OldNick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I was with Duncan when Mary made these comments, I can confirm she said " she FELT threatened and intimidated by Rupert Lowe. No more no less !! So you are saying she no more or no less that she never said Physically. Thankyou that is a relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I was with Duncan when Mary made these comments, I can confirm she said " she FELT threatened and intimidated by Rupert Lowe. No more no less !! So you are saying she no more or no less that she never said Physically. Thankyou that is a relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I was with Duncan when Mary made these comments, I can confirm she said " she FELT threatened and intimidated by Rupert Lowe. No more no less !! So where did the "physically threatened" comment come from then? And why say "I am not going to elaborate on why MC felt threatened by Lowe... I do not have her permission to say anything further" if there was no more to it than that? If you are saying neither of these things were said then that asks more questions than you've answered - I think I'd rather wait for Duncan to explain his own comments here, it sounds like he must be relating a different conversation entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I was with Duncan when Mary made these comments, I can confirm she said " she FELT threatened and intimidated by Rupert Lowe. No more no less !! So where did the "physically threatened" comment come from then? And why say "I am not going to elaborate on why MC felt threatened by Lowe... I do not have her permission to say anything further" if there was no more to it than that? If you are saying neither of these things were said then that asks more questions than you've answered - I think I'd rather wait for Duncan to explain his own comments here, it sounds like he must be relating a different conversation entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Ron, trousers - I think the relevance here is that Duncan is a well-known figure with regard to Saints, the club historian with links to a lot of the major shareholders and hence when he makes a statement about 2 of the major shareholders then that comment holds gravitas. The implications of his post are pretty explicit and I think he should clarify from whence they came. It's just a simple question, I think it's pretty clear the answer could fall either pro or anti Lowe so it's in everyone's interests to have the matter cleared up right?OK but why draw attention to it by a new and clearly prevocative thread. Why not deal with it on the thread that contained the comments. You have every right to challenge the comments but it is the way you did it that I found distastful. Incidently, the same allegations were made of Hone when he was in charge and Mary confronted him according to one poster (not Duncan). I assume it is just that Mary Corbett is intimidated by people with a strong determined will to succeed. I do not condone it. Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Ron, trousers - I think the relevance here is that Duncan is a well-known figure with regard to Saints, the club historian with links to a lot of the major shareholders and hence when he makes a statement about 2 of the major shareholders then that comment holds gravitas. The implications of his post are pretty explicit and I think he should clarify from whence they came. It's just a simple question, I think it's pretty clear the answer could fall either pro or anti Lowe so it's in everyone's interests to have the matter cleared up right?OK but why draw attention to it by a new and clearly prevocative thread. Why not deal with it on the thread that contained the comments. You have every right to challenge the comments but it is the way you did it that I found distastful. Incidently, the same allegations were made of Hone when he was in charge and Mary confronted him according to one poster (not Duncan). I assume it is just that Mary Corbett is intimidated by people with a strong determined will to succeed. I do not condone it. Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Duncan seems a nice enough bloke but he is the biggest drama Queen on this board. I seem to remember it was just last week he was saying he were a whisker away from admin and that the whole club may disappear as a result! Also, for someone who, as the club historian, we would think might have an inside track on the club, the bits of information he does impart on here almost always turn out to be total ******. However, Duncan has been somewhat foolish as he is one of the few posters on here who everyone knows who he is in the real world. So posting a thread about Lowe incinuating he has been 'physically abusive' to a woman is not the smartest thing to do and certainly leaves himself open to legal trouble. Especially when the person involved has a good track record of taking people to court.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Duncan seems a nice enough bloke but he is the biggest drama Queen on this board. I seem to remember it was just last week he was saying he were a whisker away from admin and that the whole club may disappear as a result! Also, for someone who, as the club historian, we would think might have an inside track on the club, the bits of information he does impart on here almost always turn out to be total ******. However, Duncan has been somewhat foolish as he is one of the few posters on here who everyone knows who he is in the real world. So posting a thread about Lowe incinuating he has been 'physically abusive' to a woman is not the smartest thing to do and certainly leaves himself open to legal trouble. Especially when the person involved has a good track record of taking people to court.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I agree with Jonah here. Information should not be dangled in front of people without backing up why things were said in the first place. Let's not forget that Mary Corbett is a journalist, and journos by their nature are pretty hard nosed people when they want to get a story. If there are things going on that can sway a fans opinion of those running the club either way, then it should be made public, and presumably assuming that information isn't slanderous or libellous, can only harm the current regime, which is what the majority of fans wish to happen anyway. If Mary Corbett didn't wish the facts to be known, then Dunc was wrong to say anything in the first place. As for Wiseman.......:mad: Still a Lowe luvvie then are you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I agree with Jonah here. Information should not be dangled in front of people without backing up why things were said in the first place. Let's not forget that Mary Corbett is a journalist, and journos by their nature are pretty hard nosed people when they want to get a story. If there are things going on that can sway a fans opinion of those running the club either way, then it should be made public, and presumably assuming that information isn't slanderous or libellous, can only harm the current regime, which is what the majority of fans wish to happen anyway. If Mary Corbett didn't wish the facts to be known, then Dunc was wrong to say anything in the first place. As for Wiseman.......:mad: Still a Lowe luvvie then are you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I think the key is Mary Corbett 'felt', people can feel intimidated by an individual in spite of any direct threat Indeed a fair comment! I'm 6 ft and faaaarking big with it but I have 'felt' intimidated by someone far less in size than me, so much so that if I had not walked away I may have got into a lot of trouble for sorting him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 To be fair to MC, she must have overcome her intimidation from Lowe to have called him a liar over NP's non-appointment and also by saying that she believed Lowe being at the club was turning off badly needed investment. . Wiill that be the same investment promised by Wilde or Takeover by CRouch? Sorry buut that is just silly and a naive statemnet from MC - Serious investors do not hgive a flying feck about who is currently in the boardroom as the whole point of investing money is to take control and run the darn thing in your own way, otherwise what is the point - or its just a loan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 As I said earlier... no smoke without fire? To be fair if someone accuses you of a rape that never took place you would always be known as the person who got accused of rape. how much fire would go with that smoke? little snippits get said by people who are known to have connctions usually get believed and later become fact. It doesnt make it right and it annoys me becuase Rupes has done plenty wrong that we can all be hacked off about without exagerating and making things up. The lies and exagerations only go for him in the eyes of the people that keep him in his job. BS may get the likes of LM, LC and MC to the top but it wont keep them there. If they were that much of a viable option why did Wilde team up with Lowe to change things? He could have just as easily teamed up with Crouch and they could have fixed what they broke. So IMO several peoples noses have been put out of joint and there is a smear campaign going to try and get rid of Lowe once again. I try to be as un-biased as possible and try to see why people do the things they do and those in the Crouch camp really do need to take a breather and try to come up with a reasoned argument if they want to initiate change. the few in the Lowe camp IMO are just waiting for something better to come along so they can ditch Lowe like a hot pooh. everyone else in between just want things to get better no matter who is in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 OK but why draw attention to it by a new and clearly prevocative thread. Why not deal with it on the thread that contained the comments. You have every right to challenge the comments but it is the way you did it that I found distastful. I have explained above why I put it in a new thread, I asked the same question in the orginal thread but didn't get an answer - perhaps it didn't get seen in amongst the angst. I cannot see why it is provocative, it is as likely to damage Lowe and it is to help him, I just want a clear explanation. I have not used any emotive terms or called anyone names, I've just asked a simple question which will have a simple answer. Incidently, the same allegations were made of Hone when he was in charge and Mary confronted him according to one poster (not Duncan). I assume it is just that Mary Corbett is intimidated by people with a strong determined will to succeed. I do not condone it. Just my thoughts. Interesting. I don't remember those comments, do you have any links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Who gives a fook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Still a Lowe luvvie then are you It's not a question of being a Lowe luvvie or anything else. Why do you have to result to petty insults to a reply that I thought to be fairly balanced? I find it pathetic that if you can't reply constructively to a point made that you trot out the old "lowe luvvie" crap. My reply, which I will put a tad more succinctly just for you, said that if there was something in the story then it should be out there for everyone to make up their own minds about. I'm sure that the conduct of the PLC chairman, is of interest. I made no judgement either way. However, having said that, you don't become a journalist by being a shrinking violet, and it is no secret that Mary Corbett does not like Lowe on any level and neither does Duncan, therefore I feel that if the comments were not to be backed up, then they should not have been made in the first place, for in my opinion it does the poster no favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corky morris Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 If Lowe is as Litigious as some have suggested - Why did he never sue South Today for the programme that suggested his acquisition of shares when Secure Retirement took over SFC was at the very best immoral & potentially illegal. NickH posted the following on another thread: Originally Posted by nickh As I have alluded to during the week Wotte was not as involved in the team as some would wish to think. I had relayed that the team were together and determined.Thankfully it has transmitted onto the pitch.Now they must carry it on What did Wotte do all week then Nick? I asked Nick a question which he did not answer on the thread - Maybe he would like to expand on his comments? Admittedly the seriousness of what FF has suggested is very different, but Nick has suggested he is 'in the know' when it comes to Wotte's involvement & has yet (unless he wishes to correct me as i dont read every single posting on every single thread) not answered the question I asked OR told us exactly where he got his info from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 It's not a question of being a Lowe luvvie or anything else. Why do you have to result to petty insults to a reply that I thought to be fairly balanced? I find it pathetic that if you can't reply constructively to a point made that you trot out the old "lowe luvvie" crap. "Cowen Cuddler" would be more appropriate imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I don't like Lowe, but I hate this attack by insinuation. It's an unsubstantiated hint at something very unpleasant, that was only felt by somebody else. Then it's just left hanging and can't be elaborated on even though it might be nothing. It's all a bit underhand. I could announce that a friend of mine once met Duncan and got the feeling that he might be a sex criminal, but I can't discuss it more as my friend hasn't given me permission, so we'll just leave it at that please. Couldn't have put it better myself. It is a nasty, snidy little insinuation unless it is backed up with some more information. To me it is just another little snipe in the endless & pointless feud between the Lowies & the Crouchies, but it has the desired effect I guess as all those eager Lowe-bashers take it as conclusive proof that he is Satan himself. (PS please don't take this as pro-Lowe - I'm anti all of them on both sides of the fight) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Interesting. I don't remember those comments, do you have any links?It was said to me in a private message at the time Hone was in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RinNY Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Who's lynching who Frank? Who started the thread on this??? Jonah, who regularly on here backs Lowe's views...and who seems intent on having a go at Duncan...not condoning leaving a subject hanging, but this thread was started not about Lowe, or Mary Corbett..but Duncan. If it came out in public that all of this was true, it just might swing the balance towards his removal. It shows his behaviour is not befitting of his status within the PLC. That's good enough for me. Or did the whole Echo argument not happen as well? If all of what was true? Nothing has been said so far as I can see regarding Lowe's behavior so far, only regarding Ms. Corbett's feelings. She finds Lowe intimidating: that happens. I've been told at times myself that I can be intimidating, though it's no desire or intention of mine to be so. Unless there is some actual and deliberate physically intimidating behavior, there is nothing here. Ms. Corbett does not, apparently, wish to allege anything of the sort, and that is why FC is quite right, imo, to say that this issue should be dropped. Of course it will not be, because to the Lowe-loathers this kind of thing is like mother's milk to a hungry baby: they thrive on it. And yes, the baby comparison is deliberate, because I've seldom seen more infantile drivel than gets spouted on this forum on the subject of Lowe. And since it always seems to need saying, no, I am not a Lowe-luvvie: I just don't happen to loathe the man or think he is the most evil person since Hitler shot himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 (edited) Wiill that be the same investment promised by Wilde or Takeover by CRouch? Sorry buut that is just silly and a naive statemnet from MC - Serious investors do not hgive a flying feck about who is currently in the boardroom as the whole point of investing money is to take control and run the darn thing in your own way' date=' otherwise what is the point - or its just a loan...[/quote'] Sorry FC but I think your comment is naive. I never got the impression MC was refering to anything other than financial investment rather than a takeover. She said that investment was available but that the investors would not whilst Lowe was associated with the Club. No mention of a takeover. Edited 23 February, 2009 by SaintRobbie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Jonah seems quite capable at stirring the muddy water in defence of his megolomaniac chum Rupert, what benefit do you get out of it Six inches and a reacharound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 and you believe all that stuff do you? Not all - but I have learnt who is reliable and who isnt and can make my own - informed - opinion up on these matters Nick. On balance, I would suggest that Lowe DOES fall into the category suggested by MC. Anyway - tell us why the players think Wotte's a ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Jonah seems quite capable at stirring the muddy water in defence of his megolomaniac chum Rupert, what benefit do you get out of it Are you therefore suggesting that anyone should post anything they like about Lowe whether it is true, false or merely innuendo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 (edited) So IMO several peoples noses have been put out of joint and there is a smear campaign going to try and get rid of Lowe once again. . To be honest I think because of Lowe's manner this ISNT a smear campaign as such. I think we're seeing only the tip of the iceberg. Wiseman's statement is the first of many I think, especially now that Lowe has been humiliated over his Youth policy and second chairmanship, which is still leading us into League 1. Lowe has managed to keep an awful lot of people quiet over the years through confidentiality clauses and strange turnarounds from entrenched and opposite positions against him - the evidence for this is overwhelming. On this particular case I have no personal idea what MC feels - but I have witnessed alot of debate on similar reviews of Lowe's character, over quite some time, that leads me to draw the conclusion that there is some truth in it. Lowe is a person we can do without. It would be so nice NOT to have to debate the man, but his very presence at the club leads to these sorts of threads. He is a failure. And I fully welcome any statement that helps remove him from the Club for good. Edited 23 February, 2009 by SaintRobbie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Sorry FC but I think your comment is naive. I never got the impression MC was refering to anything other than financial investment rather than a takeover. She said that investment was available but that the investors would not whilst Lowe a=was associated with the Club. No mention of a takeover. Sorry, but i stand by what I said. please hear me out. It is quite possible, if not plausible (IMHO) that there might be siome city folk who have expressed an interest of some description in 'investing' in a football club to MC. If these are 'gifts' of a benefactory kind, (EXTREMELY unlikely), then fair enough, they may not be willing to part with said cash if they believ Lowe to incapable of using it for the benefit of the club - But as I have said, who is ever likely to simply donante cash to the club with no concern of ever getting tehir money back, or for some kind of return? Its far more likely that MC may have aquaintences in the city who would be willing to LOAN the club money for a return. Now given the precarious position we are in (or any club not owned by a sugar daaddy in the lower leagues), I would place money on the fact that without a cast iron guarrantee of a return, or money back, no serious investor would be interested - or to put it a different way, would not be interested in who is in the boardroom, but be making a deceiosn solely onteh financial stabilty and thus risk benefit ration of any such loan or 'investment' - not the fact that Lowe is there - investment of this nature is never conducted on personality, but on the security. As such MC hinting at city investors has about as much credibilty as Wilde and his infamous investors in teh wings, just waiting for Lowe to go... or Crouch and his takeovers - its the SAME PR guff we have had before and its teh principle reason why I cannot support the MC/Crouch axis, whatever other 'benefits' they might have over Lowe - simply too much PR spin and fan friendly rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Are you therefore suggesting that anyone should post anything they like about Lowe whether it is true, false or merely innuendo? That is the crux of this thread. The answer to me is that all of us can make our own minds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Sorry FC but I think your comment is naive. I never got the impression MC was refering to anything other than financial investment rather than a takeover. She said that investment was available but that the investors would not whilst Lowe a=was associated with the Club. No mention of a takeover. To be fair those people dont help at all. There are people supposedly rich enough to get rid of Lowe and his mob that sit on the sidelines suggesting that if Lowe wasnt here they would all invest. IMO thats more BS and we have heard it far too often. What are they expecting to happen? Someone else is going to come and buy lowes shares then go and ask for investors? If someone is prepared to buy Lowe out then they will more than likly want to buy out at least some of the others too. If that happens they will be in a position where they will end up making a bid for the club. No-one has done that because no-one wants to put there money where there mouth is. I dont blame them for that because the chances are there money would be wasted as there are not many football clubs that are in profit at the mo. but to sit back and lead people on to think that they would happily invest should Lowe not be with the club is complete and utter garbage. If MC is taken in by that then I feel sorry for her. Crouch has actually gone and tried to get a takeover organised and is always weeks away from completion. Anyone believing some numpty is actually going to invest on the condition that Lowe is gone is deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Not all - but I have learnt who is reliable and who isnt and can make my own - informed - opinion up on these matters Nick. On balance, I would suggest that Lowe DOES fall into the category suggested by MC. Anyway - tell us why the players think Wotte's a ****. Thing is, Duncan is a decent a bloke as you could meet and a wealth of knowledge all things Saints, but is firmly in the Crouch/MC axis - and has admitted that he has a mission and agenda so its quite natural to question the validity of such statements, at such sensitive times... as you cant argue against teh fact that the way the 'information' was presented was highly inflamatory. Although I think its best left alone, jonah is quite within his rights to request clarification. There is enough stuff floating around taht is at least based on fact that suggests LOwes failings without teh need to be 'inventive' or creative' with remarks that can very easily be taken out of context - especially when the implication is potentially serious and damning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Last week Duncan posted the following comments about Mary Corbett: I really feel this needs some clarification - "threatened" is a strong word to use in itself, but even more so when talking about being "physically intimidated". 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? I really don't see how anybody can make such a claim like this in public without backing it up. It probably was over-stating it, jonah, but there is such a thing as 'non-physical violence'. We all know that Lowe is quite capable of losing his cool. , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 (edited) Sorry, but i stand by what I said. please hear me out. It is quite possible, if not plausible (IMHO) that there might be siome city folk who have expressed an interest of some description in 'investing' in a football club to MC. If these are 'gifts' of a benefactory kind, (EXTREMELY unlikely), then fair enough, they may not be willing to part with said cash if they believ Lowe to incapable of using it for the benefit of the club - But as I have said, who is ever likely to simply donante cash to the club with no concern of ever getting tehir money back, or for some kind of return? Its far more likely that MC may have aquaintences in the city who would be willing to LOAN the club money for a return. Now given the precarious position we are in (or any club not owned by a sugar daaddy in the lower leagues), I would place money on the fact that without a cast iron guarrantee of a return, or money back, no serious investor would be interested - or to put it a different way, would not be interested in who is in the boardroom, but be making a deceiosn solely onteh financial stabilty and thus risk benefit ration of any such loan or 'investment' - not the fact that Lowe is there - investment of this nature is never conducted on personality, but on the security. As such MC hinting at city investors has about as much credibilty as Wilde and his infamous investors in teh wings, just waiting for Lowe to go... or Crouch and his takeovers - its the SAME PR guff we have had before and its teh principle reason why I cannot support the MC/Crouch axis, whatever other 'benefits' they might have over Lowe - simply too much PR spin and fan friendly rhetoric. I understand all that and I get your warning over Crouch at the end. But when investment is moving away because of Lowe's association - ie because he IS a useless chairman and a failure - there is not a chance for a return from it. Shares are nearly below 15p now and falling. He is a very unsuccessful plc chairman. I wouldnt invest. I would be careful about investing in MC and Crouch too - for the reasons you suggest - but I certainly wouldnt have any confidence in Lowe. This is no smear campaign. I have watched Duncan's posts with interest over the past few months. He is connected with MC and Crouch - he sees them as a better temporary solution instead of Lowe and I agree with him. Lowe has no confidence from anyone. Duncan, is well connected interally and on the prolifery of the Club - no doubts about that. He was the club's historian FFS. All I see in Duncan is a real fan who's life is this Club. He loves it and because he IS partial to more info than most he has over the last few weeks started to share some of the shocking practices that have been going on at the Club more openly. He has shown alot of courage if this story of Lowe is correct. And he has shared alot of truths. He understands how close the Club is to going under because of the mismanagement of Lowe and others. He understands that those who might bale out the club wont whilst Lowe is here. He understands that Lowe may have a plan to consolidate a further hold on the club during administration. He therefore wants to alert others. You can believe Duncan or not. Personally, again from years of studying the SFC form book, I think he has alot for us to listen to and digest... but it is up to all of us to make up our own minds. Edited 23 February, 2009 by SaintRobbie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 For what its worth my position remains: Lowe and all associates out for good. If necessary MC/Crouch in as a temporary solution with a CEO to run the club on a day to day basis until the club can be sold to a new owner and the plc delisted forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I've made my on mind up on the evidence before us. Lowe is a bully and a total c u n t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 But you can't make statements like he did without some substantiation, otherwise us cynics just interpret it as more spin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 It probably was over-stating it, jonah, but there is such a thing as 'non-physical violence'. The phrase used was "physically intimidated" - I'm not sure you can have non-physical physical intimidation can you? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 To be honest I think because of Lowe's manner this ISNT a smear campaign as such. I think we're seeing only the tip of the iceberg. Wiseman's statement is the first of many I think, especially now that Lowe has been humiliated over his Youth policy and second chairmanship, which is still leading us into League 1. Lowe has managed to keep an awful lot of people quiet over the years through confidentiality clauses and strange turnarounds from entrenched and opposite positions against him - the evidence for this is overwhelming. On this particular case I have no personal idea what MC feels - but I have witnessed alot of debate on similar reviews of Lowe's character, over quite some time, that leads me to draw the conclusion that there is some truth in it. Lowe is a person we can do without. It would be so nice NOT to have to debate the man, but his very presence at the club leads to these sorts of threads. He is a failure. And I fully welcome any statement that helps remove him from the Club for good. I agree with you on some things as I to believe his being here does more harm than good. I also believe that should you get on the wrong side of him he will do you no favours which is probably where most of the hostility from his enemys has come from. I dont like his atitude and the way he is never at fault for anything. I dont put relegation at just his feet but I do hold him responsable as he was our chairman at the time. I didnt see anyone that was prepared enough to do a better job and I thought that Lowe could have turned things round in time without breaking the bank. I so much wanted there to be someone better as I didnt think he deserved the chance to right his wrongs. so all of the above IMO is plenty good enough reason to want a change for the better, to want him gone and to take his mob with him. Where I dont agree with you is the idea that there is overwhelming evidence of NDR's and opposition turn arounds and so on. Someone on radio said something and it was misheard by someone on here and by the time the listen again feature was out there was 5 pages of ranting about how bad Lowe is because someone said something or another. Listen again and a written transcript showed that what was thought to have been said never actually got said. So there was no turn around as there was nothing to have a fit about in the 1st place. Its things like that which make the whole anti-lowe campaign look silly and it loses face. The same tried to happen with FF saying MC felt physically threatened. It there are enough pages on it people will believe it true or not. When its actually used in an argument Lowe and his mob are able to laugh in the face of crouch anc co as they are blowing a load of hot air and nothing else. The idea of NDR's is a myth IMO also as the Anti-Lowes started spouting it off as fact just because people didnt have something bad to say about the man. If they said something good it was because arms had been twisted and law suits threatened. I know most will be diplomatic in things they say to the press but how many times do people have to say the problem wasnt with Rupes before it can be thought of as fact? Think we hear something that is against rupes on the radio = Fact and he should bte burned at the stake Ex manager known for speaking his mind puts his name to his own autobiography stating he didnt have a problem with Rupes = Must have signed a NDR or been threatened with legal action should he ever suggest him and Rupes didnt get on. Surly you can see how ridiculas it all sounds? If someone comes up with a serious plan that is strong enough to stand up on its own without the need for smearing and name calling then everyone but Scooby and Rupes will get behind it and Rupes will "for the good of the club" step down and be gone quicker than a really quick thing in a quick tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I understand all that and I get your warning over Crouch at the end. But when investment is moving away because of Lowe's association - ie because he IS a useless chairman and a failure - there is not a chance for a return from it. Shares are nearly below 15p now and falling. He is a very unsuccessful plc chairman. I wouldnt invest. I would be careful about investing in MC and Crouch too - for the reasons you suggest - but I certainly wouldnt have any confidence in Lowe. This is no smear campaign. I have watched Duncan's posts with interest over the past few months. He is connected with MC and Crouch - he sees them as a better temporary solution instead of Lowe and I agree with him. Lowe has no confidence from anyone. Duncan, is well connected interally and on the prolifery of the Club - no doubts about that. He was the club's historian FFS. All I see in Duncan is a real fan who's life is this Club. He loves it and because he IS partial to more info than most he has over the last few weeks started to share some of the shocking practices that have been going on at the Club more openly. He has shown alot of courage if this story of Lowe is correct. And he has shared alot of truths. He understands how close the Club is to going under because of the mismanagement of Lowe and others. He understands that those who might bale out the club wont whilst Lowe is here. He understands that Lowe may have a plan to consolidate a further hold on the club during administration. He therefore wants to alert others. You can believe Duncan or not. Personally, again from years of studying the SFC form book, I think he has alot for us to listen to and digest... but it is up to all of us to make up our own minds. Thing is, we only have MCs word that 'investmnet is moving away because of Lowe' - is this not the same as Wilde said? I think investmnet will come our way when we are an attractive proposition for investment irrespective of which characters are at te helm... that i guess is my general drift. Duncan knows alot for sure, but in recent times alot of what he knows has come from one side only, and he would admit to that it mainly being a one sided info exchange - MC and CRouch will also have recognised the potential in having someone of his profile 'spread the word' as well so what is fed will undoudtedly ahve an agenda - to which Duncan also freely admits. BUt I cant say I agree with him - he is no beter placed in understanding how close we are to admin than anyone else, sorry that is simply a misconception. Also, you ahve to admit that the current crisis is a combination of the effects of teh managemnet by Lowe, Wilde and his board, then Crouch and his tenure - all contributing to it. I am not sure why there are those who inist that there are folks waiting the wings to 'bale us out' if Lowe goes. Its fiction. Bailing out suggest gifts or loans - gifts are inconceivable - simply wont happen, and loans are never liely to whilst our position is so precarious - its naive to think this and I do think Duncan is playing the PR game very well for his side of the fence - my only cobncern for him, given that I also have a huge amount of time and respect for him, is that if ever put to the test and MC is found wanting as Wilde was, he will be tarnished with that same permanent mistrust as many now see wilde for his blatent propoganda use.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I've made my on mind up on the evidence before us. Lowe is a bully and a total c u n t. What evidence? Rumour and hearsay - feck all else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 The phrase used was "physically intimidated" - I'm not sure you can have non-physical physical intimidation can you? ;-) Apparently according to The NSPCC you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I can't believe this thread has reached 85 posts to be honest..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 The phrase used was "physically intimidated" - I'm not sure you can have non-physical physical intimidation can you? ;-) Surely it's possible for someone to feel 'physically intimidated' even if the intimidatee had no intention whatsoever to be actually physical? For example, when I walk down my local high street at 11:00pm on a Friday night I sometimes feel 'physically intimidated' by those around me. Doesn't necessarily mean someone is about to lamp me. Physical intimidation is simply a fear of being harmed rather than actually being harmed. This can be either a rational or irrational fear but it is still a valid feeling to have, regardless of any intent on the part of the intimidatee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 But you can't make statements like he did without some substantiation, otherwise us cynics just interpret it as more spin Unfortunately this is Duncan's hallmark and something he does far too often..... the nudge nudge wink wink, I have insider info but can say no more. As I said I wouldn't pay it too much head, the past nudge nudge wink wink posts turned out to be total bo llox so no reason to think this is anything different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 What evidence? Rumour and hearsay - feck all else... Prejudice is all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Thing is, we only have MCs word that 'investmnet is moving away because of Lowe' - is this not the same as Wilde said? I think investmnet will come our way when we are an attractive proposition for investment irrespective of which characters are at te helm... that i guess is my general drift. Duncan knows alot for sure, but in recent times alot of what he knows has come from one side only, and he would admit to that it mainly being a one sided info exchange - MC and CRouch will also have recognised the potential in having someone of his profile 'spread the word' as well so what is fed will undoudtedly ahve an agenda - to which Duncan also freely admits. BUt I cant say I agree with him - he is no beter placed in understanding how close we are to admin than anyone else, sorry that is simply a misconception. Also, you ahve to admit that the current crisis is a combination of the effects of teh managemnet by Lowe, Wilde and his board, then Crouch and his tenure - all contributing to it. I am not sure why there are those who inist that there are folks waiting the wings to 'bale us out' if Lowe goes. Its fiction. Bailing out suggest gifts or loans - gifts are inconceivable - simply wont happen, and loans are never liely to whilst our position is so precarious - its naive to think this and I do think Duncan is playing the PR game very well for his side of the fence - my only cobncern for him, given that I also have a huge amount of time and respect for him, is that if ever put to the test and MC is found wanting as Wilde was, he will be tarnished with that same permanent mistrust as many now see wilde for his blatent propoganda use.... One thing Frank....didn't Wilde pre his little coup, once say that his 'investors' would only invest when Lowe was gone????? So, regardless of what happened next, that's Wilde and MC who have said it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 FFS what are you all getting so uptight about? So Rupert Lowe ****es people off, loses his temper, a female feels intimidated, so what. It happens all the time. The real problem is his sheer, arrogant, know it all incompetence is going to get us relegated and maybe worse, wound up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Surely it's possible for someone to feel 'physically intimidated' even if the intimidatee had no intention whatsoever to be actually physical? For example, when I walk down my local high street at 11:00pm on a Friday night I sometimes feel 'physically intimidated' by those around me. Doesn't necessarily mean someone is about to lamp me. Physical intimidation is simply a fear of being harmed rather than actually being harmed. This can be either a rational or irrational fear but it is still a valid feeling to have, regardless of any intent on the part of the intimidatee. Trousers..does that walk down the High Street involve being intimidated by two certain centre forwards???! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Where I dont agree with you is the idea that there is overwhelming evidence of NDR's and opposition turn arounds and so on. Someone on radio said something and it was misheard by someone on here and by the time the listen again feature was out there was 5 pages of ranting about how bad Lowe is because someone said something or another. Listen again and a written transcript showed that what was thought to have been said never actually got said. So there was no turn around as there was nothing to have a fit about in the 1st place. Its things like that which make the whole anti-lowe campaign look silly and it loses face. The same tried to happen with FF saying MC felt physically threatened. It there are enough pages on it people will believe it true or not. When its actually used in an argument Lowe and his mob are able to laugh in the face of crouch anc co as they are blowing a load of hot air and nothing else. The idea of NDR's is a myth IMO also as the Anti-Lowes started spouting it off as fact just because people didnt have something bad to say about the man. If they said something good it was because arms had been twisted and law suits threatened. I know most will be diplomatic in things they say to the press but how many times do people have to say the problem wasnt with Rupes before it can be thought of as fact? Think we hear something that is against rupes on the radio = Fact and he should bte burned at the stake Ex manager known for speaking his mind puts his name to his own autobiography stating he didnt have a problem with Rupes = Must have signed a NDR or been threatened with legal action should he ever suggest him and Rupes didnt get on. Surly you can see how ridiculas it all sounds? If someone comes up with a serious plan that is strong enough to stand up on its own without the need for smearing and name calling then everyone but Scooby and Rupes will get behind it and Rupes will "for the good of the club" step down and be gone quicker than a really quick thing in a quick tree. Fair criticism. But where I have always come from is the fact that Lowe creates these sort of knee jerks and problems because he is such a divisive and unpopular figure. The fact that the vast majority do jump on anti-Lowe kneejerks is a lesson in its own right. For me it boils down to confidence in his leadership. I think we share a similar viewpoint. I just feel a little for Duncan. The best posters on this messageboard are the ITKs and they are always ridiculed. We can all make our minds up but regardless of their allegiences without them taking taking risks and providing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle this forum would be pretty toothless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 The phrase used was "physically intimidated" - I'm not sure you can have non-physical physical intimidation can you? ;-) Look up 'Bullying' jonah. Too commonly found in the workplace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying There are courses on the subject http://www.bullying.org/ http://old.gold.ac.uk/tmr/reports/aim2_surrey1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Trousers..does that walk down the High Street involve being intimidated by two certain centre forwards???! Sssshhhhh.....I was saving that rumour for tomorrow.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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