Window Cleaner Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Here you go. Sorry those aren't just marbles they're alleys.
JustMike Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 The Trust really do not have a clue, do they. They are actually proposing 2 professional CEOs, one for the plc and one for the FC. I guess in a situation where there is a need to cut costs, that would help. What would make more sense would be to merge the 2 boards, and have one professional CEO, add Crouch and one other (MP or someone like Salz, for instance)to the merged board (and none of this Saints Trust board member nonsense). So that would be CEO, Lowe, Wilde, Crouch, Cowen and Jones + A N Other. Even then it would not do any harm to dispense with Cowen, although to me he is the most sensible of the lot, but a 7-man board seems too big. With the right CEO, and a willingness by the "3 amEgos" to sort this mess this could be made to work. why cant we just have 1 person. Would then be obvious to everyone who did well / messed up.
aintforever Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Their plan would be a disaster The Trust have been an irrelivance since that 16 year old kid managed to unite the fan base and organise a protest against Lowe. The people protesting that day are the voice of the fans, the Trust are representative of no one - even their own members have had little or no say in what they propose.
Massimo Osti Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Maybe the trust could put the statue that they hugely embarrassed this football club with in the boardroom and Lowe could talk at it and get the feedback he expects from the fans. Two birds with one stone..
krissyboy31 Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Sorry those aren't just marbles they're alleys.
70's Mike Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Messers Wilde, Lowe, Askham and Withers, Windsor and his mate Clive
Wes Tender Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 This proposal is a ludicrous idea, badly thought out and unworkable. Regrettably if this is the proposal put forward by the Trust, then I'm sorry that it reflects rather badly on them. Firstly, the fact that Lowe (and Wilde) remain on the PLC board but not on the Football board will not entice the missing fans to return and unite to save the club. I would certainly not see that as the departure of the two of them from a position of power that would entice me back. Secondly, the composition of the PLC board, although reflecting to a certain extent the shareholdings, still leaves the majority decision making with the Lowe axis, so any views that would reflect the anti Lowe faction could be ridden over roughshod, which is not exactly condusive to fraternal feelings amongst them. And undoubtedly the PLC board would naturally want to dictate to the football board such things as who is to be manager, players' wage levels, who is signed and let go, ticket prices, etc. Thirdly, what precisely would be the benefit of one or other, or both of our MPs getting involved? What qualifies them to have anything at all to do with us? The Government of which they are a part has been unable to do anything to protect the country from potentially the worst recession since the thirties, so God knows what those two could bring to us that would improve our fortunes. If the motive for sweeping boardroom changes is to be unification of the fan base, an end to the internecine warfare that has brought our club to its knees, then the only way forward is to kick all of the shareholders off the board and appoint independent board members experienced in running a football club. The candidates for Chairman and Chief Executive can be interviewed by a panel representative of the shareholding factions and if receiving broad approval, it should then be left to that new board to get on with it without interference. At least they will have no history of antagonism behind them, no petty and puerile bickering between giant egos and no reasons to alienate the fans. In fact, they ought to be able to command the moral high ground to call on the supporters to rally round the club in its hour of need, to put differences aside and heal self-inflicted wounds. None of the current shareholders have this moral authority that would enable them to make this rallying call. If the Trust were to be spending its time exploring this sort of solution, I'd have a great deal more respect for their abilities to represent the broader fan base.
manji Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Congratulations to the Trust. They have unified the fans...............in condemnation of this nauseatingly crackpot idea. Whatever your viewpoint this club is going through a precarious time and all they are interested is thier Uberfan on the board idea.Presumably one of them has been humoured by one of our MPs recently so they thrown that into the mix as well. Stick to the quiz nights boys.
Rebel Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 why do the trust want a member on the board? If its to have a fans input, then, well, thats LC isnt it? but that's the point - he's not is he he's a local wealthy businessman who wants to be the saviour - he may have some of the same objectives - but not always the cult of Leon would be high on the agenda - along with thye cult of Big Mac
Rebel Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Their plan would be a disaster The Trust have been an irrelivance since that 16 year old kid managed to unite the fan base and organise a protest against Lowe. The people protesting that day are the voice of the fans, the Trust are representative of no one - even their own members have had little or no say in what they propose. and what did it actually achieve - sweet FA! its easy to spout of on here - or shout out like SISA, Chorley and McMillan - but what does it actually achieve plus his photo in the Echo made all the Skates at work go on an on about inbreeding for some reason! I don't think people on here or Saints fans at large actually realise what the original committe of the Saints Trust actually achieved in setting up an organisation that could be used as a vehicle or mechanism for giving Saints fans a real say in running their club in the long run - and possibly something that could one day save it from extinction it simply due to circumstances tried to do to much far too soon
Rebel Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 I have to say - much like the City Council buying St Mary's - the Trust's latest idea is not a great one Crouch represents the clubs and the fans best bet in the immediate future the only real future the club has is one without Lowe or Wilde the Trust does need to take a strong view on things like this - which is fails to partly because the commitee doesn't always agree on what it should do and partly because some people on the committee don't want to burn their bridges with the club for many different reasons
Channon's Sideburns Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Messers Wilde' date=' Lowe, Askham and Withers, Windsor and his mate Clive[/quote'] In the future Mr Withers tells the police... 'I would never have given up on Rupert if it wasn't for you pesky posters on TSF!'
Paul Chuckle Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Just the Trusts desperate attempt to get a fan on the board. Will never happen and will never work + has anyone who originally joined the Trust actually renewed your membership? What do you actually get for your membership in the first place?????
Window Cleaner Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Just the Trusts desperate attempt to get a fan on the board. Will never happen and will never work + has anyone who originally joined the Trust actually renewed your membership? What do you actually get for your membership in the first place????? Well you never know. They've 800 odd members (according to their site) but only 20000 shares. Now if those 800 all paid £10 for the what 3 years the trust has been in existence their income would be 3x800x10 or 24000£ in laymans's terms. Plus odd donations here and there. So why do they only own 20000 shares which even at 40p/share,24K£ should see them in the region of 60000 shares. So we have to surmise that most members have only ever paid £10 once.
david in sweden Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 Truck the Fust! As a student of history, (well for the last 50 years at least,) I was intrigued by the choice of the name TRUST. It appears significantly in the early 1920's after the Russian Revolution, (before everyone realised what a psychopath Stalin really was). Opponents of the new regime, were " encouraged " to form "The Trust" as an alternative "democracy" (or whatever name the Bolsheviks used at that time) and when everyone had come out and declared themselves, and it became obvious who supported who, Stalins secret police stepped in, arrested the lot and they were all executed (or disappeared to Siberia) . Not that I'm making any comparisons you understand, but my question is : Who exactly are the Trust, and what do they want to achieve ? At least RL & Co. know who they are dealing with, and remembering the old saying " better the enemy you know, than the one you don't " perhaps at some future time " the Trust " might find themselves in a strange situation, not knowing who to " trust ", and not knowing who are their friends.
kelkel31 Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 well it shows how out of touch the trust is i think. when they have no real respect from the vast majority of the fan base to suggest that one of there members be elected to the board is laughable. to suggest that not only RL and MW remain on the board but to bring in crouch as well is quite simply naive. i for one believe if we have to remain in our current format (i.e a plc) that all three should be removed from the clubs boards and preferably not even have any involvement to the club by owning shares also! my personal idea for an interim board would consist of 1 member of the local council, 1 MP, 1 respected leader from the business community(who must also be a saints fan) and 3 ex saints players, with at least one who still has connections to the game and would be able to oversee the football side of the club. the current board have all at some stage failed of been involved in bringing about the downfall of our once great club and should never again have anything to do with SFC!
alpine_saint Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 I have to say - much like the City Council buying St Mary's - the Trust's latest idea is not a great one Crouch represents the clubs and the fans best bet in the immediate future the only real future the club has is one without Lowe or Wilde the Trust does need to take a strong view on things like this - which is fails to partly because the commitee doesn't always agree on what it should do and partly because some people on the committee don't want to burn their bridges with the club for many different reasons Yep, agree with all of this.
SaintRobbie Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 (edited) OK... guess what I think about that statement. I think it makes a degree of sense... a compromise but makes sense. CEO gets my vote, always has. Having Lowe as a director would at least mean he wasnt running the show and he'd be being humiliated by having to stand down. Rather he left but it's a potential stepping stone. There is one thing missing though. An undertaking for all to search for a buyer and new direction for the Club. THAT IS KEY. WE MUST SELL THIS CLUB TO PROGRESS. Getting the local MPs involved is a master stroke - as I hope it will lead to an improved position when actively seeking a buyer later. As compromises go, its a start. A stepping stone that saves a degree of face for most actors without totally humiliating them. Allows them to eventually leave head held high... always give your enemies a chance to walk away once you're certain you've won. But until its accepted by Lowe - KEEP PROTESTING. Edited 24 February, 2009 by SaintRobbie
alpine_saint Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 As compromises go, its a start. No, it would have been if it hadnt been ruined by the usual petty little grab for personal power and priviledge. Instead of people going "hmmmm" and nodding their head, they are sn.iggering...
SaintRobbie Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 No, it would have been if it hadnt been ruined by the usual petty little grab for personal power and priviledge. Instead of people going "hmmmm" and nodding their head, they are sn.iggering... from who? Illingworth?
alpine_saint Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 from who? Illingworth? Have you read the offending piece, SR ? This is just Illingsworth usual bleat about a Trust member on the board, garnished with some half-baked ideas which verge on the bleedin'-obvious-but-unworkable
StuRomseySaint Posted 24 February, 2009 Posted 24 February, 2009 This is seriously getting tedious now. A few quick questions for the Trust if I may, they have been avoiding my questions for the last year or so. 1) How many members do you really have? I would see a members criteria as the following... - Has paid a subscription in the last year. - Has opted in to renew from their renewal. 2) How have you communicated your recent proposals to your members, have they passed these motions and voted for you to carry these forward? Seriously Saints Trust board members, do everyone a favour and give it a rest, get with the picture that 99.99999% of Saints fans want you nowhere near the board of Southampton FC You represent nobody but yourself, there is probably at least 100 shareholders which have more of a holding in SFC than yours. You are just a small group of people intent on getting as close to the juicy gossip as possible, it's embarrassing. A geeky 16 year old has done more proactive work in the last 2 weeks than you bunch have done in the last 2 years. Give up.
LostBoys Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 This is one of the most stupid suggestions I have read on this forum. The only credit the Trust can gain from this is at last they have said something. Do they really think that Mr Lowe and Co are going to agree to a form of power sharing with Mr Crouch and the two local MPs. Get real. They are only here to try and preserve their share value and Mr Wilde excluded most of them never paid hard cash for the shares in the first place - unlike the fans who pledged them to the Trust. Totally out of touch.
Mole Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 It's not a Saints Trust statement it's a Nick Illingsworth statement. SISA = the views of Richard Chorley. The Saints Trust = the views of Nick Illingsworth. It's as simple as that.
Mole Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 This is seriously getting tedious now. A few quick questions for the Trust if I may, they have been avoiding my questions for the last year or so. 1) How many members do you really have? I would see a members criteria as the following... - Has paid a subscription in the last year. - Has opted in to renew from their renewal. 2) How have you communicated your recent proposals to your members, have they passed these motions and voted for you to carry these forward? Seriously Saints Trust board members, do everyone a favour and give it a rest, get with the picture that 99.99999% of Saints fans want you nowhere near the board of Southampton FC You represent nobody but yourself, there is probably at least 100 shareholders which have more of a holding in SFC than yours. You are just a small group of people intent on getting as close to the juicy gossip as possible, it's embarrassing. A geeky 16 year old has done more proactive work in the last 2 weeks than you bunch have done in the last 2 years. Give up. Stu this is top secret info, but 1 month ago the Trust had a measly 320 members. LMAO.
Dicko Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 A few weeks ago Illingsworth got really defensive towards me on his site when I had a go at him for promoting his private pre-match bar arrangements instead of the protest march on his site, telling me I didnt know what he was up to behind the scenes. Now I know. The same old rehash of the attention-seeking crap the Trust comes out with every so often. Any open-mindedness and serious consideration Lowe, Wilde and Crouch would have given this evaporated at the first comment of a Saints Trust rep on the board. F**king twaaat.. Totally agree I think Illingsworth is as popular as Lowe Like Rupert, he's too far up his own arse to realise what fans really think of him Grade A tosser
StuRomseySaint Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 Stu this is top secret info, but 1 month ago the Trust had a measly 320 members. LMAO. The thing is though, are these 320 members paid up in the last year? Or did they simply tick a box? I could get 320 peoples details in a day without any problems if I set up a Rupert Lowe Out group or similar. There was more than 320 people on both marches, and more than 320 people on Connors little Facebook group, so the 'Demonstration against the running of SFC' is actually a bigger organisation that the Trust.... maybe we should campaign for Connor to have a place on the board.
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 If this forum is representative of the feeling toward the trust and, like it or not, the trust are the recognised body that speaks on 'behalf of' the fans why is there no campaign for change within the trust, more apathy ? I believe a marketing campaign to firstly create mass interest in the trust is needed first, so then, by its 'genuine' membership it can truly be representative, i am sure most would agree in principle the trust could be a useful tool
Oz Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 i detect nick illingworth's hand in this garbage!
JohnnyFartPants Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 The thing is though, are these 320 members paid up in the last year? Or did they simply tick a box? I could get 320 peoples details in a day without any problems if I set up a Rupert Lowe Out group or similar. There was more than 320 people on both marches, and more than 320 people on Connors little Facebook group, so the 'Demonstration against the running of SFC' is actually a bigger organisation that the Trust.... maybe we should campaign for Connor to have a place on the board. That's verbal assault to some. Watch your step Stu, okay?
eelpie Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 Same here. The bit about in-fighting followed by bringing Leon Crouch back on board. That should make an interesting solution to the boardroom problems.:confused: A Fly on the Wall camera posted on YouTube would be sensational though.
derry Posted 25 February, 2009 Posted 25 February, 2009 No Trust, No trust board member APPOINTED as a non executive board member, No politicians involved with the club. Not a penny put in. Crouch has stated a willingness to lend the club £2m, it depended on being matched by Lowe and Wilde, which probably won't happen. A place on the board for Crouch is sensible but probably won't happen. The only proposal on merit I support, is for Lowe to lose all executive power. I don't know Cowen but have heard many support his good points, however as he has always been a 100% Lowe supporter I wouldn't want him as an executive. The board needs sufficient unaligned non-executive directors and an independent chairman to make unbiased decisions. Lowe, Wilde and Crouch despite representing over 50% of the shares would not be able to make decisions. I am absolutely confident none of the above can happen unless we go into administration, or the shareholders turn on Lowe.
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