um pahars

I was questioning your belief as to whether you think he is spent or not. I am acutely aware that a handful of men have put their loyalty to each other ahead of their loyalty to our Club and that until they waiver we are stuck with Lowe. So do you think Lowe should step down? Along with Lowe, I wouldn't have Crouch nor Wilde in any day to day capacity at the Club. As long as they have their shareholdings, they may be hard to shift from having some influence (but that's another debate), but as for Chairman of the PLC and CEO, then something has to be done. I don't have all the answers (and never have claimed to), but this charade cannot continue. As an interim, Lowe should step down from both positions immediately, Cowen take the reigns as temporary CEO reigns and someone else as temporary Chairman (Wiseman, Richards, Stuart Green, just someone who is not so divisive). Then the search for long term replacements for both roles should be undertaken.

His contract was not up for renewal, how many times do you have to be told that??? A break clause was invoked, a massive difference (but one that's lost on you). So why do you think that break clause was invoked by Lowe? a) Because Lowe wanted to bring his own man in? b) Beacuse Pearson asked him to do it? c) It was an administrative error? d) Because the little contract fairies got in there overnight? e) Crouch did it as his last act? f) You can have f) to z) for your own little fantasy ideas, so feel free to embellish.

Understand that the statistic that last years players/coaches wages amounted to 81% of Turnover got a mention yesterday, so any feedback would be good to hear about. Considering this was the biggest stick that Lowe was beating the previous regime with, would like to know exactly what David Jones' reply was (considering he was an integral part of the previous regime)?? I understand Jones made mention that this 81% was manageable and a one off that would have naturally diminished when some big contracts would come to an end (third hand there of course), but that's not really how Lowe would have appeared to have viewed it. Also understand SISU and other factors were mentioned by Jones as justification, so are Lowe and his FD at odds over how crucial the 81% figure is/was?????

So why did he leave then??

Stupid, as in what sense? I think it was stupid in that he could have done exactly the same, but in a manner that would have achieved much better publicity and not allowed Lowe to get anything from the event. It was certainly not stupid as in a violent or agressive manner, as everyone I have spoken to insists that was not in the manner that they saw it. That's my distinction on this thread. Chorley should be pulled up for the way he went about this symbolic gesture, but tthat's light years away from claiming it was violent or a physical assault and the full force of the law should be brought to bear on sich actions. Of that I have no doubt. It's about time you (and others) have finally clicked on to the fact that Lowe's time at the Club is spent. With him at the helm, this Club will never be united.

I've never really gone in for personal attacks and criticism , particularly on the ether of an anonymous, geeky internet forum (pi5si5 takes and arguments aside of course, but not personal stufff), but have to say after our first ever spat yesterday, you are probably the only person who I woud probably wish an unhappy xmas on. People have knocked you before and maybe I've been oblivious and ignorant as to why, but I always thought things like that were out of order, but by golly I can see why they have now.

And who are you his wingman?? Come in Goose.:smt044:smt044

Not enough would be my conclusion. The power to remove Lowe rests with the fans IMHO.

I have now spoken to 6 people who were at the AGM and their views all seem to reflect each others. Chorley was making his way up to the top table with his 30 pieces of silver (pre planned according to at least 3 of those I've spoken to) when a couple of stewards blocked his path. As he couldn't make the final last few steps he tossed "as if throwing a glass of water" & "as if sowing seeds" were two comments, "in the direction of Lowe", "towards the top table". When asked if he had thrown the coins at Lowe, the unequivocal answer from all was "NO". He was then walked away, but after a further spat of shouting at Lowe (and two of them think Lowe was goading Chorley) other staff joined in and wrestled him to the floor. It was obviously a symbolic gesture, not an act of violence or agression. Enough to get you thrown out of an AGM?? I would think so. Enough to get you barred from future ones?? I think there would be a case for that. Enough to require an apology?? Possibly Enough to get its own little announcement on the OS?? Never Enough to warrant the invoking of rules used for football matches?? You're having a scooby Chorley didn't have the nous to deliver this symbolic gesture in a more sophisticated and dignified manner, but that also doesn't make him a coin thrower in the term we think of it regards football matches.

That really is Godwin's Law!!!!!!!!!! Seems supermod can't be everywhere at once:rolleyes::rolleyes: You can add Marshall hypocrite to the sanctimonious posse, Yee-ha.

Those who have a sizeable say are siding with him out of some misplaced loyalty. A loyalty that must surely be tested with the increasing problems on the pitch and his irrational behaviour off of it. I don't know what form any protests will start to take, but I think the anti has been upped following yesterdays fiasco. I have had many chats over the last 24 hours from middle fo the road people who have finally conceded that Lowe is not fit for purpose. A contrary view is that the hornets nest has now been stirred up and the walk out at the AGM may well be the starting point for something else. I think Lowe's actions and deeds at the AGM, coupled with the under performance of the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up means that his position has been weakened. I think the resolve of those who oppose him has been strengthened and I also feel some of his support has ebbed away as a result of this farce. About the only thing holding back the tide, is the lack of an alternative (as Crouch & Wilde have also proved they are not the men for the day to day running of this Club).

Agreed, and following his disastrous attempt to chair yesterdays AGM, I think Lowe's stock is at an all time low. A Chairman needs to be even handed, composed, have integrity, be honourable, welcoming of all opinions and above all, wherever possible a unifying figure. This Club desperately needs a unifying figure and Lowe is the complete opposite!

He wasn't made redundant, nor had his contract finished. HTH If the company had invoked a break clause in your contract and then immediatlely brought someone else in to do exactly the same job, then I would say you'd been given the elbow.

You either work for the OS or you've found your new job after escping Iraq. People that know the score would appreciate that I'm certainly no apologist for Chorley, but to paint this episode as Chorley coining Lowe is scraping the bottom of the barrel. It's cringeable that this notice has appeared on our OS and smacks more of one mans personal crusade against his critcs than anything to do with our Club. PS Just for those who like to make a mountain out of a molehill, my reference to Iraq is in no way linking the Club, it's employees, Lowe or anyone else to the murderous and undemocratic regime that operated in that country for decades and which I opposed unequivocally. It was a mere pun, and a play on the fact that Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaaf (i.e. Comical Ali) is now a by-word for Bullshi7yt propaganda being spouted by the establishment.

So just what are the powers of administrators??? Are you now telling us what analogies we can make (if so please supply a list of banned ananlogies). If I've missed that in the rules then feel free to let me know where I should be looking. If anything, you're the one making light of some serious sh*t, but trying to link posts with things that people never ever intended to in the first place. You're the one taken things out of context.

All I've been doing is replying to some outrageous accusations from yourself and DPS. If you hadn't made such ridiculous accusations, then I would not have replied. It's as simple as that. If people accuse me of something that was never my intention then I wll reply informing them of that.

Fccluk me, it took you quite a while to work that one out. The analogy was that by withdrawing from the vote, Tsvangirai gained some excellent publicity and effectively rendered the vote invalid and worthless meaning that although Mugabe won it was widely seen as a hollow victory. That's what i was referring to, nothing to with Mugabe being a brutal dictator etc etc etc, and certainly not comapring Lowe or the context with the atorcities happening out there (hence my fccuking big caveat that you and Ponty seemed to have missed). Comprende??? Or is that still too hard for you to absorb?

Why the fccukc do you think I put that line in there saying, in no way am I comparing Lowe to Mugabe, right from the very start. I'll give you a little clue, because I think there is no way you can compare Lowe with the actions of a brutal dictator, so that is why I find it slightly sanctimonious, if not a tad thick, that some can't seem to understand that:rolleyes: You carry on raising that posse boy, you can be Deputy to DPS's Sherriff, and you can go looking for your next piece of sport:smt078. If you do not have the ability to read caveats, and see that people were referring to the process of withdrawing from a vote, as opposed to debating the morality and actions of an African dictator, then the pair of you are a couple of przie fccukcing idiots worthy of your badges.

Put that comma in the above statement and we have solved the problem of what to with Jan.

heard a whisper that Rasiak was signed on just under 20,000 a week and always thought he was our highest earner.

How very, very, very dare you:rolleyes::rolleyes: Saddle up, read the post (particularly the bit that says and no I don't think Lowe is comparable with Mugabe, put in there becuase otherwise I knew some idiots would raise the sanctimonious posse, but sadly it still hasn't stopped some making something out of nothing) and then kindly fccuk off Sherriff Sanctimonious. Yee-ha.

Before we slash our wrists, I think we would do well to consider who said this and in what context as the accompanying lines (see my post above) don't stack up. I can only think that this has to be Stern John, but I wonder exactly how the deal was structured (were Sunderland reimbursing us, was some of his wages taken account of in the Jones transfer fee etc etc etc). It wouldn't surprise me if we probably had to pay his full wages, but got a one off lump sum from Sunderland to compensate for this, but someone is using the gross figure as a stick to beat others with. The very fact that the accompanying numbers don't stack up means I'm pretty wary of taking this on face value.

Whichever way you look at it, those numbers don't stack up. £25k a week is indeed £1.3m and 15% of last years revenue is £2.25m. An oversight, or a bit of spin that can't be substantiated?

I wouldn't say I rate Pearson in the manner you suggest, more that I saw enough on him at the back end of last season to give him a longer stint at the helm. He had managed to instill some pride and passion in the team and many supporters were ready to unite behind him. He was the one person I felt could provide any semblence of a galvanising spirit. Pearson was up front about the fact we would be losing the big earners and that the youngsters would play a more prominent role. Therefore I don't see that there would have been a hige difference from that point of view, but I do believe Pearson would have gone for more of a mix of youth and experience. There would also have been different transfer targets, loan signings, tactics, formation, strategies etc etc etc. IMHO Crouch was not stupid enough to realise that he could just plough on regardless. He had agreed a strategy that the Bank supported, which IMHO would have had to have meant cutbacks. What these would have been, what the priorities would be, I have no idea. Of course, attendances would have played a part and although I have no way of proving it, I do think they would have held up better under Pearson and Crouch. Not really, and I don't think Crouch has suggested that (unless I have missed something).

Pearson went on holiday to Malta thinking he had done enough to get the job. He was quite open with people saying he was willing to stay and work with whoever came in and after he sat down with Lowe he came out thinking about next season. I understand Pearson was shocked when he heard he didn't get the job and the line I also heard was that he was a tad miffed that Lowe had not told him face to face (or even via a telephone call).