ottery st mary Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 OSM why are you decrying a fellow supporter who only wants what he sees best for the club? You may arrogantly believe that your view is the only correct one, but there are always 2 sides to a story. Sorry Sir nick....By the way you only gave one side of the story on behalf of Rupes for so long...Very strange behaviour...But then you are a true Saint.... But some of these that I decry are only out to cause trouble for my Uncle Leon..... Glad to see you gave up the dancing shoes...Some of your old troupe are very spiteful.:smt117 To TRUE Saints supporters that I may have offended by my inadvertent decrying of you... I apologise unreservedly.... But to you Lowey Luvvies...Keep Dancing to the masters instructions.[-X Anyway nick...very strange behaviour by you.
docker-p Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Am I the only one to just find the hysteria about this funny? Jeez guys the bloke is there because he is mates with the Forest chairman. And this turns into some sort of panic that spreads like wildfire that me is involved in one of the bids? Based on no evidence whatsoever.... you lot need to chill a bit. Then we have the twofaced hypocracy of Crouch who has not been absent from SMS despite his contribution to the situation - he may not eb as culpable as LOwe, but he is not totally blameless either so he should STFU as well. Finally, I really dont think or want him to return, but all those who were jumping for joy and wishing administration on us as a vehicle to get rid of Lowe were warned - there would be nothing to stop him commingback, and worse than that, no shareholders who could be lobbied to prevent it - be careful waht you wish for as they say.... i used to believe you to be one of the more thoughtful posters on here. Lowe 12 years, two relegations, dutch football, rugby coaches and an allianated fan base. Crouch 6 months, one poor mangerial appointment one good and numerous acts of generosity. Yeah hypocracy.
OldNick Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Sorry Sir nick....By the way you only gave one side of the story on behalf of Rupes for so long...Very strange behaviour...But then you are a true Saint.... But some of these that I decry are only out to cause trouble for my Uncle Leon..... Glad to see you gave up the dancing shoes...Some of your old troupe are very spiteful.:smt117 To TRUE Saints supporters that I may have offended by my inadvertent decrying of you... I apologise unreservedly.... But to you Lowey Luvvies...Keep Dancing to the masters instructions.[-X Anyway nick...very strange behaviour by you.Strange behaviour! i have wanted the Saints to survive and after the clubs excesses I could see the sense in trying to slash costs and trying what we did.At no time did I agree with NP being sacked as i believed he united the fan base.As soon as he was removed the fans who would have stayed behind NP and so swallowed RL's return were cut loose again.it was a bad decision but not as bad as welcoming in the Wilde bunch in the first place.
ottery st mary Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Again I dissapoint' date=' filled to the brim with plastic scousers as most schools were in the 70s and 80s... Did Leon go you yours? Or is there a shrine in your house to the Crouchmaster?[/quote'] You just can't leave Uncle Leon out of this[-X Now leave me alone and STOP decrying me or you will have nick on here again giving you a ticking off for decrying a Saints supporter trying to give the other side of the story.:smt117 Anyway wot school frankey out of curiosity.
ottery st mary Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Strange behaviour! i have wanted the Saints to survive and after the clubs excesses I could see the sense in trying to slash costs and trying what we did.At no time did I agree with NP being sacked as i believed he united the fan base.As soon as he was removed the fans who would have stayed behind NP and so swallowed RL's return were cut loose again.it was a bad decision but not as bad as welcoming in the Wilde bunch in the first place. You Hounsdown and Bellemoor and Millbrook boys are true Saints.
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 i used to believe you to be one of the more thoughtful posters on here. Lowe 12 years, two relegations, dutch football, rugby coaches and an allianated fan base. Crouch 6 months, one poor mangerial appointment one good and numerous acts of generosity. Yeah hypocracy. Docker, Lowe is guilty, we know this, did he do it deliberately? NO Crouch fecked up also did some good, but should be kept out the media (bor be advised better) - did he do this deliberately? NO. 12 years of Lowe was not 12 bad years but the last one in the prem, and the recent return. Crouch HAS contributed to this mess - whether we or he likes it or not, so should have the grace at the very least to to keep quiet about it, especially after his recent gaff... Lowe attending Forest may well be a crass decision, but it will only be an issue if fans make it something its not - and fed the publicity machine on which Lowe thrives - ignore him is the best policy
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 You just can't leave Uncle Leon out of this[-X Now leave me alone and STOP decrying me or you will have nick on here again giving you a ticking off for decrying a Saints supporter trying to give the other side of the story.:smt117 Anyway wot school frankey out of curiosity. Sorry Uncle Rupert told me not to talk to the stupid boys from the special needs school. Anyway I think Uncle Lowe could take the little Crouchey in a fight anyday...
OldNick Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 You Hounsdown and Bellemoor and Millbrook boys are true Saints. Totton Shirley and millbrook made quite a crew I agree.
ottery st mary Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 (edited) Sorry Uncle Rupert told me not to talk to the stupid boys from the special needs school. Anyway I think Uncle Lowe could take the little Crouchey in a fight anyday... Your a bully like your boss Rupert.[-X Uncle Leon eats tigers for breakfast..So no problem with a kitten like Rupes. Meet at Dawn...It goes without question that Leon will be in his Red and White Saints strip.Carrying his donations bucket....Rupes in his Hunting Fishing Jack Hargreaves attire. Carrying his PLACARD..'WRITTEN THEREON..I will FLUUCK you Saints supporting pheasants once AGAIN, if it kills me. AND so will frankey, johnny and my mate jonah. Seconds out you Old Radley boy.:smt117 Me with my Red and White Ra Ra skirt and Pom Poms....Suggest you wear the Max Moseley outfit Frankey..Just to give the Saints supporters attending a thrill. Edited 1 May, 2009 by ottery st mary spellin copyin public schoolboy frankeys cousins
emerson massey Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 This pretty much sums up my feelings also - very innapropriate and antagonistic IMHO It appears to me that Crouch's comments aside, am I the only one thinking how unbelievably inappropriate Lowe's actions are?? How can people defend his right to attend a game with hospitality provided by a fellow "chairman" when... a) It's hopsitality supplied by the chairman of a club that, had the FA not relegated us, would be a direct relegation rival? and b) It's rather inappropriate, when the emotions still run high, to enflame the situation. Surely he must see how unpopular he is? Why would he do this unless he either doesn't care or thinks he's right, we're wrong and this is just a "**** you." Either way surely there comes a point when someone realises they're not welcome, not liked and just can go away, lick their wounds and try something different? His attitude seems to suggest a serious personality flaw...
Daren W Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 We are relegated anyway - regardless of the deduction, so does that fact get in the way? What ensured our relegation was the emptying of the clubs coffers over the previous two season - when incidentally Lowe wasn't on the board - but hell, lets blame him for trying to pull it round. Oh that's it is it? The last two season's overspending is completely to blame for everything is it? Relegation? Pay offs to ousted managers? Money wasted on administration costs and wages? And it's only the "overspending" of the last two years that has ****ed this club up? Some people just cannot see the wood for the trees on this messageboard.
Dannyboy_Saint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 One massive rendition of "Swing Lowe, swing Rupert Lowe" is required on sunday methinks.
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Having said that though Duncan' date=' do you not feel that Crouch's comment on this was a tad hypocritical? We know that Lowe is so brass necked, and bullish that he probably does not even think about the potential impact his presence may have, and also believes he has teh right solution.... but Crouch seems unable to keep his gob shut and out of controvercy?[/quote'] You know I have mixed feelings re Crouch but I have to say by bailing the club out financially over these last difficult weeks does give him the right to speak his mind. Lowe's attendance as a guest of one of our relegation rivals up until last week is crass. I do find it sad that people are still, it seems, angrier at Crouch than they are towards Lowe. I know you try to be fair and balanced Frank but your antagonism towards LC I find slightly bizarre.
sandwichsaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I can't believe we're having this debate (ie that there are people on here prepared to defend RL's presence at the game on Sunday and who think he is in some way just a private citizen enjoying a private invite into the oppo directors' box). How many away games has he been to this season? This is a complete and utter ****take and shows the contempt he holds for the ordinary fan. He might be there as a 'buyer' or as part of a consortium (I don't believe he is). He could be there 'to watch the footie with his mates'. He could be there, like an arsonist returning to watch the fire brigade, to take some perverse pride in witnessing the last throes of the club. He could be there as a calculated 2 fingers to 'the fans'. I don't find any of those reasons acceptable in the current climate and knowing that it was his Dutch-non-league experiment that put us here makes it all a little hard to stomach. I'm not going on Sunday (would love to be but couldn't get tickets) but to all those that are going.... party like it's 1976, (and make sure he gets the message loud and clear, DUCK OFF!)
Foxstone Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 You know I have mixed feelings re Crouch but I have to say by bailing the club out financially over these last difficult weeks does give him the right to speak his mind. Lowe's attendance as a guest of one of our relegation rivals up until last week is crass. I do find it sad that people are still, it seems, angrier at Crouch than they are towards Lowe. I know you try to be fair and balanced Frank but your antagonism towards LC I find slightly bizarre. Just speaking for myself Duncan, but I am very angry with everybody who has held a position of power at this club over the past 5 years and that includes Crouch aswell as Lowe, Wilde, Hone, Dulieu and others - And that anger is not particularly differentiated into degrees of blame as they all at various times and at various levels have contributed to the demise of this wonderful club I support. Whether it be by poor decision making, by saddling the boardroom with constant and destructive division and dis-unity or by constantly briefing against each other in the media causing rifts amongst the supporters in the process - And there are plenty of other reasons on top of these to lament the day when any of these blithering idiots crossed the threshold of the SFC Boardroom. I am just royally fed up with all of them and I just do not want to see any of them near a position of influence at this club again. A new start with professional, capable new people at the helm is our best chance of us rising from the ashes.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Totton Shirley and millbrook made quite a crew I agree. Pikey's!
OldNick Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Pikey's! That hurts coming from a Dibden Purlieu poster!! Considering roadkill and hedgehog was the best roast dinner the girls i used to meet from there had ever eaten.
OldNick Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Oh that's it is it? The last two season's overspending is completely to blame for everything is it? Relegation? Pay offs to ousted managers? Money wasted on administration costs and wages? And it's only the "overspending" of the last two years that has ****ed this club up? Some people just cannot see the wood for the trees on this messageboard. It is a combination of all those things., add to that the reckless overspending and you have got the best ingrediants to kill a football club.To have 1 incompetant chairman is 1 thing but to have a series of them is really unlucky. I would go back as far as Askhams first arrival at the club and the decay has gone on from there. To be fair had MLT not been here we would have gone to the wall years ago.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 That hurts coming from a Dibden Purlieu poster!! Considering roadkill and hedgehog was the best roast dinner the girls i used to meet from there had ever eaten. How long ago was that? Dibden Purlieu and not Hythe, Dibden or Holbury?
ottery st mary Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 How long ago was that? Dibden Purlieu and not Hythe, Dibden or Holbury? nick was courting girls from the land Army over that way just after World War 2:smt117 approx 1945
OldNick Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 How long ago was that? Dibden Purlieu and not Hythe, Dibden or Holbury? A mixture in the early 80's.
OldNick Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 nick was courting girls from the land Army over that way just after World War 2:smt117 approx 1945 At least it was girls not the poultry game and stock that your lot were into .
Gordon Mockles Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Of course the Directors of Noots Forest are going to invite Rupert Lowe, the man who has probably done more to secure their CCC status than anyone. They will probably erect a statue to him. And put it beside the Cloughie statue in Nottingham city centre! I've sometimes wondered how Brain Clough would have reacted to a clueless chairman like Lowe. I'd love to hear what Cloughie would say in response to Lowe's meddling incompetence...You'd pay good money to hear that tirade!
ottery st mary Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 At least it was girls not the poultry game and stock that your lot were into . Chicks have always been my thing.:smt117 COYRs and all that jazz.
Mole Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Wot does Rupert have over you little choir boys...Very strange team formation on here today..Prof you must stop these tears..The little weasel is history as he is now in the throws of a takeover Of Notts Forest....SUM FING TO DO WITH REVERSE TAKOVER AND OLD PEEPS HOMES.....oF COURSE YOUR LITTLE MAN WILL BE PUTTING NO DOSH INTO fOREST BUT HAS SOME REALLY REALLY SPLENDID REVOLUTIONARY IDEAS HOW TO RUN A FOOTBALL BUSINESS..Lots of practice and all that....STILL not very good with money matters yet.:smt117 Keep up the good work prof.....Team Frank, john, jonah...Formation ready for Rupes inspection. You crack me up. You've certainly got the measure of Ruperts army of little helpers.
Mole Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Oh that's it is it? The last two season's overspending is completely to blame for everything is it? Relegation? Pay offs to ousted managers? Money wasted on administration costs and wages? And it's only the "overspending" of the last two years that has ****ed this club up? Some people just cannot see the wood for the trees on this messageboard. It's simply a case of "blame everyone apart from Woopert".
Pat from Poole Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 We are relegated anyway - regardless of the deduction, so does that fact get in the way? What ensured our relegation was the emptying of the clubs coffers over the previous two season - when incidentally Lowe wasn't on the board - but hell, lets blame him for trying to pull it round. I've picked you up on this point before, and I don't remember you replying last time. Lowe agreed the deal to sign Rasiak on a wage which was the catalyst for the wage structure at the club being significantly raised, with the subsequent signings of Davis, Skacel, Viafara, Wright-Phillips etc. It is completely absurd to exempt Lowe from blame for the financial mess we are in.
CB Fry Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I've picked you up on this point before, and I don't remember you replying last time. Lowe agreed the deal to sign Rasiak on a wage which was the catalyst for the wage structure at the club being significantly raised, with the subsequent signings of Davis, Skacel, Viafara, Wright-Phillips etc. It is completely absurd to exempt Lowe from blame for the financial mess we are in. To be fair, this is exactly the "why don't you invest in the team" argument that everyone wanted him to do for years. Problem is everyone wants to have it both ways.
Toadhall Saint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 When are these parasites going to leave us alone eh? They've virtually picked our bones dry and noe seem to want to revel in their handy work.
Gordon Mockles Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 You know I have mixed feelings re Crouch but I have to say by bailing the club out financially over these last difficult weeks does give him the right to speak his mind. Lowe's attendance as a guest of one of our relegation rivals up until last week is crass. I do find it sad that people are still, it seems, angrier at Crouch than they are towards Lowe. I know you try to be fair and balanced Frank but your antagonism towards LC I find slightly bizarre. As bizarre as Manji, Prof, Nineteen/Sundance, Jonah, Nick, John B, the overtly antagonistic Bungle (with avatar expression to match his barbed comments), Alain, Esq.. You all defend the indefensible, for whatever insidious reason or wayward viewpoint you, collectively, share. I find it shocking that, even now, you meander on with the same warped beliefs. You are all happy to defend Lowe and berate Crouch with your outlandish comments and, frankly, bizarre opinions. You wouldn't see Israeli's rolling out the red carpet and giving a warm welcome to Josef Mengele upon opening a new orphanage in Tel Aviv. So, why (in slightly less harsh football terms) do so called fans of a football club defend the main catalyst responsible for the almost total annihilation of "their" beloved club?! Oh, I forgot...they blame the man who sat in the hot seat for a mere few months and who actually put his hand in his own pocket for the club (as opposed to filling his pockets - eh Guy, Rupert, Richards, Esq..) I'd not want these guys representing me in a court of law. They get laughed (or pelted with rotten fruit) out the court house! Retort away. :smt101
Mole Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 and all of you are completely right all the time. Well as it happens i am. I don't mean this in a big headed way, i'm just stating a fact.
Pat from Poole Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 To be fair, this is exactly the "why don't you invest in the team" argument that everyone wanted him to do for years. Problem is everyone wants to have it both ways. I completely agree. I just get narked when I hear Lowe and his various apologists dishing out all the blame for our current state on the people who were in charge for the two seasons after his departure, when the reality is that:- a) his negligent choice of managers led to both of our relegations b) the Rasiak deal was a big part of the reason for the overspending on fees and wages over those two seasons after he departed.
OldNick Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 As bizarre as Manji, Prof, Nineteen/Sundance, Jonah, Nick, John B, the overtly antagonistic Bungle (with avatar expression to match his barbed comments), Alain, Esq.. You all defend the indefensible, for whatever insidious reason or wayward viewpoint you, collectively, share. I find it shocking that, even now, you meander on with the same warped beliefs. You are all happy to defend Lowe and berate Crouch with your outlandish comments and, frankly, bizarre opinions. You wouldn't see Israeli's rolling out the red carpet and giving a warm welcome to Josef Mengele upon opening a new orphanage in Tel Aviv. So, why (in slightly less harsh football terms) do so called fans of a football club defend the main catalyst responsible for the almost total annihilation of "their" beloved club?! Oh, I forgot...they blame the man who sat in the hot seat for a mere few months and who actually put his hand in his own pocket for the club (as opposed to filling his pockets - eh Guy, Rupert, Richards, Esq..) I'd not want these guys representing me in a court of law. They get laughed (or pelted with rotten fruit) out the court house! Retort away. :smt101 well Gordon as you meandered around the shiny new stadium and rightly walked proudly through the turnstile for your first visit, how did you get your Rupert out banner through.I had hell of a job getting my placard through against Burnley the other day. Having done so it must have been hell of a march as you walked shoulder to shoulder to the thousnads of others marching on the Millenium screaming your Swing Lowe songs at all wanted to listen. No of course you didn't as like myself and 99% of saints fans you were enjoying our day in the sun. You see i dont see the whole of RL's tenure as a negative, I never felt comfortable how he came to the club but Im a fickle football fan, I turn a blind eye if things go well. I still felt the scar of GH;s departure and when RL dared consider taking him back I was in uproar. To my elder brother and some of the others who sat with me in the Kingsland (who were happy for his return)I stated 'I'd rather be relegated than have that Judas back' Quite profound really. then we had the manager merry goround.Yes a series of poor selections, but HR should have saved us. Then relegation that cost us our revenue. At that point it should have been the time to stop and take stock of where we went from there, sadly we spent more than we could afford in those conditions. RL mistakenly came back again and so we are now where we are. In summary all things were negative under RL and not all were negative under any of the others but they all contributed to where wev are now, without exception
Daren W Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 We don't half have some utter *****s for fans on here. Thought there might be something about takeovers, rumours, maybe even facts, but no, it's just idiotic Lowe obsessed crap yet again. We get it. Some are utterly obsessed with him, any that don't join in are called lowe luvvies and it gets more childish with every post. There aren't two sides to a story, everything is black and white and all of you are completely right all the time. Now please go sort it out in the playground and perhaps we'll get a decent thread around here for once. As opposed to your "stick your head in the sand and hope it'll go away" approach which has paid off handsomely so far hasn't it?
jonah Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 a) his negligent choice of managers led to both of our relegations Pre-Lowe's return, we overspent by £6.5m/2 = £3.25m each season (it's actually a bit more as we had cash too but let's keep the numbers simple). When Lowe returned we were then forced to *underspend* by £2.5m to reduce the overdraft for Barclays. So if "Lowe's choice of manager" had been given £3.25m + £2.5m = £5.75m more to spend this season like his predecessors, do you think we'd have stayed up still? Does anyone really believe that having another £5.75m spending power wouldn't have won us another 2 points over 38 matches? Therefore, surely it's more logical to deduce that it was this incredible drop in spending power which led to relegation - in which case, it's a question of why we f***ed up the finances so badly that we had to do this. A tiny part of it is down to the credit crunch, but generally it was down to negligence on the part of the execs and chairmen in overspending. Anyone can make mistakes with managers and players with the best intentions (and with hindsight), but it's a special kind of idiot who deliberately spends money we don't have which leads us into administration. b) the Rasiak deal was a big part of the reason for the overspending on fees and wages over those two seasons after he departed. It was only a part of the reason because it wasn't redressed in 2 years. One of the few things Jim Hone actually figured out correctly was that in not accepting the SISU deal they would then have to sell players sharpish. Unfortunately he was too late in working it out and it was his own negligence that saw our wage bill spiral to 81% - who thinks Rupert "tight-fisted, never invests in the team" would have allowed that to happen?
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 You know I have mixed feelings re Crouch but I have to say by bailing the club out financially over these last difficult weeks does give him the right to speak his mind. Lowe's attendance as a guest of one of our relegation rivals up until last week is crass. I do find it sad that people are still, it seems, angrier at Crouch than they are towards Lowe. I know you try to be fair and balanced Frank but your antagonism towards LC I find slightly bizarre. Thing is, I dont actually think Lowe would have accepted or attended had anything still been riding on this game - as its all over and there is nothing on it, cant really see the problem to be honest - we need to move on and thats only possible when we let go of the past - while we continually let it follow us around and build this thing up out of all proportion, the ghosts will never depart - as for Crouch, well you know me, just never really liked his shoot from teh hip, open gob before engaging brain style - yup he has dipped into his pocket, cant argue with that, but I just cant help feeling he still thinks this is all about some popularity contest - the reason he struggled with difficult and unpopular decison making IMHO - If LOwe was tooo ego driven into thinking only HE had teh answers and teh rst of us were too stupid to understand, I think Crouch was too eo driven by the desire to be SEEN as th saviour. Many on here have repeatedly criticised LOwe for his presence in the media - and quite catagorically stated the chairman should be almost anonymous - fine cant argue with that and Lowe should have been doing just that, and when he did not he was rightly criticised, but yet Crouch is popping up all over the place as the 'voice' and alot of what he has had to say has either been factually wrong or embarrassing... sorry just MHO. OK so Crouch is no longer chairman, but he is certainly trying to act like one.... Lowe out, not to return I can happily live with. Lowe is this that and making a fuss about him being at forrest just seems to playing into his media desperate hands. Crouch sticking his ore in smacks of the desire to be in the public eye - sorry but I dont think putting money in 'BUYs' you the right to your opinion carrying any more weight that anyones elses. I just wis Crouch would show some dignity - shut up and stop shaking buckets at folks who struggle to afford a ticket in these hard times - has he no sense of irony? For him 50k is like a fiver for us... Lowe, is crass, we dont expect any diffrenet so why everyone making abig deal is what I simply dont get... he is not worth it surely?
Honk Kong Phooey Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Here is another angle for you. This is a vital game for Forest to win so the Forest board have invited Lowe into their board room knowing how it would incense the Saints Fans. We then spend most of the game venting at Lowe and not giving the support to our team. This way Forest de-rail our 12th man. The best thing to do is ignore Lowe (hard though that may be) and get behind the team for the whole match and show them what they mean to us.
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 (edited) As bizarre as Manji, Prof, Nineteen/Sundance, Jonah, Nick, John B, the overtly antagonistic Bungle (with avatar expression to match his barbed comments), Alain, Esq.. You all defend the indefensible, for whatever insidious reason or wayward viewpoint you, collectively, share. I find it shocking that, even now, you meander on with the same warped beliefs. You are all happy to defend Lowe and berate Crouch with your outlandish comments and, frankly, bizarre opinions. You wouldn't see Israeli's rolling out the red carpet and giving a warm welcome to Josef Mengele upon opening a new orphanage in Tel Aviv. So, why (in slightly less harsh football terms) do so called fans of a football club defend the main catalyst responsible for the almost total annihilation of "their" beloved club?! Oh, I forgot...they blame the man who sat in the hot seat for a mere few months and who actually put his hand in his own pocket for the club (as opposed to filling his pockets - eh Guy, Rupert, Richards, Esq..) I'd not want these guys representing me in a court of law. They get laughed (or pelted with rotten fruit) out the court house! Retort away. :smt101 I think the problem is actually quite simple - I dont believe there are any, certainly not many who fail to acknowledge that Lowe decison directly led to our situation. ON that most will agree. What is argued by me and some others is that a) this was not done with malice or intent, b) there was some logic in some of these decisons, even if they were ultimately to fail c) there were others who also contributed - and its not a question of how long they were relatively in charge, but what they did or failed to do whilst they had that power or could influence that power, which is why Wilde and Crouch ARE also culpable. d) Can not understand how those wishing administration was preferable to the previous regime - we could go out of business FFS and yet some were advcating this as a suitable method of chaning the board - are these folk stupid? e) there seems to be some that have so closely aligned themselve sto Mr CRouch that they dont even get the irony - they spent the last few years criticising anyone who had anything positive to say about LOwe (even when balanced against the failings) that theywere sychophantic or blindly stupid ignoring teh negative - yet they are now doing exactly the same in their blinkered support opf CRouch - have they no sense of self awareness or irony? Edited 1 May, 2009 by Frank's cousin
Alain Perrin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Ah, a namecheck by Gordon Mockles. It's the recognition I've been praying for. There are four major things that annoy me about this board: 1) The incessant accusation that, because someone holds a different opinion to you they must be in the pay of Rupert Lowe or a PR plant. Nope. They just disagree. 2) The childish labels of Lowe Luvvie. 3) In Excel terms most things are and C1=A1+B1/C1 - i.e. a circular argument, going round and round on the same points with no one changing their minds. So why bother. 4) Dodgy use of statistics (87% of which are made up anyway). Personally I can recognise what Lowe did wrong, what he did right and the fact that I don't give a ****e where he sits. After 10 years at Saints he better be a Saints fan and, as a fan, why is his support any different to anyone elses? If Leon was in the Forest boardroom would their be the hullabaloo? And really, honestly, what difference does it make to your matchday experience? None. Rupert Lowe is Schrodinger's cat.
jonah Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Here is another angle for you. This is a vital game for Forest to win so the Forest board have invited Lowe into their board room knowing how it would incense the Saints Fans. We then spend most of the game venting at Lowe and not giving the support to our team. This way Forest de-rail our 12th man. Nice conspiracy theory but Forest are safe, the game is a bit of a non-event really and hence no big deal.
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Thing is, I dont actually think Lowe would have accepted or attended had anything still been riding on this game - as its all over and there is nothing on it, cant really see the problem to be honest - we need to move on and thats only possible when we let go of the past - while we continually let it follow us around and build this thing up out of all proportion, the ghosts will never depart - as for Crouch, well you know me, just never really liked his shoot from teh hip, open gob before engaging brain style - yup he has dipped into his pocket, cant argue with that, but I just cant help feeling he still thinks this is all about some popularity contest - the reason he struggled with difficult and unpopular decison making IMHO - If LOwe was tooo ego driven into thinking only HE had teh answers and teh rst of us were too stupid to understand, I think Crouch was too eo driven by the desire to be SEEN as th saviour. Many on here have repeatedly criticised LOwe for his presence in the media - and quite catagorically stated the chairman should be almost anonymous - fine cant argue with that and Lowe should have been doing just that, and when he did not he was rightly criticised, but yet Crouch is popping up all over the place as the 'voice' and alot of what he has had to say has either been factually wrong or embarrassing... sorry just MHO. OK so Crouch is no longer chairman, but he is certainly trying to act like one.... Lowe out, not to return I can happily live with. Lowe is this that and making a fuss about him being at forrest just seems to playing into his media desperate hands. Crouch sticking his ore in smacks of the desire to be in the public eye - sorry but I dont think putting money in 'BUYs' you the right to your opinion carrying any more weight that anyones elses. I just wis Crouch would show some dignity - shut up and stop shaking buckets at folks who struggle to afford a ticket in these hard times - has he no sense of irony? For him 50k is like a fiver for us... Lowe, is crass, we dont expect any diffrenet so why everyone making abig deal is what I simply dont get... he is not worth it surely? 2 points which I think are salient FC Number 1 - if Leon had not coughed up over the last few weeks there may not have been a match for Rupert to have gone to. Ponder that a second, please. Number 2 - sure, we would all like to move on and forget the past, but it is the past's decision to turn up to tomorrow's match while enjoying the hospitality from someone who up until a week ago was our deadly rival. I really am not surprised that LC thought it appropriate to have an outburst and yet you seem to go out of your way to make a big deal out of that??? If I didn't know you better Frank I would be tempted to see your words as deliberately provocative.
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Ah, a namecheck by Gordon Mockles. It's the recognition I've been praying for. There are four major things that annoy me about this board: 1) The incessant accusation that, because someone holds a different opinion to you they must be in the pay of Rupert Lowe or a PR plant. Nope. They just disagree. 2) The childish labels of Lowe Luvvie. 3) In Excel terms most things are and C1=A1+B1/C1 - i.e. a circular argument, going round and round on the same points with no one changing their minds. So why bother. 4) Dodgy use of statistics (87% of which are made up anyway). Personally I can recognise what Lowe did wrong, what he did right and the fact that I don't give a ****e where he sits. After 10 years at Saints he better be a Saints fan and, as a fan, why is his support any different to anyone elses? If Leon was in the Forest boardroom would their be the hullabaloo? And really, honestly, what difference does it make to your matchday experience? None. Rupert Lowe is Schrodinger's cat. Amen... feck had almost given up on seeing a common sense on this forum... I am not always the best at expressing what I mean so the tangled webs I weive do come back to haunt.
Scummer Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Number 1 - if Leon had not coughed up over the last few weeks there may not have been a match for Rupert to have gone to. Ponder that a second, please. According to Jonah, Mike Richards has put in as much as Leon Crouch.
Tamesaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Ah, a namecheck by Gordon Mockles. It's the recognition I've been praying for. There are four major things that annoy me about this board: 1) The incessant accusation that, because someone holds a different opinion to you they must be in the pay of Rupert Lowe or a PR plant. Nope. They just disagree. 2) The childish labels of Lowe Luvvie. 3) In Excel terms most things are and C1=A1+B1/C1 - i.e. a circular argument, going round and round on the same points with no one changing their minds. So why bother. 4) Dodgy use of statistics (87% of which are made up anyway). Personally I can recognise what Lowe did wrong, what he did right and the fact that I don't give a ****e where he sits. After 10 years at Saints he better be a Saints fan and, as a fan, why is his support any different to anyone elses? If Leon was in the Forest boardroom would their be the hullabaloo? And really, honestly, what difference does it make to your matchday experience? None. Rupert Lowe is Schrodinger's cat. I cannot believe that you don't appreciate the significance of Lowe being invited to Sunday's match by Forest. Amazed .. but that of course is your opinion and you are fully entitled to it. I am also entitled to my view which is different from yours. And I will enjoy giving vent to my opinions on Sunday in Nottingham. YOu are
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 According to Jonah, Mike Richards has put in as much as Leon Crouch. If Jonah says that then it must be true
beatlesaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Pre-Lowe's return, we overspent by £6.5m/2 = £3.25m each season (it's actually a bit more as we had cash too but let's keep the numbers simple). When Lowe returned we were then forced to *underspend* by £2.5m to reduce the overdraft for Barclays. So if "Lowe's choice of manager" had been given £3.25m + £2.5m = £5.75m more to spend this season like his predecessors, do you think we'd have stayed up still? Does anyone really believe that having another £5.75m spending power wouldn't have won us another 2 points over 38 matches? Therefore, surely it's more logical to deduce that it was this incredible drop in spending power which led to relegation - in which case, it's a question of why we f***ed up the finances so badly that we had to do this. A tiny part of it is down to the credit crunch, but generally it was down to negligence on the part of the execs and chairmen in overspending. Anyone can make mistakes with managers and players with the best intentions (and with hindsight), but it's a special kind of idiot who deliberately spends money we don't have which leads us into administration. It was only a part of the reason because it wasn't redressed in 2 years. One of the few things Jim Hone actually figured out correctly was that in not accepting the SISU deal they would then have to sell players sharpish. Unfortunately he was too late in working it out and it was his own negligence that saw our wage bill spiral to 81% - who thinks Rupert "tight-fisted, never invests in the team" would have allowed that to happen? Lets not choose to forget that throughout the Lowe/Wilde/Execs/Crouch/Lowe & Wilde dream team/Administrators merry-go-round there has been one constant - the Finance Director, Mr David Jones. Repeat the word FINANCE !!! So is the Finance Director not partly, or largely as it is his job, responsible for the mess we are in, or am i being stupid thinking that he must know whats going on financially within the club ? I wouldnt want him looking at my accounts thats for sure.
The Rover Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I think the problem is actually quite simple - I dont believe there are any' date=' certainly not many who fail to acknowledge that Lowe decison directly led to our situation. ON that most will agree. What is argued by me and some others is that a) this was not done with malice or intent, b) there was some logic in some of these decisons, even if they were ultimately to fail c) there were others who also contributed - and its not a question of how long they were relatively in charge, but what they did or failed to do whilst they had that power or could influence that power, which is why Wilde and Crouch ARE also culpable. d) Can not understand how those wishing administration was preferable to the previous regime - we could go out of business FFS and yet some were advcating this as a suitable method of chaning the board - are these folk stupid? e) there seems to be some that have so closely aligned themselve sto Mr CRouch that they dont even get the irony - they spent the last few years criticising anyone who had anything positive to say about LOwe (even when balanced against the failings) that theywere sychophantic or blindly stupid ignoring teh negative - yet they are now doing exactly the same in their blinkered support opf CRouch - have they no sense of self awareness or irony?[/quote'] As said elsewhere, if Crouch ha fukced off a few weeks ago Saints would now be out of business with all their results and points for the season eradicated. For that alone I would hold Crouch in higher regard than any of the other directors and ex-directors. Minor point Farnk but have you actually tried to type 'teh' instead of 'the'? You never know it might just do teh tirkc.
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 (edited) 2 points which I think are salient FC Number 1 - if Leon had not coughed up over the last few weeks there may not have been a match for Rupert to have gone to. Ponder that a second, please. Number 2 - sure, we would all like to move on and forget the past, but it is the past's decision to turn up to tomorrow's match while enjoying the hospitality from someone who up until a week ago was our deadly rival. I really am not surprised that LC thought it appropriate to have an outburst and yet you seem to go out of your way to make a big deal out of that??? If I didn't know you better Frank I would be tempted to see your words as deliberately provocative. Duncan in response to your points: 1) Anyone you contributes to our survival deserves respect for that - and I applaud every single person who ANONYMOUSLY put their hand in theior pock and made a contribution - for you or I £20 is like £50k for Leon, so we have to be realistic, but how come we KNOW about Leon's personaly contributio? BECAUSE he darn well wants us to - it might eb a positive thing but you dont have to be cynical to see the reasons for the public disclosure of these contributors - its ebven on the web site - get your name here if you give a grand or more? I would put the name in lights of the unemployed guy or pensioner who donated her last few quid as a higher priority... thats just a personal perspective. Leon di not contibute the greatest percentage - teh fans did so you could say if it had not been for teh fans there would not have been a match for Lowe to attend.... 2) Now he is just a fan - did you expect him to stop making crass decisions? - BUt ponder this for a moment - WHOI THE FECK RELEASED THIS SNIPPET OF INFORMATION? It was on the OS FFS - the fact he was attending was released into the public domain for this VERY reason by someone who had something to gain from this.... I wonder who? Had someone NOT released this no one would have been the wiser and no one would have cared - I would suggets this leak did not come from Lowe.... thats why I am more disspointed in Crouch grabing a PR opportunity to get mileage out of this than in Lowe being insensitive in attending this game. I dont think we would have wanted this to get oput for the reason we see now..... I suggest we should all ponder that for a moment... the games are continuing despite niether party still being involved.... Edited 1 May, 2009 by Frank's cousin
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 As said elsewhere, if Crouch ha fukced off a few weeks ago Saints would now be out of business with all their results and points for the season eradicated. For that alone I would hold Crouch in higher regard than any of the other directors and ex-directors. Minor point Farnk but have you actually tried to type 'teh' instead of 'the'? You never know it might just do teh tirkc. Cheeky bastard! ;-) Thing is guys but so what if we make it to the season end with Crouch's money - unless we get bought it will mean feck all anyway and as I pointed out elsewhere, why ahs he been so vocal about 'giving 'it to us?
SFC Forever Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I tend to disagree with youBTF. The man may be told to get the best possible price but not at the expence of the club. It has to be a viable proposition surely for him to sanction such a move.
Recommended Posts