Window Cleaner

No it wouldn't. The only way that he can go against Lowe is by opposing him. You've got to think laterally about all this. Why has no-one (we're told there have been suitors) bought out the club? I mean if you buy out Wilde,Crouch and The Corbetts you're over 30% right so that's more than half the battle, just find out who owns all those little bits of the puzzle and you can get to 51% easy as pie, if Lowe refuses your offer well screw him,you've got control right?. Ah but you can't find them,that's the problem so you can't obscure Lowe (and his cronies) from the picture for ever.Wilde and Crouch tried, cost them a pretty penny and what have they got for their trouble, yep Lowe is still lording it over them and their money, yet neither can destroy his stranglehold with love nor money. The conclusion is obvious, until you buy out Rupert Lowe and his axis of evil (some would call it that) you will never,ever control SLH PLC thus Southampton Football Club. There's only no way of getting rid of Lowe and that needs money, lots of it and then some.Do not forget,if we believe half of what we hear Lowe and Wilde have been offered significant sums for their shareholding in the recent past, so are they going to then,having turned those sums down, let the club slide into administration and lose out that way?? Of course they aren't, but then again they don't want to inject cash either, but if push comes to shove they will, but the less of their own money the better. Players will be sold as a last resort, who and for how much I've no idea.

The maths do add up but you need a PhD in Applied Maths to understand them. Dormant or hidden, the result is the same thing. The club is unbuyable until Lowe and Wilde decide otherwise.

Because it's an inheritance from Mr John Corbett who took up 3.94% of the original share issue plus his share of the rights issue. A total of about 5% (but probably not 6%). These shares were left to his immediate family on his death. I can't recall the names, I know there's Mary,Peter, and Sarah (who no longer bears the name Corbett) but I think there's a fourth child as well. How the shares are split amongst them I have no idea.

You'll just have to take my word for it Derry, Lowe owns SLH PLC whilst he has the support of his axis and Mike Wilde, the rest doesn't matter and I'm not going into it any more. We drove him out, he was always going to come back at the first opportunity,he just waited for the Wilde/Crouch lute to rip itself apart by continual infighting (do not forget Crouch tried to take over the PLC for nothing by a back door method, if that hadn't happened we'd probably now have a Lowe/Crouch tandem). Lowe dealt with that like making a naughty child stand in the corner in class,

It doesn't matter about position, WGS didn't want him playing his natural flair game, he gave him a public bollocking for a harmless backheel flick. WGS had no time for flair or individualism, he wanted effort and graft, even if it meant he was getting only 75% of the true ability out of the playersat his disposal. He wanted nothing to do with either Delgado or Chala, he played Delgado because Lowe asked him to I suppose, Chala never even got a f*cking chance. Same as the two south americans he had at Coventry. Don't forget WGS buggered off the same as Hoddle, different methods to be sure, but neither saw out his contract and Hoddle had a far better win ratio. WGS was OK, nothing special won 39 out of 110.

Yes but then you have to take away all the rest of the "Lowe camp". The Die inheritors, Windsor Clive, Marland etc etc.

So you see as I said Withers has reduced from 4% (1,125000) to 3.56% (1,000000) in the recent past. The 3.08% controlled by the investment broker Charley Stanley no longer shows up.

I'll take your word for it then Derry, you're obviously convinced you're right whilst I believe otherwise. Pointless discussion really.I say that SLH PLC will never be the subject of a hostile take over whilst the Lowe-Wilde axis functions. I have my reasons for that but I'm keeping them to myself. Believe whatever you like about the distribution of the share issue.

As I've told you, Mike Withers reduced his holding by 125000 shares in the recent past. They probably went straight into the portfolio of another Lowe ally.

Most of them are dormant or hidden deep deep behind nominees and offshore companies. If buying a controlling interest in SFC was so easy (added to Crouch and Corbett) then it would have happened long long ago.

But there aren't 2 million share available at 20p or whatever it is. If there were Crouch would have (in theory) snapped them up ages ago to boost his personal holding to 23% or so .

Saints Trust own about 20000 shares. A non-entity. Look at it this way. It took Wilde,Corbett,Crouch,McMenemy,Trant,Singh and all other disgruntled shareholders to be certain of getting Lowe out. Lowe group and Wilde were sure certain that they could walk back in whenever they wanted.The Lowe group -Wilde tandem is untouchable unless one of the "investors" in the Lowe group breaks rank, which they won't.

Popular myth.:smt037:smt037:smt037:smt037:smt037

7000,? you need to get to around 7 million to make it even worth the bus fare to the DeVere, let alone buy a pint.

Nice shoes though.Bet not many brands do size 11 in that model .

As I said the other day, it's a pool of thick treacle covered by a mirror. Remember when someone sold (or bought) 550,000 shares back in 2007?(thought to be Tom Scott) Lee Hoos (or whoever )had to initiate an enquiry into it to see who sold what and to whom Mike Withers disposed of 125K shares a while back, no-one ever mentioned it anywhere.Singh sold a hatful, no-one knows where they went. It's so obscure..

ypbl? what sort of user name is that. I think I shall ask to be known as PFJ from now onwards, or was it the JPF or the JPPF?

He left us with a one trick pony that could only play one way-his way.

Sorry Ron, it will probably be just another gabfest. Lowe and Wilde hold sway over too many share for anyone to do anything about it with first buying one of them out. We know that, that's why all "takeover" attempt fail.

Bad news, that's what administration means.

Because he's got himself involved in things that no young footballer(or young man) should be involved with at 22. He should be working on his game and his career and nothing else.

Sod's Law applies only to the realm of Metaphysics.

I don't know. I think Boyles's Law and Stokes Law to name but 2 have been proved by many adolescents in run down school laboratories .

Nevertheless he should have checked his facts. No doubt he will be asked to name his source.

Well you're the clued up guy who's father tried to buy Lowe out, you tell us what it means