Lowe was £100K - for part-time job

[Born In The 80s]

But can you prove it?

 

And how many days a week did Hoos work?

 

Fair enough i don't know how many days a week he worked. However, i do know that he was on much bigger wage than Lowe's 100k. In fact, in comparison, the money Hoos was earning makes Lowe's wage look like pocket money. I've had the displeasure of meeting Lee Hoos. He is an arrogant, smarmy, up-his-own-arse, ****** and in my opinion, should definately take some blame for our current financial troubles.

[Mole]

Fair enough i don't know how many days a week he worked. However, i do know that he was on much bigger wage than Lowe's 100k. In fact, in comparison, the money Hoos was earning makes Lowe's wage look like pocket money. I've had the displeasure of meeting Lee Hoos. He is an arrogant, smarmy, up-his-own-arse, ****** and in my opinion, should definately take some blame for our current financial troubles.

 

I agree with your assessment of Hoos, but will not be taking your word for it on his salary.

[aintforever]

Fair enough i don't know how many days a week he worked. However, i do know that he was on much bigger wage than Lowe's 100k. In fact, in comparison, the money Hoos was earning makes Lowe's wage look like pocket money. I've had the displeasure of meeting Lee Hoos. He is an arrogant, smarmy, up-his-own-arse, ****** and in my opinion, should definately take some blame for our current financial troubles.

 

The big difference is that Hoo's is not a major shareholder who, after receiving a massive severance package, swans back in, sacks a chairman who's working for nowt, sacks a good manager - because of his wages, then hands himself a massive salary for a few days work a week - despite the club being in serious financial trouble.

[benjii]

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.

 

But can you prove it?

 

And how many days a week did Hoos work?

 

The highest paid director in 2007 (presumably Hone, not Hoos) received, including pension contributions, £226,000.

 

In 2008, the highest paid director received £142,000, including pension contributions.

 

Less than Rupert this year then pro rata, if he did basically work two days a week.

Edited 10 May, 2009 by benjii

[70's Mike]

The highest paid director in 2007 (presumably Hone, not Hoos) received, including pension contributions, £226,000.

 

Less than Rupert this year then pro rata, if he did basically work two days a week.

 

and the turnover was bigger then

[Ponty]

This thread serves no real purpose as we don't have all of the facts, so can we just all agree that Lowe deserved bugger all for not keeping us up and solvent and that he would not be getting the grief for earning 2k a week if he had done both?

[benjii]

This thread serves no real purpose as we don't have all of the facts, so can we just all agree that Lowe deserved bugger all for not keeping us up and solvent and that he would not be getting the grief for earning 2k a week if he had done both?

 

I've just posted the facts!

 

And if you're looking for "purpose" beyond the pointless, sometimes bellicose, sometimes imbecilic, sometimes insightful, sometimes funny, sometimes vitriolic, sometimes hyperbolic, sometimes mundane twitterings of a bunch of people then you might as well close this down and give us our fivers back.

[Ponty]

I've just posted the facts.

 

 

Sorry mate, not really facts if you have to include the word "presumably".

[benjii]

Sorry mate, not really facts if you have to include the word "presumably".

 

I am presuming that Hone earned more than Hoos. That's not material to the fact that both earned less than £250k per year pro rata.

[Ponty]

And if you're looking for "purpose" beyond the pointless, sometimes bellicose, sometimes imbecilic, sometimes insightful, sometimes funny, sometimes vitriolic, sometimes hyperbolic, sometimes mundane twitterings of a bunch of people then you might as well close this down and give us our fivers back.

 

Yeah, that's fair. There is no other point.

 

Carry on.

[benjii]

Yeah, that's fair. There is no other point.

 

Carry on.

 

Thanks!

[70's Mike]

Sorry mate, not really facts if you have to include the word "presumably".

 

there would be very few threads on here if you had to have legally provable facts, in fact other than the final score in games, and maybe who scored, the rest is opinions , guess work and attempts to stir up debate

[Ponty]

there would be very few threads on here if you had to have legally provable facts' date=' in fact other than the final score in games, and maybe who scored, the rest is opinions , guess work and attempts to stir up debate[/quote']

 

Yes, but things posted as facts, which later prove to be anything but, can come back and bite us on the arse.

[rallyboy]

I think we need to stick to facts.

 

 

 

Anyway, my mate saw Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Mark Fry and Pele at Aldi yesterday etc.......

[Ponty]

I think we need to stick to facts.

 

 

 

Anyway, my mate saw Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Mark Fry and Pele at Aldi yesterday etc.......

 

A blatant lie as Branson was in Barcelona. Tut tut.

[SP Saint]

Fair enough i don't know how many days a week he worked. However, i do know that he was on much bigger wage than Lowe's 100k. In fact, in comparison, the money Hoos was earning makes Lowe's wage look like pocket money. I've had the displeasure of meeting Lee Hoos. He is an arrogant, smarmy, up-his-own-arse, ****** and in my opinion, should definately take some blame for our current financial troubles.

 

Sorry but I have to disagree. I've met Hoos as well and I found him a decent down to earth guy who just wanted to get on with his job and avoid the internal politics.

 

I think of the bunch that Wilde brought in he was the one who probably did earn his keep. After all he hasn't done such a bad job at Leicester along with Pearson has he?

[SaintRobbie]

I've just posted the facts!

 

And if you're looking for "purpose" beyond the pointless, sometimes bellicose, sometimes imbecilic, sometimes insightful, sometimes funny, sometimes vitriolic, sometimes hyperbolic, sometimes mundane twitterings of a bunch of people then you might as well close this down and give us our fivers back.

 

That made me smile!

[Alain Perrin]

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?

 

Yes. Clearly you're right. How dare anyone have a different opinion to you?

 

But then, if you think someone you've never met is a '****' because they read things differently, it suggests to me that you are the one with the problem, not me.

[hypochondriac]

Yes. Clearly you're right. How dare anyone have a different opinion to you?

 

But then, if you think someone you've never met is a '****' because they read things differently, it suggests to me that you are the one with the problem, not me.

 

TBF it's pretty impossible to defend Lowe after this season.

[SaintRobbie]

TBF it's pretty impossible to defend Lowe after this season.

 

Some denyers still exist Hypo old friend. Why I dont know, one can only assume they know Mr Lowe personally.

[Ponty]

Robbie... I've resisted the temptation so far, as it seems so trivial, but it's annoying me now

 

It's "Deniers" or even "Denialists" but not "Denyers".

 

Cheers.

[benjii]

"Denialists"?

 

Is that really a word?

 

Sounds like something George Bush might say.

 

Can we please use the phrase "a person who is in denial"? I think that is more elegant. Thank you all.

[SaintRobbie]

Robbie... I've resisted the temptation so far, as it seems so trivial, but it's annoying me now

 

It's "Deniers" or "Denialists", not "Denyers".

 

Cheers.

 

LOL OK... spellink was neva a good fing wiv me. That said I did put deniers on a previous thread and 19 Canteen corrected it to denyers... shouldnt have listened to him really, should know better

[Ponty]

LOL OK... spellink was neva a good fing wiv me. That said I did put deniers on a previous thread and 19 Canteen corrected it to denyers... shouldnt have listened to him really, should know better

 

Denyer are a company that makes wheelchairs apparently.

[hypochondriac]

Denyer are a company that makes wheelchairs apparently.

 

It's really sad that you probably searched that on google.

[SaintRobbie]

"Denialists"?

 

Is that really a word?

 

Sounds like something George Bush might say.

 

Can we please use the phrase "a person who is in denial"? I think that is more elegant. Thank you all.

 

 

Can we make it a new abbreviation? Say an 'APWIID'?

 

.... only I got into trouble for daring to say some were like 'holocaust deniers' before and upset 19 Canteen (which I sort of enjoyed, but not for the connertations implied).

 

APWIIDs has a ring to it and avoids accusation along the grounds of taste and decency dont you think? Ponty, can you sanction APWIIDs?

[Ponty]

It's really sad that you probably searched that on google.

 

It's not really sad. I wanted to know what would make 19C think it was the correct spelling, as mentioned above.

[Ponty]

Can we make it a new abbreviation? Say an 'APWIID'?

 

.... only I got into trouble for daring to say some were like 'holocaust deniers' before and upset 19 Canteen (which I sort of enjoyed, but not for the connertations implied).

 

APWIIDs has a ring to it and avoids accusation along the grounds of taste and decency dont you think? Ponty, can you sanction APWIIDs?

 

APWIID is fine by me. At least 3 of us will know what you mean.

[Alain Perrin]

TBF it's pretty impossible to defend Lowe after this season.

 

I agree. I don't defend Lowe unequivocally (I am not a denyer ), but I do try to take a balanced view that I think many, with blind hatred, cannot do.

 

In this case I think there's a lot of hot air from people who expect people to work for nothing (when if, in the same position, they'd want paying too).

 

Did Lowe do a good job? No.

Did he make decisions that damaged the club? Yes.

Did he do that deliberately to spite Wes Tender? No.

Did he cost less than McMenemy? Yes.

Did he cut costs (his job on his return)? Yes.

Could he have cut costs less and improved performances by hiring Pearson, thus raising crowds and avoiding administration? Who the **** knows.

 

Make no mistake I think Lowe was bad for the club, I just don't think he was all bad. I think getting rid of Pearson was stupid, but he obviously felt necessary to help avoid admin (probably ego and grand plan in there too mind).

 

Would RL have been crucified if he'd kept Pearson on and we went into admin in November after losing the first 10 games? Undoubtedly.

[SaintRobbie]

APWIID is fine by me. At least 3 of us will know what you mean.

 

LOL! OK an 'APWIID' (noun) is someone who continually refuses to believe that Lowe has had anything to do with the demise of SFC and was merely trying his best to do a good job.

 

.... well if 'W00T' can catch on...!

[SaintRobbie]

I agree. I don't defend Lowe unequivocally (I am not a denyer ), but I do try to take a balanced view that I think many, with blind hatred, cannot do.

 

In this case I think there's a lot of hot air from people who expect people to work for nothing (when if, in the same position, they'd want paying too).

 

Did Lowe do a good job? No.

Did he make decisions that damaged the club? Yes.

Did he do that deliberately to spite Wes Tender? No.

Did he cost less than McMenemy? Yes.

Did he cut costs (his job on his return)? Yes.

Could he have cut costs less and improved performances by hiring Pearson, thus raising crowds and avoiding administration? Who the **** knows.

 

Make no mistake I think Lowe was bad for the club, I just don't think he was all bad. I think getting rid of Pearson was stupid, but he obviously felt necessary to help avoid admin (probably ego and grand plan in there too mind).

 

Would RL have been crucified if he'd kept Pearson on and we went into admin in November after losing the first 10 games? Undoubtedly.

 

Does this make you an 'APWIID denier' ? I'm confused now! This is more complicated that I thought it would be

[Alain Perrin]

Does this make you an 'APWIID denier' ? I'm confused now! This is more complicated that I thought it would be

 

No, I deny that it is possible to be an 'APWIID denier'. Apparently, I'm a c*nt.

[SaintRobbie]

No, I deny that it is possible to be an 'APWIID denier'. Apparently, I'm a c*nt.

 

Nah ya not ... you're an 'APWIID denier in denial'.... or 'APWIIDDID'.

 

**** this I'm going to bed now....

[hypochondriac]

I agree. I don't defend Lowe unequivocally (I am not a denyer ), but I do try to take a balanced view that I think many, with blind hatred, cannot do.

 

In this case I think there's a lot of hot air from people who expect people to work for nothing (when if, in the same position, they'd want paying too).

 

Did Lowe do a good job? No.

Did he make decisions that damaged the club? Yes.

Did he do that deliberately to spite Wes Tender? No.

Did he cost less than McMenemy? Yes.

Did he cut costs (his job on his return)? Yes.

Could he have cut costs less and improved performances by hiring Pearson, thus raising crowds and avoiding administration? Who the **** knows.

 

Make no mistake I think Lowe was bad for the club, I just don't think he was all bad. I think getting rid of Pearson was stupid, but he obviously felt necessary to help avoid admin (probably ego and grand plan in there too mind).

 

Would RL have been crucified if he'd kept Pearson on and we went into admin in November after losing the first 10 games? Undoubtedly.

 

But clearly the release of his salary along with all the unnecessary loans and transfers has proved that to be a nonsense.

[Alain Perrin]

But clearly the release of his salary along with all the unnecessary loans and transfers has proved that to be a nonsense.

 

I don't see why.

 

Say he cut his salary to zero. Would £160K have been enough for Pearson? I doubt it.

 

Would Pearson not have wanted loans, or wanted to buy players too? The fact is the club had a finite amount of money to divide appropriately. The balance wasn't right, clearly because we got relegated and -10pts, but a balance was necessary.

 

My argument is that Lowe's £100K is a) chickenfeed in comparison to player salaries and b) a wage for the role was appropriate.

[hypochondriac]

I don't see why.

 

Say he cut his salary to zero. Would £160K have been enough for Pearson? I doubt it.

 

Would Pearson not have wanted loans, or wanted to buy players too? The fact is the club had a finite amount of money to divide appropriately. The balance wasn't right, clearly because we got relegated and -10pts, but a balance was necessary.

 

My argument is that Lowe's £100K is a) chickenfeed in comparison to player salaries and b) a wage for the role was appropriate.

 

What practical use were Gasmi, Pulis, Robertson, Perkhart, Molyneux etc etc etc. The club would have performed exactly the same if these players had not come to the club this season and we would have saved massively. If Crouch had stayed he wasn't taking a salary so instantly that's that money saved. Get rid of thise loan players who played about 3 games between them by the way (Robertson and Perkhart excepted) and we would have had more than enough to pay Pearson. Remember he was prepared to take a pay cut as well.

 

My argument is that Lowe's 100k whilst being chickenfeed compared to player salaries is still a very large amount when compared to Crouch (0) and when you consider that he was working part time twice a week. You could even argue that he didn't actually do his job because surely it was to avoid admin and relegation. He failed miserably at all his objectives yet still hindered the process by taking out 100K, think of all the money he had already taken out over the years!

 

With regards to a wage, I would agree but certainly not as high as he gave himself and we must remember that Crouch was quite happy to continue to do the job for free. Lowe did tge job no better (and I believe a lot worse) and charged us a lot for it. That's my issue.

[Alain Perrin]

What practical use were Gasmi, Pulis, Robertson, Perkhart, Molyneux etc etc etc. The club would have performed exactly the same if these players had not come to the club this season and we would have saved massively. If Crouch had stayed he wasn't taking a salary so instantly that's that money saved. Get rid of thise loan players who played about 3 games between them by the way (Robertson and Perkhart excepted) and we would have had more than enough to pay Pearson. Remember he was prepared to take a pay cut as well.

 

My argument is that Lowe's 100k whilst being chickenfeed compared to player salaries is still a very large amount when compared to Crouch (0) and when you consider that he was working part time twice a week. You could even argue that he didn't actually do his job because surely it was to avoid admin and relegation. He failed miserably at all his objectives yet still hindered the process by taking out 100K, think of all the money he had already taken out over the years!

 

With regards to a wage, I would agree but certainly not as high as he gave himself and we must remember that Crouch was quite happy to continue to do the job for free. Lowe did tge job no better (and I believe a lot worse) and charged us a lot for it. That's my issue.

 

Pulis and Gasmi, I'd agree with you, but Robertson and Pekhart, poor as they turned out, both scored match winning goals. I don't believe you can criticise someone for signing players that didn't work out. Every player signing is a gamble, Gasmi could have been the next Rooney, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

Pulis is an anomaly, but I don't see him as anymore than a trade off against Andrew Davies' wage.

 

I don't rate Crouch, I think he was as flawed as Lowe, just in different ways. People are very myopic about that. If Lowe had renegotiated the Walcott deal or let Rasiak on loan, and then been economical with the truth, he'd have been crucified. Crouch's signings were fan signings, 'big' names, 'big' salaries, leaving us with big problems.

[Wes Tender]

I don't believe you can criticise someone for signing players that didn't work out. Every player signing is a gamble, Gasmi could have been the next Rooney, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

Pulis is an anomaly, but I don't see him as anymore than a trade off against Andrew Davies' wage.

 

Why ever not? Especially when you are listing half a dozen players if the useless Millwall reject Smith is included.

You don't need hindsight to have assessed those players we signed. Most on here had concluded correctly that they were a load of carp. I suspect that if Gasmi had the potential to be the next Rooney, then that potential would have manifested itself way before we took him on.

[Foxstone]

The ridiculous thing with Pulis and Gasmi were that we signed them knowing that they were long term crocks !!

 

Great Business - Not !

[Alain Perrin]

Why ever not? Especially when you are listing half a dozen players if the useless Millwall reject Smith is included.

You don't need hindsight to have assessed those players we signed. Most on here had concluded correctly that they were a load of carp. I suspect that if Gasmi had the potential to be the next Rooney, then that potential would have manifested itself way before we took him on.

 

Because when a club signs players it is collective responsibility, from the scout who spots, the manager who approves and the chairman who signs the cheque.

 

For every carp player in the last season, there are good players that were signed. For every Gasmi there's a Cork, for every Pulis there's a Size, for every Smith there's a Holmes.

 

It just suits people's purpose to highlight the bad ones.

 

The problem is exacerbated when you are like Saints. Cash strapped and shopping in the bargain basement. In these cases I think you're going to have more misses than hits, but if you don't try, you won't ever find nuggets.

 

Smith for example: a very promising youngster released by a big club, a couple of bites of the cherry at other clubs and hadn't made it? Worth a gamble? (your answer would be no, but Kevin Phillips was in the same position (Kevin Davies also).

 

Perhaps we should only sign people called Kevin?