um pahars

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!!!!!!

He's obviously been promoted if he's now driving the strategy with Rupert, helping taking training and talking tactics!!!!!!!!! I don't believe this sort of stuff happens at other clubs does it????? Simon Clifford me up????

The only to date. I'm sure someone had him in a photo pre season (maybe Winchester or Fanborough)

Not as much as Pearson;)

I heard he was and I also heard he was despised at St Mary's and Staplewood. You only have to read that quote: He describes a scene where Van Der Waals walks on to the training field, takes a ball and starts to kick the ball around, showing of to others, saying "look how good I am". The writer continues: “He seems to irritate a lot of people on the field, but strangely enough nobody says anything, not even Wotte” It doesn't sound like a happy, functioning football club to me. So how did he get his "in" into the Club?????

I would stump up for that!!!!

I'm so glad people have done some digging on this, so thanks everyone. Given some of the bits in bold, I'm not that surprised that the Club is in turmoil. We would appear to have a DOF on board, yet no one knows who he is:rolleyes: Obviously some of the bits are the writer's impression, but I'm sure he hasn't got an axe to grind. There's also some quotes in that need explaining from someone.

I didn't get the impression from his interview that he was blaming himself. He merely said he felt it had nothing to do with him espousing his opinion on the situation and all to do with an over zealous steward.

And that's exactly what I'm saying. It was not pathetic to state that Sale is Lowe's mouthpiece (which I'm sure is not known by all on here BTW), because by stating it it made sure we all understood the context in which that piece was published, ie that it has come from Lowe. I'm not sure whether it's preparing for players to be sold, a diversionary tactic to take the heat off an incompetent manager, or whatever, but we know it has been put out to serve Lowe's interests.

Knowing Lowe, do you really think he would let it go unpublished that those who he replaced had fcked up such a deal??? Not a chance, he would have been waving it from the rooftops, way ahead of their incompetence with regards the finances. It would be his ultimate stick to beat them with. I have no idea who you have spoken to, but Paul Allen was nowhere near us a couple of summers ago. You need to go and ask some questions about Tom McCloughlin and his role in the whole affair. It's fantasy stuff.

He hasn't, but some of his friends and acquaintances have!!!! I understand tecently they've spent more on some fishing rights in Scotland, than it would cost to buy us at our current share price!!! I wouldn't rule out Lowe attempting to come in if Administration befalls us. Now that would be a fun battle (not)!!!!!

I was sure that a condition of retaining the Golden Share of the Football league was that you had to honour all footballing debts and that included all wages owing past, present and future on player's contracts. Of course, i'm sure they can be renegotiated, but only with the consent of the players involved.

Apparently he's also a regular at away matches as well. So what's he doing here then????