hope for relegation and administration to oust Lowe. I'll take the former, myself, but then I see no reason to hate Lowe.
70's Mike Posted 21 February, 2009 Posted 21 February, 2009 You misunderstand me: my point is there's no sign of Lowe losing backing or being willing to step aside, ergo there is no sign of any realistic alternative. Folk here can talk all they like about terrific potential CEOs that could be hired, but it ain't going to happen unless Lowe is willing to step aside or can be pushed out. Which means it'll take share-buying power, or share-holder persuasion. Do you see that happening? I don't. Moreover, I don't see any real alternative to the fiscal policies and youth/loan/free transfer squad policy being pursued. At best a new CEO might be less obnoxious to those fans who despise Lowe, and might hire a new manager. But again, experience shows you can sign a Harry Redknapp and still get relegated, you can sign a Billy Davies and still lose 6 or 7 games out of 8 or 10 (or whatever excactly it is), as Forest are doing. I'm afraid that until season's end, we are what we are, and we can only hope that Wotte and the players we have can avoid relegation, or (depending how much one hates Lowe) hope for relegation and administration to oust Lowe. I'll take the former, myself, but then I see no reason to hate Lowe. but it is about the balance between Youth/Loan and Free transfers, for the first half of the season we have tired youth and more youth and more youth, ones that would not be considered good enough for our own academy. Today showed what could have been achieved , it is nothing to do with how much money BUT about how you use that money. Rupert has this half baked idea about a sort of money making football factory which can not delivery both a successful team and money, his balance is wrong
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now