exit2 Posted 2 April, 2009 Author Posted 2 April, 2009 cya!!!! http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/resources/images/868865/?type=display
ART Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 If you love Southampton Football Club and Saints stand up, huh???? Well at this moment in time, if you love Southampton Football Club and Saints, why don't you all just shut up. Let the Administrators achieve what they need to do and present Saints as an asset that a worthy buyer will be interested in paying out good money for.
Clapham Saint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Thats the only laugh I've had out of this - Jones remaining to assist the Administrator. Reminds me somewhat of the time-honoured journalistic "Mr X has been detained and is asisting the Police with their enquiries". Not suggesting that anything illegal has been done, of course, although his performance under both regimes has been underwhelming to say the least. Keeping on some of the financial staff is the norm. As an administrator coming into a compnay and having to churn through all the books and records is a great deal less dificult and time consuming if the person who maintained them is still around.
VectisSaint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Hope he took his train picture with him Hope not, we could get those Cash in the Attic folks round and auction it for a tenner, every little helps
John Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Personally I hope a group of shareholders get together and ask the FSA to launch an investigation into Lowe and Wilde's activities over the last few years. If it can be proved that they behaved in a manner not fitting and did not run SLH to the best interest of the shareholders then they could face prosecution. Being a registered director of a PLC comes with serious legal responsibilites...once it goes under you can't always just walk away. It is not the same as runnning a Ltd company, which by it's very description, saves you from any form of legal action should it go under.
OldNick Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Personally I hope a group of shareholders get together and ask the FSA to launch an investigation into Lowe and Wilde's activities over the last few years. If it can be proved that they behaved in a manner not fitting and did not run SLH to the best interest of the shareholders then they could face prosecution. Being a registered director of a PLC comes with serious legal responsibilites...once it goes under you can't always just walk away. It is not the same as runnning a Ltd company, which by it's very description, saves you from any form of legal action should it go under. I agree at least then it could be proved one way or other.
OldNick Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 No doubt the shyster gets another payoff.perhaps thats where the differece from us owing 28m last night and about 30m today
John Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 I agree at least then it could be proved one way or other. ...that's also why they would have been 'asked to leave' the premises...once the administrator is in place, nothing can be touched in terms of spreadsheets, sensitive information etc...just in case they, how can I put it...accidentally lose a few documents on the way out when passing the office shredder.
Channon's Sideburns Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 cya!!!! http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/resources/images/868865/?type=display Hope that red post hits him squarely on the bollix...bye bye ****
OldNick Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 ...that's also why they would have been 'asked to leave' the premises...once the administrator is in place, nothing can be touched in terms of spreadsheets, sensitive information etc...just in case they, how can I put it...accidentally lose a few documents on the way out when passing the office shredder.John you are in fantasy land, if they wanted to shred anything they would have done it before now.I have yet to see evidence that they were 'asked to leave' They had no reason to hang around, they probably had to go off and get their bid organised. i tell you i wouldnt be surprised if they will be back.I hate to think of all the strife we will go through yet again if so. As for any wrong doing I think they are clean in a financial /legal sense.
John Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 John you are in fantasy land, if they wanted to shred anything they would have done it before now.I have yet to see evidence that they were 'asked to leave' They had no reason to hang around, they probably had to go off and get their bid organised. i tell you i wouldnt be surprised if they will be back.I hate to think of all the strife we will go through yet again if so. As for any wrong doing I think they are clean in a financial /legal sense. Nick...it was a joke...chill.
um pahars Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 I will laugh my tits off. Why's that then???? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
saint lard Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Coming soon to a cinema near you...The Administrator,judgement day.........."I'll be back"
St Landrew Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Sorry peeps but I'd rather see the club die than have that $^%! own it.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Sorry peeps but I'd rather see the club die than have that $^%! own it. Please tell me your hate for Lowe doesn't outweighs your passion for the club. If it does you are a deeply sad individual.
miserableoldgit Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Make NO mistake ... He WILL be back .... just as he came back the last time This time, he wants to OWN Saints .... any bets against ??? As long as he has just ONE share, he will be there to haunt us This isn`t the first "I will not set foot in St marys while theres a chance that Rupert might return" post is it?
bungle Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Sorry peeps but I'd rather see the club die than have that $^%! own it. You must be a skate then. Sort yourself out.
St Landrew Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 You must be a skate then. Sort yourself out. No. You need to think about it a bit more. Speaking personally, I don't want to have the club I have followed since 1966 touched by that bloke again. And if it means that when it dies, it stays dead because I have had some influence in stopping him from getting his hands on it, then so be it. Skate - that's be the f**king day. EDIT: I've half a mind to infract you for the insult.
lumpofshipperley Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 I'd rather have a club to support than no club at all. People who disagree are a bit silly. They get wound up about Lowe for 10 years, now he's gone, the club goes and what else is there??? Nothing to get mad about, nothing to get excited about, nothing to cheer, no one to boo. My life doesn't revolve around SFC, but it does make it a helluva lot more entertaining! There is no heaven gentlemen. It's just very boring after death.
wild-saint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 No. You need to think about it a bit more. Speaking personally, I don't want to have the club I have followed since 1966 touched by that bloke again. And if it means that when it dies, it stays dead because I have had some influence in stopping him from getting his hands on it, then so be it. Skate - that's be the f**king day. EDIT: I've half a mind to infract you for the insult. I have to agree with him to be honest and feel free to infract as much as you like. The fact is if the ony person who steps forward to buy the club and stop it going out of business was lowe I would support it. The club can live for ever, lowe will eventually tire, die or sell on at some stage. Anyone who wants the club to die just because they dont like the owner is a fool / idiot. Why dont you just stop supporting the club and chose someone rather than wish it dead for us real fans who support the club through thick an thin
View From The Top Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 If Lowe bought SFC it would be dead, for good, within 2 years. He has been shown up as the repulsive charlatan many of us knew him to be. The usual suspects were too busy greasing his pole to notice but they always were myopic morons who believed only Lowe could save SFC. Saints won't die despite what the luvvie drama queens would have us believe. I for one am having a great day!
Ponty Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Did anyone really think that only Lowe could save SFC? I doubt it very much.
um pahars Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Did anyone really think that only Lowe could save SFC? I doubt it very much. Where have you been these recent months;)
Ponty Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 I know people said he could save it - I have wavered between the positive and negative myself, many times - but did anyone say that he was the only person who could?
um pahars Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 I know people said he could save it - I have wavered between the positive and negative myself, many times - but did anyone say that he was the only person who could? You would have thought so, the way people went on that there were no other alternatives!!!!
Weston Super Saint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Did anyone really think that only Lowe could save SFC? I doubt it very much. Lowe did
carljack Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 cya!!!! http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/resources/images/868865/?type=display Is that Barrys Briefcase?
HILL HEAD SAINT Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Wilde and Lowe have just been escorted from the premises Also apparently Lowe has said "that there is nothing to stop him purchasing the company form the administrators" Now I personally dont beleive that he could as I dont think he has the money but could you imagaine it more to follow when I hear good ridance i hope that all the missguided lowe luvies go with him, the savior of sfc my a@rse!
Victor Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Have I missed something, but did the administrator not say that all the directors of the club are still in position? Therefore Wilde (Chairman), Lowe, and Cowen are still entitled to be in the stadium and are still running the club. Please tell me I am wrong.
um pahars Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Have I missed something, but did the administrator not say that all the directors of the club are still in position? Therefore Wilde (Chairman), Lowe, and Cowen are still entitled to be in the stadium and are still running the club. Please tell me I am wrong. you're wrong. They have defintiely left and are no longer involved,
glkdcdes Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 I hope Lowe with his new found spare time has time at last to dwell on the damage and pain he has caused to this great club. I am not religious, but tonight i will pray that he never again shows his face at St Marys where his arrogant incompetence has done so much damage. Good bye [i hope] and good riddance.
Bezza Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Ok, just woken up here in Kiwiland so not all with it at the moment. I can see from the reports that RL & MW have left the building in terms of SLH board. But arent they both members of the board for the football club? If so, arent these parasites still infesting us???? Please someone put my mind to rest that they have COMPLETELY (well for the short term at least) gone from my once great club? Apologies if this is on another thread, but I havent seen it yet, and I'm supposed to be doing some work (how rude). Cheers
Dannyboy_Saint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 If its a choice of Lowe owning the club and we survive or Lowe not buying the club and it dissapearing completely i would pick the former every day of the week. Hopefully it wont come to that but if it does i cant believe anyone wud accept the demise of their club over their hatred for one man.
benjii Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Our position of "the holding company is in admin not the club", whilst clearly technically true, does seem to be weakened somewhat in terms of the prospect of avoiding a points deduction in any case, by the entire boards of both, save for Continuity Jones, having apparently both quit on the same day as a direct result of the admin of the holding company. Avoid a 10 point penalty, my arse.
benjii Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Sorry peeps but I'd rather see the club die than have that $^%! own it. Please tell me your hate for Lowe doesn't outweighs your passion for the club. If it does you are a deeply sad individual. If its a choice of Lowe owning the club and we survive or Lowe not buying the club and it dissapearing completely i would pick the former every day of the week. Hopefully it wont come to that but if it does i cant believe anyone wud accept the demise of their club over their hatred for one man. Misses the point. It's not "their" club any more. For some people a club under the control of Lowe will never be "their" club again. The demise begins with Lowe, not the finances. Personally, I agree with St Landrew. Nothing to do with hatred. I just think the guy is useless at the job he's trying to do and has completely wrecked the club. Unless he changes his ways (unlikely), I would have no wish to support a club controlled by him. I make no apology for not being so conditioned as to be indubitably aligned to a club. Yes, true fans stick with a club through ups and downs, but if a club's character changes beyond all recognition from the entity that inspired loyalty in the first place then there need be no apology for setting it aside. Are AFC Wimbledon fans not true fans? Should they support MK Dons? Of course not. I also believe there is sod-all chance of Lowe being involved in SFC again so I'm not too worried.
SarniaSaint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 you're wrong. They have defintiely left and are no longer involved, This is confusing. :smt017 The administrator runs the PLC (SLH) and Lowe, Wilde and Cowen leave the scene. The Football Club Board still run SFC. So who is still on the Football Cub Board, can't just be one person Jones.
krissyboy31 Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 This is confusing. :smt017 The administrator runs the PLC (SLH) and Lowe, Wilde and Cowen leave the scene. The Football Club Board still run SFC. So who is still on the Football Cub Board, can't just be one person Jones. Jones plus a guy put there by the Administrators. Nobody could quite decipher his name but it was something like Kevin Pointon.
SarniaSaint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Jones plus a guy put there by the Administrators. Nobody could quite decipher his name but it was something like Kevin Pointon. Thanks A more interesting question would be. What does the football club board actually do?
St Landrew Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Misses the point. It's not "their" club any more. For some people a club under the control of Lowe will never be "their" club again. The demise begins with Lowe, not the finances. Personally, I agree with St Landrew. Nothing to do with hatred. I just think the guy is useless at the job he's trying to do and has completely wrecked the club. Unless he changes his ways (unlikely), I would have no wish to support a club controlled by him. I make no apology for not being so conditioned as to be indubitably aligned to a club. Yes, true fans stick with a club through ups and downs, but if a club's character changes beyond all recognition from the entity that inspired loyalty in the first place then there need be no apology for setting it aside. Are AFC Wimbledon fans not true fans? Should they support MK Dons? Of course not. I also believe there is sod-all chance of Lowe being involved in SFC again so I'm not too worried. Excellently explained. I've sent and received e-mails from several posters, and we all feel our club has returned to us, literally by having the poison removed. I'm feeling quite positive, and it's not the man that I despise, it's what he, and his cohorts did to the club that I hate [although Guy Askham could be a special case ]. And frankly, I couldn't continue supporting a club I hated seeing poisoned in that way. Almost anything else was preferable, including the club's death. But I do say, that was a personal feeling. I couldn't and wouldn't criticise anyone for thinking differently, as I know how important Saints are to people. You must let me be a follower in my own way, as I allow you yours. And BTW, just like benjii, I'm not too worried either.
sotonist Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Personally I hope a group of shareholders get together and ask the FSA to launch an investigation into Lowe and Wilde's activities over the last few years. If it can be proved that they behaved in a manner not fitting and did not run SLH to the best interest of the shareholders then they could face prosecution. Being a registered director of a PLC comes with serious legal responsibilites...once it goes under you can't always just walk away. It is not the same as runnning a Ltd company, which by it's very description, saves you from any form of legal action should it go under. I think limited companies only limit the risk of the shareholders by shares, not the directors.
SaintRobbie Posted 3 April, 2009 Posted 3 April, 2009 Words of a spoilt little boy who's had his train set taken away, methinks. Or rather, me hopes! I think thats about right. KEEP LOWE OUT.
SaintRobbie Posted 3 April, 2009 Posted 3 April, 2009 cya!!!! http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/resources/images/868865/?type=display Interesting - no tie Mr Lowe...? For a public school boy of your errr 'standing?' Now I suggest that could mean: 1. Very hot. But then, wrong type of suit, a Linen suit would be more appropriate than a light grey. 2. Under pressure. 3. Showing distain to new authority. 4. Symbolic jesture of removing his usual SFC tie? 5. Removing his tie in a huff as he's no longer the man? Means nothing... perhaps... but as a man who's studied this chap in depth for years... an interesting debating point lol
SaintRichmond Posted 3 April, 2009 Posted 3 April, 2009 This isn`t the first "I will not set foot in St marys while theres a chance that Rupert might return" post is it? No ... as I've said countless times, I am ST holder I'm just saying that, IMHO, Lowe WILL be back .... yet again ....
Gingeletiss Posted 3 April, 2009 Posted 3 April, 2009 Interesting - no tie Mr Lowe...? For a public school boy of your errr 'standing?' Now I suggest that could mean: 1. Very hot. But then, wrong type of suit, a Linen suit would be more appropriate than a light grey. 2. Under pressure. 3. Showing distain to new authority. 4. Symbolic jesture of removing his usual SFC tie? 5. Removing his tie in a huff as he's no longer the man? Means nothing... perhaps... but as a man who's studied this chap in depth for years... an interesting debating point lol 4a.....Had it confiscated by the administrators.
bridge too far Posted 3 April, 2009 Posted 3 April, 2009 4a.....Had it confiscated by the administrators. To prevent self harm?
SaintRobbie Posted 3 April, 2009 Posted 3 April, 2009 4a.....Had it confiscated by the administrators. lol!
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