Nineteen Canteen Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Part of me hopes he comes back just to see alpine's reaction... LOL - Also look back over every director exec and non exec who has presumably had some influence on the club since the formation of the plc and pick out the one person who has actually delivered success and tried to realistically tackle the club's difficulties when they arose? There is only one answer and it's not Crouch or Wilde. Lowe has not, and IMO to the club's disadvantage been challenged by a colleague worthy to take on the chairman role. Lowe may have been clever by surrounding himself with either loyal subordinates or poor challengers to his crown but maybe he actually left himself exposed without other sources of expert advice and guidance when it was needed. I have met many successful people and they usually site that a lot of their success was to employ or network with people much more intelligent than themselves. Apart from Cowen has that happened at Saints? Crouch and Wilde were no better if not a lot worse than Lowe IMO.
Wes Tender Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Of couse it isn't, that's just a very simplistic answer to a complicated question but I suppose it's easier for people to pick a scapegoat and place all the blame with him. Agreed that there were many factors and facets which can be argued in many directions and blame attributed to a greater or lesser degree on all the bit players in this depressing saga. But in this case, the simplistic answer irrefutably just happens to be the main one; that relegation first from the Premiership and then the subsequent inept management of our policies this past season were both the major catalysts for our further relegation and the resultant administration. Its been a little like the captain sinking the Titanic and then subsequently managing to sink the life boats too.
ghq Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Here we go again. I have never since day one had any confidence in Rupert Lowe's ability to successfully run a Premier League football club. I state this, not with the benefit of hindsight, but with a gut feeling from whence he was appointed. Nothing has happened since to change my mind. I consider myself to be an open minded person and won't say that there aren't other contributing parties to the demise of our club. Others have a slightly more open view of the glories of Rupert, but how do they justify a club that for years in the Premier Leagueplayed in front of 30,000 plus attendaces and come the day of relegation had insufficient funds to bankroll a return to the Prem.? If that is not poor financial management I don't know what is. It was abundanlty obvious the season we went down we were down by the head with an overly large team of not quite up to it pros all being paid wage that could have bankrolled a smaller, but much better squad. This was overseen by the meanest penny pinching prat in football. Yet still the apologists are here. How about we all give it a rest. Please.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Agreed that there were many factors and facets which can be argued in many directions and blame attributed to a greater or lesser degree on all the bit players in this depressing saga. But in this case, the simplistic answer irrefutably just happens to be the main one; that relegation first from the Premiership and then the subsequent inept management of our policies this past season were both the major catalysts for our further relegation and the resultant administration. Its been a little like the captain sinking the Titanic and then subsequently managing to sink the life boats too. Relegation from the Premiership does not mean administration though, and whatever happens I think most of us will agree that if Lowe had stayed around we would not be in administration. We may be in League 2, but not in admin!
forever a red and white Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/robborobson/2009/05/as_tiers_go_by.html
Smirking_Saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Relegation from the Premiership does not mean administration though, and whatever happens I think most of us will agree that if Lowe had stayed around we would not be in administration. We may be in League 2, but not in admin! As i said before i believe the whole thing was doomed because of the decisions made at board room level and began to spiral out of control a long time ago. We should have noticed when we sold off players and replaced with little quality.
Wes Tender Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Relegation from the Premiership does not mean administration though, and whatever happens I think most of us will agree that if Lowe had stayed around we would not be in administration. We may be in League 2, but not in admin! The fault in your argument lies in the bit where you state that "most of will agree that if Lowe had stayed around we would not be in administration" What the situation would have been is as much up for conjecture as to whether we might have survived both administration and relegation had Lowe not dismissed Pearson. Nobody knows what would have happened had Lowe not been ousted by Wilde and I would challenge also your opinion that "most" agree one way or the other. But anyway, I said that the relegation AND the idiot policies taken this season had been the main contributors to our ultimate demise. Lowe was not in a straitjacket with the sole choice of only appointing inexperienced Dutch management, only playing the kids, jettisoning all three of our best strikers, etc. Granted that those policies would have had us relegated anyway once Pearson was gone, but the ticket pricing policy of charging that amount to watch the kids lose at home apart from 4 wins and the number of those boycotting Lowe's return were big factors into why the financial side didn't stack up.
SFKA South Woodford Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Well our finance director and bank allowed it. The return of Lowe also created relegation (again) and administration due to revenue drop from his presence. All we have here is Lowe trying to deflect blame with a load of old ball bearings. It could be argued that a large percentage of those that attended the last three home games, were doing so for the good of the club, when they knew the seriousness of the situation, and were staying away as a result of the product being served up on the pitch. The weakening of the team was a cost cutting measure foisted on the club and SLH by their bankers, in an attempt to get SLH and the club back on an even keel, so is not really Lowe's fault. We all know the other areas where he was at fault, but when he left the club, he left them with money in the bank and further funds to come through the various transfer payments outstanding. In the time he was gone, all of that money was frittered away, and we all know the consequence of that action. You can blame him for not speculating to accumulate in 2003 and for disastrous managerial appointments there after, but not for SLH and the clubs financial predicaments, that lies squarely at the feet of those that came after him. Yes Lowe has an over inflated ego, but he does sometimes show some humility, let's not forget he admitted that he had made mistakes when he was ousted, I haven't seen or heard either of the other two say the same. I just hope we have a future where none of them are anything more than just fans of our team. I'm not a Lowe supporter, I just want a balanced and fair criticism for all members of the triumvirate of doom.
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 You would have thought that Lowe would have had better things to do with himself than write letters to the Echo. And there's me thinking that since his arrival at the club, it has been one long period of him doing things with himself...
alpine_saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Author Posted 12 May, 2009 Part of me hopes he comes back just to see alpine's reaction... Yep, you'd be happy to see the club you're supposed to love be completely buried just so you can score one over me. Says it all really...
alpine_saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Author Posted 12 May, 2009 Relegation from the Premiership does not mean administration though, and whatever happens I think most of us will agree that if Lowe had stayed around we would not be in administration. We may be in League 2, but not in admin! What a load of steaming dog poo..
Micky Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 It could be argued that a large percentage of those that attended the last three home games, were doing so for the good of the club, when they knew the seriousness of the situation, and were staying away as a result of the product being served up on the pitch. The weakening of the team was a cost cutting measure foisted on the club and SLH by their bankers, in an attempt to get SLH and the club back on an even keel, so is not really Lowe's fault. We all know the other areas where he was at fault, but when he left the club, he left them with money in the bank and further funds to come through the various transfer payments outstanding. In the time he was gone, all of that money was frittered away, and we all know the consequence of that action. You can blame him for not speculating to accumulate in 2003 and for disastrous managerial appointments there after, but not for SLH and the clubs financial predicaments, that lies squarely at the feet of those that came after him. Yes Lowe has an over inflated ego, but he does sometimes show some humility, let's not forget he admitted that he had made mistakes when he was ousted, I haven't seen or heard either of the other two say the same. I just hope we have a future where none of them are anything more than just fans of our team. I'm not a Lowe supporter, I just want a balanced and fair criticism for all members of the triumvirate of doom. Whilst I agree with most of your reasoning there, you will probably find yourself up against a wall, with a blindfold on at dawn tomorrow. Were you not aware, that if there is fault, any fault, anywhere - then it is proportioned directly at the feet of Rupert Lowe. Geeze it's almost written into the 'Forum Rules' - you must have missed it...!!
offix Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Relegation from the Premiership does not mean administration though, and whatever happens I think most of us will agree that if Lowe had stayed around we would not be in administration. We may be in League 2, but not in admin! :rolleyes: LOL!! Very funny!
um pahars Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 The weakening of the team was a cost cutting measure foisted on the club and SLH by their bankers, in an attempt to get SLH and the club back on an even keel, so is not really Lowe's fault. . I have no doubt that the financial constraints that Lowe & co had to work within were tight and fairly restrictive, but that doesn't translate into having to adopt the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up and a rather poor transfer strategy! The actions taken by Lowe and co last summer backfired spectacularly and we blew any chance of saving the Club. A poor manager coupled with poor purchases and ultimatley poor performances and results put paiod to any rescue bid. Too many false economies and poor decisions meant the rescue attempt floundered. We all know the other areas where he was at fault, but when he left the club, he left them with money in the bank and further funds to come through the various transfer payments outstanding. In the time he was gone, all of that money was frittered away, and we all know the consequence of that action. We were not in the rude health you would have us believe. We still lost cash out the door that first season down, and that is after getting something like £16m in from player sales and a further £7m from the parachute payment. That's some big black hole being filled there with £23m of one off incomes!!!! You can blame him for not speculating to accumulate in 2003 and for disastrous managerial appointments there after, but not for SLH and the clubs financial predicaments, that lies squarely at the feet of those that came after him. Those that came after him certainly added to our woes, particularly committing to expenditure in the summer of 2007 when the parachute payments ran out, but Lowe was massively involved in our problems before he left in 2006 and then again when he returned last summer (e.g. his last act before he left in 2006 was paying £2m for Rasiak and giving him a 4 year deal and his first this time back was booting out Pearson and appointing the Dutch joker). And of course his part in relegation from the top flight which cost us £millions shouldn't be glossed over. So if you want balance then I think you have to show some yourself first.
Frank's cousin Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Ok UP, lets assume had Crouch stayed and kept Pearson on , would you be bigging up Crouch as a great visionary or recognising the luck over judgement and the nepotistic influences of LMs son happening to be the agent, played in this? I think you will find that part of the continued issue some have with all this is how its presented to us as Crouch being somehow gifted v Lowe in manager choice when its simple luck after chucking a bit of business Lawries sons way... something that no doubt many would have been shouting from the rooftops had Lowe got lucky with a pearson under similar circumstances....
um pahars Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Ok UP, lets assume had Crouch stayed and kept Pearson on , would you be bigging up Crouch as a great visionary or recognising the luck over judgement and the nepotistic influences of LMs son happening to be the agent, played in this? I think you will find that part of the continued issue some have with all this is how its presented to us as Crouch being somehow gifted v Lowe in manager choice when its simple luck after chucking a bit of business Lawries sons way... something that no doubt many would have been shouting from the rooftops had Lowe got lucky with a pearson under similar circumstances.... Go back to what I said when Pearson was appointed and how I said I would view him and Crouch. I'll have a dig around (but the forum doesn't seem to allow you to go back that far), but I said I would judge them both on whether they managed to keep us up and out of administration. If they failed on either then they had to be deemed failures (and given the boot). Crouch is no Football Chairman genius, just like Pearson is no Football Managerial legend, but compared to what followed them they certainly could be considered a better bet (that definitely is the case with Pearson and Poortvliet). As I said I would judge Pearson and Crouch, I have always judged Lowe by his results and when he was successful I was happy to praise him (I'm sure GM can dig out those posts), but also when his time was up and he was fouind to be wanting it was only fair to be honest at that time as well.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 The fault in your argument lies in the bit where you state that "most of will agree that if Lowe had stayed around we would not be in administration" What the situation would have been is as much up for conjecture as to whether we might have survived both administration and relegation had Lowe not dismissed Pearson. Nobody knows what would have happened had Lowe not been ousted by Wilde and I would challenge also your opinion that "most" agree one way or the other. But anyway, I said that the relegation AND the idiot policies taken this season had been the main contributors to our ultimate demise. Lowe was not in a straitjacket with the sole choice of only appointing inexperienced Dutch management, only playing the kids, jettisoning all three of our best strikers, etc. Granted that those policies would have had us relegated anyway once Pearson was gone, but the ticket pricing policy of charging that amount to watch the kids lose at home apart from 4 wins and the number of those boycotting Lowe's return were big factors into why the financial side didn't stack up. I do agree with that summation, and the decisions made by Lowe on his return were damaging. I think the issue is that it is all hypothetical. Personally, I'm looking at this in a purely fiscal way, not taking into account the disastrous football decisions that Lowe made.
Frank's cousin Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Go back to what I said when Pearson was appointed and how I said I would view him and Crouch. I'll have a dig around (but the forum doesn't seem to allow you to go back that far), but I said I would judge them both on whether they managed to keep us up and out of administration. If they failed on either then they had to be deemed failures (and given the boot). Crouch is no Football Chairman genius, just like Pearson is no Football Managerial legend, but compared to what followed them they certainly could be considered a better bet (that definitely is the case with Pearson and Poortvliet). As I said I would judge Pearson and Crouch, I have always judged Lowe by his results and when he was successful I was happy to praise him (I'm sure GM can dig out those posts), but also when his time was up and he was fouind to be wanting it was only fair to be honest at that time as well. Sorry UP thats not the quetsion I was asking - of course its only right to judge a deciosn after you have the results - but teh fact remains that this was luck + nepotism, not experience and judgement - and thus even if he had been successful would he have deserved the credit when everyone knows full well none would have been granted to LOwe had it worked out for him - a good example is the 'luck' Lowe had with Strachan to realise how this is skewed in thuis way - all I want to see is the same sense of 'fairplay' applied to all, rather than one side viewed favourably against the other for teh same 'luck' rather than judgement.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 :rolleyes: LOL!! Very funny! So you honestly believe that had Lowe not left the first time, we would be in administration at this point, if not sooner? You think he'd have run wages at 81% of turnover? You think he'd have spent £7m on a gamble to return to the Premiership(considering he never did that in the Prem, I find that laughable)? As said above, it's all hypothetical. I think you can level a lot of things at Lowe, bad footballing decisions, but I don't think he'd have risked the money he had tied up in the club by taking us into administration.
Frank's cousin Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 So you honestly believe that had Lowe not left the first time, we would be in administration at this point, if not sooner? You think he'd have run wages at 81% of turnover? You think he'd have spent £7m on a gamble to return to the Premiership(considering he never did that in the Prem, I find that laughable)? As said above, it's all hypothetical. I think you can level a lot of things at Lowe, bad footballing decisions, but I don't think he'd have risked the money he had tied up in the club by taking us into administration. I think we would have been relegated the season after loosing teh parachute money as Lowe would have cut teh squad to fit the revenue so L1 but solvent...but as you say its hypothetical
saint1977 Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 So you honestly believe that had Lowe not left the first time, we would be in administration at this point, if not sooner? You think he'd have run wages at 81% of turnover? You think he'd have spent £7m on a gamble to return to the Premiership(considering he never did that in the Prem, I find that laughable)? As said above, it's all hypothetical. I think you can level a lot of things at Lowe, bad footballing decisions, but I don't think he'd have risked the money he had tied up in the club by taking us into administration. It's tricky to know what Rupert would have done 2006-8 had he stayed and I guess therefore there isn't a right or wrong answer. What I do know is that Lowe increased the overheads in our first parachute season when income had slumped post-drop with the Dome fiasco - Tony Husband from BBC called this staggering or words to that effect - check out the article. Lowe also broke the wage celing with Rasiak's signing and was promising a significant warchest if he'd stayed. I think he may have reigned it in 2007/8 perhaps but a lot of the damage may still have been done and gates may have dropped even faster than they did. So I can't say for 100% certain whether we'd be in admin or not and certainly Wilde, Hone and chums were even worse and did our club a dreadful amount of harm. I just suspect that Wilde's clowns delayed admin by 12 months. I can remember Lowe and Cowen being quoted in 05/06 saying that they didn't know where the next penny was coming from and that's WITH the parchute money first season. After all, we couldn't rely on selling Crouch and Theo every season in the CCC! The only was I believe admin could have been avoided was a buy-out which the warring parties made very difficult. It will certainly be a long, long time before any consortium can repair the damage caused 2004 onwards by ALL parties and the mistakes have been really basic.
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 So you honestly believe that had Lowe not left the first time, we would be in administration at this point, if not sooner? You think he'd have run wages at 81% of turnover? You think he'd have spent £7m on a gamble to return to the Premiership(considering he never did that in the Prem, I find that laughable)? As said above, it's all hypothetical. I think you can level a lot of things at Lowe, bad footballing decisions, but I don't think he'd have risked the money he had tied up in the club by taking us into administration. Bad footballing decisions? Who was it that paid 2m fo Rasiak on a 4 year deal? And at the start of this season who gave Wotton a 3 year deal? The signing of half a dozen or so players who were utterly unable to make a contribution playing-wise (and pay them to do nothing) - were they just bad footballing decisions?
saint1977 Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 I'll also add that we are where are now and to be honest what Rupert says or doesn't say matters not a jot. It's what the consortiums are saying to Fry that I'm concerned with as if that isn't productive in the coming days we'll have many years to debate this issue but no football to actually go and watch!
um pahars Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Sorry UP thats not the quetsion I was asking - of course its only right to judge a deciosn after you have the results - but teh fact remains that this was luck + nepotism' date=' not experience and judgement - and thus even if he had been successful would he have deserved the credit when everyone knows full well none would have been granted to LOwe had it worked out for him - a good example is the 'luck' Lowe had with Strachan to realise how this is skewed in thuis way - all I want to see is the same sense of 'fairplay' applied to all, rather than one side viewed favourably against the other for teh same 'luck' rather than judgement.[/quote'] Well I certainly wouldn't have called appointing Strachan lucky as ultimately it was a good call by Lowe and he deserved praise for going with him (and at the same time he needed to be chided for appointing Gray before him!!). So I'm not really sure what the question was. But if it is would I be calling Crouch a visionary, then it would be no, no more than Lowe was visionary in appointing Strachan, but ultimately they were both good shouts (and considering Crouch blustered around after Burley left he wasn't always spot on with his decisions). But I would also recognise that he used contacts within the Club to appoint a successful manager. I don't think everything comes down to luck and ultimately you make your own luck by doing the right research and making the right decisions. I am only too happy to be consistent and judge people by their actions. I said exactly that of Crouch and Pearson and I did exactly the same withj Lowe.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 I think we would have been relegated the season after loosing teh parachute money as Lowe would have cut teh squad to fit the revenue so L1 but solvent...but as you say its hypothetical And I agree, BUT he would have cut the cloth accordingly...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Bad footballing decisions? Who was it that paid 2m fo Rasiak on a 4 year deal? And at the start of this season who gave Wotton a 3 year deal? The signing of half a dozen or so players who were utterly unable to make a contribution playing-wise (and pay them to do nothing) - were they just bad footballing decisions? Wotton will be on next to no money, and Rasiak, had he not been supplemented by Saga, Stern John, and Jason Euell (on similar wages) was sustainable.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Not bad but compared to what has been alleged on this forum in the past regards McMenemy's take for what IMO was nothing more than a few handshakes on matchdays Lowe was probably seriously underpaid. . Didn't Lowe and Wilde ask him to stay on? So the great business brain that is Rupert Lowe, must have thought he was worth it.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Didn't Lowe and Wilde ask him to stay on? So the great business brain that is Rupert Lowe, must have thought he was worth it. I don't think they did. It's common knowledge that there is no love lost between Lowe and McMenemy
alpine_saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Author Posted 12 May, 2009 Personally, I'm looking at this in a purely fiscal way, not taking into account the disastrous football decisions that Lowe made. Which makes your opinion as meaningless and ridiculous as that of the Great Man Himself...
70's Mike Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 I do agree with that summation, and the decisions made by Lowe on his return were damaging. I think the issue is that it is all hypothetical. Personally, I'm looking at this in a purely fiscal way, not taking into account the disastrous football decisions that Lowe made. arn't the fiscal and football decisions linked , just like SLH and SFC ? Other than SFC what other decisions were there, whilst he always said it was a results driven business he forgot that it was results on the field that ultimately effect the fiscal ones
saint1977 Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 (edited) Wotton will be on next to no money, and Rasiak, had he not been supplemented by Saga, Stern John, and Jason Euell (on similar wages) was sustainable. I'm fairly sure a Plymouth fan who knew Wotton came on here last summer and said Wotton was on more than Plymouth were paying him. The Euell signing was bloody daft and Hone should be shot for that alone and I'm not sure Safri was neccessary either post parachute and I'd like to think Rupert would have overruled those. To be honest, I think we're splitting hairs. I wish that Wilde hadn't seen fit to bring Rupert back last summer but he did. No-one in that boardroom has made a sensible decision in the last 5-6 years, whether it was Wigley, Woodward, Redknapp, Beerley, signing Euell, appointing the Execs, the statue debacle, Dodd & Gorman, sacking Pearson, JP and the idiot experiment or the millions of loan players that cost us a lot of money last season and barely pulled on the shirt (although they probably would have only disgraced it further). I'm not sure abot knocking back SISU, at the time I agreed with the major shareholders but Coventry are looking at spending some money this summer - compare that to us. Then again, Coventry were more desperate than us at the time. Seriously though, look at all of those decisions above and tell me that most CEOs wouldn't have been fired for those? No wonder our fans morale became so low. Edited 12 May, 2009 by saint1977
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Which makes your opinion as meaningless and ridiculous as that of the Great Man Himself... Not really, because the discussion I was having with others on this thread was purely based on the fiscal side of things, and just saying it's not black and white. As I said earlier, his football decisions have put us into League 1, but his financial control hasn't. And to be fair Alpine, it's your opinions that don't matter. You are a wind up merchant, similar to Sundance Beast and Scooby, and to be honest I can't really be bothered to bite any longer. Your ill-educated views and relentless tirades against Lowe are tiresome, and I don't think you've ever tried to put across a balanced argument, a 'devils advocate' view as it were. Anyway, hope all's well in Austria, muchos kisses to you... Peace and love, peace and love...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 arn't the fiscal and football decisions linked , just like SLH and SFC ? Other than SFC what other decisions were there, whilst he always said it was a results driven business he forgot that it was results on the field that ultimately effect the fiscal ones Agreed, they are, but what pushed us into administration was the 81% wage to turnover ratio, and the £7m spent badly by Burley. I just don't think we'd be in admin now if it weren't for that. 'Tis all I'm saying.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 I'm fairly sure a Plymouth fan who knew Wotton came on here last summer and said Wotton was on more than Plymouth were paying him. The Euell signing was bloody daft and Hone should be shot for that alone and I'm not sure Safri was neccessary either post parachute and I'd like to think Rupert would have overruled those. To be honest, I think we're splitting hairs. I wish that Wilde hadn't seen fit to bring Rupert back last summer but he did. No-one in that boardroom has made a sensible decision in the last 5-6 years, whether it was Wigley, Woodward, Redknapp, Beerley, signing Euell, appointing the Execs, the statue debacle, Dodd & Gorman, sacking Pearson, JP and the idiot experiment or the millions of loan players that cost us a lot of money last season and barely pulled on the shirt (although they probably would have only disgraced it further). I'm not sure abot knocking back SISU, at the time I agreed with the major shareholders but Coventry are looking at spending some money this summer - compare that to us. Then again, Coventry were more desperate than us at the time. Seriously though, look at all of those decisions above and tell me that most CEOs wouldn't have been fired for those? No wonder our fans morale became so low. Agreed. All over ****ed up management of or club.
alpine_saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Author Posted 12 May, 2009 And to be fair Alpine, it's your opinions that don't matter. You are a wind up merchant, similar to Sundance Beast and Scooby, and to be honest I can't really be bothered to bite any longer. Your ill-educated views and relentless tirades against Lowe are tiresome, and I don't think you've ever tried to put across a balanced argument, a 'devils advocate' view as it were. Desperate and pathetic.... I couldnt give a flying f**k about balance. I express my belief. Wind up merchants say whatever they need to in order to get a rise, whereas I wear my heart on my sleeve. Hardly surprising that prissy little anodyne fence-sitters like you have trouble appreciating that.
Torres Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 whereas I wear my heart on my sleeve. Just shame that it's not always consistently the same sleeve. How's your Mark Fry barometer today? Is he a MLT-stlye Saints hero or a time-wasting, incompetent waster?
Ponty Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Alps, is Mark Fry still getting close to trumping MLT in the cult hero stakes?
70's Mike Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Agreed, they are, but what pushed us into administration was the 81% wage to turnover ratio, and the £7m spent badly by Burley. I just don't think we'd be in admin now if it weren't for that. 'Tis all I'm saying. but if we had won a few more home games earlier in the season, gates would have been up , income up and no administration. As the Finance Director said the 81% wage to turnover was a temporary blip which was already on its way down at the end of June last year(2008), Ultimately, imo, the decision taken over the manager and team selection method was what led to admin because of the attendance drop. Everyone keeps concentrating on cost cutting but any businessman in the private sector will tell you that is only half of the equation , the other is maintaining income or increasing it.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Desperate and pathetic.... I couldnt give a flying f**k about balance. I express my belief. Wind up merchants say whatever they need to in order to get a rise, whereas I wear my heart on my sleeve. Hardly surprising that prissy little anodyne fence-sitters like you have trouble appreciating that. I think it's difficult for devisive people like you to not look like a wind up mechant, and vice versa, so forgive me if I see anything you say as inflammatory and a wind up.
John Smith Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Agreed, they are, but what pushed us into administration was the 81% wage to turnover ratio, and the £7m spent badly by Burley. I just don't think we'd be in admin now if it weren't for that. 'Tis all I'm saying. I think it is worth mentioning again, that Lowe declared that he was willing to spend about that same money that season (January?) as his hands were tied the season prior due to lack of quality player(s) available under Rednapp. We only purchased Fuller for 90k as Rednapp was unwilling to spend more than the odds for Clinton Morrison, probably a wise move considering the value we ended up getting out of Kenwyn Jones the following season, who surely wouldn't have got a look in if Clinton had been there. Then we would never have received £6mil + Stern John in return, who, did score the goal(s) that eventually saved us last season. Wow, how events spiral and connect when you break it down!
View From The Top Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Thank god we are rid of that pompous cretin. Hs Nineteencanteen been banned?
Holbury Saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 LOL - Also look back over every director exec and non exec who has presumably had some influence on the club since the formation of the plc and pick out the one person who has actually delivered success and tried to realistically tackle the club's difficulties when they arose? There is only one answer and it's not Crouch or Wilde. Lowe has not, and IMO to the club's disadvantage been challenged by a colleague worthy to take on the chairman role. Lowe may have been clever by surrounding himself with either loyal subordinates or poor challengers to his crown but maybe he actually left himself exposed without other sources of expert advice and guidance when it was needed. I have met many successful people and they usually site that a lot of their success was to employ or network with people much more intelligent than themselves. Apart from Cowen has that happened at Saints? Crouch and Wilde were no better if not a lot worse than Lowe IMO. .......but you ARE Cowen. Just go, you're as much to blame as the rest of them. You should hang your head in shame for standing by and allowing Lowe back in. Just own up, I KNOW you are Cowen
sadoldgit Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Thank god we are rid of that pompous cretin. But Alpine is still here???
alpine_saint Posted 12 May, 2009 Author Posted 12 May, 2009 But Alpine is still here??? Wow, never saw that coming
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