um pahars

Next signing Robbie Fowler?????

And I reckon the same guy who put up Jan's fcking dodgy CV has put Wotte's up as conveniently they have missed out his stint at Den Bosch that resulted in their relegation and going into financial turmoil. I wonder why that would be???? After Jan's CV thread when he first came on the scene,maybe someone should do some digging to come up with the real one for Wotte.

Doh:rolleyes::rolleyes::smt104 And as today's events clearly show, the manager has a major impact on what goes on on the pitch. And the appointment and retention of the manager is down to the CEO and the Board.

Ask them: a) If they know anything about his alledged antics at Palace?? b) If he sometimes seems irational, edgey, sweaty and suffers from mood swings??

Absofckinglutely!!!!!!!!!!!!! He was only good enough to be Jan's deputy and hold the reigns of the ressies and now we have to accept him as our fcking manager. HELLLLLOOOOOO (PS You know the OS made a big deal over Jan leading Den Bosch to promotion, well have you got any idea who was in charge when they got relegated and went into financial turmoil???????? None other than our new manager)

1. It shows that the first major decision that Lowe had to take was a terrible failure. 2. It has been compounded by the ridiulous rearranging of the deckchairs leaving Wotte in place. If anything it gives more credence to demonstrations and whatever is necessary to ensure a sensible decision making process returns to SMS.

Always came across as a nice bloke, honest, straightforward and approachable. Sadly, appointed way above his ability, experience and knowledge. Hope he gets a job back in Holland at a level more suitable for him.

Are they pictures of Peru or Colombia?????

I had a feeling this would happen. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=8585 And I stick by my call that this is the worst of all decisions. A reshuffle that will solve nothing. The first major decision that Lowe undertook has proved to be a major fck up. We now must see out his second major decision, but I'm not holding my breath. This man's decision making skills have gone to fck. How the hell can Wilde carry on supporting such a failure???

Yes. And that doesn't make me any less of a fan, as my logic is that by ridding ourselves of Jan I honestly feel we have a much better chance of staying up (although the huge caveat on that would be as long as Kim Van Der Waal's doesn't get the fcking job!!!!!!).

What a defeatist attitude. Is there really no viable alternative to Jan as manager?? Is there really no viable alternative to Lowe as CEO?? Are we stuck with them forever?? What happens when they die?? Do we cease to exist?? Both may need a withdrawal of some their previous support to get things moving and a change of heart by some people, but to suggest there are no viable alternatives is wide of the mark. There are plenty of workable solutions if some of the shreholders finally realise they have made some serious errors of judgement in appointing Jan and backing Lowe's (and Kim Van De Waal's!!!!!) failing strategy.

Well, unless someone really can work miracles and pull together 42% of dissenting voices (difficult? most definitely, impossible? no), then as long as Lowe's cabal of 26% and Wilde stick together then they are in control. However, any cracks in that support and it becomes a totally different story. Wilde is the kingmaker here. If he changes his mind again, then it could well be all change!!!!!

You're out on Crouch's by a bit, out by over 0.5% on the Corbett's (some are within the Cheviot Asset Management's figure), plus add a few close supporters (I'll admit I added them in my second post), and you're at a starting point of 20%. Anyway, hardly a fundamental error:rolleyes::rolleyes:. A fundamental error would be claiming Lowe had more than 42% locked in or that hios position was unassailable, which his EGM requisition clearly showed was not the case.

Would be very interested to know where Trant ever promised to buy Lowe's shares. He certainly indicated he would be willing to invest in a share issue, thereby injecting funds in the Club (one which he later reneged on), but that's totally different from offering to buy Lowe's shares.

A fundamental error. Crouch holds just under 10%, the Corbett's 6%, McMenemy (& wife) 1% and a couple of others bring it close to 20% as a starting point. If you want to round down and call it 19%, then it's hardly a fundamental error. What would be a fundamental error would be claiming Lowe has more than 42% locked in.

You need to go and have a look at what a Concert Party means, how it is defined and then compare that to what they declared in thr EGM requisition e.g. letters of support, which are a million miles away from being deemed a Concert Party. They could havce solicited support for 50%+1 and it would still nto be deemed as a Concert Party.

No need to get stroppy when faced with some facts. Facts are that if they had more than 42% support when they approached the Club back in March then you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have said so. Lowe isn't shy in coming forward and if he had any more than 50%+1, then he would have been telling the world because it would have been a fait accompli. If you want to control SLH all you need to do is gain a majority support of the shareholders voting in an EGM. At the moment the 42% makes the current position fairly stable (for reasons I mentioned above), but : a) It is not an unassailable position and neither would it be impossible to pull together a seperate cabal that could get near this figure (it's starting from a position of 20% with Crouch, Corbett's & McMenemy) without any movement in Lowe's 42%. Difficult, but certainly not impossible b) Movement away from the Lowe cabal would make the position very interesting. If Richards and Askham wavered, then that would be a 14% swing with the Lowe cabal only guaranteed 35% and the Crouch axis then totalling 27%. Of course there are many more permutations and there would also have to be much humble pie eaten and partnerships forged between former enemies, but if Wilde can backtrack on everything he has stood for, then only a fool would say it is an impossibility that things could move again. Outside of that, then an alliance between other shareholders is no bad thing, as: a) A decent wedge could start seeking representation on the PLC board, b) A decent wedge can start to make life difficult for the current board (votes of no confidence, EGM's called etc etc etc) c) It would be a base from which to build if the Lowe cabal did start to break.

I'm sorry Window Cleaner, but I think you are wide of the mark on this one. Wilde owns circa 16% and The Lowe cabal 26%. This is made up of Lowe (& family), Askham, Richards, Withers, Cowen, Marland and a couple of others). http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=9955 You can rest assured that there is no tie in for shares over this 42%, because if there was, then they would haver said as much when they called the EGM (and if it was above 50% of the issued shares, then they woudln't have even bothered calling one). The 42% ceratinly makes them fairly secure, because alhtough there is 58% up for grabs, it would be mighty difficult to drag them all out (and that's also assuming they would all be anti Lowe). However, that does not mean they untouchable. If compiling 42% against them proves to be difficult, then of course the other scenario is the withdrawal of support from the current 42%. Askham, Richards and a few others certainly waivered back in the Branfoot days when protests, boycotts and stayaways started to have an impact.

No way is he Mike Wilde. Nineteen Canteen is Sundance Beast and whatever his 5 other user names were. Same style, same syntax, same train of thought, same attacks etc etc etc.

How would you protest? You seem an intelligent chap, so feel free to let us know what would make the most effective protest and if that's good then maybe the organisers of this one could incorporate it a week Saturday. 2,000 views in under 12 hours means it's certainly hit the spot with some.

Academy games are generally Staplewood (some Cup matches at SMS). Just turn up and pop in (11:00 kick off though).

IMHO, Lowe, as CEO , is in a no win position given our current plight. If he bumbles on with this sorry experiment, then he will be accused by many of indecision, putting his own ego driven experiment before the good of the Club. A failure to act will be seen as many as a sign of weakness, indecision and/or a sign of his ego making the decisions. And if he acts, then it will be a sign that his strategy has failed and there is a very strong case that this would make his position untenable. It would be an admission that the first part of this season has been a waste and we are now playing catch up as a result of going down the wrong path. Therefore, I worry that will come out of this sorry situation will be the worst of all possible options, a compromise, a reshuffle a rearranging of deckchairs. I just don't see how Lowe can sack Jan yet keep his own job, so expect a reshuffle, some platitudes and many fingers being crossed.

I have to agree. 9 seasons prior to Lowe 87/88 - 95/96 - Average position 13.8 9 seaons with Lowe 97/98 - 05/06 - Average position 15.2 Lowe did many good things for this Club, and during the first part of his tenure he and others were responsible for dragging this Club into the 21st Century, I actually think we skipped the 20th century altogether when we were at The Dell!!! (and he was well lauded and paid for those results). He of course lost his way in the latter part of that tenure (which is why I have a problem with our relegation) and he has failed to show this time around that he has regained his touch. I fully accept relegation is a part of the meritocracy of football, but that doesn't mean you overlook problems, issues and mistakes that may have contributed to it. Indeed, by ignoring those problems, issues and mistakes and by just putting it down to an "it had to happen" mentality, there is every chance of repeating those mistakes. And of course our main problem was surrounding the appointment and retention of managers/Head Coaches. Of course there were other issues (injuries, loss of form, outside influences), but IMHO the mistakes with the single most important person at the Club were the decisive factor. And when you fast forward to this season, it would appear that the lessons of those mistakes still have not be learnt. Once again we have an inexperienced, underperforming Head Coach who is in all likelihood going to have to be removed after placing on us in the relegation zone (just as Wigley did). Some good points about the inherent problems of modern day football, particularly te fall out form the Premier League, but I didn't here us moaning that much when we were eating at the top table!!! I think it will have to take something major to happen to correct the inequalities and inadequacies of the current footballing period, but I just can't see that happening as there are too many I'm all right Jack's running football.

I'd agree. He's probably on some consultancy agreement and cetainly hasn't been given the DOF title, but that's not to say he isn't as heavily involved as that article (and my source says). The story will be that he only bills us for the days he works. He does some scouting on the opposition and is keeping an eye out for foreign talent. But that doesn't explain his presence at Staplewood, his involvement in training and discussions between the management team on a regular basis (not to mention being in the middle of shouting matches!!).

I wonder what the Echo have to say about this???? If a journalist from Holland knows what is going on and this bloke has been as high profile as I have been hearing (and as this guy is saying) at Staplewood, then WTF haven't they asked some questions or spilt some beans. Maybe they've been asked to keep schtum on him. Would be nice to hear what the Echo have to say now!!!!!!