hypochondriac Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 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. It's a ridiculous wage considering the hours he worked, that Portvliet was on a lot less and that (allegedly) Crouch was paid nothing for the same role.
sadoldgit Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 I notice you've ommited George Burley from the list. Given that George Burley achieved his target of the play offs in his only full season and that he achieved 1.54 points per game - more than any other manager since the war - I think it is reasonable to suggest that he earned his salary. I know Alpine and others would disagree, but I actually miss those days when we used to win matches frequently and beat lots of teams away from home as well as at home.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 It's a ridiculous wage considering the hours he worked, that Portvliet was on a lot less and that (allegedly) Crouch was paid nothing for the same role. Its not in the bigger scheme of things. Its peanuts hypo, trust me its peanuts.
mattyd Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 £1000 a day is typical for a board appointment of this nature. However, considering our financial state I think he was reckless charging so much.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Given that George Burley achieved his target of the play offs in his only full season and that he achieved 1.54 points per game - more than any other manager since the war - I think it is reasonable to suggest that he earned his salary. I know Alpine and others would disagree, but I actually miss those days when we used to win matches frequently and beat lots of teams away from home as well as at home. Now there is something we do agree on.
Mole Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Given that George Burley achieved his target of the play offs in his only full season and that he achieved 1.54 points per game - more than any other manager since the war - I think it is reasonable to suggest that he earned his salary. I know Alpine and others would disagree, but I actually miss those days when we used to win matches frequently and beat lots of teams away from home as well as at home. I still believe we underperformed under Burley and were lucky to scrape into the play-offs. It was only a good run at the end of the season wining at places like Norwich which salvaged the season. Given he money Wilde gave him to spend he must be considered a failure.
sadoldgit Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 I still believe we underperformed under Burley and were lucky to scrape into the play-offs. It was only a good run at the end of the season wining at places like Norwich which salvaged the season. Given he money Wilde gave him to spend he must be considered a failure. He can only be a failure if he doesn't reach his objective. His objective was to reach the play offs which he did. Yes we were inconsistant but it isn't often a saints side goes to another top side and beats them 6-0 away. Spending money has never insured success ( I see Chelsea failed in Europe again) and all we could have hoped for that season was to be in there at the end, which we were. With a bit of luck we would have made the play off final. If that is failure I can live with that. My idea of failure is what happened in the season just gone, which would not have happened under Burley.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 He can only be a failure if he doesn't reach his objective. His objective was to reach the play offs which he did. Yes we were inconsistant but it isn't often a saints side goes to another top side and beats them 6-0 away. Spending money has never insured success ( I see Chelsea failed in Europe again) and all we could have hoped for that season was to be in there at the end, which we were. With a bit of luck we would have made the play off final. If that is failure I can live with that. My idea of failure is what happened in the season just gone, which would not have happened under Burley. Agree 100%. You are absolutely right with all of that IMHO.
Wade Garrett Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 he is a c*nt. Anyone who still defends him after all this is a c*nt as well.
Mole Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 He can only be a failure if he doesn't reach his objective. His objective was to reach the play offs which he did. Yes we were inconsistant but it isn't often a saints side goes to another top side and beats them 6-0 away. Spending money has never insured success ( I see Chelsea failed in Europe again) and all we could have hoped for that season was to be in there at the end, which we were. With a bit of luck we would have made the play off final. If that is failure I can live with that. My idea of failure is what happened in the season just gone, which would not have happened under Burley. If Burley had remained i'm sure his uninterested and unmotivated demeanor would have sent us down. Luckily Scotland took him off our hands. Nigel Pearson was hungry for sucess and motivated and he reversed the shambles left by Burley.
OldNick Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 If Burley had remained i'm sure his uninterested and unmotivated demeanor would have sent us down. Luckily Scotland took him off our hands. Nigel Pearson was hungry for sucess and motivated and he reversed the shambles left by Burley. Yeah give him the freedom of the city.
beatlesaint Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 he is a c*nt. Anyone who still defends him after all this is a c*nt as well. LOL - extremely well put Sir ! and very true : - )
Mole Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 I notice that neither Lowe nor Wilde have donated to the S.O.S appeal. Speaks volumes doesn't it. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11682
aintforever Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 He can only be a failure if he doesn't reach his objective. His objective was to reach the play offs which he did. Yes we were inconsistant but it isn't often a saints side goes to another top side and beats them 6-0 away. Spending money has never insured success ( I see Chelsea failed in Europe again) and all we could have hoped for that season was to be in there at the end, which we were. With a bit of luck we would have made the play off final. If that is failure I can live with that. My idea of failure is what happened in the season just gone, which would not have happened under Burley. Wilde gambled our club's future with his spending spree, Burley's objective was promotion - he failed. He sraped into the playoffs, but considering the cash he blew and the players he already had at his disposal like Gareth Bale, Kenwyne Jones, Chris Baird he should have at least challenged for automatic. Burley had one ok season but his mis management ****ed this club up, this is a bloke who let Oakley go for nothing and paid for Idiakez, let Higgingbotham go for nowt and paid £1mill for Pele. He left us with a bunch of useless high earners that has ended up putting the club in admin.
wadesmith Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 I can't stand the bloke as much as the majority of the other posters here...but if i'm honest I expected the figure to be more like £300k. I imagine £100k is peanuts to these kind of guys.
Mole Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Yeah give him the freedom of the city. I expect Leicester will do this when he's taken them back to the Premiership.
OldNick Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 I expect Leicester will do this when he's taken them back to the Premiership. Lol.Yep, but only if MM bankrolls him like he did last season. It will be tougher next season for Leicester
sticksaint Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Good point stanley.He hasn`t donated to that fund yet claims "to love the club" .
Toadhall Saint Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Lol.Yep, but only if MM bankrolls him like he did last season. It will be tougher next season for Leicester Did I hear that MM is releasing something like £20 mil to NP? Can't beleive it myself in the current climate but if true???
rocknrollman no2 Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Its ironic that Lowe took down a picture of LM and replaced it with a train,as Rupert has been riding the gravey train that is SFC ever since he first came here. Thank god hes finally gone.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Did I hear that MM is releasing something like £20 mil to NP? Can't beleive it myself in the current climate but if true??? HAte to say it but MM was always the better chairman of the 2... Lowe was no where near him in skill, business sense or the right managerial appointments IN GENERAL... even when he was relegated he was able to bounce back immediately and you know what? He even admitted his mistakes to the Leicester fans.
sadoldgit Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Wilde gambled our club's future with his spending spree, Burley's objective was promotion - he failed. He sraped into the playoffs, but considering the cash he blew and the players he already had at his disposal like Gareth Bale, Kenwyne Jones, Chris Baird he should have at least challenged for automatic. Burley had one ok season but his mis management ****ed this club up, this is a bloke who let Oakley go for nothing and paid for Idiakez, let Higgingbotham go for nowt and paid £1mill for Pele. He left us with a bunch of useless high earners that has ended up putting the club in admin. I know plenty of people who said Oakley should have gone for nothing years ago. Burley never said we would get promoted (unlike Redknapp). He always said the objective was to get us to the play offs and once there, who knows. This is the trouble with this club. Too many people thinking that we have a God given right to be back in the Prem (even though we were mostly makeweights when we were there). We had a relatively decent season under Burley but still you complain. Well, I am sorry you didn't enjoy that season as much as I did. I am sure life will be so much better in the 3rd division.
eurosaint Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 There are 2 issues here which I feel some are a little confused about : a) £100k for a CEO challenged with a major turnaround is relatively 'peanuts', particularly in the football world (even pro rata for a full working week!). b) General incompetence and the ability to alienate customers meant that his performance level was unacceptable and led inevitably to administration ! IMHO (a) is no big deal, (b) was a disaster ! Ps. I am not a 'denyer' (mainly because the word does not exist) nor am I 'in denial' !
aintforever Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 I know plenty of people who said Oakley should have gone for nothing years ago. Burley never said we would get promoted (unlike Redknapp). He always said the objective was to get us to the play offs and once there, who knows. This is the trouble with this club. Too many people thinking that we have a God given right to be back in the Prem (even though we were mostly makeweights when we were there). We had a relatively decent season under Burley but still you complain. Well, I am sorry you didn't enjoy that season as much as I did. I am sure life will be so much better in the 3rd division. There's little point having one relatively decent season if it leaves the club with an unsustainable wage bill. The only way Wilde's 7mill gamble could be a success is if we got promoted, otherwise it would screw the club up - which it did.
sadoldgit Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 There's little point having one relatively decent season if it leaves the club with an unsustainable wage bill. The only way Wilde's 7mill gamble could be a success is if we got promoted, otherwise it would screw the club up - which it did. Was that Burley's fault or the people who ran the club and controlled the purse strings?
hypochondriac Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Its not in the bigger scheme of things. Its peanuts hypo, trust me its peanuts. Maybe to you but considering the bank pulled the plug over "peanuts" we could have done a lot with that money.
Dicko Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Maybe to you but considering the bank pulled the plug over "peanuts" we could have done a lot with that money. Do you reckon? We would probably have wasted it on another player like Pulis
Andyb1 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. To be fair its pennies in football
Alain Perrin Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 What a bunch of sanctimonious *****s you lot are. Your only answer is Lowe should have worked for free. Grow up. Lowe and Cowen replaced Hone, Dulieu, Hoos et al, all of whom were obviously working for nothing - not! - so that represents a saving. Let us not forget McMenemy who was allegedly on £75K for glad handing a few bigwigs on a Saturday. There is no way I'd expose myself to the grief Lowe got for £100K a year. 2 days a week plus a couple of Saturday's a month of having abuse chucked at me by people who don't really have a clue what it is I am doing. The fact is that none of the 'staff' salaries really cause a problem. It's the players salaries and contracts that cause the problems. Because of those we were in **** street when Lowe came back (some of which was his doing) and are in **** street now (some of which is also his doing). BUT.... he was trying to get us out of **** street (hence the JP experiment / play youth approach). I can't wait until the new owners get here. They'll of course be working for no gain whatsoever....
aintforever Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Was that Burley's fault or the people who ran the club and controlled the purse strings? Both IMO, you can't blame Burley for not planning long term if his brief was "here's 7mill, now get us promotion this season". If that was the plan though, you cannot say he was a success.
aintforever Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 What a bunch of sanctimonious *****s you lot are. Your only answer is Lowe should have worked for free. Grow up. Lowe and Cowen replaced Hone, Dulieu, Hoos et al, all of whom were obviously working for nothing - not! - so that represents a saving. Let us not forget McMenemy who was allegedly on £75K for glad handing a few bigwigs on a Saturday. There is no way I'd expose myself to the grief Lowe got for £100K a year. 2 days a week plus a couple of Saturday's a month of having abuse chucked at me by people who don't really have a clue what it is I am doing. The fact is that none of the 'staff' salaries really cause a problem. It's the players salaries and contracts that cause the problems. Because of those we were in **** street when Lowe came back (some of which was his doing) and are in **** street now (some of which is also his doing). BUT.... he was trying to get us out of **** street (hence the JP experiment / play youth approach). I can't wait until the new owners get here. They'll of course be working for no gain whatsoever.... Crouch did a better job, for nothing.
Alain Perrin Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Crouch did a better job, for nothing. A better job of what exactly? Burying his head in the sand about the takeover that never came? Being dishonest to the fans, signing players on big contracts, being good in the media, appointing 'caretaker' managers..... They've both got good and bad points - but to hold up Crouch as some messiah just because he isn't Lowe is a mistake in my opinion.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 A better job of what exactly? Burying his head in the sand about the takeover that never came? Being dishonest to the fans, signing players on big contracts, being good in the media, appointing 'caretaker' managers..... They've both got good and bad points - but to hold up Crouch as some messiah just because he isn't Lowe is a mistake in my opinion. You're right. I'd suggest Crouch has one or two more good points than Lowe but you're essentially correct. Bottom line on the key area of mismanagement (refusal to sell the club over the last 3-4 years), has to see the blame shared equally by Lowe, Wilde and Crouch. I have still not seen a good enough explanation from Crouch why SISU was unacceptable although I know why it wasnt for Wilde or Lowe... greed, arrogance and power.
aintforever Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 A better job of what exactly? Burying his head in the sand about the takeover that never came? Being dishonest to the fans, signing players on big contracts, being good in the media, appointing 'caretaker' managers..... They've both got good and bad points - but to hold up Crouch as some messiah just because he isn't Lowe is a mistake in my opinion. To be fair to Crouch he appointed what appears to be a good, young manager and kept us up, whilst also loaning out some high earners. My point was that he did it for FREE, and he did OK which is more than can be said of Lowe.
SaintRobbie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 To be fair to Crouch he appointed what appears to be a good, young manager and kept us up, whilst also loaning out some high earners. My point was that he did it for FREE, and he did OK which is more than can be said of Lowe. I feel for your sentiment but frankly I would have expected Crouch to have taken a salary. He's a fan and didnt as he was trying to do it for the love of the club - which is commendable. I still dont think Lowe's salary matters, it is peanuts, as I have posted earlier the real damage Lowe has done is through mismanagement, losing us millions in treasure through x2 relegations on his watch as a direct result of decisions HE made. That is the real cost of Mr Rupert Lowe... as well as pride.
benjii 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. It's verging on the obscene actually for a part-time director of a company making a loss, with a turnover of only c£12m (from memory), and who has a full time executive chairmanship with another company. We were told he worked two days a week, so he was on £250k a year pro rata, yet apparently Nigel Pearson was too expensive. The man is an insidious repulsive ****.
benjii Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 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. "Middle management" on £250k a year pro rata. Get real.
hypochondriac Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Before lowe came we stayed up and crouch doing lowe's job for free. After lowe relegated us and charged us 100k for the privilige.
Paul Chuckle Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 Before lowe came we stayed up and crouch doing lowe's job for free. After lowe relegated us and charged us 100k for the privilige. But i bet Lee Hoos was on more than £100k a year???????????? and then you had McMonemy on £75k a year to shake people's hands on match days.
hypochondriac Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 But i bet Lee Hoos was on more than £100k a year???????????? and then you had McMonemy on £75k a year to shake people's hands on match days. Again does that excuse Lowe?
rallyboy Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 for a man of his 'skills' Lowe wasn't on a huge wage though I bet his expenses double the £100K. Another reminder of why the stayaway fans refused to finance his lifestyle as he let the club decline. The few who still accuse plastic protesters of putting the club into trouble should remember that the 'lunatic minority' didn't stop supporting the club, they just stopped paying Rupert, and that was the only way to stop him bleeding the club dry attempting to recoup his shares value. He came back to protect his own money, and like everything else he has attempted, he failed. Can we move on yet? Surely everyone must see him for what he is by now.
Wes Tender Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 for a man of his 'skills' Lowe wasn't on a huge wage though I bet his expenses double the £100K. Another reminder of why the stayaway fans refused to finance his lifestyle as he let the club decline. The few who still accuse plastic protesters of putting the club into trouble should remember that the 'lunatic minority' didn't stop supporting the club, they just stopped paying Rupert, and that was the only way to stop him bleeding the club dry attempting to recoup his shares value. He came back to protect his own money, and like everything else he has attempted, he failed. Can we move on yet? Surely everyone must see him for what he is by now. No, Rallyboy. You only have to read some of the responses in this very thread to see that there are Lowe apologists who still believe that his pay was justified, even that it was lower than they might have expected. But the most telling responses are by those who have contrasted the amount that Lowe and Cowan took as pay and realised the hypocrisy of Lowe claiming that they couldn't afford Pearson's wages. We now all know what the result was of Lowe's cheapskate two for one policy and what a total waste that was. Had Lowe succeeded in getting us promoted back to the Premiership, then I would not begrudge him awarding himself double the pay as a bonus. But nobody can blame others for getting on his back because of his pursuance of cheap inexperienced management which subsequently failed, exactly as predicted by some on here the minute the appointments were made.
TNT Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 and then you had McMonemy on £75k a year to shake people's hands on match days. LOL Yeah right
Born In The 80s Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 It's a ridiculous wage considering the hours he worked, that Portvliet was on a lot less and that (allegedly) Crouch was paid nothing for the same role. No mate, it really isn't. 100k is absolutely nothing. Even for a club in our position. I'm not Lowe's biggest fan, but i must admit i am pleasently surprised he was on such a tiny wage. You say Crouch was on nothing. It's not fair to compare the two. It would be fairer to compare Lee Hoos who i can 100% assure you he was on FAR more than 100k. There is no arguing Lowe has made a lot of mistakes and thankfully he has now ****ed off. But some people seem to want to blame him for everything and anything. Carry on doing it if it makes you feel better but our current position is doing to more than just one hopeless businessman.
Mole Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 It would be fairer to compare Lee Hoos who i can 100% assure you he was on FAR more than 100k. But can you prove it? And how many days a week did Hoos work?
Wade Garrett Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 What a bunch of sanctimonious *****s you lot are. Your only answer is Lowe should have worked for free. Grow up. Lowe and Cowen replaced Hone, Dulieu, Hoos et al, all of whom were obviously working for nothing - not! - so that represents a saving. Let us not forget McMenemy who was allegedly on £75K for glad handing a few bigwigs on a Saturday. There is no way I'd expose myself to the grief Lowe got for £100K a year. 2 days a week plus a couple of Saturday's a month of having abuse chucked at me by people who don't really have a clue what it is I am doing. The fact is that none of the 'staff' salaries really cause a problem. It's the players salaries and contracts that cause the problems. Because of those we were in **** street when Lowe came back (some of which was his doing) and are in **** street now (some of which is also his doing). BUT.... he was trying to get us out of **** street (hence the JP experiment / play youth approach). I can't wait until the new owners get here. They'll of course be working for no gain whatsoever.... As I said, Rupert is a c*nt, and anyone who defends him is a c*nt as well. Can you work out what I'm trying to say?
Burger Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 LOL Yeah right But i bet Lee Hoos was on more than £100k a year???????????? and then you had McMonemy on £75k a year to shake people's hands on match days. That has got to be a joke.....LM on £75k to work what one day a fortnight?.....please can someone tell me it is not true.
eelpie Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 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. Yep. We're all out begging coppers for a mug of tea now. I'm not proud
Wade Garrett Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 That has got to be a joke.....LM on £75k to work what one day a fortnight?.....please can someone tell me it is not true. Lawrie brought more money into the club than he was paid. Rupert just used us as his personal cash cow...please can someone tell me it is not true. How very pathetic you are.
70's Mike Posted 10 May, 2009 Posted 10 May, 2009 The sum paid should be related to our turnover when we had a turnover of £40m then ruperts salary was realistic. now we have , what £10-£12m , the £100k pro rata is very high. i would be surprised to find many other businesses at this time in this area with similar turnover where the CEO was paid over £200k per annum
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