um pahars

The latter one is only more difficult to sack to the extent of their personal shareholding and with just over 5%, that's not enough to ensure Lowe is unsackable. It would require the withdrawal of support from some who have erstwhile backed him to date, but the mere fact he is a minority shareholder with 5/6% does not preclude him from being removed from office.

Getting back to the opening posts, I struggle to see where any blame can be directed at Crouch with regards the "Pearson" situation. Firstly, given Pearson was somewhat of an unknown proposition, I see nothing wrong with inserting a get out clause if things went pear shaped, particularly given our financial issues. Secondly, pretty soon into the Pearson's tenure it became apparent that both Lowe and Wilde were not overawed with Pearson and when coupled with the fact that they were likely to be back in charge come the end of the season, then I think Crouch would have been slaughtered by some had he given Pearson a new (longer or enhanced) contract, knowing full well that Lowe and Wilde were more than likely going to give him the elbow (in fact Lowe was critical of the basic contract Crouch gave him anyway!!!!!!). Come the end of the season, there was no indication that Pearson would invoke the break clause from his side (BTW, you're wrong Frank as Pearson had a 17 month contract with a bi-party break clause exerciseable by either party in June 2008), so we could have honoured the remainder of his existing contract had we wanted to. We were the ones who chose not to:rolleyes::rolleyes: There was another year left on the contract that we could have utilised. And as I said above, if the insinuation of this thread was that Crouch missed a trick by not tying Pearson down, then it's missed the target, as Pearson was more than happy to stay following his relative success. What this thread actually does is highlight the awful decision taken by Lowe in kicking Pearson out and replacing him with the disaster that was the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up".

I reckon that like most of us, they would be upset at losing a promising young(ish) manager. That's if they can afford him of course :rolleyes: End of.

You're not very good at this kind of thing are you Sundance/Flashman/The Bear/the other identities (delete as applicable), as Lowe has admitted to supporting both Ipswich and West Ham in the past?

With all due respect nickh, we have been hearing that all season, btu sadly these litttle promises of "being up for it", "being confident" & "reay to repay the fans" have been very rarely acted upon. Indeed, if they've been that "up for it", then it hasn't meant much as we haven't won under Wotte to date. Whilst I admire your optimism, I would rather the team manager to string some wins together.

Who wasn't having any of it, and with regards what??? If you mean Pearson and his salary, then you're wide of the mark as there were never any negotiations with reagrds his salary between Lowe and Pearson. He was more than willing to stay, he was more than willing to be flexible, but he never stood a chance as he was a dead man walking from the minuite Wilde and Lowe teamed up together, as they had already lined up the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up, If you mean he wasn't willing to play ball with regards youngsters and maybe loans, then once again it doesn't stack up. Prior to being given the elbow by Lowe, Pearson was well aware of the financial constraints he had to work under. He had publicly spoken about the need to be cautious with regards money. And his endeavours at Leicester this season show he is not averse to working with youngsters and loanees. I'm afraid your "end of" is anything but that.

Purported being the operative word, because money was not discussed with regards Pearson and Lowe. And I don't think you'll find any of the mischief makers putting their names to such claims. I'm ceratainly aware that some people in the current set up put out tittle tattle about Pearson and I'm also aware that Peardon was furious about it and was just itching for them to go public with their spurious claims, something they never did. And even if it was, then what price for a decent manager??? I think we've found out once again that going cheap is a false economy. Pearson was no uber manager, but pitched against the total fcking disaster that was Jan Poortvliet, then all of a sudden he looks a much more brighter prospect. If the insinuation of this thread is that Crouch should have tied up Pearson to enusre we retained him, then what this thread actually does is just highlight Lowe's incompetence even further, as Pearson was more than willing to stay on.

He holds less than 6% as a shareholder, and in this context we are talking about him as a paid executive (Your assertion that he is not a paid executive is incorrect). No offense, but you seem to be unable to understand the set up here. I don't think Wilde has anything to worry about regarding changing his mind again, as his u-turn last Spring made him look very foolish. It would only take Wilde to change his mind to make Lowe's position untenable Alternatively if Askham, Richards and one other withdrew their support then it would have the same effect. The shareholders will not be forking out anything, the Club foots the bill. And IMHO, just as it would be a false economy to stick with a failing manager (who IMHO didn't resign without a pay off), it would also be a false economy to stick with a failing and divisive CEO. The same logic that applies to replacing a failing manager should apply to a failing CEO. There is no difference in principle whatsoever.

I wasn't asking about what the majority of shareholders thought, I was asking you whether you would apply the logic of "we have to make the best of what we've got", and "I still think the alternative could be worse" to the managers role. Because if the answer is no, then there is absolutely no reason why it cannot be applied to a salaried CEO. And you succinctly miss the point here as my suggestion was replacing the CEO in much the same way you would replace a manager. I'm not advocating sacking the board, merely replacing an underperforming and divisive CEO. It's eminently possible to sack a CEO and to think otherwise shows a rather poor understanding of the situation. Of course it would mean one/some of his current supporters would have to vote against him, but just as we have seen with the managers position, people can change and amend their position based on people's performance in the job. Therefore, I have no doubt that protests (of various types) may focus the minds of certain shareholders who do have the power to start the process of sourcing a CEO who could do better than the current encumbent.

Would you apply your view of: a) we have to make the best of what we've got, and b) I still think the alternative could be worse to the manager's role? If not, then why apply it to the CEO? I don't think we are likely to see a White Knight riding over the hill, but that doesn't mean we should just accept a failing and divisive CEO any more than we would put up with a failing and divisive manager.

I'll be drinking pints of vodka if we're down by then!!!!!!!

Your "He'll play 15 games this season" is going to cost you!!! Was it £50 we agreed on?

And one of our biggest problems is that many thousands have done just that under this failing regime. We are now down to the hardcore of supporters who due to their loyalty, love and affinity for their Club would find it very difficult to turn their back on what they believe to be "their" Club. There may come a time when even these ardent supporters give up, but I think many of them will fight to try and ensure "their" Club survives, and is not driven to the wall by people who are failing them. You may be happy to sit and take whatever is dished up, and you are totally entitled to take that position. The other side of the coin is that many have just walked away, whilst many others are pushing for change. In a way, all three positions are valid, so please spare us the sanctimonious preaching.

And in the absence of that????? As if we can't achieve success on the pitch, are you just saying we're fcked???? Or would you not agree that there might be an opportunity to galavanise the supporters, the Club and maybe even the city if the right people went about it in the right way??? I haven't got anything in mind, but I do believe if it was approached in the right manner, that depsite being sht on the pitch, there might be an oppotunity for us all to pull together for the long term future of this Club. I just can't see Lowe being able to achieve this, with or without success on the pitch.

I have criticised the cashing in of shares by Lawrie and Wiseman in the past, legally fine, morally debateable. Crouch got no severance pay. Individual players, each case on their merits (some worthy of loyalty bonuses, others taking the pss). But what do you think about these people taking these large sums, then returning and maybe having to try and galvanise some financial support for the Club (I certainly wouldn't want Wiseman or Lawrie leading a drive eithert)? I know what I would say - You two put some of the money you have taken from the Club and then we'll start chipping in.

In which case you clearly know nothing relating to the financing of football clubs, and particularly the case at Saints. We are not immune to this, and there have been a number of clubs who have also fallen foul of the fallout from relegation, but if you think we weren't in such a mess when Lowe left, then you're probably thinking things are hunky dorey now as well. (After all, we didn't know where the next penny was coming from!!!!".

I agree, but I very much doubt any of those will be overseeing any future drives to try and get fans to contribute to the Club's survival. I have no problems with their pay offs per se, but I do have a worry that in taking the money and then returning, Lowe and Cowen will have lost the ability to galavanise the Club and it's supporters in it's hour of need.

And as such I made that point absolutely clear. Lowe and Cowen were contractually entitled to that money and they did nothing wrong in taken that money for loss of office, as it was clearly their contractual entititlement. In the business world this happens all the time and people rarley blink an eye. However, this is a football club, and although people try and liken it to a "normal" everyday business, in many ways it is anything but "normal". Moast "normal" businesses don't rely on the loyalty in the way that football clubs do, most "normal" businesses don't end up looking to their supporters to help bail them out of trouble. By taking that money, I think Lowe and Cowen have put themselves in a very difficult position when they then start asking supporters to help out the Club financially by means of support, as supporters will quite rightly remember that they have taken some serious money out of the Club at a time when the Club was under immense financial pressure. By taking this money, however contractually and legally entitled to it they were, they have lost some of their ability to galvanise and unite this Club (that's if they have any left anyway).

They were indeed entitled to their contractual pay offs and were duly paid up (as were Hone & Hoos etc) when they departed. Whether Directors who "fail" should receive these payments is a much wider argument, not just confined to SLH. But, IMHO, by taking these pay offs, both Lowe and Cowne surrendered any moral highground they may have had with regards trying to unite the CLub and they have also made it more difficult for them to be able to play the "Be Loyal" card to the supporters. After all, if things start to get really tough, who will respond to one of their calls to support the Club financially, when they have taken out a decnet six figure sum each. It would be akin to wheeling out Jason Euell in an attempt to get fans to support the Club financially! Nothing wrong contractually etc, but hardly likely to engender a spirit of unity and togetherness either. Behave yourself. In that first season down, we lost £9m cash out the door on normal operations and that was even after receiving a £7m one off parachute payment. To say we were not in a financial mess shows a very serious lack of appreciation of the situatin we found ourselves in post relegation. They left with a Club that had been holed below the waterline and one that needed to bounce straight back up if it was to avoid the financial meltdown endured by many other clubs.

3/3 there goes nineteencanteen/sundance/the bear/flashman & his other 12 or so aliases.:smt022:smt022:smt022 Problem for you is that in your rude little PM to various posters on here, you actually mentioned the phrase "nineteen canteen", something never mentioned on here previously. Rumbled;) (from the man in the Itchen South/Chapel corner)

And a pretty poor use of your 2/3 post:smt022:smt022:smt022 Oh the irony. I presume you must sit near me in the Itchen South/Chapel corner.

We are well up that creek, but our only saving grace is that there are probably 4 other teams up there with us. I wonder which two will find their paddle????

As each week goes by and we still need 5 points to get out of the drop zone, then so it starts to become an impossible proposition. We now have to outperform two teams by something like 5 points over the next 15 games. Unless we reduce that deficit PDQ, then we will be left up sht creek.

REading that, I have to say that was not the best use of 1/3rd of your daily post quota:rolleyes::rolleyes::smt022:smt088:smt054