Bartosz Bialkowski Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 http://www.clubfanzine.com/southampton/v2.showNews.php?id=25820 Good read from TUI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 An interesting take on it. A view i'm sure some would have shied away from for fear of being seen as harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_stevo Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 Very good article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 Excuse my ignorance...who is the author of this article ..please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartosz Bialkowski Posted 31 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 31 July, 2009 Excuse my ignorance...who is the author of this article ..please. I'm guessing Mr Illingsworth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 Erm... wasn't there an awful lot of smoke? Surely if there wasn't we wouldn't have heard a lot about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 I'm guessing Mr Illingsworth Many thanks Sir Bart;) That was my guess.. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 Yawn. Nick never gives Rupert the blame for anything. To accuse Jones of only thinking about himself when he is accused of child abuse is a stupid thing to say. What did you expect him to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 A damn fine read IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 Yawn. Nick never gives Rupert the blame for anything. To accuse Jones of only thinking about himself when he is accused of child abuse is a stupid thing to say. What did you expect him to do? Well you can't accuse me of being pro Rupert but I have to say I feel Lowe had to do what he did. No man can face those sort of horrendous allegations and manage a Premiership team at the same time. I remember those last few months under Jones and we were terrible. Poor old Rupert (a quick lie down is called for) had no choice but to do what he did. Perhaps he was being a bit naive expecting Jones to attend a press conference with Hoddle the next day and to continue scouting but that's Rupert. I thought the UI article to be a good one and the writer deserves praise for not jumping on a convenient bandwagon. Hypo, no offence but you are very quick to call people's views stupid, sometimes it might be better to actually reflect a little on what is being said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 I completely agree with the senitments of the article, and always have. I maintain that the stance Lowe took with Jones was absolutely the right one throughout that whole sorry episode, and the criticism the club has since received for the so-called treatment of Dave Jones has been extremely unfair. I read the serialisation in the Echo last night and its convinced me not to buy the book, as his slant on the actual turn of events is very disappointing. I think Dave Jones fails to recognise that, as the manager, he was seen as the front man of the football club, and the media spotlight he and the club were put under at that time was such that it just wasn't possible to sweep everything under the carpet and think it would all be ok. Something had to be done, and while I'm not at all a fan of Lowe and everything he's done to contribute to the demise of this club, I actually think he got this one spot on, and actually acted with a fair amount of sympathy for DJ's personal plight, while balancing that with the needs of the football club. It was an impossible situation and there was no resolution which would have suited all parties; but I think the route chosen was in the end the correct one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 Well you can't accuse me of being pro Rupert but I have to say I feel Lowe had to do what he did. No man can face those sort of horrendous allegations and manage a Premiership team at the same time. I remember those last few months under Jones and we were terrible. Poor old Rupert (a quick lie down is called for) had no choice but to do what he did. Perhaps he was being a bit naive expecting Jones to attend a press conference with Hoddle the next day and to continue scouting but that's Rupert. I thought the UI article to be a good one and the writer deserves praise for not jumping on a convenient bandwagon. Hypo, no offence but you are very quick to call people's views stupid, sometimes it might be better to actually reflect a little on what is being said. No problem with Lowe's actions but I had a problem with the article. Jones can't help being better off than most people. Parts of the article were fine but parts were stupid. That's my opinion and I took time to read and reflect on the article before commenting on it, something I did when replying to yourself as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMidfieldGeneral Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 Dry ice!! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 I think it put Jones and Lowe in very difficult positions, but I for one still think there's something to this whole 'innoccent until proven guilty' lark - and it's there for a reason, as shown with this case. Too many people in this stupid reactionary, scaremongering, witch-hunt society seem to have entirely forgotten what that means, or why it is so important. You'd all feel very ****ing different had it been you on a totally false rap, for anything. Yet I agree - in real terms, Lowe maybe had little choice - it clearly affected things, fairly on Jones or not, so I can see a strong case for putting him on gardening leave. The results were not good, either. I don't know if he jumped or was pushed in the end, personally I hope he wasn't pushed. I respect contracts and that tenet of English society and law above. Either way - in the end, the club did the right thing by standing by his contract, and Jones should be blaming those who brought the case, not us. Using the case and playing the martyr, whilst crucifying us, perhaps for his own gain in image terms, is pretty ungrateful, and I have to add that I think the bit where it says in other careers he would have been sacked / non-paid etc is a falsehood, though. Contracts and so on exist in all jobs, and even in a career working with young people, there is no right to do that. You can suspend someone, of course, but can't just not pay them and make them walk. Also, I think that the article is wrong to suggest that all fans came out in support of him. I remember that as being far from true. Perhaps many did, but he got a lot of ****, particularly from away fans. I think this kind of suggestion lets the article down a bit, to be honest, as it's a good piece - but suggesting he was treated well by fans, that the club treated him better than most would have - colour this as being partial. Without those, it would read as an objective, well considered one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 No problem with Lowe's actions but I had a problem with the article. Jones can't help being better off than most people. Parts of the article were fine but parts were stupid. That's my opinion and I took time to read and reflect on the article before commenting on it, something I did when replying to yourself as well. I thank you for your calm and measured reply, Hypo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 31 July, 2009 Share Posted 31 July, 2009 RL had a fiduciary responsibility to the company (SFC) which is why he had no choice in how he dealt with the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now