benjii

When they were once again on the gravy train of the same company, which happens to be in serious finanical difficulty, and in which they were signifcant shareholders. I'm sure you're aware that companies turn to their shareholders for funding? It would, as I said above, at the very least be a public show of commitment and faith in their own ability if they offered an unsecured loan on a real-terms interest-free basis.

In the year ended 30th June 2008 £600,000 was paid out for "Compensation for loss of office" with respect to directors. That year saw the departure of Hone, Hoos, Dulieu, Oldknow... etc. in addition to Crouch. Who got what is unknown (in the same way that Lowe and Cowen's share of the £563k is unknown).

hth

No conspiracy, just trumped-up incompetent egomaniacs out of their depth IMO.

You should probably edit the end of that methinks....

Who knows? We have no idea what their contractual terms are. Well, I don't - does anyone else? It would be interesting to know if the previous payments were existing contractual entitlements or the result of a compromise agreement being reached as part of their resignation (don't forget, they would have been booted out at a shareholders' vote if they hadn't resigned, so their only compensation would have been any contracutal entitlement already due, had the vote gone ahead). It's true to say that it is unusual for high level employees to leave an organisation without some sort of compromise agreement (which will involve a payment being made) being put in place. It would, however, be poor governance for a company which is, at the public admission of the very directors in question, in perilous financial circumstances to offer lucrative service agreements to directors which could only be terminated on onerous terms. Isn't Lowe part-time though? And Cowan is a non-exec. It would be extraordinary if they were contractually entitled to a large pay-off now.

It would be very unlikely if there was any obligation to pay it back.... therefore one might conclude it is very unlikely that any of it has been paid back. I have suggested in the past that, in my opinion, it would be nice if it could at least be loaned back to the club on favourable terms. That would also exhibit that the directors at least had a little faith in their own ability to make a positive impact.

No. For the first time ever I think we will be relegated. I have thought this since the Forest match.

From memory I believe the accounts refer to total payments in respect of directors' terminations in the relevant period of £563,000. If anyone is inclined to check that, there are links to the figures on the OS somewhere.

Jonah, just in case this post slipped under your radar; I'd be interested (well, mildly) to know your response to these points.

We don't need plastics like you.

I have had the same thoughts as the original poster many times on seeing young'uns at matches this season. Poor bilghters.

OMG!!11!

I think they mostly blamed Pardew didn't they? I suppose there is therefore some blame attached to the chairman for appointing him / not getting rid sooner. I suspect this blame is tempered by the fact that Pardew was a fairly well respected manager so at least there was something intelligible behind his appointment in the first place. I imagine if Charlton had appointed a nobody under a cloud of hyperbolic PR purely because he was cheap then more of the blame would attach to the chairman rather than the manager.

Red card... But not for us for once!

Do I have to pay you £5 or are you seriously saying that an adequate forum can be made for free?

This lack of incoming revenue is terrible news. I demand that we instantly install a cheap lower league manager from overseas.

This is correct. I could no more give a rats ass about humanity in 5 generations' time than I could about the dinosaurs.

Doubt it!

and Vinny Samways to sign for Spurs before the end of the window.

Give me Saga any day!

Yes, frankly (although I didn't expect a reasoned reply and it's not even relevant to the thread, I was just wondering).

Can you explain why Crouch was no better? Seriously, no better than "an utter shambles"? In my mind he had two major decisions to make. He got one wrong then remedied it in time with a good decision. All this in only 6 months so I think he deserved longer before he is judged as "an utter shambles" just as bad as Lowe.

If Crouch was in charge the match would definitely go ahead.