um pahars

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.

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.