Thedelldays Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 for someone so evil, bad and devisive.. how did he get such backing to return how does it work etc..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 for someone so evil, bad and devisive.. how did he get such backing to return how does it work etc..? Someone should ask them to publish how many of the 28,000,000 shares this represents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Someone should ask them to publish how many of the 28,000,000 shares this represents. doesnt it say on the OS that something like 11k worth of shares decided not to vote....:confused: IF that is right...I wonder what % of the total shares 11k is..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit2 Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 that is 94.95% of the shares present. So in theory there might have only been 14,000,000 shares there at vote and 13,300,000 voted for him (if that makes sense). I can account for 150,000 shares that were not there today, from toting up various people I know who didnt bother. So like UP says be interesting to see how many were actully there at vote today or by postal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 "There are lies, damn lies and statistics".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Well that's what happens if people decide not to vote when they have the option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 "There are lies, damn lies and statistics".... Statistics can be twisted and presented to support any arguement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Clearly Crouch didn't vote then. Bit odd IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Evil? lol. I imagine many do actually believe that. It's truly bizarre. Still don't understand what he's done wrong this time. Just a posh prat who doesn't help himself much but is basically doing what has to be done in very tough circumstances. Maybe it's easier having such a pantomine hate figure for the crowd to focus on rather than the team. But I can't help but think the same approach we're taking now, which we all know was necessary, wouldn't have been greeted so badly under another chairman. Anti-Lowe overtook pro-saints a long time ago I guess. Strange though as I'd have thought focusing on him would have meant people gave him credit for what we did achieve a few years ago, but they highlight the negatives there too. Of course, there were negatives, but it's not exactly balanced to focus on the negatives during the good years and the negatives during the bad years. Absolutely. How anyone can deny that we needed to appoint Poortvliet and sign Pulis, Gasmi, Pekhart, Forecast, Smith, Robertson is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Still don't understand what he's done wrong this time. Just a posh prat who doesn't help himself much but is basically doing what has to be done in very tough circumstances. Maybe it's easier having such a pantomine hate figure for the crowd to focus on rather than the team. But I can't help but think the same approach we're taking now, which we all know was necessary, wouldn't have been greeted so badly under another chairman. Lol. You're one of the first people to start moaning when the fans 'pick on' the team. Moan if they do pick on the team moan if they don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Well, if he was truly such a hated and devisive figure, then this vote really doesn't make sense. It points to the fact that the views held by zealots on this forum just are not representative of those that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Well, if he was truly such a hated and devisive figure, then this vote really doesn't make sense. It points to the fact that the views held by zealots on this forum just are not representative of those that matter. good point... It could well be that the average fan has no real idea of the state the club was in last season that resulted in lowe getting 95% of the vote to come back.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 The 'didn't bothers' only have themselves to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 good point... It could well be that the average fan has no real idea of the state the club was in last season that resulted in lowe getting 95% of the vote to come back.... It could mean a number of things. I doubt we'll ever learn the truth though It's all about the open and transparent policy the club has Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit2 Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 good point... It could well be that the average fan has no real idea of the state the club was in last season that resulted in lowe getting 95% of the vote to come back.... FFS People. He had 95% of the votes present which could have only been 60% of the total anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Evil? lol. I imagine many do actually believe that. It's truly bizarre. Still don't understand what he's done wrong this time. Just a posh prat who doesn't help himself much but is basically doing what has to be done in very tough circumstances. Maybe it's easier having such a pantomine hate figure for the crowd to focus on rather than the team. But I can't help but think the same approach we're taking now, which we all know was necessary, wouldn't have been greeted so badly under another chairman. You mean apart from essentially sacking Pearson (1.23 points per game) for purely egoistical reasons and replacing him with a Dutch amateur (0.92 points per game)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1965onwards Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 AS Leon obviously did not vote for Lowe,and has a 10.6 % shareholding,there is obviously more than a 100% of shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit2 Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 The 'didn't bothers' only have themselves to blame. Diagree Ponty. The shares in SLH are quite structured. There is not enough out there to make a difference unless you join up with some one. The fact that Wilde, Lowe, Askham and Various Financial Institutions are all the same side make it impossible to get the upper hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 AS Leon obviously did not vote for Lowe,and has a 10.6 % shareholding,there is obviously more than a 100% of shares. OR... Walking out of the meeting meant that the votes for those shares were null and void :smt102 Like I said, I doubt we'll ever discover the truth, mushrooms that we are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Diagree Ponty. The shares in SLH are quite structured. There is not enough out there to make a difference unless you join up with some one. The fact that Wilde, Lowe, Askham and Various Financial Institutions are all the same side make it impossible to get the upper hand. You don't think winning the vote with 60% would have looked less impressive to the average, Echo reading fan then? I do mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 FFS People. He had 95% of the votes present which could have only been 60% of the total anyway. But doesn't Crouch represent 10% + of the shares? He must have voted for RL??? And hate is as srtrong a motivator as you can get - so those that didn't attend or proxy their voting rights, can't be that much against the evil one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 You don't think winning the vote with 60% would have looked less impressive to the average, Echo reading fan then? I do mate. Maybe, but also walking out and not bothering to vote is also a message that will get coverage. The appointment was a fait accompli, otherwise there would have been an EGM last summer if there was any chance Lowe would have lost. Lowe called the 13.1 million out of 28million+ of shares an overwhelming mandate back in the summer, so forgive me if I don't particularly want to fall for his spin again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 A propaganda coup that does not stand up to much scrutiny, however much he trumpets it, since Corbett, McMenemy, Trant, Crouch and co walked out before the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 23 December, 2008 A propaganda coup that does not stand up to much scrutiny, however much he trumpets it, since Corbett, McMenemy, Trant, Crouch and co walked out before the vote. why...they should have voted against him and shown his position to be weaker than it is..... if you get me...should they have voted against him..even though they would know he would win..it would stop him from saying he has 95% backing etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 why...they should have voted against him and shown his position to be weaker than it is..... if you get me...should they have voted against him..even though they would know he would win..it would stop him from saying he has 95% backing etc... Maybe. Personally, I reckon Tsvangirai was right to withdraw from the run-off with Mugabe too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Evil? lol. I imagine many do actually believe that. It's truly bizarre. Still don't understand what he's done wrong this time. Just a posh prat who doesn't help himself much but is basically doing what has to be done in very tough circumstances. Maybe it's easier having such a pantomine hate figure for the crowd to focus on rather than the team. But I can't help but think the same approach we're taking now, which we all know was necessary, wouldn't have been greeted so badly under another chairman. Anti-Lowe overtook pro-saints a long time ago I guess. Strange though as I'd have thought focusing on him would have meant people gave him credit for what we did achieve a few years ago, but they highlight the negatives there too. Of course, there were negatives, but it's not exactly balanced to focus on the negatives during the good years and the negatives during the bad years. Please explain why he had to sack Pearson and employ a noboby Dutch manager? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Maybe. Personally, I reckon Tsvangirai was right to withdraw from the run-off with Mugabe too... i agree with you mate...but i cant help thinking they had a chance to show how weak hs postion is....if you get me.... now he will just say he has 95% backing when in reality that is not entirely true... a chance missed here by those 3 to make a point at that moment in time.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 AS Leon obviously did not vote for Lowe,and has a 10.6 % shareholding,there is obviously more than a 100% of shares. 9.95% unless he's upped it recently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Maybe. Personally, I reckon Tsvangirai was right to withdraw from the run-off with Mugabe too... A nice analogy. As with Mugabe, this leaves it as a hollow victory (and no I don't think Lowe is comparable with Mugabe, merely the situation has some similarities). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Many dictators would have been pleased with that share of the vote Congratulations Dictator Lowe on your overwhelming win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 those who chose not to vote might has well have voted for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Evil? lol. I imagine many do actually believe that. It's truly bizarre. Still don't understand what he's done wrong this time. Just a posh prat who doesn't help himself much but is basically doing what has to be done in very tough circumstances. Maybe it's easier having such a pantomine hate figure for the crowd to focus on rather than the team. But I can't help but think the same approach we're taking now, which we all know was necessary, wouldn't have been greeted so badly under another chairman. Anti-Lowe overtook pro-saints a long time ago I guess. Strange though as I'd have thought focusing on him would have meant people gave him credit for what we did achieve a few years ago, but they highlight the negatives there too. Of course, there were negatives, but it's not exactly balanced to focus on the negatives during the good years and the negatives during the bad years. Sack Pearson for a nice, but out of his depth, Dutchman for starters. Never mind, our hungry young strikers will soon start scoring the 20 goals each that you predicted and that will cheer us up. ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 those who chose not to vote might has well have voted for him. I'm not so sure. He was never going to be defeated in a vote and the BBC have covered it as a mass walk out of shareholders, so maybe there was some logic in just getting up and walking out. In a way, the Mugabe analogy is pretty good, as Tsvangirai's actions certainly meant Mugabe only scored a hollow victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Sack Pearson for a nice, but out of his depth, Dutchman for starters. Never mind, our hungry young strikers will soon start scoring the 20 goals each that you predicted and that will cheer us up. ****. Did he sack pearson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Did he sack pearson? who knows, depends on who you ask. but one thing is certain he is not here and we have ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Did he sack pearson? Of course he did, it doesn't matter what you call it - sack/don't renew contract/mutually exclusived/gardening leaved. It all amounts to the same thing but with different levels of compo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Maybe. Personally, I reckon Tsvangirai was right to withdraw from the run-off with Mugabe too... A nice analogy. As with Mugabe, this leaves it as a hollow victory (and no I don't think Lowe is comparable with Mugabe, merely the situation has some similarities). Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty certain that Lowe, for all his sins, has not been having villages burned and citizens killed or maimed in order to ensure that they voted his way. I'm also reasonably confident that McMenemy and Corbett did not withdraw from the AGM in fear of the lives of more of the population, not to mention their own. Call me arrogant but I think it's a preposterous analogy, and more insulting to the people of Zimbabwe than it is to Rupert Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Did he sack pearson? perhaps pearson didnt actually want the job once he found out what the terms were? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Of course he did, it doesn't matter what you call it - sack/don't renew contract/mutually exclusived/gardening leaved. It all amounts to the same thing but with different levels of compo. Call it semantics if you like, but his contact had expired. What if Pearson chose not to take the new contract on offer? And if he had it wouldn't have been a universally welcomed appointment, for which RL would have been held responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 (edited) Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty certain that Lowe, for all his sins, has not been having villages burned and citizens killed or maimed in order to ensure that they voted his way. I'm also reasonably confident that McMenemy and Corbett did not withdraw from the AGM in fear of the lives of more of the population, not to mention their own. Call me arrogant but I think it's a preposterous analogy, and more insulting to the people of Zimbabwe than it is to Rupert Lowe. too true,the shareholders had an oppurtunity to register their feelings by not voting for lowe and didnt do it.even if it didnt look likely that lowe would be defeated it still would have sent a strong message to the fans and to lowe that he was not wanted,but now it looks as if lowe has more support than he truly has.a non vote is a wasted vote. to compare lowe with an african dictator is ridiculous,the shareholders had a choice and they chose not to vote,the people of zimbabwe didnt have a choice.....well they did but the alternative was death or torture,unless lowe did threaten that:-) Edited 23 December, 2008 by lordswoodsaints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 A nice analogy. As with Mugabe, this leaves it as a hollow victory (and no I don't think Lowe is comparable with Mugabe, merely the situation has some similarities). Don't quote me on this but I'm pretty certain that Lowe, for all his sins, has not been having villages burned and citizens killed or maimed in order to ensure that they voted his way. I'm also reasonably confident that McMenemy and Corbett did not withdraw from the AGM in fear of the lives of more of the population, not to mention their own. Call me arrogant but I think it's a preposterous analogy, and more insulting to the people of Zimbabwe than it is to Rupert Lowe. Well why don't you read the little caveat I put there just to make sure that idiots like you don't get on their sanctimonious high horses and ride off into the sunset. The situation of withdrawing from a vote sometimes has equal or even more less power than partaking in the vote, not that there are any similarities in the events and actions of Mugabe and Lowe:rolleyes::rolleyes: Santimonious me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Bravo to all those who walked out before voting began. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 **** you calling me an idiot. That is a bull**** caveat. There is no comparison whatsoever between SMS and Zimbabwe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 perhaps pearson didnt actually want the job once he found out what the terms were? Call it semantics if you like, but his contact had expired. Pearson went on holiday to Malta after sitting down with Lowe and thought he had the job. He had no problems with any of the terms, the use of youngsters or that players would have to be sold. And call it semantics but his contract had not expired. It had another year to run (at least, but I'll find out for sure later if you want), but what was in place was a break clause exerciseable by both sides. Lowe exercised this break clause as he wanted to bring in his own man. that's fine by me, and he will live or die by that decision, but let's not try and rewrite history and suggest pearson left for any other reason than Lowe (& Wilde) wanted their own man in to replace him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Of course Lowe will be able to bluster that he has 94.95% support, we all know clearly that it is only 94.95% of the votes actually cast, interesting of course that the actual numbers of votes cast are not published, since this would give lie to Lowe's bluster. Well blow me down with a feather. What Lowe should see is that he received almost 3 times as many against votes as Andrew Cowen. I was also pleased to see that even more people voted against Wilde than even Lowe, showing quite rightly who is the real person that should be removed from SFC. Interesting to note that Lowe decided not to involve the police with Chorley. Chorley shows himself to be a misguided idiot again, though the thought was quite clever, even if the execution was crassly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 **** you calling me an idiot. That is a bull**** caveat. There is no comparison whatsoever between SMS and Zimbabwe. And sanctimonious is your middle name right? As for being an idiot, well your reply confirms it pretty clearly from where I'm sat:rolleyes::rolleyes: You get on your high horse, yee-ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Absolutely. How anyone can deny that we needed to appoint Poortvliet and sign Pulis, Gasmi, Pekhart, Forecast, Smith, Robertson is beyond me. You get what you can afford basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 And sanctimonious is your middle name right? As for being an idiot, well your reply confirms it pretty clearly from where I'm sat:rolleyes::rolleyes: You get on your high horse, yee-ha! No wonder you have your fair share of arguments on here. Have a merry Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Pearson went on holiday to Malta after sitting down with Lowe and thought he had the job. He had no problems with any of the terms, the use of youngsters or that players would have to be sold. And call it semantics but his contract had not expired. It had another year to run (at least, but I'll find out for sure later if you want), but what was in place was a break clause exerciseable by both sides. Lowe exercised this break clause as he wanted to bring in his own man. that's fine by me, and he will live or die by that decision, but let's not try and rewrite history and suggest pearson left for any other reason than Lowe (& Wilde) wanted their own man in to replace him. im not trying to rewrite history as i dont know what went on between lowe and pearson,im just trying to throw a different perspective into the mix. perhaps the shackles were too tight for pearson and he had other options that were a lot less claustrophobic,but if you say he was sacked then that is fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hasper57saint Posted 23 December, 2008 Share Posted 23 December, 2008 Hang on a minute you Saints. An AGM for a Company the size of SLH is totally different to a Limited Company with few Members. Lowe and his co-horts don't just get 1 vote each. They get a vote for EACH SHARE they hold. Hence on the votes cast he received (I can't believe it!!!!) is the total of all the MAJOR shareholders cast on the night. OMO vote would mean he would lose out on a straight fight with Leon or Andrew Cowen. Funny old business this Capitalism. Tailor made to suit those with the largest assests. 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