benjii Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Uhm BUt CRouch was football club chairman from the time of Lowe's ousting - had he had better foresight/experience he could/should have vetoed teh spending during that time approved by Wildes Execs on the grounds that Wilde would bring in the fabled investment - surely Leon was not so naive as to approve this spend before the club had anything in writing? This has been my problem with Leon as he seems to preoccupied with his status amongst fans as Mr Uber fan than making unpopular but necessary decisions. Pandering to the demands and desires of fans when you ahve limitless cash to fund supporter dreams is great - when you are skint and with falling revenues you need folk in charge prepared to take the flak from fans for miserly decison making. How do you propose he "veto" it? When did he pander? When he loaned out Rasiak? When he loaned out Skacel? When he appointed a largely unknown and, to many, initially uninspiring manager? Your post just shows a lack of understanding and misaprehension of the facts which is common amongst people who seek to blame Crouch for this. Crouch is not very good at speaking "on his feet". Apart from that, I fail to see what he has done wrong. You could say he shouldn't have supported Wilde but frankly, he shouldn't have supported Lowe either. If you cast your mind back he was actually trying to broker a truce between the two and was roundly criticised by many for wavering in his support for Wilde.
redder freak Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Where's Jimmy Hone when we need him? He'd sort this lot out. A wise businessman is what we need, to talk some sense! Bring back the golden era of 2006-8.
aintforever Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 I'm Lowe's harshest critic but even I am amazed at how spectacularly he has ****ed things up this season. He just needs to shut his mouth and go back to his pig farm because the more he opens his gob the more of a laughing stock he becomes - you would have thought he would have at least learned that by now. It's a fitting tribute to Lowe that the dreaded administrator, brought in to rip the club apart and flog what's left to the highest bidder, is actually more popular than him (at the moment).
um pahars Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Didn't Lowe and Wilde ask him to stay on? I don't think they did. Lifted from The Echo of 22nd May 2008 Lowe and Wilde wanted him to continue in his contracted ambassadorial role ...............Football board chairman Wilde confirmed the club's position and said they will now look for a figurehead to take over from McMenemy. "We were happy to have Lawrie for the other season on his contract and not only potentially just that but if it went well to renew it as well," he said.
benjii Posted 12 May, 2009 Posted 12 May, 2009 Lifted from The Echo of 22nd May 2008 Lowe and Wilde wanted him to continue in his contracted ambassadorial role ...............Football board chairman Wilde confirmed the club's position and said they will now look for a figurehead to take over from McMenemy. "We were happy to have Lawrie for the other season on his contract and not only potentially just that but if it went well to renew it as well," he said. No, but,... er.... *hot under the collar*.... but Lawrie was on the best part of a gazzilion quid a year... and er... :mad:
alpine_saint Posted 13 May, 2009 Author Posted 13 May, 2009 How do you propose he "veto" it? When did he pander? When he loaned out Rasiak? When he loaned out Skacel? When he appointed a largely unknown and, to many, initially uninspiring manager? Your post just shows a lack of understanding and misaprehension of the facts which is common amongst people who seek to blame Crouch for this. Crouch is not very good at speaking "on his feet". Apart from that, I fail to see what he has done wrong. You could say he shouldn't have supported Wilde but frankly, he shouldn't have supported Lowe either. If you cast your mind back he was actually trying to broker a truce between the two and was roundly criticised by many for wavering in his support for Wilde. All true. Good post. How amazing that those that claim to seek "balance" are actually rabid anti-Crouch, and are actually as disinterested in reality as those they continually berate for being anti-Lowe in an imbalanced way...
Alain Perrin Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 How do you propose he "veto" it? When did he pander? When he loaned out Rasiak? When he loaned out Skacel? When he appointed a largely unknown and, to many, initially uninspiring manager? Your post just shows a lack of understanding and misaprehension of the facts which is common amongst people who seek to blame Crouch for this. Crouch is not very good at speaking "on his feet". Apart from that, I fail to see what he has done wrong. You could say he shouldn't have supported Wilde but frankly, he shouldn't have supported Lowe either. If you cast your mind back he was actually trying to broker a truce between the two and was roundly criticised by many for wavering in his support for Wilde. Who was the largely uninspiring manager - Dodd/Gorman? I've got time for Crouch, but his time in charge didn't fill me with confidence. I felt he was less than honest with the fans over things like the Skacel / Rasiak loans, and downright duplicitous over the Walcott renegotiation. If Lowe had done that, Alpine at all would be making T-shirts and sharpening pitchforks.
Smirking_Saint Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 Who was the largely uninspiring manager - Dodd/Gorman? I've got time for Crouch, but his time in charge didn't fill me with confidence. I felt he was less than honest with the fans over things like the Skacel / Rasiak loans, and downright duplicitous over the Walcott renegotiation. If Lowe had done that, Alpine at all would be making T-shirts and sharpening pitchforks. They are all to blame in their own ways, people need to see the big picture as it is and realise we have been tossed between the fire and the frying pan far too many times. We were passed between one clueless penny pinching numpty to a pair of would be do-gooders equally without a clue and even a whole new board of so called football experienced executives.... Cue much in fighting and internal politics. I just want this dark dark part of our history over so we can move on. We may be in league one but hopefully eventually we will come out with someone with some credibility and scope. Maybe even a bit of transparancy for the fans.
Foxstone Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 How do you propose he "veto" it? When did he pander? When he loaned out Rasiak? When he loaned out Skacel? When he appointed a largely unknown and, to many, initially uninspiring manager? Your post just shows a lack of understanding and misaprehension of the facts which is common amongst people who seek to blame Crouch for this. Crouch is not very good at speaking "on his feet". Apart from that, I fail to see what he has done wrong. You could say he shouldn't have supported Wilde but frankly, he shouldn't have supported Lowe either. If you cast your mind back he was actually trying to broker a truce between the two and was roundly criticised by many for wavering in his support for Wilde. Being a senior part of the non-executive/leadership team between the summers of 2006 and 2008 - A time when the boardroom and all the major decision makers were as disjointed and dis-united as a cabinet in John Major's government, and rendered the constructive running of our club "very difficult" to put it kindly ! He also never gave any confidence that he was fully in control of his brief and his constant desire to wash the clubs dirty linen in the full media spotlight was bloody annoying. I still maintain that he appointed Dodd/Gorman and hoped to keep them in situ for as long as... until the televised debacle against Bristol Rovers rendered that impossible. Then Lawrie bailed him out with Pearson. I'm sure he is an affable enough chap and I commend him for the contribution he has made to the club in other areas, but if Lowe hammered in the first and final nails into the coffin - The likes of Crouch, Hone and Wilde hammered in enough of their own in the time inbetween.
Frank's cousin Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 How do you propose he "veto" it? When did he pander? When he loaned out Rasiak? When he loaned out Skacel? When he appointed a largely unknown and, to many, initially uninspiring manager? Your post just shows a lack of understanding and misaprehension of the facts which is common amongst people who seek to blame Crouch for this. Crouch is not very good at speaking "on his feet". Apart from that, I fail to see what he has done wrong. You could say he shouldn't have supported Wilde but frankly, he shouldn't have supported Lowe either. If you cast your mind back he was actually trying to broker a truce between the two and was roundly criticised by many for wavering in his support for Wilde. Forgive my ignorance but surly the football club board would ratify and approve particular player purchases?
Frank's cousin Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 (edited) All true. Good post. How amazing that those that claim to seek "balance" are actually rabid anti-Crouch, and are actually as disinterested in reality as those they continually berate for being anti-Lowe in an imbalanced way... NO alpine, seeking balance is about treating all the feck ups made by all the parties with equal and neutral evaluation and NOT sticking colours to any particular mast but acknowledging pros and cons in everyone. Sure I cant stand Crouch's big gob, same as I cant stand Lowe's arrogance and gaffs.... what is biassed about that please tell? Edited 13 May, 2009 by Frank's cousin
Frank's cousin Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 You could say he shouldn't have supported Wilde but frankly, he shouldn't have supported Lowe either. If you cast your mind back he was actually trying to broker a truce between the two and was roundly criticised by many for wavering in his support for Wilde. Be real for a moment - When Wilde showed up he was all about 'evolution not revolution' - but he wanted a seat on the board and also a split between the CEO role and chairman role - this was refused by Lowe and the board so he stood against it.... A mistake by Lowe from a tactical perspective, because then when Crouch arrived despite only controlling 10% he now found himself in the situation of being able to hold the balance of power. He flirted with Wilde, then Lowe and then finally siding with Wilde who would give him the biggest role - taht of Football club Chairman - Do you honestly believe this was not influenced by his ego? That he did not enjoy that position of power? He then made another tactical error in falling out with Wilde and ousting him - what did he think would happen? These guys are all fuelled by egos and will sell their granny if it meant gain - so getting into bed witha previous enemy if it was mutaullly beneficial would be nothing to them - Crouch was extremely naive here. The ONLY time they actually came together in unity was for persaonal interest in rejecting the SISU bid which would have seen all their shareholdings diluted. IMHO its all about the financial management in the transition from prem revenues to CCC living within ones means - Do you think LOwe would have approved teh spending under GB to some 7.5 mil and teh wages for those players when they were up at 81% of income? Thats the question I base my opinion on, nothing else.
alpine_saint Posted 13 May, 2009 Author Posted 13 May, 2009 NO alpine' date=' seeking balance is about treating all the feck ups made by all the parties with equal and neutral evaluation and NOT sticking colours to any particular mast but acknowledging pros and cons in everyone. Sure I cant stand Crouch's big gob, same as I cant stand Lowe's arrogance and gaffs.... what is biassed about that please tell?[/quote'] You go out of your way to slag off Crouch in you own inimitable over-verbose manner, then sort of gloss over or offer a passing nod to Lowe's misdemeanors..
SW11_Saint Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 Just shows Lowe in his true colours again - that toxic mix of ignorance and arrogance; unable to take any blame himself, and more than willing to assign blame to anyone and everyone else. Good riddance to him. He has overseen our darkest moments as a club, but hopefully now the only way is up...
Frank's cousin Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 You go out of your way to slag off Crouch in you own inimitable over-verbose manner, then sort of gloss over or offer a passing nod to Lowe's misdemeanors.. Alpine - what do you believe is most crucial? Financial stabilty or risk to ensure popularity albeit with potential footballing success? That is what I base my opinion on, nothing else. Lowe might be the biggest arsehole on the planet, might have as you say no interest in football, might eb in the whole thing for greed etc - in other words all the rhetoric spouted could be true and 10 x worse - the worst managerial record whatever.... but if he controlled the purse strings so taht we avoided this financila meltdown, he would get my vote OVER someone who is popular, spends money on fan friendly projects (to his credit), has the obvious passion for the team (to his credit) but seems unable to make teh bastrad decsions when necessary or too late - I am simply not from the school of thought that says the risk is worth it - others are and thats fair enough and they will obviously as a result will empthasize with Crouch far more than someone who is purely a money man. If Crouch had tried to prevent the big spend and taken the resultant fan backlash on teh chin I would be far more forgiving of the big gob - as I say I could live with that if he could make those decisions. I dont see how that qualifies for your persistent and futile attempts to score petty points rather than contributing why YOU feel as you do and teh reational behind it.
Wes Tender Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 . but if he controlled the purse strings so taht we avoided this financila meltdown' date=' he would get my vote OVER someone who is popular, spends money on fan friendly projects (to his credit), has the obvious passion for the team (to his credit) but seems unable to make teh bastrad decsions when necessary or too late - [/quote'] Let me just pick a couple of gaping holes in your argument, contained in this little bit above. Firstly, he didn't control the purse strings so that we avoided the financial meltdown, did he? Apart from the fact that the biggest loss of revenue that caused the maximum damage to our financial strength was the relegation from the Premiership under his watch, it is easily arguable that his policies this season caused the financial meltdown too. Apart from the revenue lost purely because of those who stayed away because of his return, the bizarre experiment was a false economy that backfired badly and ticket prices were too high, especially as the entertainment was watching the kids getting beaten in all but 4 of the home matches. Presumably you would include the sacking of a manager to be a "bastard decision". Well, he couldn't even get that right. Apart from his dismissal of a perfectly capable manager purely on grounds of spite, he failed to dismiss the useless Poortvliet at Christmas, when it was perfectly obvious to most that he was way out of his depth and there was still enough time to act had that decision been made then. Of course, most accept that Lowe failed to take that action when necessary because of the loss of face that he would suffer as a result; the same reason that caused him to appoint the other inept Dutchman to take over next. So anybody who is attempting to put forward a balanced argument would not be stating a preference for somebody purely on their ability to run a tight ship financially; they would be championing somebody who was able both to keep the finances within check, but also to ensure that the right manager was in charge of the right players and that match tickets were also set at a level that attracted the largest take-up to maximise profit margins. Why can't you admit that Lowe failed dismally on several of these counts?
Frank's cousin Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 Let me just pick a couple of gaping holes in your argument, contained in this little bit above. Firstly, he didn't control the purse strings so that we avoided the financial meltdown, did he? Apart from the fact that the biggest loss of revenue that caused the maximum damage to our financial strength was the relegation from the Premiership under his watch, it is easily arguable that his policies this season caused the financial meltdown too. Apart from the revenue lost purely because of those who stayed away because of his return, the bizarre experiment was a false economy that backfired badly and ticket prices were too high, especially as the entertainment was watching the kids getting beaten in all but 4 of the home matches. Presumably you would include the sacking of a manager to be a "bastard decision". Well, he couldn't even get that right. Apart from his dismissal of a perfectly capable manager purely on grounds of spite, he failed to dismiss the useless Poortvliet at Christmas, when it was perfectly obvious to most that he was way out of his depth and there was still enough time to act had that decision been made then. Of course, most accept that Lowe failed to take that action when necessary because of the loss of face that he would suffer as a result; the same reason that caused him to appoint the other inept Dutchman to take over next. So anybody who is attempting to put forward a balanced argument would not be stating a preference for somebody purely on their ability to run a tight ship financially; they would be championing somebody who was able both to keep the finances within check, but also to ensure that the right manager was in charge of the right players and that match tickets were also set at a level that attracted the largest take-up to maximise profit margins. Why can't you admit that Lowe failed dismally on several of these counts? Sorry Wes but you are reading things into this that are simply not there. 1. When you have contracts unless someone buys those players you cant simply tear them up - so the question is do you think Lowe would have entered into player contracts that committed us to in excess of 80% of revenue on wages? I dont irrespective of who or what he ratified or how crap they were (that is a different matter) with respect to relegation - FFS it happens to 3 clubs a year and yes footballing decsions he made contributed to that, but to put all the blame of that on his shoulders has always been simply mad - its sport FFS and these things do happen - As to fans staying away purely because he returened - did not seem to put them off when MAN UTD were in town despite teh fact we were likely to get a beating and playing the same kids??? Its just too many dont have the stomach for CCC and lower table CCC at that - we cant hide behind that excuse - of course we would ahve had a few thouseand more if in the top 6 - same as at EVERY Club.... The Manager deciosn was not included in that statemnet - this was purely about saying NO to managers wanting to spend or vetoing those decisons and wage demands which were beyond the budget and only sustainable if promoted the risk v return scenario. Sure we can argue till we are blue in the face about the merits of Pearson v the new bods who failed and speculate as much as we like about the percentage chance of better results had he still been here - that is a duifferent question. Yes IF we had had better results we would undoubtedly have senn a few thousand more on the gate but to link Pearson staying directly with avoiding admin is a pretty BIG leap.. My point was as should have been obvious is that in the CCC and the lower leagues the need for stability takes preference over spending on the potential for success EVERY time - its why there is the point deduction rule, its why most clubs dont ever compete because they simply cant afford to risk - not great from a footballing perspective, but at least tehir fans are greatful for still having a club to support rtaher than risking it on a do or die approach.... Of course in an ideal world you get the combination of both - but we did not ahve that choice. So yes LOwe may have continually displayed a tendancy to feck up footballing decisions, but has a record for maintating the cashflow within our means - wheras CRouch may well have through LUCK and neptistic opportuinity through LM got lucky with arguably a good managerial prospect, but failed to demonstarte he was prepared to make those decsions that fans find so unpalatable financially...
Wes Tender Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 Look, Frank, without going into discussions as the intricacies of whether one strategy was attributable to one Chairman and another to the other, I'll attempt to encapsulate Lowe's failings into a couple of well known sayings that I believe sum up his failings in a nutshell and which I have used before about him. Just tell me whether you agree or not. He knew the price of everything, but the value of nothing. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
Frank's cousin Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 Look, Frank, without going into discussions as the intricacies of whether one strategy was attributable to one Chairman and another to the other, I'll attempt to encapsulate Lowe's failings into a couple of well known sayings that I believe sum up his failings in a nutshell and which I have used before about him. Just tell me whether you agree or not. He knew the price of everything, but the value of nothing. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. True but tell me this, If peanuts is all you can afford would you borrow or risk capital we knew only promotion could pay back? Value of customer satisfaction is withouit doubt important, but right now it means diddly squat - we did not even get to taste the success Leeds had, but had in effect done the same thing - albeit on a smaller scale. What is so difficult with these debates is that defending a situation can at times be embarrassingly difficult because of the obvious feck ups someone has made elsewhere, but doubly so because too many assume because you defend one aspect of something - or criticise the opposition for their approach that this implies support for everything someone does or stands for.... which I am sure you know is not the case. I look at it like this if you split the characteristics for a good chairman up, its not simply adding up how they scored in each - and I am sure CRouch would out score Lowe in most, but weighting the characteristics for importance - A weighting scale that changes greatly between the premiership and the FL where avoiding risk is even more important. IMHO the weighting on financial control is far greater than the rest combined when in the mire.
Wes Tender Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 - A weighting scale that changes greatly between the premiership and the FL where avoiding risk is even more important. IMHO the weighting on financial control is far greater than the rest combined when in the mire. Those little pearls of historic wisdom I mentioned applied to Lowe throughout his time here, not just during the last season. They are the basic reason we are where we are now. He has never learned from his mistakes, repeating them again and again. In the paragraph of yours above, the weighing scale in the lower divisions IMO is more heavily weighted towards the importance of the manager and the right players he might be able to get in rather than an ability for somebody to juggle figures on a balance sheet. This was proven with the appointment of the inept Dutch duo who were paid peanuts, whereas a bit more money paid on somebody who knew what they were doing and knew their way about this division and the right players to do a decent job, might have steadied the ship financially through improved results on the pitch. It isn't rocket science, but those who make a living purely based on finance, often cannot see the bigger picture.
Frank's cousin Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 Those little pearls of historic wisdom I mentioned applied to Lowe throughout his time here, not just during the last season. They are the basic reason we are where we are now. He has never learned from his mistakes, repeating them again and again. In the paragraph of yours above, the weighing scale in the lower divisions IMO is more heavily weighted towards the importance of the manager and the right players he might be able to get in rather than an ability for somebody to juggle figures on a balance sheet. This was proven with the appointment of the inept Dutch duo who were paid peanuts, whereas a bit more money paid on somebody who knew what they were doing and knew their way about this division and the right players to do a decent job, might have steadied the ship financially through improved results on the pitch. It isn't rocket science, but those who make a living purely based on finance, often cannot see the bigger picture. I am sure that deep down in his darkest never regios Lowe is kicking himself for not sticking with pearson and implementing his Euro dream at the wrong time... even if never admited publically.. the bigger picture? I am sure Lowe recognised it when we were a sea of Yellow at Cardiff, I also believe part of his rational (and please note I am not saying I agree with this) for maintaining that strict financial controls were more important than risking say 15 mil on two players as was Strachans wish, and looking at things such as the Academy and Sports science to gain an advantage were important BECAUSE we could not compete without spending money so had to look to other possible advantages. On his recent return, I suggest that he felt that having narrowly avoided Relegation it could get no worse.... ;-0 so decided the time was right for the Euro plan (ironic given his UKIP status ;-)) - yes he could alos have said and in many folks eyes would have been better off saying, ' no now is not teh right tiem for risky new approaches, but for consolidation and stabilty, we will keep Nige who knows this division and see how he gets on with the kids' - no guarrantees but understandable. BUT Whilst that makes sense from a footballing perspective you simply cannot assume that we would have seen bigger gates had we been in teh same lowe haldf scenario all season - which given the need to ship out big earners would have been likely even had we avoided relegation - Do you think the same players would have done any different? Yet we have heard countless times how had he stayed we would have had bigger crowds.... which would have helped us avoid admin - do you really believe that? We had the biggets crowd of the season under Lowe and JP because of teh simple fact of who the opoosition were - the 10000+ missing fans who deserted when we lost premiership status returned - I woudl suggest that with the kids and a low CCC position, it would not really matter who was in charge apart from maybe the initial feelgood factor when a new familiar face arrives...
Wes Tender Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 On his recent return, I suggest that he felt that having narrowly avoided Relegation it could get no worse.... ;-0 so decided the time was right for the Euro plan (ironic given his UKIP status ;-)) - yes he could alos have said and in many folks eyes would have been better off saying, ' no now is not teh right tiem for risky new approaches, but for consolidation and stabilty, we will keep Nige who knows this division and see how he gets on with the kids' - no guarrantees but understandable. BUT Whilst that makes sense from a footballing perspective you simply cannot assume that we would have seen bigger gates had we been in teh same lowe haldf scenario all season - which given the need to ship out big earners would have been likely even had we avoided relegation - Do you think the same players would have done any different? Yet we have heard countless times how had he stayed we would have had bigger crowds.... which would have helped us avoid admin - do you really believe that? We had the biggets crowd of the season under Lowe and JP because of teh simple fact of who the opoosition were - the 10000+ missing fans who deserted when we lost premiership status returned - I woudl suggest that with the kids and a low CCC position, it would not really matter who was in charge apart from maybe the initial feelgood factor when a new familiar face arrives... Frank, I honestly believe that had Lowe kept on Pearson, we would both have had larger crowds, because Pearson would have got a better performance out of the squad than Poortvliet, because he would have employed better tactics, a better balance between age and experience and better motivation and fitness levels of the squad. That would naturally have led to more home wins, resulting in higher attendances. Mind you, the crowds would have been even bigger with Lowe out of the picture altogether. Naturally all of the above is pure speculation, but I bet you that there would be far more on here prepared to back up the probability of the above scenario being more successful than the one that unfolded under the bizarre experiment implemented by Lowe.
Viking Saint Posted 13 May, 2009 Posted 13 May, 2009 what a ****ing ******....the demise of our club lies firmly at Lowe's door....as for blaming the Echo, I can categorically deny, as I no longer live in Hampshire, that I hardly ever read it and therefore they have not influenced my utter hatred, contempt and loathing for this beetroot-faced tosspot.....Rupert, please find the nearest cliff and get yourself a one-way ticket over it
alpine_saint Posted 13 May, 2009 Author Posted 13 May, 2009 Wes, give up. The bloke is a stubborn mule who is trying to masquerade as not being a Lowe Luvvie under an increasingly thin-wearing veneer of "balance"
Nineteen Canteen Posted 14 May, 2009 Posted 14 May, 2009 .......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 This is the problem with this forum. You cannot post an opinion or ask a valid question without someone assuming you have some hidden agenda or you are some individual connected to those you are perceived as supporting. We need to accept as fans that we all have different ideas about who should run the club and who shouldn't just as much as we have opinions on should be in the starting 11 and who should not. Players and managers come in for some serious stick at times based on opinions, perception and interpretation so why not directors past and present? We all support the United Kingdom but presumably don't all vote Labour? If I came on here and challenged Gordon Brown am i going to be accused of being George Osborne? I am just a fan who is very unhappy about the situation and the fact that there are many people culpable for this club's administration and reliance on handouts from beleagured fans who frankly deserved better. The fact I have an opinion and cannot post it without being accused of being Rupert's fag, Lord Marland and now Andrew Cowen is a reflection on why we are in this mess as too many fans have simply refused they have to a degree bought this upon themselves. Either that or they have lived in a fantasy land for 3 years in which I am flattered to be referred to as Andrew Cowen although I suspect he will consider it quite insulting. Still, Holbury knows I am Cowen....what else do you know Holbury? All flights from Japan fly west because they are near the RHD edge of the board?
Frank's cousin Posted 14 May, 2009 Posted 14 May, 2009 (edited) Wes, give up. The bloke is a stubborn mule who is trying to masquerade as not being a Lowe Luvvie under an increasingly thin-wearing veneer of "balance" You seem so desperate to 'tag' or label folk Alpine - why is this? easier to dismiss and CONTINUALLY add feck all to the debate or provide an iota of insight into how you formed your opinion, because you sure as hell give the perception that its simply founded on ignorance and bigotry.... Edited 14 May, 2009 by Frank's cousin
Frank's cousin Posted 14 May, 2009 Posted 14 May, 2009 (edited) Frank, I honestly believe that had Lowe kept on Pearson, we would both have had larger crowds, because Pearson would have got a better performance out of the squad than Poortvliet, because he would have employed better tactics, a better balance between age and experience and better motivation and fitness levels of the squad. That would naturally have led to more home wins, resulting in higher attendances. Mind you, the crowds would have been even bigger with Lowe out of the picture altogether. Naturally all of the above is pure speculation, but I bet you that there would be far more on here prepared to back up the probability of the above scenario being more successful than the one that unfolded under the bizarre experiment implemented by Lowe. Fair points Wes and I dont diasagree with your logic, but maybe the potential outcome - its basically almost impossible to determine and I guess our opinions are based on very subtle differences in where we place the importance of the variables. I do think its made worse by the fact that there are so many variables all intertwined yet also seperate issues - Pearson going could have a huge impact or a neutral one we dont know, but then depending on what you believe on that, some folk on here then assume your opinions on Lowe or Crouch must follow along the same lines for every variable... Edited 14 May, 2009 by Frank's cousin
georgeg Posted 14 May, 2009 Posted 14 May, 2009 what a ****ing ******....the demise of our club lies firmly at Lowe's door....as for blaming the Echo, I can categorically deny, as I no longer live in Hampshire, that I hardly ever read it and therefore they have not influenced my utter hatred, contempt and loathing for this beetroot-faced tosspot.....Rupert, please find the nearest cliff and get yourself a one-way ticket over it can I help with the cliff thing...... PLEASE
Smirking_Saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Posted 14 May, 2009 NO alpine' date=' seeking balance is about treating all the feck ups made by all the parties with equal and neutral evaluation and NOT sticking colours to any particular mast but acknowledging pros and cons in everyone. Sure I cant stand Crouch's big gob, same as I cant stand Lowe's arrogance and gaffs.... what is biassed about that please tell?[/quote'] +1
VectisSaint Posted 14 May, 2009 Posted 14 May, 2009 ' date=' but failed to demonstarte he was prepared to make those decsions that fans find so unpalatable financially...[/quote'] So why did Crouch do the following: Put in motion the plans to close the corners Put in motion the plans to stop the free buses Loan out 2 of our big earners (Rasiak & Skacel) If you actually consider the facts, Crouch is quite adept at making decisions that are unpalatable to supporters, and these deicisions were followed up by Lowe who actually took the flak for them. To accuse crouch of not having the ability to make unpoular decisions is to grossly misrepresent the facts. In all of the arguments everyone ignores Wilde - this is the man who caused the post-relegation financial meltdown, not Crouch, and he then doubly compunded the issue by supporting Lowe back in to cause even further financial chaos.
Frank's cousin Posted 14 May, 2009 Posted 14 May, 2009 So why did Crouch do the following: Put in motion the plans to close the corners Put in motion the plans to stop the free buses Loan out 2 of our big earners (Rasiak & Skacel) If you actually consider the facts, Crouch is quite adept at making decisions that are unpalatable to supporters, and these deicisions were followed up by Lowe who actually took the flak for them. To accuse crouch of not having the ability to make unpoular decisions is to grossly misrepresent the facts. In all of the arguments everyone ignores Wilde - this is the man who caused the post-relegation financial meltdown, not Crouch, and he then doubly compunded the issue by supporting Lowe back in to cause even further financial chaos. I have acknowledged that he tried to stem the tide - (see other posts) - but it was akin to cloing teh stable door after the horse has bolted and he could have stopped that excess when wilde was promising investment to cover the spending.... but how would the fans have responded to him had he done so at the time? Come on, did you not cringe at the recent radio interviews? I did not expect Crouch to be good in those situations, thats fair enough, but a) he did not need to get involved or agree to that interview and b) i did not expecthiom to make such a gaff....
SaintRobbie Posted 14 May, 2009 Posted 14 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. LOL only 19 could try and deflect blame from Lowe from a fully blown article in the paper half written by Lowe's own hand, then rebuffed which makes Lowe look a complete prat... Cant make this up can you. 19 - you must be a skate plant surely?
David Strover Posted 14 May, 2009 Posted 14 May, 2009 I have met a few successful people and were once I admired them for their get up and go and nous as I got older and watch some of there ways I have come to the conclusion most of them bumble along with some really good people working below (usually unrecognised - and no not me I'm a pillock) and they just happen to be in right place at the right time and an awful lot of them are continent size bullsh*tters. My wife worked for the one of the biggest companies in the world at one time - successful, organised? Nope it was like the Keystone Kops but no one gave a toss as log as the dividends came in. Lowe's luck ran out is all. I don't like the image of the bloke I have been presented with over the years but then again the only part about professional football I like is the games - the money, egos, hype and a lot of the fans I could care less....
David Strover Posted 14 May, 2009 Posted 14 May, 2009 Lots of typos there but as I don't pay I don't edit. Night night.
Wes Tender Posted 15 May, 2009 Posted 15 May, 2009 My wife worked for the one of the biggest companies in the world at one time - McDonalds?
Depressed of Shirley Posted 15 May, 2009 Posted 15 May, 2009 Rupert Lowe super businessman strikes again, another £400,000 lost. http://www.citywire.co.uk/adviser/-/news/other/content.aspx?ID=340848&re=5518&ea=164555
Wes Tender Posted 15 May, 2009 Posted 15 May, 2009 Rupert Lowe super businessman strikes again, another £400,000 lost. http://www.citywire.co.uk/adviser/-/news/other/content.aspx?ID=340848&re=5518&ea=164555 So Lowe's £800,000 investment in W H Ireland has halved in value recently; so it's not altogether a day devoid of good news so far after all.
Frank's cousin Posted 15 May, 2009 Posted 15 May, 2009 Rupert Lowe super businessman strikes again, another £400,000 lost. http://www.citywire.co.uk/adviser/-/news/other/content.aspx?ID=340848&re=5518&ea=164555 To be fair everyones portfolios have taken a dive recently - check out your latest pension plan statement....
Depressed of Shirley Posted 15 May, 2009 Posted 15 May, 2009 To be fair everyones portfolios have taken a dive recently - check out your latest pension plan statement.... But the point with Rupert is he buys or joins an organisation at the wrong time, and leads them downhill faster than Franz Klammer. One or two **** ups in the current environment you can excuse, but with RL it is everything he touches. Seeing as the only thing going for him is the perception he is a good businessman, the facts show he isn't really any good at all. If he comes anywhere near my firm with a brilliant business plan, and a scheme for world domination, I will prepare for administration immediately.
Frank's cousin Posted 15 May, 2009 Posted 15 May, 2009 But the point with Rupert is he buys or joins an organisation at the wrong time, and leads them downhill faster than Franz Klammer. One or two **** ups in the current environment you can excuse, but with RL it is everything he touches. Seeing as the only thing going for him is the perception he is a good businessman, the facts show he isn't really any good at all. If he comes anywhere near my firm with a brilliant business plan, and a scheme for world domination, I will prepare for administration immediately. NOt quite sure WHO or when that urban myth sprang up about him being a sound businenessman - All most who have not continually ahted him have said is he seems good at managing a company within its means - which we did well in the rem, despite how this was seen as lacking ambition and undermining any footballing progress - Its one thing keeping hold of teh purse strings and another actually growing a succesful busines - which is pretty much impossibe in football as its a business that simply eats money if you want success...
Legod Third Coming Posted 15 May, 2009 Posted 15 May, 2009 Yet more instances of the blame game from the 3 of them, and continuing to fiddle whilst Rome burns.....Crouch and McMenemy can't keep their big mouths shut, Wilde is still Walter Mitty and Lowe continues to try and deflect blame. (Hopefully) the sooner we get a new Board in with no connections to the old Boards the better. Afeckingmen.
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