Wes Tender

Jonah, It is undoubtedly as easy to pick examples of businesses that are being run successfully by salaried employees as it is to pick examples of those being run successfully by shareholders on the board. The example of banks and finance houses is not very representative at the present time and they are the main cause of the financial pressures that have been applied to myriad other types of business as a result of their incompetence. Making comparisons with the previous boards that have run this club historically is a difficult exercise and circumstantial changes have rendered the comparison more difficult over time. Traditionally, the club had a board comprising the great and the good amongst local businessmen, people who ran the club out of almost a sense of civic duty. They were able to buy their shares for a nominal amount of £1 each and that was pretty well what they were worth, so that Askham had a major shareholding costing him just £3500, a sum that most of us could afford to pay. The great sea change came with the reverse takeover and it was at that time when the supposed great and good changed into people prepared to ditch their honour and good principles and take a path deemed by many as immoral and unethical. The board being faceless unknowns to most of the fans changed on that day. Although others like Askham, Richards, Wiseman, Gordon, Hunt etc are still known from their connections with the old board and some of them are still there in the bacground propping up the current regime, Lowe, Crouch and Wilde are naturally better known to most because they are the three who are the main divisive elements in the club's recent history. Naturally most want them either to put their differences aside and work together, or to go. Also as a factor, is the rise of the internet whereby communication has increased exponentially. In those days, communication between fans had to be via meetings and groups, the fans' magazines and the local rag, whereas it is easy now for fans all around the World to talk together on forums such as this and to assimilate information with ease.

How are we to take the opinions of somebody seriously if they can produce a statement like the one I have highlighted in their very first sentence? I don't know where you received your education, but in my case and probably in the case of everybody else on this forum, reading was not taught on just one day. I am not too arrogant as to admit that I am still learning the odd thing or two about reading all these years later, but you apparently had your one day and learned everything there was to know. I realise that you were using hyperbole in a vain attempt to disparage my views, but I'm sure that most will realise that if you can't come out with something better than that, something so full of holes, then it will reflect on your further opinions. You infer that if a club is run by a board with no shareholding at all, that they would only operate it through self-interest, but personally I would have no concerns with the board being rewarded with a bonus for finding a juicy takeover, whereas presumably you would. Do you do your job out of self-interest, or for the pay? These independent directors would be paid employees of the club, just as you are a paid employee of your company. Where is the difference? Most accept that a takeover by somebody with serious money to invest in the club would be the perfect solution to our troubles, especially as they would rid the club of the current charlatans by buying their shares. And many board members gain shares in their company as a form of remuneration, which explains why there are few companies where board members do not hold shares. But I would love to see you present a cogent case that a company would be run more efficiently if the directors hold shares in it than one with directors holding no shares. Conversely to your argument,there are good examples aplenty of companies where the directors hold shares and have been a disaster. We don't have to look far, do we? Our club is the classic example where the internecine warfare between the various egos with shares has brought the club virtually to the brink of bankruptcy. As for your statement that we have a load of kids and people who shouldn't be allowed sharp instruments dictating who should run the PLC, if one ignores the insulting disparagement of anybody who happens not to like the current incumbents, what you are talking about in essence, is the customers of the PLC. What arrogance!

Thanks Greenridge. He's the first and only poster I've ever put on ignore, but as you say, I'm not going to be missing anything of any value or interest.

The only way that harmony would break out and incidentally the solution probably with the greatest degree of support amongst the fan base, is the complete removal of the entire board and its replacement with an independent board comprising no shareholders at all. Let's have your views on that as an alternative. Or do you really believe that Lowe and the Quisling are the best people to bring unity and harmony to the board? I'm assuming that in some twisted way, your metaphor of "more throw-ins" means better play from the team. Presumably you therefore cannot make the connection between the board being taken over by Lowe and the Quisling's return and the resultant decline in the team's fortunes following the board's policies of getting rid of a decent manager, replacing him with inexperienced foreigners, loaning out our top strikers, playing kids, etc.

Placed on ignore. There is generally nothing of any interest contributed to the forum by this trolling poster and typically he hints that my grammar is poor by using poor grammar in his reply.

Very good, Pancake. But couldn't the snake in the grass have been Wilde, the Owl, Wiseman and the wily old fox, Askham?

Honesty in abundance, modesty in very short supply. Why don't you prove it by writing something sensible that contains more than a few words on any topic that is being discussed. I'm not in the least concerned about your opinion of me, as I don't have any respect for it. Troll.

Agreed. Although it is indicative that there is some broad agreement between ourselves as to how the club might move forward under a united fan base if the board were to agree to these proposals, we really could do with it being a separate thread with a poll attached. If there is indeed widespread agreement from most of us, then we have something concrete to put before the board as the price they need to pay if they wish to have our continued support.

You're missing the point entirely. Crouch's shareholding is bigger than Lowe's, so why shouldn't Lowe leave and have his shareholding represented by others, say Cowan for example? Even better still, have none of them on the board but independent board members running the club, appointed by a panel of the major shareholders to represent their interests. We're approaching this from the perspective that if there is difficulty in getting them all to go, then the halfway house is to have the three working together. You don't agree that that would be an acceptable compromise?

Kind of you to post a picture of yourself, Johnny. Now it all fits.

I agree entirely with what you wrote above this, but just to clarify my stance on the boycott... Yes, we are expecting Lowe and Wilde to show some humility and invite Crouch onto the board to unite various strands of the fan base. So when they achieve that, I will return. Until then, I take the more entrenched view that quite possibly very many others hold and who are adopting a similar position to me, thereby applying pressure on them to take this action in order to get us back on board. I feel that as they themselves are the obstacle to the return of many fans, they should show some sign that they are willing to explore these avenues first, as an indication that they are willing to put their differences aside. Whether I buy tickets for my son and me or not, nobody really knows except from the attendance figures which vary anyway depending on who we are playing, results etc. All that is fairly conclusive is that attendances have fallen massively compared to most other clubs and that this sort of initiative could go some way to restoring and redressing the situation. Let them give us some sort of indication that they will hold out the olive branch to each other before they expect us to make the first move. As for the march if there is one, then I'm happy that the theme should be that we want the three major shareholders to work together and that if they can't, we want all of them gone. Trouble is, how do we get that message across to them?

And you are one trite little troll, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Is there really any point at all to this thread, Mods? Does it add anything at all to the forum?

I regret to admit that working from the bottom of the thread and reading upwards as usual, it was a simple mistake to judge what your post might have contained from the comments made by others who would commonly fall into a different camp than the one I habitually inhabit. I apologise, but the opinions have been polarised into these disunited factions in recent years and I have been guilty of that too. I cannot fault the logic and reasoning behind your post and whereas I would prefer to go straight to the campaign to oust the existing board with plan B being that they be replaced immediately, it is fair comment that you make, that the more likely scenario would be putting pressure on Lowe and Wilde to accept Crouch joining them on the board and the three major shareholders working together for the common good instead of their own personal selfish reasons. As you rightly conclude, if either Lowe and Wilde refuse to allow Crouch onto the board even when the fractured fan base can unite behind the idea, we will draw our own conclusions. We can make it clear to the board that our preferred solution would be the replacement of the existing board with an independent board that precludes any shareholders, but that we recognise that we are prepared to let them remain in the interim only if they allow Crouch to join them. We will expect that they attempt to put their differences aside for the good of the club, but if they prove that they cannot make personal sacrifices and forget their past animosities, or if they allow their egos to get in the way of productive efforts, then they will have hoisted themselves on their own petards and we will campaign to rid the club of the lot of them. If that seems as reasonable a viewpoint to the one that you expressed, then I believe that we have enough common ground to begin seeing whether the majority of the warring factions could unite behind that plan. Until they agree to this, I remain in boycott mode.

What? You couldn't resist the temptation to start a useless thread with your name on it? Do try and exercise some self-control next time this particular urge takes hold.

Suddenly it changes to Cambodia...

How bizarre. This is a debate (allegedly) about who is/was the most hated chairman ever and you have to introduce elements of your hierarchy of who you most want to die. What exactly goes on in your mind?

I do blame Wilde and I might indeed have been the first to label him the "Quisling" an epithet that suits him and seems to have gained currency on here. I have not the slightest respect for Wilde or Lowe, but Wilde could at least redeem his position to a certain extent if he were to be the catalyst for the removal of Lowe and his cronies from any position of power at this club for ever. If he truly had the best interests of the club at heart, which he had previously claimed, he would realise that by facilitating the return of Lowe, he was jointly responsible for the dismissal of Pearson and the appointment of the double Dutch, actions that have led us to the current parlous state in which we now find ourselves. If he felt any compunction towards righting the wrongs that he has inflicted upon us, he could withdraw his support for Lowe and throw it behind the scheme to appoint an independent chairman and chief executive. Only trouble is that he did that once before, so this time it would be better if his judgement on who should be appointed to the next board would be ignored.

No response for three hours, so I'll take it that my request for any dissenting voices to be raised against the premise that I suggested above are not forthcoming. So we can therefore take it that the majority of the people on this forum are in broad agreement....

The increased impression of unity is seemingly to the concept of either Crouch being admitted to the board so that the three main shareholding groups each have some representation, but failing that unlikely eventuality, there appears to be growing agreement that all of the major shareholders and their internecine warfare and huge egos be consigned to the bin, to be replaced by an independent board.

Well, this seems a very pertinent summary, Nick. Who would have thought it, eh? Are there any serious dissenters out there still, who disagree with the fundamental premise that either Lowe, Wilde and Crouch ought to work together for the good of the club in the interim, or else failing that, but in the longer term anyway, they all ought to make way for an independent board and none of them be allowed to serve on the board? Have we really found some common ground that unites nearly all of the fan base? Perhaps we should make this the subject of a separate thread, investigate the opinions of others and hold a poll on it. If that poll proves overwhelmingly that the mood of the fan base is that all of those with historic associations with the club as major shareholders are not allowed a seat on the board, then we can face those board members past and present and demand that they step aside to make way for independent replacements.

Frank, it is so easy to make a little slip when posting an opinion and having the opinion mean something entirely different. Now I know that you are generally even-handed and therefore believe that I have spotted such a mistake in the sentiments that you have expressed. But others who do not know you might take things a lot more literally and those of a litigious bent would enjoy being given the ammunition. Might I hazard a guess as to what you meant to say in that last sentence? "I don't think there is anything more sinister to it than that"

Blimey! You've been posting for 52 years? That can't be, surely?

Well, I've made no secret of the fact that I have had series issues with his arrival here at the time of the reverse takeover and resent the implication that I might be a hothead for disparaging the immoral and unethical nature of that bit of business. Even within the past couple of weeks some information reached me that if true would have serious legal repercussions for those involved. Instead of calling those like me who have had issues with Lowe for the dozen years, I think that we can justifiably claim that we had great prescience in believing that he was not the right person in conjunction with those other charlatans to be running the club. Our gut feelings have indeed proven to be true.

WGS and Pearson for me. In many ways they seem to be cut from the same cloth somehow.

They're the ones who prefer goats.