Was Rupert There?

[SFC1906]

Aside from Sundance Beast, Flashman at the Charge, and Nineteen Canteen were there any other names he's used?

 

Quondam was one he used around the time Tommac was at his comic best, although only briefly.

 

If you have the inclination Google Nineteen Canteen and Quondam for their meanings - very similar

[um pahars]

Quondam was one he used around the time Tommac was at his comic best, although only briefly.

 

If you have the inclination Google Nineteen Canteen and Quondam for their meanings - very similar

 

LOL, I missed this post just like I missed Quondam being another of his aliases.

 

Will we get in to double figures??????

[eelpie]

EP used the term cancerous probably ok to use it for Lowe as many on here operate on double standards. IMO, I think Crouch and McMenemy have acted in a far more cancerous way as they operate in a far more insidious fashion, convincing us they are good for the club when IMO exactly the opposite is the case and yet they seem impervious to diagnosis, a true cancer.

 

I would never use the term 'cancerous' lightly, but very deferentially and sympathetically to all those who's lives have been tragically affected by the disease. And I unreservedly apologise to anyone offended.

However, metaphorically speaking, Lowe's invasion of SFC has proved to be nothing less than malignant, and possibly may yet prove terminal.

Edited 5 May, 2009 by eelpie

[eelpie]

How much is down to him, after the whole shambolic, vitriolic, incompetent wreckage of the season just ended? ‘Quite a lot’ would be an understatement.

 

I think we’re entitled to measure him on his own claim, and those like Sundance Beast/Nineteen Canteen, who made the claim for him on here last August about “Rupert and Co to getting on with the job of rescuing the club.”

 

And I’m sorry if you feel bad about people blaming Lowe – but the real inquest into the last disastrous year hasn’t even begun yet.

 

Look where we are. The team has just handed us the worst season’s performance in the club’s 125-year history. By far!

 

In the boardroom, The Lowe era has ended with the ultimate poison pill: the holding company in administration, unable even to pay the Inland Revenue (which may yet help drive the club out of existence), and a ten-point penalty carried over into next season. I know we’re all prone to bouts of optimism – as I was at the beginning of this season – but let’s not kid ourselves: assuming we make it to the starting blocks next season, the penalty ensures that if we make the tiniest mistake, let alone the catalogue of ridiculous decisions that have just passed, we could sail straight into League Two.

 

Frankly, the Football League should seriously think about coming up with a point-BONUS scheme – in which any club having to endure being led by such demonstrably appalling characters should have ten points added before the start of the season.

 

The Lowe disaster should also be a lesson to the Football League – it needs to come up with ways to ban people like him ever running a football club again. (The idea that he might still be sniffing around the club is actually shocking.)

 

The inquest into Lowe and his cronies will only really get going when people on the inside of the club start to talk about what was really happening over the last twelve months. And based on previous experience, I suspect the reality will easily outdo the worst anyone could have made up on here.

 

We’ve yet to understand the full extent of the deceit and spin that surrounded the ‘sacking’ of Nigel Pearson. And we certainly still don’t have a clear idea of how it was possible that Lowe could railroad Wilde into signing up to such a profoundly risky venture that the utterly bonkers ‘Dutch revolution’ was recognised to be well before the start of the season.

 

We’ll get to find out the details of how the Dutch comedians came to the club, and the extent of the damage they did, particularly to young players’ morale. We’ve yet to get first-hand accounts of the tactical chaos that swamped the Poortvliet part of the season, and the evident determination of Wotte to repeat those mistakes. And the consequences of the fact that, unknown to almost all of us, the two were evidently at each other’s throats pretty much from the off.

 

We’ve yet to get an adequate explanation for the player-buying policies – how on earth we ended up with Gasmi, Pulis, Forecast, et al., players we neither needed nor could afford. (All we’ve got so far is wide-eyed incredulity – but surely Lowe had to justify his crazy decisions to SOMEONE.) And not just that – what was the thinking (in the loosest sense of the word, I suspect) behind splashing a seven-figure sum on a young player in the process of slowly sinking on the French leagues…and where the hell did the money come from?

 

Then there’s the flip-side of the coin: how exactly a number of senior players were frozen out, and may even have received threats (along the lines of: You’ll never play for Saints again…), as the Lowe/Wilde regime evidently sought to impose their ‘revolutionary’ will on the first team. (And to what extent this too eroded morale within the club).

 

We may even get to hear about the full contents and author of the infamous ‘peace-in-our-time’ letter that Lowe waved at the AGM – or even that it was a fabrication. But more importantly, why, with the first team in freefall, was no serious action taken around the time of the AGM to arrest the awful decline of the first team, either with a new manager and/or loanees.

 

I also suspect there’s more to the relationship between Lowe and Wilde than has come out so far – because however you look at it, it’s an alliance that has never made any sense. As Wilde nurses his pile of worthless shares, does he still think he did the right thing? He should have the guts and moral sense to tell us.

 

All of this and much more needs to be well understood by all of us, because we all have a stake in this club – especially now that we’re by far the main source of income for the club, should it make it through to next season. As Karl Marx once said: ‘Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.’

 

Actually we’ve already just done that!

 

Post of the season!

[Nineteen Canteen]

I would never use the term 'cancerous' lightly, but very deferentially and sympathetically to all those who's lives have been tragically affected by the disease. And I unreservedly apologise to anyone offended.

However, metaphorically speaking, Lowe's invasion of SFC has proved to be nothing less than malignant, and possibly may yet prove terminal.

 

EP I was not suggesting you used the word irreverently and believe the word used in the right context to describe the actions of something or someone as badly damaging is acceptable. You chose to use it to describe's Lowe's invasion of SFC and whilst I don't agree with the view I would defend the right to use language as intended and in a context you believe to be correct. What angers me is that people can't complain against the use of the word simply because they disagree with the target.

 

So you would call the Lowe invasion as cancerous - no one complains. I describe Crouch and Mcmenemy as acting IMO in an insidious cancerous manner and the word becomes unacceptable.

 

The word is not unacceptable its the point of view that people have issue with but instead of debating that viewpoint they somewhat lazily try to rubbish that view but describing the poster as vile for his use of language when in fact it is no different to you or anyone else here or in the media where it is commonly used in the context you have described.

 

Apologies if you thought I was having a go at you, I wasn't regardless of your opinion but wanted to highlight how some individuals choose the wrong approach to providing an alternative argument and deflect the need for them to actually address some pertinent issues being raised by vilifying a poster because of their use of a common way of describing erosion within a company, society etc.

[Mole]

describing the poster as vile

 

Are you suggesting this has been said to you? No. Never. I cannot imagine why.

[Block 5]

Zzzzzzzzz........................

[Big Ron fan]

Post of the season!

 

By some distance

[eelpie]

EP I was not suggesting you used the word irreverently and believe the word used in the right context to describe the actions of something or someone as badly damaging is acceptable. You chose to use it to describe's Lowe's invasion of SFC and whilst I don't agree with the view I would defend the right to use language as intended and in a context you believe to be correct. What angers me is that people can't complain against the use of the word simply because they disagree with the target.

 

So you would call the Lowe invasion as cancerous - no one complains. I describe Crouch and Mcmenemy as acting IMO in an insidious cancerous manner and the word becomes unacceptable.

 

The word is not unacceptable its the point of view that people have issue with but instead of debating that viewpoint they somewhat lazily try to rubbish that view but describing the poster as vile for his use of language when in fact it is no different to you or anyone else here or in the media where it is commonly used in the context you have described.

 

Apologies if you thought I was having a go at you, I wasn't regardless of your opinion but wanted to highlight how some individuals choose the wrong approach to providing an alternative argument and deflect the need for them to actually address some pertinent issues being raised by vilifying a poster because of their use of a common way of describing erosion within a company, society etc.

 

Point taken NC.

I did actually, by my own reasoning, feel guilty at having using the C word since it could be very hurtful to those who have suffered from the disease. And I remember there has been justifiably sensitive correspondence about this in the past, which I respect.

[Daren W]

Are you suggesting this has been said to you? No. Never. I cannot imagine why.

 

Denial... It's not a river in Egypt you know... lol

[Nineteen Canteen]

Denial... It's not a river in Egypt you know... lol

 

Not so disgruntled tonight then Daren but still far from gruntled by the looks of it. Sharp reply, who wrote that for you?

[Mole]

[Nineteen Canteen]

[/img]

 

Seem's I have a new fan.

[Mole]

Seem's I have a new fan.

 

Do you recognise the celebrity in the photo?

[Frank's cousin]

Agree, missing the deadline by a matter of days is probably the worst mistake he has made.

 

I still think he must have done it out of spite, no one has yet offered a rational reason why he would put us into admin just a few days after the deadline.

 

Its a good question - and one that we probably wont get the real answer to. I can only speculate. Even teh most ardent anti LOwes must surely deep down realise that this was not a deliberate strategy - something went wrong or happened that caused Barclays to pull the plug when it was noton the radar of the board - They MUST have believed that everything was in place to see us survive till seasons end at the very least - but what then? We can slag off Barclays all we like, but if there was no light at the end of the tunnel then they probably had no choice. Also with the lack of ST advance sales that usually come in from April onwards, this may also have swayed things - but the club did need to wait until our fate was known I guess....

 

Had Lowe been more of a sympathetic character, or had even a tiny bit of fan understanding, the club could have released the ST prices for both L1 and CCC and began sales at the lower rates with top ups required say in Oct/Nov if we stayed up, thereby guarranteeing survival over the summer.... but hey what do I know...

[Daren W]

Not so disgruntled tonight then Daren but still far from gruntled by the looks of it. Sharp reply, who wrote that for you?

 

I took a leaf out of your book, I googled and cut and pasted it....

Difference being, for the bits I wrote, I spell checked it first....

[Nineteen Canteen]

I took a leaf out of your book, I googled and cut and pasted it....

Difference being, for the bits I wrote, I spell checked it first....

 

Ho Ho - anyway I blame Frank's Cousins for lowering the spelin standards on this forum. Still if we are all grown up about it we can understand the gist without the need of downloading another Bill Gates spell checker.

 

Anyway when we resort to pointing out the spelin erors of others we kinda lose any argumint we are tying to make. Makes you wunder if FC does it on purpoise.