fos1 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 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? Has he been vocal then Frank, the only bit I can remember was the £50k( and I am not sure he made this public) i was told by someone within the club that bills are being paid by Crouch to keep to club going until a buyer can be found, pretty sure he has not told us this !!! Lowe has a freeloader at Forest, after all the money in wages, bonuses, pay offs he has taken from our club, I think it is about time he put his money were his mouth is for a change, instead of going around the media blaming everybody else but himself !! I cannot wait till Sunday with nothing riding on this game let Lowe have it with both barrels !! LOWE SHOULD NEVER GO NEAR OUR CLUB AGAIN STAY AWAY
lenwilkins Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 ....so what if we make it to the season end with Crouch's money - unless we get bought it will mean feck all anyway... It makes all the difference in the world. As long as we get bought out the club DOES now continue. Without Crouch there would be effectively no club to buy and it would be dead.
capitalsaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I know this is old news, but i might as well put in my few pennies worth. If rupert is to be hated in such a way, can't we at least be logical about it? Yes, he made a mistake with the dutch setup, yes, he made a mistake with wigley. But please can we remember we also got to the fa cup final, into europe and have a fantastic stadium. I don't love lowe, i accept he is the reason for our downfall, but he shares the blame with plenty others. The players and their half baked performances, managers such as redknapp who made some ridiculous decisions- notably playing ormerod against man u, and the fans who let the club suffer by not turning up. I think to suggest he did any of this with the intent of ruining saints is ridiculous, he is a businessman who wants to make a business successful. End of. I also think the financial mismanagement in his two year absence, while a sore subject, had massive implications to where we are now. As i said, i don't love the guy, but i can see that there were good and bad things about his regime, as with crouch et al. He's put a lot of time into the club, for better or worse, i'd say he probably feel as connected as we do in some way. He was here for years, involved in the day to day management. Lets end the hysteria and move on.
Neilza Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I'm thinking of making a banner reading : Rupert - Die! Anyone think this would look good?
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I'm thinking of making a banner reading : Rupert - Die! Anyone think this would look good? Yup if you are a fu ckwit
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 "What is ‘in administration’? Administration is when a person, ‘the administrator’, is appointed to manage a company’s affairs, business and property for the benefit of the creditors. The person appointed must be an insolvency practitioner and has the status of an officer of the court (whether or not he or she is appointed by the court). The objective of administration is to: rescue a company as a going concern; achieve a better price for the company’s assets or otherwise realise their value more favourably for the creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were wound up (without first being in administration); or in certain circumstances, realise the value of property in order to make a distribution to one or more preferential creditors." This is an excerpt from this link found on the Companies House website: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gbw1.shtml It's my view that the administrator's primary accountability is to the creditors (earlier in the link it talks about the 'holder of the floating charge'). It is for the administrator to see how best the creditors' interests can be served. He is not appointed by the club but by the creditor(s). If he doesn't get a good offer for the whole shooting match, he could get offers for individual parts e.g. JF, Staplewood, the football club etc. If the amount he raises is not acceptable to the creditor(s) the 'company' (SLH) can be wound up - although this means no-one gets a bean. That's how I understand it. Please put me straight if I've got it wrong.
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 "What is ‘in administration’? Administration is when a person, ‘the administrator’, is appointed to manage a company’s affairs, business and property for the benefit of the creditors. The person appointed must be an insolvency practitioner and has the status of an officer of the court (whether or not he or she is appointed by the court). The objective of administration is to: rescue a company as a going concern; achieve a better price for the company’s assets or otherwise realise their value more favourably for the creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were wound up (without first being in administration); or in certain circumstances, realise the value of property in order to make a distribution to one or more preferential creditors." This is an excerpt from this link found on the Companies House website: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gbw1.shtml It's my view that the administrator's primary accountability is to the creditors (earlier in the link it talks about the 'holder of the floating charge'). It is for the administrator to see how best the creditors' interests can be served. He is not appointed by the club but by the creditor(s). If he doesn't get a good offer for the whole shooting match, he could get offers for individual parts e.g. JF, Staplewood, the football club etc. If the amount he raises is not acceptable to the creditor(s) the 'company' (SLH) can be wound up - although this means no-one gets a bean. That's how I understand it. Please put me straight if I've got it wrong. Yup but if liquidated, the assets still go to the reditors, depending on who had default security on the assets... so they do get something on liquidation....
Neilza Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Yup if you are a fu ckwit It was a joke mate. Seriously does he not understand how low he has taken us?? Just go away and don't show your face for a while.
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Yup but if liquidated' date=' the assets still go to the reditors, depending on who had default security on the assets... so they do get something on liquidation....[/quote'] Thank you Frank - of course you're right there. I was really responding to the point made by SFC Forever that Mr Fry will not do a deal 'at the expense of the club'. I think the above demonstrates that his loyalty is with the creditor(s) first and foremost. I wish it were otherwise
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 It was a joke mate. Seriously does he not understand how low he has taken us?? Just go away and don't show your face for a while. Fair enough so was my response. In all seriousness, I do think its crass that he could not judge the reaction this would get... but do find it difficult to understand why we let it effectus so... if we really want closure on his tenure, just forget about him. Take the 'bigger man' approach and ignore him, let him do what he wants because he cant influence the club anymore...its over.
Eastcowzer Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Lowe apparently Invited by the Forest Chairman. What a 'd--khead'
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Thank you Frank - of course you're right there. I was really responding to the point made by SFC Forever that Mr Fry will not do a deal 'at the expense of the club'. I think the above demonstrates that his loyalty is with the creditor(s) first and foremost. I wish it were otherwise The only slight positive is that teh administrator does look to get teh BEST deal for creditors. Obviously the BEST deal for creditors is to get the most money back - and as SLH's only possible income stream that would allow this is football it is alos incumbant on the administrator to try the hardest for a deal that will allow the business to continue as a going concern. Its why in many cases someone will buy ALL the assets and debt for £1 on the proviso that they are going to then spend the money they would ahve done on teh assets on repaying the debts or continuing with any already agreed prepayments on the assumption that such an agreement can be reached with creditors - eg. Do Aviva accept 5mil for SMS and write off the rest or simply reach a new loan term with the new owners for the full amount, but renegotiate the repyments to a more sustainable level for the business and thus get their 24 mill back + interest over 40 years rather than just take 5 mil now....
Toomer Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 All though I am looking forward to a fresh start (fingers crossed) there is a difference between Lowe & Crouch. Lowe has put himself about in the media with the it's not my fault ticket. Crouch has put his hand in his pocket along with a good many others to make sure there is still a club for Mark Fry to sell. Every last one of them has played a part in our fall from grace and not one of them are whiter than white.
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 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.... Frank - while accepting LC is far from angelic I really do struggle with the rest of your reasoning. Would you rather have Crouch bail the club out and it be made public or have no club? So what if he gets PR, so what if he gets attention, so what if he gets the freedom of the City what does that really matter to the fan in the street. The only important thing surely is that the club survives through this awkward period. And yet you continue to get your knickers in a twist about Crouch while painting Lowe as a lesser evil. Again bizarre. Frank, I like you as a bloke but your logic is really twisted here and I am starting to think there is a little more to it. Has Leon ever ran over your cat?
OldNick Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 All though I am looking forward to a fresh start (fingers crossed) there is a difference between Lowe & Crouch. Lowe has put himself about in the media with the it's not my fault ticket. Crouch has put his hand in his pocket along with a good many others to make sure there is still a club for Mark Fry to sell. Every last one of them has played a part in our fall from grace and not one of them are whiter than white. Thats what I believe as well. I still would rather he did not have any part to play at present
fos1 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Frank - while accepting LC is far from angelic I really do struggle with the rest of your reasoning. Would you rather have Crouch bail the club out and it be made public or have no club? So what if he gets PR, so what if he gets attention, so what if he gets the freedom of the City what does that really matter to the fan in the street. The only important thing surely is that the club survives through this awkward period. And yet you continue to get your knickers in a twist about Crouch while painting Lowe as a lesser evil. Again bizarre. Frank, I like you as a bloke but your logic is really twisted here and I am starting to think there is a little more to it. Has Leon ever ran over your cat? Frank any chance of an answer to post 304 ??
70's Mike Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Shall let Rupert know my feelings tomorrow, the man has no shame
Clapham Saint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 (edited) "What is ‘in administration’? Administration is when a person, ‘the administrator’, is appointed to manage a company’s affairs, business and property for the benefit of the creditors. The person appointed must be an insolvency practitioner and has the status of an officer of the court (whether or not he or she is appointed by the court). The objective of administration is to: rescue a company as a going concern; achieve a better price for the company’s assets or otherwise realise their value more favourably for the creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were wound up (without first being in administration); or in certain circumstances, realise the value of property in order to make a distribution to one or more preferential creditors." This is an excerpt from this link found on the Companies House website: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gbw1.shtml It's my view that the administrator's primary accountability is to the creditors (earlier in the link it talks about the 'holder of the floating charge'). It is for the administrator to see how best the creditors' interests can be served. He is not appointed by the club but by the creditor(s). If he doesn't get a good offer for the whole shooting match, he could get offers for individual parts e.g. JF, Staplewood, the football club etc. If the amount he raises is not acceptable to the creditor(s) the 'company' (SLH) can be wound up - although this means no-one gets a bean. That's how I understand it. Please put me straight if I've got it wrong. You aren't wrong. With regard to the objectives of administration which I have put in bold in your post, these are in order of priority. i.e. If you can't achieve the first you try of the second etc. It is worth noting though Mr Fry is administrator of SLH. Rescuing the Company means saving Southampton Leisure Holdings Plc rather than SFC Limited or SFC itself. This isn't going to be possible Therefore he is obligated to look to achieve the second objective. achieve a better price for the company’s assets or otherwise realise their value more favourably for the creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were wound up (without first being in administration); or Edited 1 May, 2009 by Clapham Saint speeeling
Frank's cousin Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Frank - while accepting LC is far from angelic I really do struggle with the rest of your reasoning. Would you rather have Crouch bail the club out and it be made public or have no club? So what if he gets PR, so what if he gets attention, so what if he gets the freedom of the City what does that really matter to the fan in the street. The only important thing surely is that the club survives through this awkward period. And yet you continue to get your knickers in a twist about Crouch while painting Lowe as a lesser evil. Again bizarre. Frank, I like you as a bloke but your logic is really twisted here and I am starting to think there is a little more to it. Has Leon ever ran over your cat? Sorry Duncan but you are reading more into this than is intended. However, in this case I do think that whoever released the info that Lowe was heading to Nottingham like the old Sheriff, wicked and mean, did so with the intent of raking the sh I te.... there was really no need. The only benefit this has had apart from copy for the echo (but also the OS) seems to be Leon getting the opportunity to portray himself once again as the peoples champion... its this that galls and sticks in the throat - I am not responding because he has done so, but because he has been SUPPORTED for having done so. If he had not been, it would have been a no story. As to his contributions, and this should answer fos 1' point. Of course I would rather have Crouch sticking in cash and getting publicity for it than having no club, unlike those prepared to let teh club go into admin or even risk liquidation just to get rid of Lowe, for me nothing should come before club.... but it does seem that Crouch is milking all this - I just ahve a natural suspicion of the whole popularity contecst approach - following on from the 'Wilde revolution'. They are both similar in that respect - they have said alot that has appealed at one time or another to fans ('Lets go Wilde T Shirts' anyone? - Lets feckin not and forget that embarrssing episode), but with little substance on anything else. I ask myself why? If we are happy to criticise one individual for their ego dictating policy and actions, should this not apply to them all. Seriously I dislike Crouch no more than I dislike Lowe and Wilde, but I do think that CRouch's public gaffs and open gob approach is there to draw attention away from his own contribution to the mess in the first place - as Lowe tried to do with his rather ill though out media trail...
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 You aren't wrong. With regard to the objectives of administration which I have put in bold in your post, these are in order of priority. i.e. If you can't achieve the first you try of the second etc. It is worth noting though Mr Fry is administrator of SLH. Rescuing the Company means saving Southampton Leisure Holdings Plc rather than SFC Limited or SFC itself. This isn't going to be possible Therefore he is obligated to look to achieve the second objective. achieve a better price for the company’s assets or otherwise realise their value more favourably for the creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were wound up (without first being in administration); or And then the third objective comes into play if the first and second can't be realised. The point I was making is that his first obligation is to the creditors and not the well-being of the football club. I don't want him hounded out of town if he ONLY manages to sell off all the tangible assets but not the football club. That's all
Clapham Saint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Sorry Duncan but you are reading more into this than is intended. However, in this case I do think that whoever released the info that Lowe was heading to Nottingham like the old Sheriff, wicked and mean, did so with the intent of raking the sh I te.... there was really no need. The only benefit this has had apart from copy for the echo (but also the OS) seems to be Leon getting the opportunity to portray himself once again as the peoples champion... its this that galls and sticks in the throat - I am not responding because he has done so, but because he has been SUPPORTED for having done so. If he had not been, it would have been a no story. As to his contributions, and this should answer fos 1' point. Of course I would rather have Crouch sticking in cash and getting publicity for it than having no club, unlike those prepared to let teh club go into admin or even risk liquidation just to get rid of Lowe, for me nothing should come before club.... but it does seem that Crouch is milking all this - I just ahve a natural suspicion of the whole popularity contecst approach - following on from the 'Wilde revolution'. They are both similar in that respect - they have said alot that has appealed at one time or another to fans ('Lets go Wilde T Shirts' anyone? - Lets feckin not and forget that embarrssing episode), but with little substance on anything else. I ask myself why? If we are happy to criticise one individual for their ego dictating policy and actions, should this not apply to them all. Seriously I dislike Crouch no more than I dislike Lowe and Wilde, but I do think that CRouch's public gaffs and open gob approach is there to draw attention away from his own contribution to the mess in the first place - as Lowe tried to do with his rather ill though out media trail... Good point IMO
Clapham Saint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 And then the third objective comes into play if the first and second can't be realised. The point I was making is that his first obligation is to the creditors and not the well-being of the football club. I don't want him hounded out of town if he ONLY manages to sell off all the tangible assets but not the football club. That's all And I was agreeing with you.
Foxstone Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Sorry Duncan but you are reading more into this than is intended. However, in this case I do think that whoever released the info that Lowe was heading to Nottingham like the old Sheriff, wicked and mean, did so with the intent of raking the sh I te.... there was really no need. The only benefit this has had apart from copy for the echo (but also the OS) seems to be Leon getting the opportunity to portray himself once again as the peoples champion... its this that galls and sticks in the throat - I am not responding because he has done so, but because he has been SUPPORTED for having done so. If he had not been, it would have been a no story. As to his contributions, and this should answer fos 1' point. Of course I would rather have Crouch sticking in cash and getting publicity for it than having no club, unlike those prepared to let teh club go into admin or even risk liquidation just to get rid of Lowe, for me nothing should come before club.... but it does seem that Crouch is milking all this - I just ahve a natural suspicion of the whole popularity contecst approach - following on from the 'Wilde revolution'. They are both similar in that respect - they have said alot that has appealed at one time or another to fans ('Lets go Wilde T Shirts' anyone? - Lets feckin not and forget that embarrssing episode), but with little substance on anything else. I ask myself why? If we are happy to criticise one individual for their ego dictating policy and actions, should this not apply to them all. Seriously I dislike Crouch no more than I dislike Lowe and Wilde, but I do think that CRouch's public gaffs and open gob approach is there to draw attention away from his own contribution to the mess in the first place - as Lowe tried to do with his rather ill though out media trail... Agree Frank.
rallyboy Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I am bored of slagging off Lowe, but to be the star guest at our opponents' survival party??!......he must be nuts. Why doesn't he abandon the pr and self-promotion, keep his head down and let the comments on here and his attachment to what is left of our club fade away? If I had crashed a train (twice) I wouldn't be hanging around the crematorium waving at the mourners.
SFC Forever Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Thank you Frank - of course you're right there. I was really responding to the point made by SFC Forever that Mr Fry will not do a deal 'at the expense of the club'. I think the above demonstrates that his loyalty is with the creditor(s) first and foremost. I wish it were otherwise I stand corrected and shall start wiping the egg off of my face yet again. All though I believe the two sides go together. The creditors will surely get more if the buyers can get a deal that suits both parties. Failure means the end of the club and the selling off of the bits seperately. This with our greatest debt being the stadium would not mean them getting a great deal. IMO of course. And for one wrong as often as I am what do I know?
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I see in tonight's Echo MP Alan Whitehead (who will be at the match himself) describes Lowe's intended presence as "inappropriate". Probably the best word.
bridge too far Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I stand corrected and shall start wiping the egg off of my face yet again. All though I believe the two sides go together. The creditors will surely get more if the buyers can get a deal that suits both parties. Failure means the end of the club and the selling off of the bits seperately. This with our greatest debt being the stadium would not mean them getting a great deal. IMO of course. And for one wrong as often as I am what do I know? More than me, I'm sure. I suffer from chronic wirescrosseditis
Tamesaint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I'm thinking of making a banner reading : Rupert - Die! Anyone think this would look good? You missed out the word "painfully." Only joking Frank!!
SFC Forever Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 At the end off the day all that matters is that we have a club to support.
SFC Forever Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Why not have a little chant for Rupert at the game instead of verbal abuse, let him know he has no chance of killing us off. Rupert Rupert don't be sore We will live for ever more.
um pahars Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I think inappropriate is indeed the best way of describing this decision. Should Lowe be blackballed from St Mary's, or from watching Saints forever? I don't think so, but with the pain so raw and recent, he would have been better advised to keep his head down unitl things had panned out. I have been saying for years that at times like this Cowen should kick his shins under the table and whisper "bad idea". There's something rather weird about his insistence of staying in the limelight and brassing it out. I always had a worry that Lowe just didn't "get it" and there is noting in his recent words or actions that have made me change my mind on that one (if anything, it's enhanced that perception of him).
aintforever Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I heard that the administrators actually told Lowe to stay away from SMS, that might be why he felt the need to show his mug at Forest.
lenwilkins Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Sorry Duncan but you are reading more into this than is intended. However, in this case I do think that whoever released the info that Lowe was heading to Nottingham like the old Sheriff, wicked and mean, did so with the intent of raking the sh I te.... there was really no need. The only benefit this has had apart from copy for the echo (but also the OS) seems to be Leon getting the opportunity to portray himself once again as the peoples champion... its this that galls and sticks in the throat - I am not responding because he has done so, but because he has been SUPPORTED for having done so. If he had not been, it would have been a no story. As to his contributions, and this should answer fos 1' point. Of course I would rather have Crouch sticking in cash and getting publicity for it than having no club, unlike those prepared to let teh club go into admin or even risk liquidation just to get rid of Lowe, for me nothing should come before club.... but it does seem that Crouch is milking all this - I just ahve a natural suspicion of the whole popularity contecst approach - following on from the 'Wilde revolution'. They are both similar in that respect - they have said alot that has appealed at one time or another to fans ('Lets go Wilde T Shirts' anyone? - Lets feckin not and forget that embarrssing episode), but with little substance on anything else. I ask myself why? If we are happy to criticise one individual for their ego dictating policy and actions, should this not apply to them all. Seriously I dislike Crouch no more than I dislike Lowe and Wilde, but I do think that CRouch's public gaffs and open gob approach is there to draw attention away from his own contribution to the mess in the first place - as Lowe tried to do with his rather ill though out media trail... Fair assessment I would say. Wilde always come across as Mr Nobody (who knows whether he approved the crass T-Shirts). Lowe as we know is all ego and doesn't seem to care or have the slightest idea that he rubs people up the wrong way. Crouch HAS saved the club in recent weeks but is extremely gaffe prone (SLH was set up so that SFC couldn't be penalised if things went wrong etc). Lowe's presence at Notts F tomorrow is inappropriate but hardly a hanging offence. I just hope he isn't able to use the fans reaction to extend his 'Don't Blame Me Tour' of the nations media.
aintforever Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Frank's just bitter because he's been proved wrong about Lowe, and he owes a debt of gratitude to Crouch. He still is yet to admit he was wrong.
rocknrollman no2 Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I would like to take this opportunity to invite our former Chairman to come and sit with us at the Forest game.Come on Rupes let bygones be bygones and lets put all the nastiness behind us. Anyway if you read this Rupert,my friends and myself have always wanted to meet you.You can be sure of a "Warm welcome".:-)
saintwarwick Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I heard that the administrators actually told Lowe to stay away from SMS, that might be why he felt the need to show his mug at Forest. That I don't agree.
benjii Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I think he actually may have some sort of mental problem.
pilsburydoughboy Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Lowe is a prize **** and he will sit at the Forest game surrounded by his usual pompous ingnorance. He shows his true contempt for the Fans of a club he has no understanding of or ever will. Lowe thought he could buy into the "Spirit of Southampton".That spirit died when the ruddy faced tosser thought he could market the brand of the Saints. I hope he gets everthing he deserves on Sunday at the game.No doubt he will put all of the abuse down to the Lunatic Fringe. Please Rupert **** off and never darken my clubs door again. If you come back then you can stuff your Southampton fc and your brand of Spirit of the saints right up your arse.
LostBoys Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I have a great idea - why don't the fans who have got tickets roundly abuse Rupes Askham and Richards on Sunday and then we ban the very mention of their names unless WH Ireland go bust although I will have sympathy for the staff who will lose their jobs. Then all the Lowe luvvies and plants can disappear as well and we will have one happy forum all looking to restore our club to where it should be instead of wasting our time reading the rubbish they spout as they try and hijack every thread to rewrite history..
Norm Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I rarely, if ever, comment on Lowe's role in the demise of SFC. Mainly because I don't know enough to pass judgment but I am shocked that Rup' has the balls to attend the game on Sunday! He should stay away as he will only cause problems with his attendance.
hypochondriac Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 We should storm the directors box and place him in the stocks at half time. Charge people to lob things at him. Could we then say that Rupert has saved the club? (judging by that punchaface website we would make more than enough to get us champions league football by 2011!)
Nineteen Canteen Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 It was a joke mate. Seriously does he not understand how low he has taken us?? Just go away and don't show your face for a while. A joke? Who wrote it Mike Osman?
Mole Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I would like to take this opportunity to invite our former Chairman to come and sit with us at the Forest game.Come on Rupes let bygones be bygones and lets put all the nastiness behind us. Anyway if you read this Rupert,my friends and myself have always wanted to meet you.You can be sure of a "Warm welcome".:-) It'd be like the time John PFC Westwood came to St Marys for the England game. He never did get his bell back.
ART Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I am sad to point out that I believe Lowe has chosen to attend just to be provocative. He is using the Forest ground to allow Saints fans to make an a r s e of themselves. This will in turn give maximum publicity and he'll then claim he was right all along about the lunatic fringe. Maybe it would be better to lie in wait for him on those country roads on the way to Nottingham (as Robin Hood would have so cleverly done) and prevent him physically from appearing. The sooner we are rid of all of our past chairmen and directors the more healthy our future will be.
HILL HEAD SAINT Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Thats what I believe as well. I still would rather he did not have any part to play at present you really are a massive sycophant!
lee_saint Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 It'd be like the time John PFC Westwood came to St Marys for the England game. He never did get his bell back. Nor his hat which kept being chucked down the steps.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 Lowe is a prize **** and he will sit at the Forest game surrounded by his usual pompous ingnorance. He shows his true contempt for the Fans of a club he has no understanding of or ever will. Lowe thought he could buy into the "Spirit of Southampton".That spirit died when the ruddy faced tosser thought he could market the brand of the Saints. I hope he gets everthing he deserves on Sunday at the game.No doubt he will put all of the abuse down to the Lunatic Fringe. Please Rupert **** off and never darken my clubs door again. If you come back then you can stuff your Southampton fc and your brand of Spirit of the saints right up your arse. The Lunatic Fringe according to McMoneyme is actually the Loyal Fringe. Laughable really that he thinks those fans most likely to have stayed away in protest of Lowe are classed as loyal even though they helped push the club over the edge. Shows how absurdly out of touch LM really is and as for Crouch's latest incredulous outburst IMO it is along the lines of his post administration cash contibutions - a desperate attempt at some kind of absolution with the fans. Crouch is for some reason desperate to remain popular with the fanbase and his investments into the club from his share purchases up until the present may have been well intended but equally astoundingly poor investments/decisions and total folly IMO. It seems to me that Crouch's attempts to remove Lowe have been as destructive and as futile as his attempts to save the club and that is just a personal opinion and observation based purely on being an un-connected fan in the stand. People accuse Lowe of having some mental disorder but it seems with Crouch that he maybe is the epitome of the saying a fool and his money is easily parted. What makes it worse is the fact he and his band of merry men carried round the buckets at the Burnley game asking for contributions. I wonder how many of those who gave did so because they felt intimidated to do so having a bucket waved under your face surrounded by peer pressure? Crouch and McMoneyme are as big a part of the problem as Lowe and the stay away fans and IMO by trying to hang Lowe out to dry they are all simply trying to deflect the finger of accusation being pointed in their direction.
Mole Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 I am sad to point out that I believe Lowe has chosen to attend just to be provocative. Yeh and i also think it fits with his bombastic character. For him attending is a matter of pride. Having been told he's not wanted at St Marys it's him showing that he won't be told what to do. It's very sad and pathetic, but it's his swansong so we should all have a little smirk at him going out with bad grace. I would have expected no better from the man.
Mole Posted 1 May, 2009 Posted 1 May, 2009 People accuse Lowe of having some mental disorder but it seems with Crouch that he maybe is the epitome of the saying a fool and his money is easily parted. How many of the companies Rupert has been involed in have now gone into administration Sundance? A fool and his money eh. Still W H Ireland is doing marvelously well.... oh.
Recommended Posts