jonah

The main thing this shows is that there is a vast difference between being a board member, or even chairman, and being a CEO involved in the day-to-day running of the club where this sort of thing has to be (and would be) known.

A little bit clearer, Duncan, I guess it wasn't helped by fos1 (Jim?) having a different recollection of Mary's comments. None of which are relevant to sitting on the board though unfortunately. The sort of qualities required for that would include being capable of questioning and changing the direction the CEO(s) and performing due dlligence on relevant matters - as FC commented, I think these are the areas that make fans shudder at the thought of her on the board. The only problem I have with this claim is that she puts herself forward quite regularly to espouse her opinion when it suits her, and to also do nothing when it suits her - as far as I'm aware she is effectively the elected spokesman of Robert, Peter, Sarah and various children and cousins so she is by no means a passive pawn in the boardroom shenanigans and could easily maintain her unnotifiable interest in the club if she wanted to. She actively chooses to remain involved. When she first publicly opposed Lowe she did so through the press - not the boardroom - and then proxied all their shares to Wilde to do her bidding for her. I think many will see this as real weakness (as with Wiseman, Hunt and Gordon). Then there was the abject failure to investigate any of Wilde's claims or any of the new board members stating they "were names we didn't know" - this is someone who became a concert party in a multi-million pound company with people she knew nothing about! Then having sat in silence through the subsequent shambles that ensued in 2007/2008 - by people she helped bring to power - she again only returned to the fore when Lowe returned. This time she gives her backing to fans marching on match days - I find that cringeworthy behaviour, major shareholders resorting to demonstrations to oppose a board? Now most of these comments apply to other current and former board members - I'm just explaining why other fans might not see Mary in the same light you see her. I also think a large part of her "kudos" comes from some people propagating the myth that John Corbett gifted Jacksons Farm to the club. I'm not dismissing what he did for the club in the 1930s, I'm just saying Jacksons Farm has been misrepresented for years in respect of the Corbetts. As she only briefly served on the SFC board - I'm not aware of any other work she previously did for the club, happy to hear about it - she would have struggled to take money out in the same way as certain other people (no names mentioned eh!). For balance though, don't forget that she has received £189,000 in dividends from her shares - as far as I'm aware, like all the others whose old Saints shares were converted at takeover, she has never chosen to decline those dividends and leave the money in the club either... neither did she contribute to the placing in the early 80s or the stadium Rights Issue in 1999 - I don't think she even took up her own allocation as far as I know. So not quite the Saints philanthropist some would paint her to be.

Thanks for replying Duncan, and I will assume your comments regarding anonymity were not aimed at me as you and others know who I am. The first point I hoped to clear up, which you now have, is that Mary did not ask you to post those comments and you put her private comments on here by your own choice without her knowledge. Personally I don't agree with doing things like that, but no doubt others will think it's fine (and I'm sure they will make that clear on here within about 10 seconds). However, the other point you have not answered is with regards to Mary feeling intimidated "sometimes physically", especially as fos1 said: Having mentioned the "physically intimidated", you then said "I am not going to elaborate on why I do not have her permission to say anything further" - which obviously implied there were more details relating to this matter. Again, fos1 seemed to say this wasn't the case at all? I'm glad you agree on sticking to facts rather than lies, this is why I feel it is important that serious allegations/insinuations like this are clear on what is fact, what is fiction, and what is exaggeration - and in this case I'm still none the wiser. The use of the word "physical" makes it all sound unpleasant as I'm sure you're aware. In the meantime, in the spirit of a clean sweep ridding us of the lot of them I look forward to some of your tales of LM's and LC's indiscretions and less fine moments on a different thread ;-)

Suspicion from whom I wonder?! Offloading small tranches like that would be reeeeeally stupid because, as demonstrated, it just pushes the price right down as well as incurring dealing costs each time. As WindowCleaner says, the time to sell was a long time ago - namely the day Crouch spiked the price by paying 20% over the market rate for his shares. Having said that, I can see why some would sell now - if you think the club is going into administration then £900 is better than nothing. And if you read this forum or the Echo that might be a common view just now.

The phrase used was "physically intimidated" - I'm not sure you can have non-physical physical intimidation can you? ;-)

I have explained above why I put it in a new thread, I asked the same question in the orginal thread but didn't get an answer - perhaps it didn't get seen in amongst the angst. I cannot see why it is provocative, it is as likely to damage Lowe and it is to help him, I just want a clear explanation. I have not used any emotive terms or called anyone names, I've just asked a simple question which will have a simple answer. Interesting. I don't remember those comments, do you have any links?

So where did the "physically threatened" comment come from then? And why say "I am not going to elaborate on why MC felt threatened by Lowe... I do not have her permission to say anything further" if there was no more to it than that? If you are saying neither of these things were said then that asks more questions than you've answered - I think I'd rather wait for Duncan to explain his own comments here, it sounds like he must be relating a different conversation entirely.

So where did the "physically threatened" comment come from then? And why say "I am not going to elaborate on why MC felt threatened by Lowe... I do not have her permission to say anything further" if there was no more to it than that? If you are saying neither of these things were said then that asks more questions than you've answered - I think I'd rather wait for Duncan to explain his own comments here, it sounds like he must be relating a different conversation entirely.

Well firstly that thread had descended into the "I'm a better fan than you" level which meant 99.9% of people didn't want to read it any more. Secondly, that wasn't the subject of that thread. Thirdly, does everything on here need a "majority of people" to be interested for it to be discussed? Simple question, simple answer required - if you're not interested don't read or reply! :-)

Well firstly that thread had descended into the "I'm a better fan than you" level which meant 99.9% of people didn't want to read it any more. Secondly, that wasn't the subject of that thread. Thirdly, does everything on here need a "majority of people" to be interested for it to be discussed? Simple question, simple answer required - if you're not interested don't read or reply! :-)

Ron, trousers - I think the relevance here is that Duncan is a well-known figure with regard to Saints, the club historian with links to a lot of the major shareholders and hence when he makes a statement about 2 of the major shareholders then that comment holds gravitas. The implications of his post are pretty explicit and I think he should clarify from whence they came. It's just a simple question, I think it's pretty clear the answer could fall either pro or anti Lowe so it's in everyone's interests to have the matter cleared up right?

Ron, trousers - I think the relevance here is that Duncan is a well-known figure with regard to Saints, the club historian with links to a lot of the major shareholders and hence when he makes a statement about 2 of the major shareholders then that comment holds gravitas. The implications of his post are pretty explicit and I think he should clarify from whence they came. It's just a simple question, I think it's pretty clear the answer could fall either pro or anti Lowe so it's in everyone's interests to have the matter cleared up right?

Yes, I'd love to see and hear exactly what he said - I'm following the other thread. FWIW I expect it will be Lowe choosing the wrong time to (correctly IMO) have a go at the desperate rag that is the Echo - is the Sports Desk still run by that P*mpey fan? As Dave Juson so eloquently put it a few years back, Saints could well do without "the mendacious, sensationalist, anti-club spin". But that is a different pair of subjects, so not on this thread please.

Yes, I'd love to see and hear exactly what he said - I'm following the other thread. FWIW I expect it will be Lowe choosing the wrong time to (correctly IMO) have a go at the desperate rag that is the Echo - is the Sports Desk still run by that P*mpey fan? As Dave Juson so eloquently put it a few years back, Saints could well do without "the mendacious, sensationalist, anti-club spin". But that is a different pair of subjects, so not on this thread please.

Last week Duncan posted the following comments about Mary Corbett: I really feel this needs some clarification - "threatened" is a strong word to use in itself, but even more so when talking about being "physically intimidated". Since Duncan leaves it hanging by saying he doesn't have Mary's permission to expand upon it I wanted to know whether he had her permission to make that public in the first place or whether he chose to make it public without her knowledge? I really don't see how anybody can make such a claim like this in public without backing it up.

Last week Duncan posted the following comments about Mary Corbett: I really feel this needs some clarification - "threatened" is a strong word to use in itself, but even more so when talking about being "physically intimidated". Since Duncan leaves it hanging by saying he doesn't have Mary's permission to expand upon it I wanted to know whether he had her permission to make that public in the first place or whether he chose to make it public without her knowledge? I really don't see how anybody can make such a claim like this in public without backing it up.

...with 1 game in hand. Come on, you've been through the 90s where we continually scraped to survival, and there is enough in this team to put a few results together. The key, as always, is to win the 6 pointers - we still have to play Watford, Charlton, Forest and Derby. In our favour we have a decent run-in where we could get 10 points from the last 4 games... but you certainly get nothing if you don't try and each time we scrape a win another team down the bottom will feel the pressure. There's always one team in freefall (apart from us ;-)), and 5 or 6 wins from 14 would probably be enough. Have you given up then?

Certainly fairer than damning him before he's taken his first game. Hopefully we won't get to find that out.

Sadly nowadays that's true - career politicians straight from Uni who have never done anything else in their life, that's why they're all so crap. At least in the past you elected an MP with life experience rather than a Masters from Oxford.

I thought we were comparing them based upon bouffon hairstyles? OK, based upon their history of management I would have to say Wotte is the new Pearson then. I'm thinking that's not going to be the right answer either though?

Maybe Strachan was the previous Wotte?

JohnSmith, please don't try to twist my words around about my own kids, how warped are you... I called it "beautiful naivety", because it is indeed beautiful. It is naivety because we know that it's not true or based upon fact - that doesn't mean you shatter their dreams by telling them that (and please don't try to imply that's what I do, our house looks like Pixie Hollow FWIW), but equally you don't encourage them to open their bedroom window and jump out do you? As for your ridiculous comparison with Theo Walcott wanting to be a footballer, that is not "beautiful naivety", it is a beautiful dream - because it is something which can become true, and therefore it is completely different and completely irrelevant. That you now seek to attack me through my kids for failing to follow the mob mentality on here sums it up really, funny to see you follow Daren's lead in trying to paint me as a "bean-counter" or accountant, how funny! I do love the old "I'm a better fan than you" arguments the most... personally I think most people on here take this far too seriously and can't even take a joke or a bit of humour, but I'm sure that's a trait of bean-counters too rather than there being an excessive number of drama queens with internet access in the Southampton area. Meanwhile back to the original point about the march, getting involved in organising a march is actually quite impressive in itself - I wouldn't have done anything like that at 16 - but that doesn't detract from the validity of the action or the reasons behind it does it?

It's not the age per se but the experience - life experience as well as education and knowledge. That's why we don't have 16 year olds running the country, or part-time union officials being elected during half term. Surely you react to a reasoned argument from someone with relevant life experiences whose opinion you can respect - a toddler could scribble "Gordon Brown Is Rubbish" on a piece of paper but I wouldn't march to Parliament behind him. I'm not saying you have to be a CEO to complain about a CEO, but I am saying that somebody who hasn't even left home, never had a job, was in nappies when the reverse takeover occured and can't have seen more than a few seasons of football is not in a position to draw any reasoned conclusions that result in organising a march in protest at the company, team manager and board members. It's ridiculous. Therefore it's just mob mentality, he's organising something he doesn't really understand, and others are following him into it because they like the message. But most importantly of all, there have to be better things to be doing when you're 16! Seriously. Come on, aren't there any girls you could meet up with instead of organising a demo about a PLC CEO?!