um pahars

I have heard he is going for other reasons, but am doing some digging to substantiate it. I have heard of a bust up over at Staplewood between Wotton and Jan, but not sure (a) if it's 100% genuine, and (b) what it was about. Anyone else heard anything????

I have heard he is going for other reasons, but am doing some digging to substantiate it. I have heard of a bust up over at Staplewood between Wotton and Jan, but not sure (a) if it's 100% genuine, and (b) what it was about. Anyone else heard anything????

And why should we be even bothering with those outside of Southampton who don't give a feck about our Club? What counts is what Saints fans think and the coverage in the local media was pretty decent and it's certainly upped the anti from everyone I have spoken to. At the end of the day, no one was hurt and life goes on, but it may be one extra piece of stuff that helps to turn the tide in this ongoing farce.

And why should we be even bothering with those outside of Southampton who don't give a feck about our Club? What counts is what Saints fans think and the coverage in the local media was pretty decent and it's certainly upped the anti from everyone I have spoken to. At the end of the day, no one was hurt and life goes on, but it may be one extra piece of stuff that helps to turn the tide in this ongoing farce.

But as Chairman and CEO of a PLC and such a high profile position, he should have risen above it. If individual fans want to be childish, then they will be seen for that, but that is no reason for a Chairman of our Club to stoop so low. A Chairman is supposed to chair meetings, be accomodating, concilliatory, inclusive, independent, rational, and Lowe is none of these. His very first act of that meeting should have been enough for Cowen to pull him to one side and have a quiet word in his shell. There is a lunatic fringe, if the meaning of the term is a handful who are against him for more than footballing reasons, but I think the coverage gained through The Echo and on SKY (as well as other media outlets) was more damaging to Lowe. The initial reports from posters on here back did not mention Chorley's antics, but instead highlighted the actions of Lowe and everyone I spoke to was of the same opinion, in that Chorley's little stunt was overshadowed by overwhelming opposition from the floor and overwhelming pomposity from the top table. I could well argue with this as I think alot of what Lowe said was poppy****. His continual rewriting of history, his attacks on past boards, his view that we're playing wonderful football etc etc etc. Anyone with a semblence of a brain knows the 95% figure is in no way indicative of the support that Lowe has (outside of his small cabal of course). And as you say, the "stormy" meeting made the front and back pages of the Echo and certainly brought in home to many that Lowe is not fit for purpose. It also managed to galvanise others into thinking about what the next steps might be, and it also seems to have withered whatever support Lowe had remaining (of course that could all have been achieved by his own actions, including the provocative start to a meeeting that should have been about unity and looking forward). If they had voted then Lowe would have won (probably comfortably), so maybe such a walkout and stormy meeting achieved something that would otherwise been a walkover for Lowe. Just becuase a handful of men with shares think he's right for the job, it doesn't make the wider view of the supporter base to be invalid (impotent maybe, but certainly not invalid).

I think you'll find that I never said it was excusable, and although I think there are some times when direct action has to be taken, I did say in earlier posts that this could have been accomplished in a much better fashion (for instance as Chez suggests, chocolate coins, by someone less confrontational, etc etc etc). Please don't make the mistake of assuming that my disdain of the the way it has been protrayed by Lowe, the Club and the OS, means I automatically support everything Richard Chorley did. That is one big jump my friend. Lowe is the Chairman and CEO of a PLC, he is the figurehead of a Club that is an integral part of the fabric of our community, our city and beyond, but sadly he appears not to be worthy of such an esteemed position if he stoops so low to portray these events as an assault on himself and uses the OS in such a poor and biased way (and make no mistake, just as he did towards the end of his last stint, he is in full control of what appears on that site). That is my main beef with this eposide.

Not according to Lowe. Apparently he believes the number one cause for our drop in attendances is the "credit crunch" and that's first hand from someone who has discussed the drop in attendances with him.

And if someone threw a coin at me, then I too might be tempted to plant one on his nose. But if someone lobbed (not threw) coins on to a table in a symbolic gesture calling me a traitor, then I think my response might well be somewhat different. I certainly wouldn't go round protraying it as having coins thrown at me (n the sense of being coined), as nothing could have been further from the truth.

The very first report back from the AGM was the link to the Echo's report which clearly mentioned the reference to Judas Iscariot. So the first link back to those who weren't there clearly makes mention of it's symbolic nature. It was well known from the off regarding the symbolism of the action. I have spoken to probably 10+ people now who went and it wasn't lost on any of them. (The first decent reports back from people who were actually there - Long Shot & Wes Tended don't even make a reference to it!!!). Lowe wasn't coined in the sense that you or I think of.

That was on 50 greatest Premiership goals last night and after one of the sublime goals, the camera switches to Branfoot who is directing the sub who was about to replace Le tissier to get back in the dug out. Unbelievable really.

With all due respect, if Lowe or anyone else at the Club did not understand the symbolic nature of this gesture then they're living in their own fantasty land (than again judging by some of the comments about the wonderful football we are playing, then maybe it's not so hard to understand). Lowe wasn't coined in any sense of that term, and by making it out that he was on the OS, shows just how deluded and out of touch the current regime is with the real world.

The worrying thing is that Lowe is saying the same stuff only a couple of days ago: "we ..... have played some wonderful football" "I fail to see how anybody can say the football we are playing is unattractive" Now, if the man in charge fails to recognise what os happening on the pitch, then that is worrying!!!!!!!!!!! (And that's before you get to the bluster that accompanied the Annual Report, where Lowe is positively gushing about the quality of football being played!).

I understand that was attempted, but even if a shoe was launched, then the OS would just have mentioned "various items were thrown at the Chairman". As with this act of 30 pieces of silver, that Iraqi jounralist did not attempt to hurt Bush*, he merely insulted him with a symbolic gesture that would be understood throughout the Arabic world and bwyond. As pointed out by brmbrm, the OS has attempted to run this as the Chairman being "coined", which misses the point somewhat (as well as being rather disengenuous), but then again that's nothing new for our PRAVDA looking OS. * Just for Ponty and DPS, my analogy with Bush and Iraq has nothing to do with individuals, events, personalities, atrocities committed or policies pursued over the last 20 years by anyone involved int hat theatre, it is merely a comparison with the symbolic gesture of shoe throwing that we recently witnessed.

He came back to fccuku us over a second time. Mwah

I think we got to the play offs! Not sure mind.

I know people won't believe me, but I swear to God on this one (and I've just come back from church!!!!!), the originator of crop circles was none other than the father of our own Richard Chorley!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aha, but Keith Granger is now more high profile on matchdays!!!! That said, I'm sure the Dutch 3 plus Keith are on more than the previous 4 (particularly as Webster was in a wedge!!!). That said, I still would have gone with Pearson (and wouldn't have been fussed with losing 2 of the other 4 anyway).

I wasn't sure it was so possible to get so much so wrong in so few lines (then again given your record on the 75% to delist and your 50% cokkc up on wages, I know I shouldn't be too surprised). Being more expensive is not the issue, I don't know of one person who disagrees that Pearson was more expensive than Jan, the issue is whether or not we could have afforded him. Sadly lost on you though. And Pearson's contract was not running out, it had over a year left on it. HTH. I bet those AGM notes did your nut in, particularly the bits where Jones conceded that the increases last summer were down to the Executives and how they ignored Crouch's call for a Plan B!!!! LOL. PS We're still awaiting your reply on the delisting thread:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Merry Xmas one and all, and let's all hope it is a very Happy New Year.

Buy two, get one free.

I wonder what Andrew Cowen has to say on this subject;)

There are some things you really shouldn't do on the cheap and I would have to argue the appointment of the manager, the single most important person at any club, is one of them. If ever there was a classic example of a false economy, then this is one.

Sounds about right, and I might have even been tempted to accept 300,000. But let's just say, Pearson was nowhere near either of those figures!!!!!! I agree it's not our decision and ultimately Lowe will be judged on the success or not of this appointment. But I find it rather galling that rather than talking up the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up, which has somewhat hit the buffers, he's now going back to the "we couldn't afford Pearson" excuse. 3k a week is what we couldnt afford!!!!! Yeah right on Rupert.

This little birdy just happens to be a rather wise owl. If Lowe thinks this figure is wrong, then trust me, Steve Grant will get to hear about it. But just to humour you Mr Window Cleaner, at what point would you have said Pearson's salary was too much a) 100,000 b) 160,000 c) 200,000 d) 250,000 e) 300,000 f) 350,000 g) 400,000 h) 450,000+

Go back and read the lines above about a call for unity, and then you might finally understand why it wasn't the a sensible thing for the Chairman of a PLC to do. The man is not fit to lead this Club.