Delmary Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 (edited) According to yesterday's Echo 'Rupert Lowe was on around £100,000 a year prior to administration'. Edited 10 May, 2009 by Delmary
bridge too far Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 According to yesterday's Echo 'Rupert Lowe was on around £100,00 a year prior to administration'. That's obscene IMO
Delmary Posted 10 May, 2009 Author Posted 10 May, 2009 That's obscene IMOPlus Andrew Cowen's wage. I bet he was not working for nothing!
Delmary Posted 10 May, 2009 Author Posted 10 May, 2009 That's obscene IMOCould have helped paid for NP's wage:(
bridge too far Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 I wonder what he gets paid for chairing the under-performing (allegedly) W H Ireland? I think I'll start under-performing in my job - I might earn a lot more that way
Ponty Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 That's obscene IMO Hardly obscene when you consider the wages paid in football. A waste of money as far as SFC are concerrned? Well, seeing as we're in administration and that's what Lowe was here to prevent... Yes.
aintforever Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 That is obscene considering the position we were in, I expect his expenses make the MP's look like small change as well.
bridge too far Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Hardly obscene when you consider the wages paid in football. A waste of money as far as SFC are concerrned? Well, seeing as we're in administration and that's what Lowe was here to prevent... Yes. That's very true Ponty. However, if I was as 'gifted' as RL and I loved my club as much as he claimed to, I would have done the job for free. I wonder if he'll get a pension out of all this too?
Mole Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Don't forget the circa £500k him and Cowen pocket in severence payments when he left the first time.
beatlesaint Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Hardly obscene when you consider the wages paid in football./QUOTE] Well, considering he worked supposedly 2 days a week that adds up to just a fraction under £1000 a day, so yeah that is pretty obscene considering the financial state we were in that he had supposedly come back to save us from !!!! Considering he got a nice £500,000 pay off when he left first time as well !!
Ponty Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Don't forget the circa £500k him and Cowen pocket in severence payments when he left the first time. You can hardly blame him for that though, Stanley. That's all about Wilde.
Mole Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 You can hardly blame him for that though, Stanley. That's all about Wilde. Of course i can blame him for it. It shows where Lowes true loyalties were. All he ever cared about was lining his own pockets.
Ponty Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Of course i can blame him for it. It shows where Lowes true loyalties were. All he ever cared about was lining his own pockets. Nah, I'm not buying that. I love my job but when the recent cutbacks (due to the global recession) were made and our possible redundancies were set out I never once suggested they keep mine to help fund the team this season, if I was selected.
OldNick Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Iam disapppointed he was on so much considering the state of the clubs finances.The pay off I have no issue with, the Wilde bunch and fans wanted him gone and he got his rightful severence pay.
Mole Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Nah, I'm not buying that. I love my job but when the recent cutbacks (due to the global recession) were made and our possible redundancies were set out I never once suggested they keep mine to help fund the team this season, if I was selected. That's different because you are presumably not very wealthy. Lowe on the other hand was in a position to help the club. He didn't, he put himself first every step of the way he's been here even down to the N.D.A payments he gave to all the managers he got through - that was all about protecting himself. If you could add the price up we've had pay to suffer the bufoon it must run into millions.
Ponty Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Well, I don't think we'll agree on the rights or wrongs of the severance pay but we can agree that he didn't represent value for money at the end of the day, because ultimately he failed.
TNT Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Was the team manager not allegedly on 60K ?? LOL Who is the most important person at a football club ?
bigdavewatson Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 It's the fact that this and the Dutch muppet's wages could have covered most of NP's salary demands that makes it totally unacceptable IMO.
aintforever Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 You can hardly blame him for that though, Stanley. That's all about Wilde. That's rubbish IMO, Football club chairmen up and down the country did into their own pockets to help out their clubs, many work for nothing, some put millions in. Lowe never missed an opportunity to line his pockets at the club's expense - we deserve better than that IMO.
sadoldgit Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 So should we expect the next CEO/Chairman to come in and work for nothing? of course not. Lowe was entitled to a wage. As Ponty says we can complain that we didn't get value for money though. Is there once person on here who has given up money to help their company? Is there on who heasn't complained if their pay has been frozen? We live in the real world, not some old fashion fantasy land where players travel to the game on the bus with the fans. Times have changed.
bridge too far Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Phew I bet he's glad he didn't opt for Performance Related Pay!
sadoldgit Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Phew I bet he's glad he didn't opt for Performance Related Pay! If he and the team had perhaps we wouln't have gone into admin!
beatlesaint Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 So should we expect the next CEO/Chairman to come in and work for nothing? of course not. Lowe was entitled to a wage. yes of course he was entitiled to a wage, but £1,000 a day is how it worked out for a 2 day week part time job......and is £40,000 a year more than the head coach was on for a full time job !!! That is obscene. The fact JP was no bloody good is irrelevant, RL didnt know that when he appointed him. Least we now know why Pearson was sacked...Lowe wanted some of his salary : - )
sadoldgit Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 I don't think it quit works like that. We can agree that he didn't give value for money but I doubt if he clocked on for only 2 days a week. When there are problems you deal with them whenever they arise in that position not only on Mondays and Thursdays.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Hardly obscene when you consider the wages paid in football. A waste of money as far as SFC are concerrned? Well, seeing as we're in administration and that's what Lowe was here to prevent... Yes. Yes its not much money for his responsibility to be honest. But he's cost us Millions as a result of his inept policies and arrogance. Whatever happened before only one man was responsible for totally crap Dutch football with kids whilst paying and sidelining experienced professionals. We are down due to one man. The same man who led us into the CCC. Still... bring on the denyers.
trousers Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 According to yesterday's Echo 'Rupert Lowe was on around £100,000 a year prior to administration'. Almost as much as an MP gets in total. Madness...
Jackie@home Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Actually, my husband and I took paycuts this year to help the company we own through the worst of the recession, and we haven't asked our staff to do the same. However, the staff discussed things amongst themselves and agreed that they would all work a 4 day week rather than some of them be laid off. Luckily, it hasn't come to that. We also know of rival companies where the owners have paid themselves big fat salaries and gone into administration several times leaving their suppliers with huge unpaid bills. It's just wrong - like Lowe, they have no conscience. I know that players at Bournemouth were only being paid a percentage of their salary for several months, but they gave it their all, which is why they survived. The fact that they had people like Fletcher and Howe who had been associated with the club for many years is not coincidence - it's what Saints have lacked the last few years.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Phew I bet he's glad he didn't opt for Performance Related Pay! I suppose you do that when you are a shareholder anyway. Lowe received far more in share dividends over the years than he did last year in wages. But, lets just all smile in satisfaction at the fact he's lost as much in his shareholding now its worth nothing.
Snowballs2 Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 We should be very concerned about who comes in and hope that something similar does not happen under new owners. Lowe was never worth the monies paid to him.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Almost as much as an MP gets in total. Madness... (not including expenses)
bridge too far Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 I don't think it quit works like that. We can agree that he didn't give value for money but I doubt if he clocked on for only 2 days a week. When there are problems you deal with them whenever they arise in that position not only on Mondays and Thursdays. So, if we are to believe the reports that W H Ireland is experiencing some difficulties, how do you suppose he decided his priorities? It must have been so hard for him to be in two places at once poor chap.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 We should be very concerned about who comes in and hope that something similar does not happen under new owners. Lowe was never worth the monies paid to him. ... around £3million. Value for money? Come on the denyers...
saintalan Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 How long was he severed for? Isn't severance pay normally subject to being away a minimum term?
Mole Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Was the team manager not allegedly on 60K ?? LOL Who is the most important person at a football club ? Good point. With Lowe the most important person was himself. The good of Southampton FC always came second.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 So, if we are to believe the reports that W H Ireland is experiencing some difficulties, how do you suppose he decided his priorities? It must have been so hard for him to be in two places at once poor chap. Although as Stanley graphically pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the problems at W H Ireland appear to have started when Lowe actually turned his attention back towards that business, creating boardroom friction and a massive share price drop. Still I am sure the denyers on here will find another excuse...
Wes Tender Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 The cost to the club is millions in the amount he took out of the club as salary and also millions through the sums he has lost the club through relegation twice, the disbursements paid to him and Cowen when they were ousted before, money wasted on paying off the contracts of poor managers appointed by him, money wasted on crap players, etc. Had he managed to keep us afloat in the Premiership, it might have been justifiable. But to have cost the club so much money to have brought us down to this level is totally inexcusable.
sadoldgit Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 I don't think it is a question of "denyers". Many of us see that he is now gone and we ned to look to the future. The last time he went he was replaced by a bunch of idiots. Perhaps you should concern yourself more now with who will take Lowe's place? Hopefully we will get someone better. But we could get someone worse.
sadoldgit Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 ... around £3million. Value for money? Come on the denyers... What has McMenemy taken out of the club in recent years? Should he do it for "love"? What did we pay Redknapp? What did we pay the players who underperformed? Where does it end?
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 I don't think it is a question of "denyers". Many of us see that he is now gone and we ned to look to the future. The last time he went he was replaced by a bunch of idiots. Perhaps you should concern yourself more now with who will take Lowe's place? Hopefully we will get someone better. But we could get someone worse. Exactly how could it get worse? LOL.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 What has McMenemy taken out of the club in recent years? Should he do it for "love"? What did we pay Redknapp? What did we pay the players who underperformed? Where does it end? Not as much as Lowe has cost us in terms of his personal takings and has cost us in terms of treasure AND pride through 2 relegations. Fact.
hypochondriac Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 It's obscene and makes a mockery of Lowe saying that Pearson was not kept on due to financial considerations.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 It's obscene and makes a mockery of Lowe saying that Pearson was not kept on due to financial considerations. But, Lowe could never have imposed his 'Youth Dutch sweety mice filled head by Wotte total ****** football' strategy had he kept on NP. NP never had a chance when Wilde foolishly reappointed Lowe.
beatlesaint Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Hopefully we will get someone better. But we could get someone worse. We are in adminisration, the club could fold completely in a couple of weeks - how the feck could we get someone worse than what he has done to this club ? It would be a tall order to find worse....even for Southampton FC !!!
hypochondriac Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 What has McMenemy taken out of the club in recent years? Should he do it for "love"? What did we pay Redknapp? What did we pay the players who underperformed? Where does it end? So does tha excuse Lowe's actions? Don't be silly and be honest, it's a ridiculous wage for a team in our position.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 So does tha excuse Lowe's actions? Don't be silly and be honest, it's a ridiculous wage for a team in our position. Ironically I don't think its a rediculous wage, if anything it is quite small. Its the fact that he hasnt cost us £100K but £millions due to his ineptitude last summer backed by a club policy of playing only youth, whilst STILL paying seasoned pros that effectively tied JP's hands together that makes me cross. Lowe hasn't cost us £100K. He has cost us £millions and cost us our pride.
Mole Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 What has McMenemy taken out of the club in recent years? Should he do it for "love"? What did we pay Redknapp? What did we pay the players who underperformed? Where does it end? I notice you've ommited George Burley from the list.
Red and White Army Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 I suppose you do that when you are a shareholder anyway. Lowe received far more in share dividends over the years than he did last year in wages. Actually, thats rubbish. Look at how much we paid out in dividends in total - and how much of the company Lowe own(ed).
sadoldgit Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 So does tha excuse Lowe's actions? Don't be silly and be honest, it's a ridiculous wage for a team in our position. I know plenty of middle management who earn near that sum. It might be a lot to you and I but it is a not huge salary for someone in that position. Even the spotty little ioks on The Apprentice will get a job paying that sum. Is this going to go on all summer? Lowe has gone. The damage has been done. Let's move on shall we? It will not change anything.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now