um pahars

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.

Exactly. Lowe went with this Revolutionary Coaching Set Up for footballing reasons. The SOS boys, Barcelona Saint and many others with good contacts were aware Pearson was a dead man walking (ask yourself why C B Fry and I kissed and made up over it!!!). So to now go back and claim it was because we couldnt afford his wages is pathetic. And if Lowe does want to go down that track, then he deserves to be slaughtered for failing to sanction 3k a week for someone who the majority of the fanbase were starting to unite behind.

Jones says no such thing. He says the Allen approach was a false dawn. But IMHO that is now all by the by. I think at this crucial stage, looking back will do us no good whatsoever. Instead we need to focus on the future and working out how we can avoid catastrophe on and off the pitch. On the pitch we are led by a manager who is out of his depth and off it we are led by probably the most divisive figure ever known at this Club.

Lowe makes no mention of other reasons other than not being able to afford Pearson. To suggest we can't afford 3k for the most important person at the Club shows a serious lack of understanding and a very odd sense of priorities. That said, I don't believe a word of it, as Pearson was sacked to bring in his own man. It's just because now that his own man is struggling, history is being rewritten and the suggestion is being made that we only got him in because we couldn't afford the previous incumbent. It just doesn't stack up!!!!!!! This and other parts fo that transcript clearly show Lowe should be nowehere near any of the decision making at our Club. It's time for everyone to come together to try and sort out an alternative, because Lowe continuing is not a viable option.

I note with interest that amongst all the toing and froing, Lowe made the following quote: Nigel Pearson was given the opportunity to do the job but we couldn't afford the salary you were paying him. Now my little birdy from inside SMS Towers had informed me Pearson was on 160,000 a year (I also hear we got 250,000 compensation from the SFA for Burley, funding him for over 18 months!!!!!). Are we really supposed to believe that we couldn't afford to find 3k a week to keep on Pearson. Come on Rupert we're not stupid, it was a footballing decision, one that is spectacularly backfiring, so please don't try and back track now and make dopey claims that we couldn't afford 3k a week!!!!!! (Even if it was because Lowe felt 3k a week was too much, then surely that would have to be one of the most spectacular own goals he has ever socred. False economy me up!!!!).

Well it all depends on who you believe. Lowe thinks it was lunacy and Jones thinks it was a manageable blip. Who do you believe????? What was shown from that transcrpt is that Crouch was up for implementing a Plan B, yet the Execs (inc Jones) went for another route. Maybe Lowe's rants about the 81% would be be better directed at a) The Finance Director sat next to him, and b) His football club chairman who headhunted the executive team. Then the three of them can argue as to whether it was lunacy or an artificial blip.

If you agree that the best way of opening an AGM, where the agenda should have been unity and pulling together, is to act in such a provocative manner then you're probably as mad as Rupert himself. As my normally mild mannered friend who has been supportive of Lowe said afterwards, "he went from saying unity brings success and division delivers failure" to in the next breath holding up an anonymous letter and inviting rancour, division and uproar. Absolutely no need for it whatsoever. If Crouch, Chorley and whoever then got all excited without that provocation, then they would have hung themselves, but instead the Chairman stokes up the meeting right from the off. Your continual apologies, in light of everything we have seen recently, are pretty nauseating.

So Jones is telling everyone at the AGM that this figure was a mere artificial blip, whilst Lowe continues to use this 81% figure as a stick to beat previous regimes with. Any wonder why there is a total loss of confidence in those running the Club at the moment. Right arm left arm:rolleyes::rolleyes:

There's a bit in todays Telegraph that says: He (Lowe) has since stinging in is criticisms of his predecessors, claiming they abused thier "fiduciary duty" by allowing the wage bill to spiral to 81% of the club's turnover Now with Jones a PLC Director at this time, then the accusation that their fiduciary duty was abused has to be levelled at him as well. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/championship/southampton/3919594/Supporter-throws-coins-at-Southampton-chairman-Rupert-Lowe.html

I was thinking exactly the same. I'd love an evening in whatever pub they all drink in!!!!!!!!!!!1

Forget all that rubbish you've posted there, and just give me your view as to why Lowe invoked the break clause. Many, including myself, believe that he did it solely so that he could bring someone else in (I'd call that being elbowed out, sacked, put out to grass, terminated, released, whatever) as he believed they would do a better job. I've got nothing against that principle as Lowe is the man in charge and will have to live or die by that decision, but let's not try and dress it up as something else. (as for being ITK on this one, let's just say ogot most of this info first hand).

Indeed, he was still a Director of the PLC and was under the same fiduciary responsibilities. Any criticism of the previous regimes must therefore also be a criticism of Jones. And that's what I'm trying to find out about, because the feedback I got was that Jones was defending the 81% figure, whilst Lowe has been using it as his main thrust of attack on the previous regime. Has the Echo got the full transcript of this piece of the AGM???

I would argue the appointment of Poortvliet and the accompanying fanfare about the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up is a testament that Lowe's ego is in play here. IMHO the sacking of Pearson and the appointment of Poortvliet was all about "I'll show them". Lowe and his ego permeates throughout the Club.