Give it to Ron Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Whether this story is true or not remains to be seen but Lowe is alledgedly a good business man and as such he would/should realise that he is far better off having The Echo on his side rather than against him. I know you put 'allegedly' in there but could you show me where there is evidence of this in the last 4 years at SMS? Good businessmen do not alienate their 'customers', lose more than half its revenue and lose 10 of its managerial staff to their spiritual homes. I still feel that his biggest mistake was coming back in person...he could of appointed a proven CEO.
Give it to Ron Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Whether this story is true or not remains to be seen but Lowe is alledgedly a good business man and as such he would/should realise that he is far better off having The Echo on his side rather than against him. I know you put 'allegedly' in there but could you show me where there is evidence of this in the last 4 years at SMS? Good businessmen do not alienate their 'customers', lose more than half its revenue and lose 10 of its managerial staff to their spiritual homes. I still feel that his biggest mistake was coming back in person...he could of appointed a proven CEO.
Toomer Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I did notice there four of Hampshires finest in front of the Directors Box on Saturday.
Toomer Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I did notice there four of Hampshires finest in front of the Directors Box on Saturday.
buctootim Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I did notice there four of Hampshires finest in front of the Directors Box on Saturday. Lowe and Wilde. Who were the other two?
buctootim Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I did notice there four of Hampshires finest in front of the Directors Box on Saturday. Lowe and Wilde. Who were the other two?
Toomer Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Lowe and Wilde. Who were the other two? Hampshire and finest are two words that don't go with Lowe & Wide.
Toomer Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Lowe and Wilde. Who were the other two? Hampshire and finest are two words that don't go with Lowe & Wide.
buctootim Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Hampshire and finest are two words that don't go with Lowe & Wide. Jersey Cream and Gloucester Tangy?
buctootim Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Hampshire and finest are two words that don't go with Lowe & Wide. Jersey Cream and Gloucester Tangy?
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I'll (for now) be taking this with a pinch of salt. Too many factors that don't add up. First off is that it's a third hand source, secondly it's an anonymous source, thirdly the low post count, mostly based on a hatred of Lowe and directors in general, and finally, the fact I doubt a reporter would be authorised to make or pass on news on sponsorship policy. I'd vouch for spyinthesky. he may not post too often but he is a Saint, through and through. Probably for longer than me, and I've been a supporter since the first game I saw, back in 1965.
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I'll (for now) be taking this with a pinch of salt. Too many factors that don't add up. First off is that it's a third hand source, secondly it's an anonymous source, thirdly the low post count, mostly based on a hatred of Lowe and directors in general, and finally, the fact I doubt a reporter would be authorised to make or pass on news on sponsorship policy. I'd vouch for spyinthesky. he may not post too often but he is a Saint, through and through. Probably for longer than me, and I've been a supporter since the first game I saw, back in 1965.
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 If true, then although unwise to confront the guy in a public arena(or at least in ear shot of others) I too would get the arse ache with someone who represents a paper which that day allowed a man, who is as guilty as most for the happenings at our club, so many column inches just to have a pop.
Mister Neil Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Lowe and Wilde. Who were the other two? Nah. The gelding wasn't there. look at the guy, far left of the picture, spiky hair! - that takes some balls to go out looking like that!!
Toomer Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 That could have been Steve Grant a year or two ago with hair like that.
Pilchards Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 The pressure is undoubtly getting to lowe as he now drives in to the car park by the shop straight up to the corner by the edge of the industrial estate and scuttles off in to the stadium to avoid any confrontation and has a steward park his car elsehwere..... Why are you hiding Mr Lowe, fear of admiting you failed again? Who does not hold a licence, Haha you could not make it up.
Mole Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Lowe should learn to engage his brain before putting his mouth into gear.
ecuk268 Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Nothing new about SFC falling out with the Echo. Many years ago the Echo reports were so biased that they were ridiculous. After some team thrashed us 0-4 at the Dell, the Echo would start their report "Unlucky Saints...........". There were also occasions when reporters were removed from covering Saints if they wrote things that the club didn't like. SFC can make things very awkward for the Echo if they don't toe the line. You very rarely read anything in the Echo that doesn't originate from the clubs press people. Whether this is due to lazy journalism, I don't know.
Channon's Sideburns Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I'll (for now) be taking this with a pinch of salt. Too many factors that don't add up. First off is that it's a third hand source, secondly it's an anonymous source, thirdly the low post count, mostly based on a hatred of Lowe and directors in general, and finally, the fact I doubt a reporter would be authorised to make or pass on news on sponsorship policy. How about if the 'hack' concerned was the Echo Editor? Would that make things different?
Channon's Sideburns Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Nothing new about SFC falling out with the Echo. Many years ago the Echo reports were so biased that they were ridiculous. After some team thrashed us 0-4 at the Dell, the Echo would start their report "Unlucky Saints...........". There were also occasions when reporters were removed from covering Saints if they wrote things that the club didn't like. SFC can make things very awkward for the Echo if they don't toe the line. You very rarely read anything in the Echo that doesn't originate from the clubs press people. Whether this is due to lazy journalism, I don't know. Bob Brunskell??
Gemmel Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Bob Brunskell?? Can't agree with that CS. When Brunskell used to report, you knew what you were reading was accurate. The echo regulary broke news first and seemed to have a good relationship with the club. The ****e that the echo dish out these days is like a 10 year olds homework compared to years gone by.
Micky Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Irrespective of whether true or not - and notwithstanding those who wish to label me a Lowe Luvvie again - given the (alleged) facts, are we not in danger of turning a molehill into something more formidable. And over what, two people having, what at best would appear to be, a heated disagreement. I understand that it's good fun to dig Lowe at every opportunity, but it is just getting a little boring and mundain. I would really like to know just how much the Echo invests in the club too - must be getting on for what - eerrr - nothing. At the moment, as I see it, two adults had a disagreement, a sharp exchange of words and probably a short term falling out. Big deal.
Channon's Sideburns Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Can't agree with that CS. When Brunskell used to report, you knew what you were reading was accurate. The echo regulary broke news first and seemed to have a good relationship with the club. The ****e that the echo dish out these days is like a 10 year olds homework compared to years gone by. Sorry Gem, but I thought that Brunskell was stopped as being the Club's Journo from the Echo because of something he wrote about the club?
Gemmel Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Sorry Gem' date=' but I thought that Brunskell was stopped as being the Club's Journo from the Echo because of something he wrote about the club?[/quote'] I didn't know that and it could well be true. A bit sad really that the club act like this, if it is true
Channon's Sideburns Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I didn't know that and it could well be true. A bit sad really that the club act like this, if it is true I thought that it went back a few years...probably before Lowe's tenure began. Think it was debated a bit on the old Forum. Anyone have a better memory than me???
saintsdan Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I thought that it went back a few years...probably before Lowe's tenure began. Think it was debated a bit on the old Forum. Anyone have a better memory than me??? I expect one of the admins has a pretty good idea!!
spyinthesky Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Posted 23 February, 2009 Irrespective of whether true or not - and notwithstanding those who wish to label me a Lowe Luvvie again - given the (alleged) facts, are we not in danger of turning a molehill into something more formidable. And over what, two people having, what at best would appear to be, a heated disagreement. I understand that it's good fun to dig Lowe at every opportunity, but it is just getting a little boring and mundain. I would really like to know just how much the Echo invests in the club too - must be getting on for what - eerrr - nothing. At the moment, as I see it, two adults had a disagreement, a sharp exchange of words and probably a short term falling out. Big deal. I must confirm that my posting reflected information provided by a business contact, of good repute who was shocked by the exchange. I was seeking clarification from others through the medium of this forum and, to be fair, this has not been forthcoming. I don't know Mr Lowe, personally, but if he is prone to washing dirty linen in public (which to me would be the case if my contact's assertions are correct) then he is undermining the reputation of the club I have been proud to support for many years. With regard to the Echo's 'Financial Support', I believe this may entail some corporate entertaining and 'Player of the Year Awards' etc. This would not constitute a significant sum but I have learnt, from many years in business, that it is best to have the media onside rather than forward of the penultimate defender. Separately from the earlier photo, was Micheal Wilde in the Directors Box on Saturday?
Micky Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I must confirm that my posting reflected information provided by a business contact, of good repute who was shocked by the exchange. I was seeking clarification from others through the medium of this forum and, to be fair, this has not been forthcoming. I don't know Mr Lowe, personally, but if he is prone to washing dirty linen in public (which to me would be the case if my contact's assertions are correct) then he is undermining the reputation of the club I have been proud to support for many years. With regard to the Echo's 'Financial Support', I believe this may entail some corporate entertaining and 'Player of the Year Awards' etc. This would not constitute a significant sum but I have learnt, from many years in business, that it is best to have the media onside rather than forward of the penultimate defender. Separately from the earlier photo, was Micheal Wilde in the Directors Box on Saturday? Thanks for your response, but again I really fail to see what all the fuss is about. You yourself admit that most is 3rd party information, for which you were seeking further clarification. Let's be honest here - if anything of any substance happened in SMS involving a member of the SDE do we not think that the first place it would appear would be on their back (or front for that matter) pages - especially if the reporter thought that he had been wronged in any way. Professional sport is a cut throat business, people can be quite ruthless in order to get to the fore. I really don't think that a quick spat in the corporate box on matchday is really going to make too many people loose too much sleep.
FloridaMarlin Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 Nothing new about SFC falling out with the Echo. Many years ago the Echo reports were so biased that they were ridiculous. After some team thrashed us 0-4 at the Dell, the Echo would start their report "Unlucky Saints...........". There were also occasions when reporters were removed from covering Saints if they wrote things that the club didn't like. SFC can make things very awkward for the Echo if they don't toe the line. You very rarely read anything in the Echo that doesn't originate from the clubs press people. Whether this is due to lazy journalism, I don't know. I can categorically state there has NEVER been an occasion when a reporter was removed from covering Saints if they wrote something the club didn't like. You have no appreciation or conception of how the media operates. All sorts of accusations could be levelled at the Echo for its coverage down the years, but no editor would (and no Echo editor has) succumb to pressure as to the reporter they choose to cover the club. The Echo's sister paper in Bournemouth came under this type of pressure years ago when AFCB said they would not co-operate with the paper's nominated Bournemouth beat reporter as they felt his coverage was too negative (ie, he was digging up too many skeletons by doing his job properly), and demanded he be replaced. The editor told them to get knotted, adding that as long as he did not tell the club who he thought should be manager, they had no right to tell him who he should appoint to cover the club. Relationships between the Echo and Saints have been up and down over the years, but the club has NEVER demanded the replacement of a reporter, probably in the knowledge that such a demand would be guaranteed to get the paper's back up, and that it was one that would never be met. Lowe - like all those who control football clubs - believes he holds all the aces when it comes to the media by threatening to withdraw media access. Up to a point, that works, as papers have to balance the merits of running stories which carry a risk of them being banned. I think it's come (or is coming) to the point where the Echo are no longer worried by that threat. If Lowe bans them, they'll relish the opportunity to tell their readers why, and in the current climate, that is a moral battle Lowe will never win. If he can't see that, then he is not very bright. As for the Echo's corporate hospitality box, it's very rare - if ever - that editorial staff have access to it on matchdays. The people populating it tend to be from advertising, circulation, newspaper sales, and suits from the upper floor.
Weston Saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I have been waiting for FloridaMarlin to post and was not disappointed with his input. Thanks for the information.
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I have been waiting for FloridaMarlin to post and was not disappointed with his input. Thanks for the information. Yeah - good that. I like the bit about The Echo having the moral highground under the current circumstances over Lowe! I think they do too, and whats more I think the pressure will be ramped up by the Echo on Lowe as they know the fan base has had enough.
Yeti Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I had a job interview with the current Editor of the Daily Echo a couple of years ago. On his desk he has a framed photo of Lowe mocked up as the Grim Reaper. He told me that Lowe has seen it and his reaction was priceless!
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 I had a job interview with the current Editor of the Daily Echo a couple of years ago. On his desk he has a framed photo of Lowe mocked up as the Grim Reaper. He told me that Lowe has seen it and his reaction was priceless! Great story!
NickG Posted 23 February, 2009 Posted 23 February, 2009 can't see any coverage of protest at all in echo tonight.
Gingeletiss Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Buy one!!!!.............page 5 or 7 I think, threw mine away.
Redondo Saint Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 The Echo is crap. They have been negative about Saints for ages. Some people need to wake up and realise the Echo is cashing in on the problems we have in the hope they sell more papers. There is a vendetta with Lowe and the Echo editor (who is as egotistical as Lowe). Don't mistake the papers agenda - sell more copies.
SaintRobbie Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 (edited) The Echo is crap. They have been negative about Saints for ages. Some people need to wake up and realise the Echo is cashing in on the problems we have in the hope they sell more papers. There is a vendetta with Lowe and the Echo editor (who is as egotistical as Lowe). Don't mistake the papers agenda - sell more copies. Thats absolutely correct. And in order to do that it will reflect public opinion: Lowe out. Edited 24 February, 2009 by SaintRobbie
Redondo Saint Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Thats absolutely correct. And in order to do that it will reflect public opinion: Lowe out. or the editors and the expense of the club?
alpine_saint Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 The Echo is crap. They have been negative about Saints for ages. Some people need to wake up and realise the Echo is cashing in on the problems we have in the hope they sell more papers. There is a vendetta with Lowe and the Echo editor (who is as egotistical as Lowe). Don't mistake the papers agenda - sell more copies. Rubbish. Earlier in the season it was acting as the new regime's mouthpiece. Now that the writing is on the wall, and the Dutch/yoof experiement has clearly failed, the Echo has simply picked up on public sentiment and shifted its position to gaze a more critical (and objective) eye down upon proceedings at SMS. It is still, in the meantime, giving plenty of column inches to Wotte, for example. Of course, the new objectivity doesnt please Roopey in the slightest, and if the events that have been described here really happened at SMS on Saturday, he seems to have had his usual attack of temper-tantrums and foot-stamping.
Redondo Saint Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 (edited) Rubbish. Earlier in the season it was acting as the new regime's mouthpiece. Now that the writing is on the wall, and the Dutch/yoof experiement has clearly failed, the Echo has simply picked up on public sentiment and shifted its position to gaze a more critical (and objective) eye down upon proceedings at SMS. It is still, in the meantime, giving plenty of column inches to Wotte, for example. Of course, the new objectivity doesnt please Roopey in the slightest, and if the events that have been described here really happened at SMS on Saturday, he seems to have had his usual attack of temper-tantrums and foot-stamping. Rubbish? Is yours the only voice of reason? In reality you are agreeing with me, in that the Echo changes its opinion to whatever view will increase sales. Typically, Alpine has sided with the view of negativity. Edited 26 February, 2009 by Redondo Saint
spyinthesky Posted 26 February, 2009 Author Posted 26 February, 2009 Believe Mike Richard's piece in todays Echo may have been offered as a 'balance' to Keith Wiseman's article last week. I also understand that the offer to 'even up' the debate was made before the spat between Mr Lowe and the MD of Newsquest, who own The Echo.
Channon's Sideburns Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 Believe Mike Richard's piece in todays Echo may have been offered as a 'balance' to Keith Wiseman's article last week. I also understand that the offer to 'even up' the debate was made before the spat between Mr Lowe and the MD of Newsquest, who own The Echo. So it was the MD of Newsquest then??? That will be Stewart Dunn....
Scottie Posted 26 February, 2009 Posted 26 February, 2009 I spoke to a couple of mates today who were in the corporate section at the game. They said they did hear Lowe rowing with someone. But they thought it funny when I asked if it was a reporter. They said it was a ****ed up guy having a go at Lowe, they said he was basically repeating what was in the Echo and Lowe replied something like you shouldn't believe everything that you see in written in that two bit rag. My mates are fairly reliable, but they were quite likely slightly merry themselves.
spyinthesky Posted 27 February, 2009 Author Posted 27 February, 2009 These circumstances are different to those described to me and could well be a separate incident. Certainly drink did not appear to have been a contributory factor However I guess we will never know the full facts.
saintinlondon Posted 27 February, 2009 Posted 27 February, 2009 was there not a rumour that some article(s) in the echo had scared off paul allen when he was supposedly about
hypochondriac Posted 27 February, 2009 Posted 27 February, 2009 was there not a rumour that some article(s) in the echo had scared off paul allen when he was supposedly about Lol.
FloridaMarlin Posted 27 February, 2009 Posted 27 February, 2009 So it was the MD of Newsquest then??? That will be Stewart Dunn.... Stuart Dunn is not the MD of Newsquest. He wishes he was! He's not even the regional managing director. Newsquest is a fairly big player in the UK regional news, of which the Echo is but a small part. There are some fairly big newspapers in Newsquest's portfolio, including the Glasgow Herald, Bradford Telegraph and Argus, the Brighton Argus and the Northern Echo. http://www.newsquest.co.uk/index.php Newsquest, in turn is owned by Gannett http://www.gannett.com/ Gannett are a huge, American media conglomerate that operates some VERY heavyweight US papers (including Thus, any profits Newsquest makes, is shipped across the Pond to Ole Virginny where Gannett are based. Stuart might pull a bit of weight in Hampshire as a General Manager, but in the Newsquest pecking order, he is a very small bird.
Channon's Sideburns Posted 27 February, 2009 Posted 27 February, 2009 Stuart Dunn is not the MD of Newsquest. He wishes he was! He's not even the regional managing director. Newsquest is a fairly big player in the UK regional news, of which the Echo is but a small part. There are some fairly big newspapers in Newsquest's portfolio, including the Glasgow Herald, Bradford Telegraph and Argus, the Brighton Argus and the Northern Echo. http://www.newsquest.co.uk/index.php Newsquest, in turn is owned by Gannett http://www.gannett.com/ Gannett are a huge, American media conglomerate that operates some VERY heavyweight US papers (including Thus, any profits Newsquest makes, is shipped across the Pond to Ole Virginny where Gannett are based. Stuart might pull a bit of weight in Hampshire as a General Manager, but in the Newsquest pecking order, he is a very small bird. Cheers FM, that clears that up nicely.
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