um pahars

As I have said on many occasions, the manager (or Head Coach as Lowe would like to call them). And BTW I think you'll find there is much angst displayed against both Burley and Redknapp on here and in real life. In football, managers, CEO's and Chairman (and even payers) will get praise when they do well and they will also get criticism when they make mistakes. As long as there approach is consistent and fair, I fail to see what's wrong with that. But going back to that article, if you think stretching the truth is including three players who were regulars and who ****ed off for the money and status, along with one who ****ed off straight after Lowe, and using them as a stick to beat his predecessrs with, then in your Professors league of living in a dream world. (PS When Wigley left we were in the bottom three).

You must be living in some parallel universe if you really believe this. On the same day that Lowe was berating the former board for letting these 6 youngsters go, he was elsewhere saying: "While you’re in the Championship, there’s no point in saying that players aren’t going to move, because ultimately they’re the people who decide whether they’re going to go or not,” he explained. “A club can’t make a player leave, a player makes a decision he’s going to leave. “If he gets what he considers to be a better offer, and he’s making a career progression and he’s earning more money, then very often it’s them who will decide they are going to go." Three of those who left were getting regular first team football (in fact I think we were building a team around them), but left for mega wonga and to ply their trade in the highest tier. If you really think Lowe would have held on to Bale, Baird and Jones (who even went on strike), then you're living in fantasy land - Theo, Bridge and then the history of Beattie, Richards, Phillips, etc etc etc. Blackstock left a month after Lowe, so his career was obviously "blighted" by Burley and Lowe (who had also just signed Rasiak). Who cares? Let's blame the old lot. The problem with the lines peddled in that interview is that they clearly contradict with what he is saying elsewhere in the same week. Young players who go when he was not around are a waste of talent and we should have held on to them. Young players who go (or might go) when he is at the helm leave us with no choice as they hold the balance of power.

Yet he tries to blame others for the loss of Bale, Baird and Jones. Work that one out:rolleyes::rolleyes: Of course he would have stood in their way and made them stay wouldn't he:confused::confused::confused: I presume you are being ironic here???? Lowe is running the show, full stop. Wilde gets to write a column in the programme and call himself Chairman, but with two of the other directors in his pocket, there is no other way than Lowe's way.

At the time Blackstock left, Burley had been in situ something like 6 months. For Baird, Bale, Best, Jones & Cranie they left after the manager had been in situ for 18 months. They also left just after we had been in the play offs and had come pretty close to gaining promotion. At that point Burley's stock was pretty good. Blackstock left a month into the new management, after being snubbed under Burley and Lowe. Lowe's last act was to sign a striker in Rasiak ensuring he was further down the pecking order. Four of the others then left after we reached the play offs, moving on to Premiership teams for significantly more wages than they were on down here. Those players left to earn more wages and to ply their trade in the top flight (or at least attempt to). Those two factors were the deciding reasons for the moving on, not the fairy stories you're trying to push. Lowe himself admits you can't keep a player against his will, which makes his claims (and yours) rather strange!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also agree, because in selling these players so quickly it totally undermines his vision of having a young, strong team competing for the play offs. He also knows that if it does happen, then he will lose the little goodwill there is towards him out there. He wants this Club to succeed (because he will then benefit both financially and ego wise), and so he would love to keep as many of these players together as possible and hopefully get us promoted. This is actually one of the problems with his philosophy, because the minute any player shows some promise they will be snapped up by those with the mega bucks and we effectively go back to square one.

We will win 4-1. Go and put a bet on it as I have got some inside info.

For the period when Blackstock couldn't get a look in, the manager was Burley and the CEO was Lowe (that was what I meant by that line, in that it was his appointment being overseen by him who was stifling this boy's future, i.e. it didn't happen in the two years that he was away!). Therefore I see absolutely no relevance for Blackstock being used in his little tirade given he appointed that manager and he was overseeing the Club in his dual role of CEO and Chairman.

Considering his non appearance recently (and the comments made by JP) it would appear that Jan has written him off!!!!! Cork and Pearce have been good loan signings, but after that I can't help but think the others have been a waste of time, effort and money.

BTW, you might want to rephrase your question as although we all know what you really mean, i.e. time to dump the listing on AIM, dear old Jonah might have a heart attack if he sees this title.

I would at least like to see an open and honest debate about why we maintain our AIM listing, the cost of listing and compliance etc, set off aginst the benefits (tangible or not). My personal opinion is that I can no longer see the point in maintaining such a listing, but would be only too happy for people to explain why we should. With regards transparency, there is nothing to stop the Club/company providing more information to fans (remember the three year or so cashflow they put on the OS a few years back). Of course we should never compromise our competitive position, but I see nothing wrong with providing more detailed information to both shareholders and supporters. As you yourself said the other week, this Club has a special role in the community, so why not talk in an open and honest way with the community? As far as I am aware we have no major institutional investors (at least above 3% anyway), so I can't really see any obstacles out there (apart from Lowe and his cabal of course).

You're spot on with what you say there C B Fry, but I think most of the vitriol is actually aimed at Lowe's claim that it was his idea to have an Academy and the way that he continues to portray it as his vision. I think that it is that arrogance and ignorance of the past that ****3es people off more than anything else.

But IMHO we're not a closely held company. The man who has the two boss jobs has 5% of the company and has the suport of about 8 others who hold 20%. That support appears fairly stable. After that, he currently has the support of one individual with 16%, who couldn't stand him a year ago, so hardly a solid relationship. After that you have something like 58% of the shares held by a myriad of others, with only Crouch having a notable stake (at 10%). I fully accept that where an individual truly has a majority shareholding, then they can either take the boss job for themself or appoint someone they want, but that is not the case in our situation. I can see no reason why the CEO and the Chairman position has to come from the same gene pool (and include Crouch, Wilde and others in that). We should simply be looking to appoint the best person for the job, and quite frankly if those supporting Lowe think he is the best man, then I can only think they are rather myopic and insular in their outlook.

If that was his point then: a) Bale, Baird & Jones were regulars and left, as Lowe himself acknowledges, because they wanted to go on and play at a higher level (for more wonga). So why include them in his little story? b) Who was the manager that never played the others (and who appointed that manager)? c) Blackstock left a month or so after Lowe was deposed, so who were the players blocking Blacksotck prior to that point? They were Rasiak, Fuller, Jones, Madsen, all brought in whilst who was CEO? d) So we're probably left talking about Best, who IMHO is nothing special (I think even DMG has been more prolific this season and I dont really rate him), and Cranie who has hardly set the world alight. So, I still don't know what Lowe was trying to get at!!!!!!!!!

I didn't understand what he was going on about there. On one hand he's saying if a player wants to leave then there's nothing you can do, and then on the other hand he seems to be moaning that all these players left!!!!!! As you say, three, if not four of those moved for the lure of big wages and the Premiership (and arguably we were happy to bank the wonga for three of them, to stay afloat). (On top of that, I don't really think you can claim Jones was a product of the Academy, as he joined us from W Connection when he was about 20).

They're not majority shareholders. Wilde is the biggest shareholder with 16%. Lowe has just over 5%.

Not on a day to day basis they're not. Most have representation at board level, but out in the real world, shareholders own companies and paid executives run them (although of course there are exceptions). Even meglomaniac's or sole owners in football like Gaydamark, Mandaric, Sullivan/Gold, Abramovich, Gibson, Glazer, Gillet & Hicks all appoint people to run the football side of the business. I would argue that it worked last time for the first year (play offs, reduced costs, reduced debt), but also concede that when the parachute ended, the major shareholders really started squabbling and SISU turned up, then that set of Executives failed in those six months. So whilst I wouldn't employ Jim Hone again, I would not be averse to going out into the wider world and seeing if we can get someone in to run the Club on a porfessional basis. If the alternative is solely going through the same gene pool of shareholders, do the shareholders just take turns??? What happens when Lowe retires, do we go for a hereditary CEO (do we allow female succession)??? As for not having enough money to employ an independent CEO, we only need to find 60% of the wages (as Lowe is understood to be drawing 2 days a week - or is it more?). Just like paying some good money to get the best possible manager, I also think getting someone in such an important position is key if this Club is to move forward. Going cheap, or getting the wrong person in these two key positions may well prove to be a false economy.

Then get Cowen and/or Richards on as Non Execs and look outside the gene pool for a CEO. I have no idea why people think the CEO has to come from the shareholder base. In fact, most companies would probably appoint someone from outside to come in and run the Club. I have no problem with the shareholders sitting on the Board and there should be Non Exec positions for all of them, but there I fail to see why Lowe has to be CEO or Chairman. I personally don't think his record as a CEO is up to scratch and as for being a Chairman, well I think we can all see why he might not be the best appointment to take up a position of independence and be a figurehead of the PLC.

With all due respect your financial analysis is wide of the mark. Lowe did not leave this Club in a healthy financial state. Cast your mind back to that first year down and we had massive sale of players to pay the bills. We had Lowe being quoted as saying "We don't know where the next penny is coming from!". The accounts for that year showed we haemoraghed 9 million in cash on normal operations (even after getting a 7 million parachute). The idea that he left a robust, cash rich, forward looking business is a myth. The financials of this Club were holed below the waterline the minute we got relegated and tens of millions of revenue were lost. Some of the decisions over the last two years have not been good and have added to the inherent problem (including Hine's decision not to implement Plan B), but they are the drop in the ocean compared to the millions of revenue that we have lost when we got relegated during Lowe's tenure.

Your recollections are wrong (so maybe that's affecting your assessment of the current position). Wilde never intimated he would side with Lowe. He was always adamant that Lowe would have to go (remember cut the head off the snake on here). It was Crouch who considered a Board of Unity and was undecided up until the last minute whether or not to go with Wilde and his Board. Wilde didn't suck up with Hone, he headhunted and appointed him. He then didn't change sides, the entire PLC board would have voted him off if he hadn't jumped. And as I have said above, if you think dispensing with a Wildewill not affect stability, then you are somewhat naive. I would counter that the one individual bringing disharmony and unable to provide any stability in recent years is Rupert Lowe. Of course the 20%+ of that cabal should be represented at the Club, but that does not mean Lowe has to be CEO and/or Chairman. Richards or Cowen would be better candidates for being a representative, and for me an outside independent CEO would be best all round.

But if Wilde is not re elected you then have the largest shareholder out of the loop, which IMHO could then lead to more in fighting, which would hardly be the stability you crave. It would change all the dynamics. You can't demand stability on one hand and then say you wouldn't mind if Wilde goes!!! The only period where Crouch had his chance to do anything was January 08 to May 08. That's hardly a fair chance, so I'm not even sure it could be judged a success or a failure. Even then, the first part of his tenure was clouded by decisions made by the Execs and the latter part overshadowed by the cloud of Wilde and Lowe coming back in.

To buy out Lowe you have to have a willing seller. Crouch offered to buy Lowe's shares to remove him from the picture, but Lowe refused. But after that I'm not really sure of what your point is here. Mid season is not the best time to start restructuring for a number of good reasons (the window is shorter, contracts expire in the summer, you have no pre season to rebuild your team after selling players, games are thick and fast etc etc). The indecision when Burley finally left was definitely something that should have been handled better. I think He should have got someone in ASAP and not stuck with D & G for as long as he did. As for your second point, NP would never have had a chance no matter what he did at the end of that season. Lowe had a vision and it did not include Pearson, think you're being a bit naive to think Lowe would have stood by him. There's been a constant drip in various outlets attacking Crouch's tenure (mostly pretty unfair IMHO) and the Accounts barrage, plus another attack by Lowe on Sunday/Monday was probably the final straw. I think he's done well to hold his tongue for this long, considering some of the stuff said by Lowe & co. As much as Crouch might be considered a loose cannon, I think the way he has conducted himself since the end of the season has been pretty good (particularly when judged against the words and deeds of those who deposed him). His words today seem rather dignified when compared to some of the stuff Lowe has come out with since he first started sniffing around at the end of last season (Cowen and Wilde should be attempting to rein Lowe in as his outbursts are a continual string of own goals).

But if Wilde is nto re-elected, then doesn't that mean you will not achieve the stability you crave???

To be fair to Crouch I think he held his counsel for as long as he probably could. If he's as passionate as some say, then I imagine the old blood vessels have been close to bursting since he was booted out. I think he probably came to the end of his tether with Lowe's comments when the accounts were released last week and then by Lowe's further mud slinging in the local press about how he feels that the Man Yoo money was a mere drop in the ocen compared to all the money that had been watsed before his ressurection. If Lowe had been more restrained with his accusations, mud slinging and passing the blame and instead tried to be more concilliatory and interested in bridge building, then maybe Crouch would have maintained radio silence. Some subjective/dodgy bits in his interview, but then some other really good bits in there as well.

I bloody well knew Lowe would try and milk this fixture. We're not going to sell out with tickets at that price!!!!!!!!

If only it was that simple!!!! I've seen the David Luker quote, but have to say I'm not sure about it's veracity, as I just can't see that such a low figure would see us breaking even (even after allowinf for the savings made to date). Even with last years attendances, costs were 15million more than income. This year's attendances (and even the 17,000 figure) would mean that income would have fallen, and although we have saved money, I can't see how we haved saved that much!