Mary Corbett felt "threatened" and "physically intimidated" by Lowe

[OldNick]

All in all it seems that the wording was not quite 100% (no shame there) and that the majority of fans seem to wish the departure of all the main parties involved in the club.

Jonah and Duncan have united the fanbase

[Frank's cousin]

All in all it seems that the wording was not quite 100% (no shame there) and that the majority of fans seem to wish the departure of all the main parties involved in the club.

Jonah and Duncan have united the fanbase

 

;-) indeed!

[trousers]

[Gordon Mockles]

... If some fans who are staying away out of pure prejudice continue do so then they may find in years to come the only way to get their Saint fix will be to a council funded museum under the guidance of one local curator...

 

I wasn't aware fans were. Whilst Lowe makes no effort whatsoever to appease (or even please) the fans, most fans have given up due to pitiful performances and the sheer profusion of abysmal managerial decisions (and the even murkier circumstances in which these terrible football decisions have been made and to whom it making them).

 

Our fans have been great in my opinion. If you consider the sh*t they've been served post Premiership, attendances deserve to be around much lower figures, particularly when you consider the stance of the club and the limited media press releases and very controlled spin and cherry picked comments that mainly patronise and alienate the fans. Fans deserve respect, not contempt or being ignored and left in the dark (FFS - Hockaday, Webster, Van der whatshisface, Poortvliet departure circumstances, General club information...etc.) The club monitors this forum and only seems to respond when the mood goes too stale, which with this management is often and repeatedly.

 

FF may yet justify his comments. We have to give him the opportunity.

 

I think people are getting wayyyyy too over excited about this. Jonah (stereotypically) particularly.

 

I spoke with Duncan last year about this Lowe/Mary incident and it's not uncommon knowledge. Whilst it is not in the best interests of everyone involved to broadcast such incidents, I find it utterly bewildering to consider why the beloved Rupert gets defended by Nick, Jonah and the other rather strangely opinionated suspects who know nothing of the facts yet berate those that post anything anti Lowe. WHY? Let's be objective and open minded - it's not ridiculous to accept that Lowe is strong minded (he needs to be) and he can be. allegedly, a bully (board room, AGMs, etc.) and loves to be the top dog and in control. To be fair, It's how he's been brought up and part of his character and background (it's just a shame we suffer so many of the side effects due to arrogance and ego and Rupert always thinking he knows best - quite severe results when you have an over-view historically)

 

I am assuming the said incident was the coincidental meeting at a certain holiday home, and a certain paranoid chairman getting very hot under the collar and giving the hair dryer treatment to a certain lady involved with our football club. Thankfully, she was a lot more dignified than most and didn't want incidents such as these damaging the club (someone putting the club before themselves) or becoming common knowledge. However, it now seems, since the gloves are off and everyone is slinging sh*t, maybe hiding the truth isn't a bad thing. After all, you make your bed, you lie in it!

 

It's a pretty sad state of affairs though, having to resort to verbally assaulting someone (more so a women) so ferociously that they do feel physically threatened (let's not go into futile semantics about what constitutes a threat). All of this, down to a football club. Pathetic.

 

Moving swiftly on...

 

... Nick I agree completely with what you say. However, as I said I think the falling out Lowe and Duncan had in private that Duncan then chose to make public has probably damaged any hope of reconciliation IMO.

 

LMFAO - Like Rupert is the epitome of humility and reconciliation. Just look at the relationship the CLUB has reforged with the fans (following the bad feeling following Lowe's first departure)...Oh, I can't see anything other than tumbleweed on this barren wasteland. The only life I see is dead weeds and gasometers!

 

All I was doing was electing not to close the thread until FF had replied. Whatever else you're inclined to infer from that is up to you.

 

As an aside, and for future reference, I would prefer that all and any allegations are justifiable and are backed up by some sort of evidence but I appreciate that cannot always be the case. If something cannot be backed up and is highly inflammatory, and/or liable to legal action, I'd prefer it wan't posted at all but that said, I'm not on some sort of censorship campaign.

 

Why would you close the thread? It's a forum, sh*t things happen and everyone's a right to report them, within reason. What we (rightly) don't like is vicious rumour, libel/slander, ill fated scandal, plain lies or personal information leaked out to all and sundry (although certain footballers could complain about the club if certain newspaper wage leaks are to be believed!). We realise Lowe is Mr Libel and likes to tightly control (or try) the media but it's just not possible as the truth has a way of leaking out, as this season has shown (we're not communist Russia or North Korea , thankfully!) and we're a free speaking, supposedly democratic society.

 

I won't quote Duncan's post for fear of taking up more space than my meandering scribble alone but well said Duncan. Excluding the certain baiters on the forum, the cantankerous & the obstinate (let them argue amongst themselves), most TRUE FANS* want the club to do well and that's certainly not happening, nor even close, under our current leadership. Broken records never play a happy tune so it's time to throw out the old, and bring in the new. Anyone got a decent Blu-Ray?

 

* = ironic reference Mr Wotte

[Weston Saint]

I seem to recall you telling me of Hone intimidating in the same manner Gordon???

[Gordon Mockles]

OOPS! Just read this last page and it seems it's all regressed to mild back slapping and some more level headed speak - good! I won't stir up the hornets' nest.

[Gordon Mockles]

I seem to recall you telling me of Hone intimidating in the same manner Gordon???

 

Yes I did. I think I muddled up the two but I repeated what I was told at the time (last year) to Duncan and yourself. Can always check for you and PM back.

 

Cheers and apologies for any confusion.

[Foxstone]

I seem to recall you telling me of Hone intimidating in the same manner Gordon???

 

Hone and Lawrie spent the best part of an hour intimidating each other in the De Vere towards the end of 2007.

 

Highly vitriolic and unbecoming encounter unwittingly seen and heard by many.

[OldNick]

Yes I did. I think I muddled up the two but I repeated what I was told at the time (last year) to Duncan and yourself. Can always check for you and PM back.

 

Cheers and apologies for any confusion.

So you muddled up Lowe and Hone. Lol and then come on and sermon us about questioning the wording and events that happened.Give us a break

[The Rover]

...

So my question would be: HOnestly, do you believe that even another boardroom suffle with Lowe once again on the oputside will see saints realise the dreams and aspirations that you and all fans have? Or do you think we would just see more of the same, with Lowe, playing the same role crouch now is, digging and jibing from the outside?

 

 

I think a big boardroom souffle is just the ticket to unify all the shareholders.

 

Perhaps Mary can cook?

 

(My vote for Teh LLS Award for the person who has done most to massacre the English language this year goes to Frank's Cousin.)

[Frank's cousin]

I think a big boardroom souffle is just the ticket to unify all the shareholders.

 

Perhaps Mary can cook?

 

(My vote for Teh LLS Award for the person who has done most to massacre the English language this year goes to Frank's Cousin.)

 

Harsh but fair.... but in mitigation, typing is difficult as I only have two fingers... ;-( Would prefer an alternative sponsor than LLS though

[Pancake]

Hone and Lawrie spent the best part of an hour intimidating each other in the De Vere towards the end of 2007.

 

Highly vitriolic and unbecoming encounter unwittingly seen and heard by many.

 

Anyone read that a stifle a dirty giggle?

[Pancake]

Harsh but fair.... but in mitigation' date=' typing is difficult as I only have [b']two fingers[/b]... ;-( Would prefer an alternative sponsor than LLS though

 

....of Scotch on the go.

[Frank's cousin]

Anyone read that a stifle a dirty giggle?

 

Still doing so... failing miserably

[Frank's cousin]

....of Scotch on the go.

 

arshsrahhs yor ma bist pal... so ya arhr /..... hic where da f*ck's ma car...gotta get hame...

[The Rover]

Harsh but fair.... but in mitigation' date=' typing is difficult as I only have two fingers... ;-( Would prefer an alternative sponsor than LLS though[/quote']

 

In that case please accept my apologies FC. It was meant tongue in cheek!

 

LLS was in a class of his own anyway.

[Frank's cousin]

In that case please accept my apologies FC. It was meant tongue in cheek!

 

LLS was in a class of his own anyway.

 

Sorry, I may have deliberately misled you - two fingers that I can type with - the rest are uneducated in art of keyboard skills... but still in their appropriate place on my hands...rather mischievous of me I know, but could not resist.

 

I will do all I can to improve my souffle and my shuffle in future to avoid confusion.

 

But still leaves the bigger question that you pointed out.... Can Mary Cook?, if she can do a decent souffle then she gets my vote. ;-)

[Wes Tender]

I think for those reasons she has been criticised, especially if she openly joins the frey by going public with her thoughts and opinions. I dont think there is anything more sinister than that.

 

Frank, it is so easy to make a little slip when posting an opinion and having the opinion mean something entirely different.

 

Now I know that you are generally even-handed and therefore believe that I have spotted such a mistake in the sentiments that you have expressed. But others who do not know you might take things a lot more literally and those of a litigious bent would enjoy being given the ammunition.

 

Might I hazard a guess as to what you meant to say in that last sentence?

 

"I don't think there is anything more sinister to it than that"

[Ponty]

Why would you close the thread?

 

Please read the post I quoted in my original comment. I was answering a request to let the thread "RIP" and that was the context I took it in.

 

I've just a whole page of this thread without once reference to the original point - is it not time to let it RIP?

[Wes Tender]

All in all it seems that the wording was not quite 100% (no shame there) and that the majority of fans seem to wish the departure of all the main parties involved in the club.

Jonah and Duncan have united the fanbase

 

Well, this seems a very pertinent summary, Nick. Who would have thought it, eh? Are there any serious dissenters out there still, who disagree with the fundamental premise that either Lowe, Wilde and Crouch ought to work together for the good of the club in the interim, or else failing that, but in the longer term anyway, they all ought to make way for an independent board and none of them be allowed to serve on the board?

 

Have we really found some common ground that unites nearly all of the fan base? Perhaps we should make this the subject of a separate thread, investigate the opinions of others and hold a poll on it. If that poll proves overwhelmingly that the mood of the fan base is that all of those with historic associations with the club as major shareholders are not allowed a seat on the board, then we can face those board members past and present and demand that they step aside to make way for independent replacements.

[Wes Tender]

No response for three hours, so I'll take it that my request for any dissenting voices to be raised against the premise that I suggested above are not forthcoming.

 

So we can therefore take it that the majority of the people on this forum are in broad agreement....

[Ponty]

They appear to all be preoccupied with slapping each other around the face with virtual wet haddock.

[krissyboy31]

They appear to all be preoccupied with slapping each other around the face with virtual wet haddock.

 

[Frank's cousin]

Frank, it is so easy to make a little slip when posting an opinion and having the opinion mean something entirely different.

 

Now I know that you are generally even-handed and therefore believe that I have spotted such a mistake in the sentiments that you have expressed. But others who do not know you might take things a lot more literally and those of a litigious bent would enjoy being given the ammunition.

 

Might I hazard a guess as to what you meant to say in that last sentence?

 

"I don't think there is anything more sinister to it than that"

 

Hi

That is indeed what it is meant to say, but the ole speed typing thing with those 'darn two fingers gone an done for me again!' ;-)

[Frank's cousin]

They appear to all be preoccupied with slapping each other around the face with virtual wet haddock.

 

Kipper surely?

[Nineteen Canteen]

Well, this seems a very pertinent summary, Nick. Who would have thought it, eh? Are there any serious dissenters out there still, who disagree with the fundamental premise that either Lowe, Wilde and Crouch ought to work together for the good of the club in the interim, or else failing that, but in the longer term anyway, they all ought to make way for an independent board and none of them be allowed to serve on the board?

 

Have we really found some common ground that unites nearly all of the fan base? Perhaps we should make this the subject of a separate thread, investigate the opinions of others and hold a poll on it. If that poll proves overwhelmingly that the mood of the fan base is that all of those with historic associations with the club as major shareholders are not allowed a seat on the board, then we can face those board members past and present and demand that they step aside to make way for independent replacements.

 

 

Wes your first paragraph is the most succint and accurate summary of the approach I would support. Given the current economic environment and therefore unlikely approach from interested investors it seems to me the only logical way forward.

 

I do have concerns that regardless of demands the board will not cede to calls for them to step aside or be involved with the recruitment of the independent replacements. Therefore, Crouch should be invited back on the board and if the 3 of them can't prove to the fanbase and eachother that they can work together to the greater good of the club then the rope they're given should be long enough to push for the longer term ideal.

 

The only caveat I would make is that this invitation to help rebuild the club's fortunes goes solely to Crouch and none of his support crew of McMenemy, Corbett and Trant. Reasons for this are that IMO the board needs to be lean in numbers and everyone must have a key and accountable role to play. I don't know what Corbett and Trant did when they were here the first time around and therefore a role this time is even more unlikely. Secondly, I think Crouch will be better for making his own decisions and without the apparent constant referral to McMenemy, if he must he can still seek his counsel in private but personally I think he would be better trusting his own instincts and thought processes.

 

LM has for too long used the media as an axe to grind against Lowe even in the good times and is the sort of lose canon we don't want rattling around the corridors of SMS whilst the other 3 attempt to repair the severe damage that they have all played their part to create. I have never doubted Crouch's credentials as a supporter and I am sure they are no less passionate than my own and for that reason I can accept Crouch could work for the greater good of the club in line with Lowe and Wilde. I honestly, don't get that impression with McMenemy and his past comments have not been made from the same 'passionate fan' angle as Crouch and therefore some of the latter's comments can be forgiven equally as some of the impassioned comments made on this forum.

 

I am concerned about Duncan's comments about the prospect of the big 3 working together but it is the only logical option to healing the rift and taking the club forward. If Duncan proves right then I suspect the 3 of them will be able to work out for themselves the independnet CEO route but it would be nice if the initial soluton could work. If common ground/ general consensus of recent days can be found on this forum then I'm sure they should be able to do so. I also think Duncan suggested that there was no way back for LM (apologies if I have this wrong) which leads me to say (using an oft-quoted phrase from Um pahars) that McMenemy is the busted flush and Corbett and Trant can use their shareholders voting rights at the AGM/EGM.

 

No doubt my comments with regard to McMenemy will inflame a few opinions and I do not belittle or refuse to recognise any of his achievements as manager of Saints. However, that was 25 years ago and for many fans who represent the long term future of this club he is just a name even though he had the opportunity to become a real legend and ambassador as Ted Bates did and for that, McMenemy. sadly only has himself to blame.

 

Any ambassador in any situation effectively has the role of the dipolmat sent overseas to represent his country. Its a role that requires skill in managing relationships, international or otherwise and requires above all else, tact. McMenemy 25 years ago was a great manager but since then he has been am awful ambassador of this club IMO and I don't understand why Crouch uses his counsel quite so much when he should be consulting the likes of Benali and Le Tissier Saints men through and through and with a greater insight into the modern game. Sorry for going off topic but I like to try at least to justify my personal opinions.

[NickG]

Wes your first paragraph is the most succint and accurate summary of the approach I would support. Given the current economic environment and therefore unlikely approach from interested investors it seems to me the only logical way forward.

 

I do have concerns that regardless of demands the board will not cede to calls for them to step aside or be involved with the recruitment of the independent replacements. Therefore, Crouch should be invited back on the board and if the 3 of them can't prove to the fanbase and eachother that they can work together to the greater good of the club then the rope they're given should be long enough to push for the longer term ideal.

 

The only caveat I would make is that this invitation to help rebuild the club's fortunes goes solely to Crouch and none of his support crew of McMenemy, Corbett and Trant. Reasons for this are that IMO the board needs to be lean in numbers and everyone must have a key and accountable role to play. I don't know what Corbett and Trant did when they were here the first time around and therefore a role this time is even more unlikely. Secondly, I think Crouch will be better for making his own decisions and without the apparent constant referral to McMenemy, if he must he can still seek his counsel in private but personally I think he would be better trusting his own instincts and thought processes.

 

LM has for too long used the media as an axe to grind against Lowe even in the good times and is the sort of lose canon we don't want rattling around the corridors of SMS whilst the other 3 attempt to repair the severe damage that they have all played their part to create. I have never doubted Crouch's credentials as a supporter and I am sure they are no less passionate than my own and for that reason I can accept Crouch could work for the greater good of the club in line with Lowe and Wilde. I honestly, don't get that impression with McMenemy and his past comments have not been made from the same 'passionate fan' angle as Crouch and therefore some of the latter's comments can be forgiven equally as some of the impassioned comments made on this forum.

 

I am concerned about Duncan's comments about the prospect of the big 3 working together but it is the only logical option to healing the rift and taking the club forward. If Duncan proves right then I suspect the 3 of them will be able to work out for themselves the independnet CEO route but it would be nice if the initial soluton could work. If common ground/ general consensus of recent days can be found on this forum then I'm sure they should be able to do so. I also think Duncan suggested that there was no way back for LM (apologies if I have this wrong) which leads me to say (using an oft-quoted phrase from Um pahars) that McMenemy is the busted flush and Corbett and Trant can use their shareholders voting rights at the AGM/EGM.

 

No doubt my comments with regard to McMenemy will inflame a few opinions and I do not belittle or refuse to recognise any of his achievements as manager of Saints. However, that was 25 years ago and for many fans who represent the long term future of this club he is just a name even though he had the opportunity to become a real legend and ambassador as Ted Bates did and for that, McMenemy. sadly only has himself to blame.

 

Any ambassador in any situation effectively has the role of the dipolmat sent overseas to represent his country. Its a role that requires skill in managing relationships, international or otherwise and requires above all else, tact. McMenemy 25 years ago was a great manager but since then he has been am awful ambassador of this club IMO and I don't understand why Crouch uses his counsel quite so much when he should be consulting the likes of Benali and Le Tissier Saints men through and through and with a greater insight into the modern game. Sorry for going off topic but I like to try at least to justify my personal opinions.

 

 

well reasoned

[Frank's cousin]

Think that is a pretty good call Nineteen. Sadly though this site has those those that cant see the difference between acknowledging KLMs historic contribution and his current 'not necessary and potentially divisive' stance being incompatible with going forward positively... its either you wthink he 'deserves' to be part of it because of his achiebvements and thats all that matters or you must be a lowe luvvie for ever daring to criticise him... FWIW, I agrre with just about everything you say in that post.

[Saint Richard of Woolston]

Wes your first paragraph is the most succint and accurate summary of the approach I would support. Given the current economic environment and therefore unlikely approach from interested investors it seems to me the only logical way forward.

 

I do have concerns that regardless of demands the board will not cede to calls for them to step aside or be involved with the recruitment of the independent replacements. Therefore, Crouch should be invited back on the board and if the 3 of them can't prove to the fanbase and eachother that they can work together to the greater good of the club then the rope they're given should be long enough to push for the longer term ideal.

 

The only caveat I would make is that this invitation to help rebuild the club's fortunes goes solely to Crouch and none of his support crew of McMenemy, Corbett and Trant. Reasons for this are that IMO the board needs to be lean in numbers and everyone must have a key and accountable role to play. I don't know what Corbett and Trant did when they were here the first time around and therefore a role this time is even more unlikely. Secondly, I think Crouch will be better for making his own decisions and without the apparent constant referral to McMenemy, if he must he can still seek his counsel in private but personally I think he would be better trusting his own instincts and thought processes.

 

LM has for too long used the media as an axe to grind against Lowe even in the good times and is the sort of lose canon we don't want rattling around the corridors of SMS whilst the other 3 attempt to repair the severe damage that they have all played their part to create. I have never doubted Crouch's credentials as a supporter and I am sure they are no less passionate than my own and for that reason I can accept Crouch could work for the greater good of the club in line with Lowe and Wilde. I honestly, don't get that impression with McMenemy and his past comments have not been made from the same 'passionate fan' angle as Crouch and therefore some of the latter's comments can be forgiven equally as some of the impassioned comments made on this forum.

 

I am concerned about Duncan's comments about the prospect of the big 3 working together but it is the only logical option to healing the rift and taking the club forward. If Duncan proves right then I suspect the 3 of them will be able to work out for themselves the independnet CEO route but it would be nice if the initial soluton could work. If common ground/ general consensus of recent days can be found on this forum then I'm sure they should be able to do so. I also think Duncan suggested that there was no way back for LM (apologies if I have this wrong) which leads me to say (using an oft-quoted phrase from Um pahars) that McMenemy is the busted flush and Corbett and Trant can use their shareholders voting rights at the AGM/EGM.

 

No doubt my comments with regard to McMenemy will inflame a few opinions and I do not belittle or refuse to recognise any of his achievements as manager of Saints. However, that was 25 years ago and for many fans who represent the long term future of this club he is just a name even though he had the opportunity to become a real legend and ambassador as Ted Bates did and for that, McMenemy. sadly only has himself to blame.

 

Any ambassador in any situation effectively has the role of the dipolmat sent overseas to represent his country. Its a role that requires skill in managing relationships, international or otherwise and requires above all else, tact. McMenemy 25 years ago was a great manager but since then he has been am awful ambassador of this club IMO and I don't understand why Crouch uses his counsel quite so much when he should be consulting the likes of Benali and Le Tissier Saints men through and through and with a greater insight into the modern game. Sorry for going off topic but I like to try at least to justify my personal opinions.

 

By far the best post I have ever read on this site. I concur completely.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

acknowledging KLMs historic contribution.

 

Of flying the Dutch here ?

 

More reasoning from those in particular camps, when the more extreme posters realise irrespective of who on the board you chose to support, we all support the same thing, Saints.

[Frank's cousin]

Of flying the Dutch here ?

 

More reasoning from those in particular camps, when the more extreme posters realise irrespective of who on the board you chose to support, we all support the same thing, Saints.

 

I suspect positively Freudian given our current managemnet... ;-)

[Wes Tender]

Wes your first paragraph is the most succint and accurate summary of the approach I would support. Given the current economic environment and therefore unlikely approach from interested investors it seems to me the only logical way forward.

 

I do have concerns that regardless of demands the board will not cede to calls for them to step aside or be involved with the recruitment of the independent replacements. Therefore, Crouch should be invited back on the board and if the 3 of them can't prove to the fanbase and eachother that they can work together to the greater good of the club then the rope they're given should be long enough to push for the longer term ideal.

 

The only caveat I would make is that this invitation to help rebuild the club's fortunes goes solely to Crouch and none of his support crew of McMenemy, Corbett and Trant. Reasons for this are that IMO the board needs to be lean in numbers and everyone must have a key and accountable role to play. I don't know what Corbett and Trant did when they were here the first time around and therefore a role this time is even more unlikely. Secondly, I think Crouch will be better for making his own decisions and without the apparent constant referral to McMenemy, if he must he can still seek his counsel in private but personally I think he would be better trusting his own instincts and thought processes.

 

LM has for too long used the media as an axe to grind against Lowe even in the good times and is the sort of lose canon we don't want rattling around the corridors of SMS whilst the other 3 attempt to repair the severe damage that they have all played their part to create. I have never doubted Crouch's credentials as a supporter and I am sure they are no less passionate than my own and for that reason I can accept Crouch could work for the greater good of the club in line with Lowe and Wilde. I honestly, don't get that impression with McMenemy and his past comments have not been made from the same 'passionate fan' angle as Crouch and therefore some of the latter's comments can be forgiven equally as some of the impassioned comments made on this forum.

 

I am concerned about Duncan's comments about the prospect of the big 3 working together but it is the only logical option to healing the rift and taking the club forward. If Duncan proves right then I suspect the 3 of them will be able to work out for themselves the independnet CEO route but it would be nice if the initial soluton could work. If common ground/ general consensus of recent days can be found on this forum then I'm sure they should be able to do so. I also think Duncan suggested that there was no way back for LM (apologies if I have this wrong) which leads me to say (using an oft-quoted phrase from Um pahars) that McMenemy is the busted flush and Corbett and Trant can use their shareholders voting rights at the AGM/EGM.

 

No doubt my comments with regard to McMenemy will inflame a few opinions and I do not belittle or refuse to recognise any of his achievements as manager of Saints. However, that was 25 years ago and for many fans who represent the long term future of this club he is just a name even though he had the opportunity to become a real legend and ambassador as Ted Bates did and for that, McMenemy. sadly only has himself to blame.

 

Any ambassador in any situation effectively has the role of the dipolmat sent overseas to represent his country. Its a role that requires skill in managing relationships, international or otherwise and requires above all else, tact. McMenemy 25 years ago was a great manager but since then he has been am awful ambassador of this club IMO and I don't understand why Crouch uses his counsel quite so much when he should be consulting the likes of Benali and Le Tissier Saints men through and through and with a greater insight into the modern game. Sorry for going off topic but I like to try at least to justify my personal opinions.

 

I regret to admit that working from the bottom of the thread and reading upwards as usual, it was a simple mistake to judge what your post might have contained from the comments made by others who would commonly fall into a different camp than the one I habitually inhabit.

 

I apologise, but the opinions have been polarised into these disunited factions in recent years and I have been guilty of that too. I cannot fault the logic and reasoning behind your post and whereas I would prefer to go straight to the campaign to oust the existing board with plan B being that they be replaced immediately, it is fair comment that you make, that the more likely scenario would be putting pressure on Lowe and Wilde to accept Crouch joining them on the board and the three major shareholders working together for the common good instead of their own personal selfish reasons.

 

As you rightly conclude, if either Lowe and Wilde refuse to allow Crouch onto the board even when the fractured fan base can unite behind the idea, we will draw our own conclusions. We can make it clear to the board that our preferred solution would be the replacement of the existing board with an independent board that precludes any shareholders, but that we recognise that we are prepared to let them remain in the interim only if they allow Crouch to join them. We will expect that they attempt to put their differences aside for the good of the club, but if they prove that they cannot make personal sacrifices and forget their past animosities, or if they allow their egos to get in the way of productive efforts, then they will have hoisted themselves on their own petards and we will campaign to rid the club of the lot of them.

 

If that seems as reasonable a viewpoint to the one that you expressed, then I believe that we have enough common ground to begin seeing whether the majority of the warring factions could unite behind that plan.

 

Until they agree to this, I remain in boycott mode.

[Gordon Mockles]

Please read the post I quoted in my original comment. I was answering a request to let the thread "RIP" and that was the context I took it in.

 

 

Ok Ponty but have you seen the length of the thread. It'd take 'til next April just to read the verbose monologue Nineteen/Sundancing spleen typed!

 

So you muddled up Lowe and Hone. Lol and then come on and sermon us about questioning the wording and events that happened. Give us a break

 

Quell surprise at Nick jumping on his high horse and not clearing the fence! LOL

 

I actually inferred I wasn't sure but "thought" I may have been muddled. It does happen Nicholas, even with my effervescent wit! We hear what we're told, people misunderstand. Still, let's not misunderstand that Rupert and Hone are still t*ssers! ;o)

 

Still, don't let it bother you so much. I may have been right first time, I may have been unnecessarily doubted myself but I chose to be humble about it. Still, feel free to personally infract me with the new "don't post unless you can back up/substantiate/reveal your source" rule on this 'internet chat forum', if you so wish!

 

People got just as excited at Duncan's comments when, really, they should probably get out a wee bit more!

Edited 26 February, 2009 by Gordon Mockles

[JohnnyFartPants]

I regret to admit that working from the bottom of the thread and reading upwards as usual, it was a simple mistake to judge what your post might have contained from the comments made by others who would commonly fall into a different camp than the one I habitually inhabit.

 

I apologise, but the opinions have been polarised into these disunited factions in recent years and I have been guilty of that too. I cannot fault the logic and reasoning behind your post and whereas I would prefer to go straight to the campaign to oust the existing board with plan B being that they be replaced immediately, it is fair comment that you make, that the more likely scenario would be putting pressure on Lowe and Wilde to accept Crouch joining them on the board and the three major shareholders working together for the common good instead of their own personal selfish reasons.

 

As you rightly conclude, if either Lowe and Wilde refuse to allow Crouch onto the board even when the fractured fan base can unite behind the idea, we will draw our own conclusions. We can make it clear to the board that our preferred solution would be the replacement of the existing board with an independent board that precludes any shareholders, but that we recognise that we are prepared to let them remain in the interim only if they allow Crouch to join them. We will expect that they attempt to put their differences aside for the good of the club, but if they prove that they cannot make personal sacrifices and forget their past animosities, or if they allow their egos to get in the way of productive efforts, then they will have hoisted themselves on their own petards and we will campaign to rid the club of the lot of them.

 

If that seems as reasonable a viewpoint to the one that you expressed, then I believe that we have enough common ground to begin seeing whether the majority of the warring factions could unite behind that plan.

 

Until they agree to this, I remain in boycott mode.

 

 

[OldNick]

Ok Ponty but have you seen the length of the thread. It'd take 'til next April just to read the verbose monologue Nineteen/Sundancing spleen typed!

 

 

 

Quell surprise at Nick jumping on his high horse and not clearing the fence! LOL

 

I actually inferred I wasn't sure but "thought" I may have been muddled. It does happen Nicholas, even with my effervescent wit! We hear what we're told, people misunderstand. Still, let's not misunderstand that Rupert and Hone are still t*ssers! ;o)

 

Still, don't let it bother you so much. I may have been right first time, I may have been unnecessarily doubted myself but I chose to be humble about it. Still, feel free to personally infract me with the new "don't post unless you can back up/substantiate/reveal your source" rule on this 'internet chat forum', if you so wish!

 

People got just as excited at Duncan's comments when, really, they should probably get out a wee bit more!

Gordon i just enjoyed you being a little uncomfortable and couldnt help myself.After all you came on so certain to back up the original claim and were very convincing as well.Just goes to show how we all can be wrong and that a wrong word in print can unfairly damage, which spookily enough is what the whole thread was about.

As for your admission of perhaps making a mistake, i for 1 respect that, as you could have easily muddled on and not admit it.

As for your wit , I must have missed that event.

[Nineteen Canteen]

I regret to admit that working from the bottom of the thread and reading upwards as usual, it was a simple mistake to judge what your post might have contained from the comments made by others who would commonly fall into a different camp than the one I habitually inhabit.

 

I apologise, but the opinions have been polarised into these disunited factions in recent years and I have been guilty of that too. I cannot fault the logic and reasoning behind your post and whereas I would prefer to go straight to the campaign to oust the existing board with plan B being that they be replaced immediately, it is fair comment that you make, that the more likely scenario would be putting pressure on Lowe and Wilde to accept Crouch joining them on the board and the three major shareholders working together for the common good instead of their own personal selfish reasons.

 

As you rightly conclude, if either Lowe and Wilde refuse to allow Crouch onto the board even when the fractured fan base can unite behind the idea, we will draw our own conclusions. We can make it clear to the board that our preferred solution would be the replacement of the existing board with an independent board that precludes any shareholders, but that we recognise that we are prepared to let them remain in the interim only if they allow Crouch to join them. We will expect that they attempt to put their differences aside for the good of the club, but if they prove that they cannot make personal sacrifices and forget their past animosities, or if they allow their egos to get in the way of productive efforts, then they will have hoisted themselves on their own petards and we will campaign to rid the club of the lot of them.

 

If that seems as reasonable a viewpoint to the one that you expressed, then I believe that we have enough common ground to begin seeing whether the majority of the warring factions could unite behind that plan.

 

Until they agree to this, I remain in boycott mode.

 

Wes, not sure what you are apologising about and personally I respect those with different views if they take the time to explain why those views are held. Unfortunately, many at the extremes in both camps rarely argue against or support a point or even acknowledge the reasoning put forward. Despite at times disagreeing with you passionately I didn't and still don't put you in the camp of the serial and extreme abuse merchants.

 

Your post summarises my position. Lowe and Wilde to invite Crouch onto the board and failure to do so would indicate to me at least that their agenda is not club focussed and the presure on them to step down would intensify and it would be difficult to criticise any future actions or protest against L&W.

 

If Crouch joined and they could work together and start to reverse the slide then that would be my preferable solution simply because it's logical and although the path of least resistance should still have a significant pay off in uniting everyone and increasing attendances whilst hopefully Crouch could balance out some of Lowe's not so great decisions. If this happened the pressure on the boycotting fans to come back would increase and their actions difficult to justify if they stayed away because Lowe was still in situ.

 

If the 3 can't work together then I think we will slide into administration as what hope is there if the major shareholders can't work together to protect their investments. God forbid the independent control turns out to be an administrator but so be it otherwise they can recruit an independent CEO to sort out their churlish squabbles but to be honest I can't see how that will play out at the moment. Lets see how it goes with inviting Crouch to the party and go from there.

 

I'm not sure your decision to remain in boycott mode is setting the right example with regard to letting go of some firmly held beliefs. We are expecting Lowe to drop his beliefs and invite Crouch and expecting the latter to forgive and forget to move forward. Shouldn't all protesters/boycotters be doing the same otherwise we are just supporting an impasse?

 

If there is a protest for the Cardiff game can I suggest they link up with the Saints Trust and march to request that Lowe and Wilde invite Crouch to join the board. This will deliver a far more positive message and something the board can act on rather than simply falling on their swords.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Ok Ponty but have you seen the length of the thread. It'd take 'til next April just to read the verbose monologue Nineteen/Sundancing spleen typed!

 

!

 

Sorry Gordon but it was only 7 relatively short paragraphs. Have you tried reading the Gruffalo? Let me know if you would like me to add some pictures to the text to help you digest what is being said or ignore my posts altogether as many do with your dumb diatribe.

 

Your sanctimonious, critical and hysterical posts, that are always delivered without an alternative workable solution smacks of a Daily Mail reader, but you can't read more than 500 words in one go so it must be the Star.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Sorry Gordon but it was only 7 relatively short paragraphs. Have you tried reading the Gruffalo? Let me know if you would like me to add some pictures to the text to help you digest what is being said or ignore my posts altogether as many do with your dumb diatribe.

 

Your sanctimonious, critical and hysterical posts, that are always delivered without an alternative workable solution smacks of a Daily Mail reader, but you can't read more than 500 words in one go so it must be the Star.

 

I actually do think you make some valid points but he does have a point. You do use 150 words where 5 would suffice.

 

Gruffalos Child is a class book.

[Pancake]

I actually do think you make some valid points but he does have a point. You do use 150 words where 5 would suffice.

 

Gruffalos Child is a class book.

 

That book could actually sum up this entire thread oh so well.

[Wes Tender]

I'm not sure your decision to remain in boycott mode is setting the right example with regard to letting go of some firmly held beliefs. We are expecting Lowe to drop his beliefs and invite Crouch and expecting the latter to forgive and forget to move forward. Shouldn't all protesters/boycotters be doing the same otherwise we are just supporting an impasse?

 

If there is a protest for the Cardiff game can I suggest they link up with the Saints Trust and march to request that Lowe and Wilde invite Crouch to join the board. This will deliver a far more positive message and something the board can act on rather than simply falling on their swords.

 

I agree entirely with what you wrote above this, but just to clarify my stance on the boycott...

 

Yes, we are expecting Lowe and Wilde to show some humility and invite Crouch onto the board to unite various strands of the fan base. So when they achieve that, I will return. Until then, I take the more entrenched view that quite possibly very many others hold and who are adopting a similar position to me, thereby applying pressure on them to take this action in order to get us back on board.

 

I feel that as they themselves are the obstacle to the return of many fans, they should show some sign that they are willing to explore these avenues first, as an indication that they are willing to put their differences aside.

 

Whether I buy tickets for my son and me or not, nobody really knows except from the attendance figures which vary anyway depending on who we are playing, results etc. All that is fairly conclusive is that attendances have fallen massively compared to most other clubs and that this sort of initiative could go some way to restoring and redressing the situation. Let them give us some sort of indication that they will hold out the olive branch to each other before they expect us to make the first move.

 

As for the march if there is one, then I'm happy that the theme should be that we want the three major shareholders to work together and that if they can't, we want all of them gone. Trouble is, how do we get that message across to them?

[jonah]

Have you noticed how Gruffalo rhymes with Lowe? I don't think it's a coincidence (those who have read it will understand).

 

I don't agree with 19Cafe about Crouch's presence on the board being the only acceptable outcome of the 3 working together - yes Crouch should have representation at board level (as Lowe should have had for the last 2 years), but if there are personal conflicts these would be reduced by Crouch proposing someone else to represent his views at board level. As a club we have continually matched personal shareholding with personal representation on the board and I think that accentuates the personal conflicts unnecessarily. As someone else said on another thread, if major shareholders were always entitled to a place on the board then hedge fund managers would have a hundred board meeting per week.

[Wes Tender]

 

Kind of you to post a picture of yourself, Johnny. Now it all fits.

[SFC Forever]

I am totally nonplussed by the friendly arrival, after some lengthy discussion, at what appears an extremely logical solution. If the big three could be persuaded to work together it could possibly be the biggest turnaround in our recent history.

Might I suggest that it could be an advantage to have two other places on the board. This to keep the sides balanced if you like. One could be a CEO and the other the person in charge of daily monetary affairs. It would ease any suspicion that 2 against 1 would always end with the same parties getting their way.

However that is by the by. A good discussion with a most sensible arrival at something which could actually unite us, the fan base, at this troubled time.

[Wes Tender]

Have you noticed how Gruffalo rhymes with Lowe? I don't think it's a coincidence (those who have read it will understand).

 

I don't agree with 19Cafe about Crouch's presence on the board being the only acceptable outcome of the 3 working together - yes Crouch should have representation at board level (as Lowe should have had for the last 2 years), but if there are personal conflicts these would be reduced by Crouch proposing someone else to represent his views at board level. As a club we have continually matched personal shareholding with personal representation on the board and I think that accentuates the personal conflicts unnecessarily. As someone else said on another thread, if major shareholders were always entitled to a place on the board then hedge fund managers would have a hundred board meeting per week.

 

You're missing the point entirely. Crouch's shareholding is bigger than Lowe's, so why shouldn't Lowe leave and have his shareholding represented by others, say Cowan for example? Even better still, have none of them on the board but independent board members running the club, appointed by a panel of the major shareholders to represent their interests.

 

We're approaching this from the perspective that if there is difficulty in getting them all to go, then the halfway house is to have the three working together. You don't agree that that would be an acceptable compromise?

[SFC Forever]

The only question I have for Jonah's idea is who would pay the wages of the selected replacements for the arbitrators?

[um pahars]

Have you noticed how Gruffalo rhymes with Lowe? I don't think it's a coincidence (those who have read it will understand).

 

I don't agree with 19Cafe about Crouch's presence on the board being the only acceptable outcome of the 3 working together - yes Crouch should have representation at board level (as Lowe should have had for the last 2 years), but if there are personal conflicts these would be reduced by Crouch proposing someone else to represent his views at board level. As a club we have continually matched personal shareholding with personal representation on the board and I think that accentuates the personal conflicts unnecessarily. As someone else said on another thread, if major shareholders were always entitled to a place on the board then hedge fund managers would have a hundred board meeting per week.

 

Or alternatively the personal conflicts (and much wider supporter issues) could be reduced if someone from the Lowe cabal, other than Lowe himself, represented that group's interest, then again we already have Cowen on board, but if there 25%(ish) is deemed to be worthy of two places, then how about Cowen and Richards.

 

A compromise all round.

 

Having Crouch on the Board may solve certain problems (having him on the inside ****ing out etc etc etc), but for me it does not solve the fundamental problem of the CEO/day to day operational position.

 

Lowe's decision making has once again been found wanting this season and IMHO to move forward we need someone in that role who can take us forward. On too many major decisions he has made the wrong call, simple as that.

 

I note your line on another thread about not being able to afford it, particularly as the current set up is cheaper, but as we have found out to our cost too often with regards footballing matters, you often get what you pay for.

 

I understand Lowe is salaried for two days a week, so if the problem is 3 days salary for someone to take the lead, then I think it might well be a false economy to pass that by. Not only in terms of getting in someone who doesn't make as many cck ups and alienates the fanbase, but I also think this Club is worthy of a full time CEO and not the 2 days a week lip service it would appear ot receive at the moment (and missing games etc etc etc).

 

And you also note that the last time we went down this route it ended in failure, well I'm not sure that I would let a prior failure (worth an argument in there in itself!) get in the way of trying to get it right this time.

 

After all, we failed when we didn't replace Wigley correctly, but I don't remember too many people saying "stick with Poortvliet because we got the Wigley appointment wrong"!!!!!

 

In a spirit of unity I would get Crouch on board until the end of the season. I would also start the search for a CEO and/or an Independent Chairman at the same time. Lowe can then step down from both in the close season and the only argument is whether he stays as a Non Exec, or whether Richards takes his place.

Edited 26 February, 2009 by um pahars

[CanadaSaint]

I am totally nonplussed by the friendly arrival, after some lengthy discussion, at what appears an extremely logical solution. If the big three could be persuaded to work together it could possibly be the biggest turnaround in our recent history.

Might I suggest that it could be an advantage to have two other places on the board. This to keep the sides balanced if you like. One could be a CEO and the other the person in charge of daily monetary affairs. It would ease any suspicion that 2 against 1 would always end with the same parties getting their way.

However that is by the by. A good discussion with a most sensible arrival at something which could actually unite us, the fan base, at this troubled time.

 

It is so blindingly frustrating that multiple posters have been urging the Big 3 to park their differences for the good of the club for - what is it, over two years?

 

As much as I'd like to see it happen I don't think it will. And even if it does it will result in more of the kind of ego-based infantile bickering that has brought us to where we are. Only a high-calibre intermediary director could prevent that, but how do they find someone acceptable to all three? And who'd be nuts enough to do take it on? And so the bull**** continues.

 

Unless all of them (not just one) can lose some arrogance and find some humility and intelligence we're heading for administration.

[um pahars]

hopefully Crouch could balance out some of Lowe's not so great decisions.

 

Why the sea change with regards Crouch?

 

In your current and previous guises you have been hyper critical, abusive and extremely vitriolic, so just taken aback by your u-turn (or shall we say you're being amenable, diplomatic or pragmatic today?).

 

IMHO, unless there is real change which involves either an independent & tasked CEO and/or Chairman replacing Lowe with reagrds the day to day running of the Club, then I wonder what appointing Crouch would achieve, as the key decision maker would still be in situ backed up by Cowen & Jones to give him control.

[SFC Forever]

We have now to decide on the manner of protest or reaction to them ignoring our overtures. If that is how they react. If an impasse ios reached we should try a similar thread to find the way forward by general consensus. By similar I mean constructive.

[Wes Tender]

We have now to decide on the manner of protest or reaction to them ignoring our overtures. If that is how they react. If an impasse ios reached we should try a similar thread to find the way forward by general consensus. By similar I mean constructive.

 

Agreed. Although it is indicative that there is some broad agreement between ourselves as to how the club might move forward under a united fan base if the board were to agree to these proposals, we really could do with it being a separate thread with a poll attached. If there is indeed widespread agreement from most of us, then we have something concrete to put before the board as the price they need to pay if they wish to have our continued support.