Pancake Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Gruffalos Child is a class book. Just for Johnny. The Lunatic Fringe said that poster should, Ever say Lowe was ever any good. "Why not, why not?" "Because if you do, we shall make a Luvvie of you! I read about him once, that fellow Lowe. I read it a long long time ago" "What is he like, tell us please, does he make female shareholders fall to their knees?" "Im not really sure" said Fringe did say "Im only relying on rumour and hearsay... He lines his pockets with the club's cash and sacks the managers as quick as a flash. He has horns of the devil upon his head and his ruddy cheeks are a rosey red!" One lonely night when all the Fringe snored, the new forum poster was feeling bored, the new forum poster was feeling contrary, so he took a trip down to old St Mary's Aha alrigoht, a man in sight, who is this man with cheeks so bright? His cheeks looked red as if they could glow, could these be the cheeks of the devil called Lowe? Out walked the man, he cheeks were just pink and he had no cash in his pockets to clink. "You're not Lowe!" "Not I" said Wilde "He further inside eating a child!" The night was dark and Wilde did bore him, so on into the stadium went the poster of the forum. Aha alright, a chap in sight, who is this chap st SMS at night? The sound of cash in the wind did blow, was this the cash in the pockets of Lowe? Along came the chap, he had little cash, and he no horns just grey hair and a tash. "You're not Lowe" "Not I" said the director "He's up the stairs beating up a defector" The night was dark with a chill in the air, the Saints Web Poster walked up the stairs. Aha alright, a fellow in sight, who si the fellow up here in the light? Two telltale horns were on his head, Was this Lowe the Beast glowing in red? Forward came the fellow, not horns at all, just holding a club crest to be hung in the hall. "You're not Lowe" "Not I" said the decorator "he was hear earlier and will be here later" "It's all a trick" said the Saints Web user, As he walked through reception on the way to the boozer "I dont believe in the Beast called Lowe... But here comes a posh bloke, walking all slow! No horn, no cash, but Lowe is my hunch! This is the Lowe that I want to punch!" "Wait!" said Lowe "Before you wade in, A twin of mine will be along in a min. If you'll let me walk up one level, My twin will come and he is the devil! The Saints Web poster unclenched his fist "So the Beast called Lowe, he does exist!" Lowe walk up stairwell three He beckoned, then said "Just wait and see" On came the spotlights, all dazzling and bright And a terrible shadow gave the poster a fright! Who is the Beast so big bad and funny The shadow show pockets bulging with money! On top of his head two horns are alive and he carries with him a managers P45! "The Beast called Lowe" the poster did yell And he turned on the sport and ran like hell "Aha Oho" said posh bloke Lowe Who was that poster and where did he go? The poster was glad it was just a close shave Now back online the poster was brave "Lowe is the devil" the poster implored and the poster was ignore, ignored, ignored... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Very good, Pancake. But couldn't the snake in the grass have been Wilde, the Owl, Wiseman and the wily old fox, Askham? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Very good, Pancake. But couldn't the snake in the grass have been Wilde, the Owl, Wiseman and the wily old fox, Askham? Very good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 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 don't disagree - there is a lot of common sense here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Am I the only poster that believes the makeup of the board means naff all in the grand scheme of things, when compared with the makeup of the team?? Crouch coming back would not win the team an extra throw in between now and the end of the season, nor would Lowe leaving... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Am I the only poster that believes the makeup of the board means naff all in the grand scheme of things, when compared with the makeup of the team?? Crouch coming back would not win the team an extra throw in between now and the end of the season, nor would Lowe leaving... A truce/ceasefire in the boardroom MAY lead to the same in the fanbase and persuade the stayaway fans or at least some of them, to get back inside the stadium and support the team. In turn a more positive atmosphere should help the teams performance (in theory). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOTONS EAST SIDE Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Am I the only poster that believes the makeup of the board means naff all in the grand scheme of things, when compared with the makeup of the team?? Crouch coming back would not win the team an extra throw in between now and the end of the season, nor would Lowe leaving...Proberly not now! but this situation has come about because of Lowe/Wilde and to some extent Crouch! But if we go into Admin and i stress "IF" then there can be only blame laid at the door of Lowe & Wilde. They turned down Crouch's offer to put £2m each in , but they either couldn't or wouldn't, then told Crouch to put in the £6m and they'd walk away but still hold on to their shares and the power to remove Crouch whenever they want! Ferking Slimebags they are. And their the quality of people running Saints at the mo! GOD HELP US!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 A truce/ceasefire in the boardroom MAY lead to the same in the fanbase and persuade the stayaway fans or at least some of them, to get back inside the stadium and support the team. In turn a more positive atmosphere should help the teams performance (in theory). I don't believe that for a minute. The loudmouth's on this forum and elsewhere "boycott" the games because we are a losing team in the Championship. Any claims about a noble war for the soul of the club, true fans fighting against the composition of the board of directors are lies.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Am I the only poster that believes the makeup of the board means naff all in the grand scheme of things, when compared with the makeup of the team?? Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wopper Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 You have to wonder if the pair of spivs are trying to stitch Crouchie up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 You have to wonder if the pair of spivs are trying to stitch Crouchie up. LOL, it did cross my mind. Invite him back, but make it so impossible for him to accept, or make it so unbearable when he's on board that it never happens, or lasts. There has to be something tangibly different for it to be worthwhile. In the short term unity, spirit and togetherness, after that something to ensure we don't keep making these stupid mistakes!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Am I the only poster that believes the makeup of the board means naff all in the grand scheme of things, when compared with the makeup of the team?? Crouch coming back would not win the team an extra throw in between now and the end of the season, nor would Lowe leaving... Are you being serious here ? Can you name me another club that has gone the Dutch route? Do you really believe we would have jettisoned ALL our main strikers at the start of the season in favour of an all youth policy had we had an independant CEO like we should of done. You are either trying to misdirect attention away from the real problems at the club or trying to re-write history or being blinkered or provocative. I know where my money lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Are you being serious here ? Can you name me another club that has gone the Dutch route? Do you really believe we would have jettisoned ALL our main strikers at the start of the season in favour of an all youth policy had we had an independant CEO like we should of done. You are either trying to misdirect attention away from the real problems at the club or trying to re-write history or being blinkered or provocative. I know where my money lies. There are plenty of other clubs who have made even bigger mistakes or are suffering worse than us. Charlton might not have gone down "the Dutch route" but they have had a quicker decline than we have for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 There are plenty of other clubs who have made even bigger mistakes or are suffering worse than us. Charlton might not have gone down "the Dutch route" but they have had a quicker decline than we have for example. How many have loaned out their 3 main goalscorers yet brought in 4 Dutchmen to run things, bought in 6 abysmal loans yet had no money....of course none of this had anything to do with the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 How many have loaned out their 3 main goalscorers yet brought in 4 Dutchmen to run things, bought in 6 abysmal loans yet had no money....of course none of this had anything to do with the board. I can't tell you where all of the many other clubs have gone wrong, but I bet their fans could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Saint Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 I have been physically intimidated by David Speedie and Kerry Dixon. They are nasty boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 I can't tell you where all of the many other clubs have gone wrong, but I bet their fans could. especially Charltons ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 27 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 February, 2009 I find it funny how we have suddenly reached a point where "peace and compromise for the club" is now synonymous with "Crouch getting a place on the board"! Where did that come from? Why, for the sake of peace and compromise, can't Crouch leave it alone for the rest of the season - as GM says, him being on the board won't win us any extra throw-ins. To address the question of why Lowe shouldn't step down in the name of "compromise" - either to be replaced with a proposed representative or completely - well that's not compromise, that's getting your own way. It doesn't matter if Crouch holds more shares, the majority of shareholders have put Lowe and Cowen in charge - if my shareholding in an oil company becomes the largest, do you think I can demand a place on the board and demand they start digging for gold? It's not carte blanche for setting the company's direction. He really can bleat about it til the cows come home but that's how it is. Of course there were no calls over the last 2 years for compromise and how it would be best if Wilde and Crouch brought Lowe back onto the board was there? I think the general "let's all just shut up til the season is finished" sentiment has been rapidly seized upon and twisted by the usual suspects into an excuse to get their own way in the name of harmony and compromise - the only true way to do that is to leave it all alone until May for a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 I find it funny how we have suddenly reached a point where "peace and compromise for the club" is now synonymous with "Crouch getting a place on the board"! Where did that come from? Why, for the sake of peace and compromise, can't Crouch leave it alone for the rest of the season - as GM says, him being on the board won't win us any extra throw-ins. To address the question of why Lowe shouldn't step down in the name of "compromise" - either to be replaced with a proposed representative or completely - well that's not compromise, that's getting your own way. It doesn't matter if Crouch holds more shares, the majority of shareholders have put Lowe and Cowen in charge - if my shareholding in an oil company becomes the largest, do you think I can demand a place on the board and demand they start digging for gold? It's not carte blanche for setting the company's direction. He really can bleat about it til the cows come home but that's how it is. Of course there were no calls over the last 2 years for compromise and how it would be best if Wilde and Crouch brought Lowe back onto the board was there? I think the general "let's all just shut up til the season is finished" sentiment has been rapidly seized upon and twisted by the usual suspects into an excuse to get their own way in the name of harmony and compromise - the only true way to do that is to leave it all alone until May for a start. Yep keep quiet at an important time just like Lowe and Wilde did last season you mean...If you dont think there were calls for compromise in the last 2 years you are like others on here in the Lowe camp trying to rewrite history. Some of us have been asking for the 3 to work together for an independant CEO since the time this all kicked off but that doesn't suit your pro-Lowe agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Yep keep quiet at an important time just like Lowe and Wilde did last season you mean...If you dont think there were calls for compromise in the last 2 years you are like others on here in the Lowe camp trying to rewrite history. Some of us have been asking for the 3 to work together for an independant CEO since the time this all kicked off but that doesn't suit your pro-Lowe agenda. I think he has a point in that right now it wont do anyone any good for any of the main 3 to be calling for change. (same situation last season IMO) But where Crouch gets more of my respect than he has had before is where he states that right now thats not what we should be concentrating on and focus should be on survival in the CCC. If they can get together and form a united board that agree on amway forward IMO that is our best chance of doing anything, and that includes survival/promotion/takeover. I cant see a proper way forward with any one of them on the outside sniping so fair play to Crouch for handleing it better than he has in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 I find it funny how we have suddenly reached a point where "peace and compromise for the club" is now synonymous with "Crouch getting a place on the board"! Where did that come from? Why, for the sake of peace and compromise, can't Crouch leave it alone for the rest of the season - as GM says, him being on the board won't win us any extra throw-ins. To address the question of why Lowe shouldn't step down in the name of "compromise" - either to be replaced with a proposed representative or completely - well that's not compromise, that's getting your own way. It doesn't matter if Crouch holds more shares, the majority of shareholders have put Lowe and Cowen in charge - if my shareholding in an oil company becomes the largest, do you think I can demand a place on the board and demand they start digging for gold? It's not carte blanche for setting the company's direction. He really can bleat about it til the cows come home but that's how it is. Of course there were no calls over the last 2 years for compromise and how it would be best if Wilde and Crouch brought Lowe back onto the board was there? I think the general "let's all just shut up til the season is finished" sentiment has been rapidly seized upon and twisted by the usual suspects into an excuse to get their own way in the name of harmony and compromise - the only true way to do that is to leave it all alone until May for a start. The only way that harmony would break out and incidentally the solution probably with the greatest degree of support amongst the fan base, is the complete removal of the entire board and its replacement with an independent board comprising no shareholders at all. Let's have your views on that as an alternative. Or do you really believe that Lowe and the Quisling are the best people to bring unity and harmony to the board? I'm assuming that in some twisted way, your metaphor of "more throw-ins" means better play from the team. Presumably you therefore cannot make the connection between the board being taken over by Lowe and the Quisling's return and the resultant decline in the team's fortunes following the board's policies of getting rid of a decent manager, replacing him with inexperienced foreigners, loaning out our top strikers, playing kids, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 I think he has a point in that right now it wont do anyone any good for any of the main 3 to be calling for change. (same situation last season IMO) But where Crouch gets more of my respect than he has had before is where he states that right now thats not what we should be concentrating on and focus should be on survival in the CCC. If they can get together and form a united board that agree on amway forward IMO that is our best chance of doing anything, and that includes survival/promotion/takeover. I cant see a proper way forward with any one of them on the outside sniping so fair play to Crouch for handleing it better than he has in the past. But as far as I can see it the main problem is this board and the previous ones are not fit to run this club. How many mistakes have they made in the last 4 years? How many mistakes have there been this season.....JP, Webster and Hockaday on gardening leave a good use of limited money, 6 pathetic loans, 4 Dutchmen here at loggerheads with each other rather than a Total Football(I hate that statement) now it seems abandoning the policies we have had for 3/4 of the season when 90% of the fanbase have been saying it all season. Crouch made mistakes especially with Dodd and Gorman and I am not advocating him back in charge at all and I still want an independant CEO to run this club properly now while there is still time. Given all the problems this lot have caused especailly Wilde do you trust them to see us through an Administration if god forbid that awful event happens? All this lot will do is look after number one and not whats best for the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 How about this....Crouch leaves Lowe and Wilde to it. That way, if it continues to go tits up, then he can come in on a white charger and save the day.... Leon, do to them what they did to you mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Are you being serious here ? Can you name me another club that has gone the Dutch route? Do you really believe we would have jettisoned ALL our main strikers at the start of the season in favour of an all youth policy had we had an independant CEO like we should of done. You are either trying to misdirect attention away from the real problems at the club or trying to re-write history or being blinkered or provocative. I know where my money lies.The EGM was held a few weeks ago when there was an opportunity to remove the incumbent board. The transfer window closed a few weeks ago, when there was an opportunity to add/subtract from the playing squad. By all means pi ss and complain with the rest of the bunch, but don't try and tell me what our "real" problems are the moment. To anyone with half a brain, they are what goes on in the 90+ minutes of the games we are to play between now and the rest of the season. Or, let's put it this way....during the evacuation of Dunkirk, calling for a General Election would not have been high on my list of priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 27 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 February, 2009 The only way that harmony would break out and incidentally the solution probably with the greatest degree of support amongst the fan base, is the complete removal of the entire board and its replacement with an independent board comprising no shareholders at all. Let's have your views on that as an alternative. Or do you really believe that Lowe and the Quisling are the best people to bring unity and harmony to the board? Wes, did you bunk school on the day they did reading? I have said before that I don't have a problem with Lowe leaving, and I have said for 3 years that I don't want Wilde involved at all. However, what I am saying (and Crouch too apparently to be fair) is that this is not the time to worry about it - why can't everyone just shut up about the boardroom and concentrate on the team... that's what being a fan used to be about. Nowadays you have a bunch of kids and people who probably aren't allowed sharp instruments trying to dictate how a PLC boardroom should be run. As for replacing the board with no shareholders at all, that is just plain daft - how can you have people running the club with no aligned interests? Show me a company where the board don't hold shares and I'll show you a disaster with people like Hone, Dulieu, Oldknow and Hoos taking their cash and running the company for the chance of a juicy takeover bonus. But I bet you can't find a listed company like that anyway. What does matter is the level of personal influence... hence why I think they should all sell down their holdings below 3% each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Wes, did you bunk school on the day they did reading? I have said before that I don't have a problem with Lowe leaving, and I have said for 3 years that I don't want Wilde involved at all. However, what I am saying (and Crouch too apparently to be fair) is that this is not the time to worry about it - why can't everyone just shut up about the boardroom and concentrate on the team... that's what being a fan used to be about. Nowadays you have a bunch of kids and people who probably aren't allowed sharp instruments trying to dictate how a PLC boardroom should be run. As for replacing the board with no shareholders at all, that is just plain daft - how can you have people running the club with no aligned interests? Show me a company where the board don't hold shares and I'll show you a disaster with people like Hone, Dulieu, Oldknow and Hoos taking their cash and running the company for the chance of a juicy takeover bonus. But I bet you can't find a listed company like that anyway. What does matter is the level of personal influence... hence why I think they should all sell down their holdings below 3% each. Yep, some can't name eleven players, yet can name all the directors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 But as far as I can see it the main problem is this board and the previous ones are not fit to run this club. How many mistakes have they made in the last 4 years? How many mistakes have there been this season.....JP, Webster and Hockaday on gardening leave a good use of limited money, 6 pathetic loans, 4 Dutchmen here at loggerheads with each other rather than a Total Football(I hate that statement) now it seems abandoning the policies we have had for 3/4 of the season when 90% of the fanbase have been saying it all season. Crouch made mistakes especially with Dodd and Gorman and I am not advocating him back in charge at all and I still want an independant CEO to run this club properly now while there is still time. Given all the problems this lot have caused especailly Wilde do you trust them to see us through an Administration if god forbid that awful event happens? All this lot will do is look after number one and not whats best for the club. I know what you mean and I think the best future is one without any of the current shareholders around. But I dont think all of them stepping aside to have a shareholder free board run things will work either. We had that for a short time before after Wilde messed things up. Whilst all of them being on the board is by no means ideal, IMO it is still the best plan available if we want to make things easier to get the club moving forward and ultimatly taken over. The current 2 on 1 off situation will always run into problems as il the 2 agree to a possible buyer/investor the 1 on the outside seems to always object and visa versa. This means anyone looking at buying/investing knows they have to deal with a split shareholding and as such are almost definitley fighting a losing battle. If all 3 are on the board and pulling in the same direction and following a plan they all agree on then anyone looking at buying/investing surley have a head start as they already have the ear of all the main shareholders? i dont see how that is not a positive compared to everything else we have had served up over the last god knows how many years? As far as the dutch experiment goes, I have said before I think it is a generally good idea and IF it works it could be very good for our club. The problem is the ingredients needed to make it work were not right. A mix of players and staff that didnt fit right so it rightly has had problems. This is not a problem that is specially set aside for the Dutch Total Football as we have had the same problems using the British way for years. Sometimes when its right we get success. Other times when we get it wrong we fail. each to vairying degrees. Every year clubs go up and down in each division and every year there is a club in both the up and down that have tried to do the same setup/system. Derby went up using the good old British set up and came down the following year using the very same system. In fact im pretty sure they swapped places with a team or 2 using the same system so just because 3/4 of a season the Dutch way has failed it doesnt mean it is not able to work with a different mix of staff or focus. If we can survive this year then I would still support the Dutch Experiment next season although a better blend between our youth and experience is needed than JP tried. But Wotte seems to be doing that and I think the emphasis is still on fast passing football rather than hit and hope journy men. We shall see if th 3 main shareholder can all end up on the board and agreeing on anything though. 1 of the reasons there seem to be unity between Lowe and Wilde is probably because Wilde is never here. With Lowe and Crouch walking round SMS I doubt there would be as much harmony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Wes, did you bunk school on the day they did reading? I have said before that I don't have a problem with Lowe leaving, and I have said for 3 years that I don't want Wilde involved at all. However, what I am saying (and Crouch too apparently to be fair) is that this is not the time to worry about it - why can't everyone just shut up about the boardroom and concentrate on the team... that's what being a fan used to be about. Nowadays you have a bunch of kids and people who probably aren't allowed sharp instruments trying to dictate how a PLC boardroom should be run. As for replacing the board with no shareholders at all, that is just plain daft - how can you have people running the club with no aligned interests? Show me a company where the board don't hold shares and I'll show you a disaster with people like Hone, Dulieu, Oldknow and Hoos taking their cash and running the company for the chance of a juicy takeover bonus. But I bet you can't find a listed company like that anyway. What does matter is the level of personal influence... hence why I think they should all sell down their holdings below 3% each. How are we to take the opinions of somebody seriously if they can produce a statement like the one I have highlighted in their very first sentence? I don't know where you received your education, but in my case and probably in the case of everybody else on this forum, reading was not taught on just one day. I am not too arrogant as to admit that I am still learning the odd thing or two about reading all these years later, but you apparently had your one day and learned everything there was to know. I realise that you were using hyperbole in a vain attempt to disparage my views, but I'm sure that most will realise that if you can't come out with something better than that, something so full of holes, then it will reflect on your further opinions. You infer that if a club is run by a board with no shareholding at all, that they would only operate it through self-interest, but personally I would have no concerns with the board being rewarded with a bonus for finding a juicy takeover, whereas presumably you would. Do you do your job out of self-interest, or for the pay? These independent directors would be paid employees of the club, just as you are a paid employee of your company. Where is the difference? Most accept that a takeover by somebody with serious money to invest in the club would be the perfect solution to our troubles, especially as they would rid the club of the current charlatans by buying their shares. And many board members gain shares in their company as a form of remuneration, which explains why there are few companies where board members do not hold shares. But I would love to see you present a cogent case that a company would be run more efficiently if the directors hold shares in it than one with directors holding no shares. Conversely to your argument,there are good examples aplenty of companies where the directors hold shares and have been a disaster. We don't have to look far, do we? Our club is the classic example where the internecine warfare between the various egos with shares has brought the club virtually to the brink of bankruptcy. As for your statement that we have a load of kids and people who shouldn't be allowed sharp instruments dictating who should run the PLC, if one ignores the insulting disparagement of anybody who happens not to like the current incumbents, what you are talking about in essence, is the customers of the PLC. What arrogance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 [*]The EGM was held a few weeks ago when there was an opportunity to remove the incumbent board. Wasn't it an AGM? Correct me if I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Isn't it about time we put Mary to bed and focussed on a rather important match tomorrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 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. My personal opinion of Crouch hasn't changed but having the more relevant arguments for and against it seemed to me the most logical and readily achiveable solution to shore the club up in the short term and promote some unity. Isn't life all about compromise? I wasn't prepared to let my personal opinions about an individual get in the way of my passionate desire to see this club turn its fortunes around. If the 3 major shareholders cannot work together then surely a fully independent board will be the only way forward but not before i expect a lot of blood letting and unless you're a shareholder all you will be able to do is protest or boycott. If all 3 given the opportunity cannot work together for the club and its fans and put aside their personal agendas then I would willingly boycott or protest and belive me that really hurts me to say that as I believe a fan should support good and bad but this would drop off the scale of selfish incompetence. IMO I don't think that will happen as all 3 of them have something to prove to us all and I want them to deliver. I would give Crouch the Football Chairman role as that is what he has indicated he would want to concentrate on. Jones is a chameleon based on past form and iMo would cast a vote to suit himself not out of loyalty and Cowen IMO is an important cog. If Crouch can bring someone of the calibre of Cowen then ok but Corbett, Trant and McMenemy don't meet the standard. It's more a case of what do we do with Wilde. As he is a non-resident perhaps he should have a non-exec role and make sure teh other two act in the best interests of the club, I don't know and prepared to listen to ideas. However, we don't want to go back to the days of more directors than players. Everyone must have a key and fully accountable role and personally I don't think its necessary as its paranoid to suggest Lowe will have more support and it will simply be in his interests to find and agree on the common ground. For example, with the 3 in situ we could have ended up with the Dutch experiment but without a manager of limited experience as JP. It seems Wotte didn't want the job initially but that maybe just good diplomacy on his part and Lowe preferred JP, Crouch may have pushed for Wotte. At least Crouch will be there to challenge Lowe and vice versa and hopefully we shall get some more rounded decisions as a result. So no sea-change over Crouch and if it came down to a straight choice between the 2 then I'd side with Lowe as the lesser of two evils but hopefully two evils in this case will make a right. I think we have to accept that those with more extreme views will not be happy until Lowe if removed but no amount of protest and moaning is going to make that happen legally, this at least is a positive action and not so readily dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Wasn't it an AGM? Correct me if I'm wrong. It was the AGM...sorry.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 27 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 February, 2009 These independent directors would be paid employees of the club, just as you are a paid employee of your company. Where is the difference? I am a Director of my own companies because I want a say in how they are run (and because I own them of course) - however, I think you need to turn the question around to see why there is a difference. For someone to have the legal duties and responsibilities of being a Director of a company, do you want that person to believe in the future of the company and be tied to it, or do you just want them to be paid and have their interest aligned solely to their bank balance? To use a current analogy, would you have preferred Investment Bank execs to have been paid massive bonuses in cash or in shares? Whilst Fred Goodwin keeps his massive cash pot despite RBS losing £24bn, I bet RBS shareholders wish he had his interests more closely aligned to theirs. When Lehmans went bust their execs lost nearly all their wealth as they were tied up in shares - that focuses the mind (though obviously not enough in their cases, LOL). The scales are different of course, but just having paid employees running Saints leaves us open to peope like Hone who focus more on their potential financial rewards than the future good of the company itself. Besides all that, it is unworkable to suggest there is no representation on the board from major shareholders. That has to be there in some form, and if it's just a case of someone representing their views who happens not to personally hold shares well that's a bit of a sham - they really would be the shareholder by proxy, or a "puppet" to use a popular phrase here. Our club is the classic example where the internecine warfare between the various egos with shares has brought the club virtually to the brink of bankruptcy. Only in the last few years. When there was general contentment with progress ofthe club, nobody said a word really. It's only now that the main parties *disagree* on points of action that we have this problem - if we were run by a bunch of paid execs with no shares, how would this change? Those same shareholders would still be at loggerheads demanding how they each think the paid execs should run the company... same problems, only pushing the dissent down a level - that helps in a way, but is a logistical nightmare when as we've seen you can end up with the paid execs deciding to use their majority votes to do what the hell they want. Back to Hone and Co - why listen to the shareholders when there's a chance to earn big bucks flogging the company and ignoring the financial predicament.. it's just a job, right? As for your statement that we have a load of kids and people who shouldn't be allowed sharp instruments dictating who should run the PLC, if one ignores the insulting disparagement of anybody who happens not to like the current incumbents, what you are talking about in essence, is the customers of the PLC. What arrogance! Wes, did you bunk school the day they did having a sense of humour? It's not arrogance at all, it's the way football clubs ran for a hundred years. Nobody gave a toss who ran the club when Lawrie got us relegated in 74, nobody praised the board when we won the Cup in 76, nobody showed the slightest interest in dodgy share purchases in the 70s - people followed Saints to watch 11 men kick a ball. I don't expect my kids to dictate who runs Toys'R'Us just because they are customers - yes it's a bit different being a football club, but up until the 90s nobody cared about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 ... I would give Crouch the Football Chairman role as that is what he has indicated he would want to concentrate on. Jones is a chameleon based on past form and iMo would cast a vote to suit himself not out of loyalty and Cowen IMO is an important cog. If Crouch can bring someone of the calibre of Cowen then ok but Corbett, Trant and McMenemy don't meet the standard. It's more a case of what do we do with Wilde. As he is a non-resident perhaps he should have a non-exec role and make sure teh other two act in the best interests of the club, I don't know and prepared to listen to ideas. ... I agree with the sentiments you have expressed NC but I feel they are possibly too romantic in that history seems to have proven these 3 cannot work together. In your example above you propose Crouch as FC but I guess this would put him in a submersive role to that of the PLC Chairman and therefore when push comes to shove the PLC Chairman would have the final say-so / vote. It would be good to think all 3 could come back and redress some of the wrong-doings that our club has suffered in recent years but do you think it's a workable scenario in practical terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 I agree with the sentiments you have expressed NC but I feel they are possibly too romantic in that history seems to have proven these 3 cannot work together. In your example above you propose Crouch as FC but I guess this would put him in a submersive role to that of the PLC Chairman and therefore when push comes to shove the PLC Chairman would have the final say-so / vote. It would be good to think all 3 could come back and redress some of the wrong-doings that our club has suffered in recent years but do you think it's a workable scenario in practical terms?I dont think the 3 can work together.MW has taken a back seat and left RL to run things IMO.The problem is when you have people who are used to getting their way, when they have to take a different route they would have gone and so it gets diluted.RL I believe has come back and decided sink or swim to go his way ashe will get the blame anyway. If he fails then perhaps LC will get his way again and we will also be helpless to our fate.Running any business by committee is a nonsense, we have to have 1 person basically running things, but with a strong second in command who will keep things from getting out of hand, whether we have that is a different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 I dont think the 3 can work together.MW has taken a back seat and left RL to run things IMO.The problem is when you have people who are used to getting their way, when they have to take a different route they would have gone and so it gets diluted.RL I believe has come back and decided sink or swim to go his way ashe will get the blame anyway. If he fails then perhaps LC will get his way again and we will also be helpless to our fate.Running any business by committee is a nonsense, we have to have 1 person basically running things, but with a strong second in command who will keep things from getting out of hand, whether we have that is a different matter. Pretty much how I see it Nick. We are where we are (rightly or wrongly) and this stage of the season is not the time for the unwanted distraction of a sideshow of ego's. Let's hope by hook or by crook we can maintain our CCC status and this whole sorry mess can be sorted out once and for all when the season has finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Jonah, It is undoubtedly as easy to pick examples of businesses that are being run successfully by salaried employees as it is to pick examples of those being run successfully by shareholders on the board. The example of banks and finance houses is not very representative at the present time and they are the main cause of the financial pressures that have been applied to myriad other types of business as a result of their incompetence. Making comparisons with the previous boards that have run this club historically is a difficult exercise and circumstantial changes have rendered the comparison more difficult over time. Traditionally, the club had a board comprising the great and the good amongst local businessmen, people who ran the club out of almost a sense of civic duty. They were able to buy their shares for a nominal amount of £1 each and that was pretty well what they were worth, so that Askham had a major shareholding costing him just £3500, a sum that most of us could afford to pay. The great sea change came with the reverse takeover and it was at that time when the supposed great and good changed into people prepared to ditch their honour and good principles and take a path deemed by many as immoral and unethical. The board being faceless unknowns to most of the fans changed on that day. Although others like Askham, Richards, Wiseman, Gordon, Hunt etc are still known from their connections with the old board and some of them are still there in the bacground propping up the current regime, Lowe, Crouch and Wilde are naturally better known to most because they are the three who are the main divisive elements in the club's recent history. Naturally most want them either to put their differences aside and work together, or to go. Also as a factor, is the rise of the internet whereby communication has increased exponentially. In those days, communication between fans had to be via meetings and groups, the fans' magazines and the local rag, whereas it is easy now for fans all around the World to talk together on forums such as this and to assimilate information with ease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Traditionally, the club had a board comprising the great and the good amongst local businessmen, people who ran the club out of almost a sense of civic duty. They were able to buy their shares for a nominal amount of £1 each and that was pretty well what they were worth, so that Askham had a major shareholding costing him just £3500, a sum that most of us could afford to pay. QUOTE]Does that not make your blood boil though.The so called great and good held basically a closed shop.I understand that some were fantastic pople and so rightly revered but their strength in keeping the boys club going was a weakness as it stopped proper 'new money' coming in.Did they do us a service or disservice by doing so? We as a city have spawned many very rich men from nothing ,Draper tools MFI (or was it B&Q?) Scandia life etc .We dont know if any of those people may have wanted to buy the club and really invest but the old school liked their position at mininmal cost and so didnt need to shift but also get good returns on their £3500. Merrily they sat in the boardroom (only when i saw the FA cup build up on some footage on here did I realise how quaint and backward thinking we were) enjoying the status and then only when they became weakened by age health and hard times a new regime was introduced again without competition.The more i think about the last 35 years of stewardship the more i get wound up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Am I the only poster that believes the makeup of the board means naff all in the grand scheme of things, when compared with the makeup of the team?? ... The boardroom provide the guidance and resources for the manager who then provides the team. The boardroom also provide any constraints on his too eg playing DMG continually when he has not been good enough, Lowe's youth policy and policy of excluding the higher earners to force them to leave etc. Therefore the boardroom is the key. So I suspect GM the answer to your question is 'yes' 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