um pahars Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 Understand that the statistic that last years players/coaches wages amounted to 81% of Turnover got a mention yesterday, so any feedback would be good to hear about. Considering this was the biggest stick that Lowe was beating the previous regime with, would like to know exactly what David Jones' reply was (considering he was an integral part of the previous regime)?? I understand Jones made mention that this 81% was manageable and a one off that would have naturally diminished when some big contracts would come to an end (third hand there of course), but that's not really how Lowe would have appeared to have viewed it. Also understand SISU and other factors were mentioned by Jones as justification, so are Lowe and his FD at odds over how crucial the 81% figure is/was????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 I know that sounds high, but other than the stadium mortgage what else has to come otu of the 19%? Whatever it is it added up to a £1.2m loss every month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 ..I understand Jones made mention that this 81% was manageable and a one off that would have naturally diminished when some big contracts would come to an end (third hand there of course), but that's not really how Lowe would have appeared to have viewed it... Interesting - so Lowe could look the saviour with much less effort than he has implied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 Understand that the statistic that last years players/coaches wages amounted to 81% of Turnover got a mention yesterday, so any feedback would be good to hear about. Considering this was the biggest stick that Lowe was beating the previous regime with, would like to know exactly what David Jones' reply was (considering he was an integral part of the previous regime)?? I understand Jones made mention that this 81% was manageable and a one off that would have naturally diminished when some big contracts would come to an end (third hand there of course), but that's not really how Lowe would have appeared to have viewed it. Also understand SISU and other factors were mentioned by Jones as justification, so are Lowe and his FD at odds over how crucial the 81% figure is/was????? Um i actually believe that Rupert is painting as black as picture as possible to boost his ego when the half year accounts early next year show a remarkable improvement, obviously down to his policies. I suspect Jones will be hauled over the coals for stating that the 81% was a blip and that 2009 will bebetter becuse of the number of senior pros out of contract on 30 June 2008. The Echo lists the players he mentioned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 It is interesting that Lowe, if I remember correctly, questioned the directors' compliance with their fiduciary duties before his return. Surely Jones shouldn't have been exempt from this criticism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 Let's be fair they are going to put a different emphasis and spin on it. Lowe will push the 81% as unsustainable and shows why he needed to come back to stabilise financially. Jones, who is part of the 81% problem is saying it was done to push for promotion the season before last and then to add to the momentum the following season after the near miss promotion. He says the contracts for the "big" players were short term and end at the end of this season so not an ongoing problem. Spin, spin, spin but that happens in all walks of life now. It is the unacceptable norm but is wasted on the more intellegent who can see through it all. But there are so many more who don't and it is aimed at them It even happens on TSW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 24 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 24 December, 2008 It is interesting that Lowe, if I remember correctly, questioned the directors' compliance with their fiduciary duties before his return. Surely Jones shouldn't have been exempt from this criticism? Indeed, he was still a Director of the PLC and was under the same fiduciary responsibilities. Any criticism of the previous regimes must therefore also be a criticism of Jones. And that's what I'm trying to find out about, because the feedback I got was that Jones was defending the 81% figure, whilst Lowe has been using it as his main thrust of attack on the previous regime. Has the Echo got the full transcript of this piece of the AGM??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 Indeed, he was still a Director of the PLC and was under the same fiduciary responsibilities. Any criticism of the previous regimes must therefore also be a criticism of Jones. And that's what I'm trying to find out about, because the feedback I got was that Jones was defending the 81% figure, whilst Lowe has been using it as his main thrust of attack on the previous regime. Has the Echo got the full transcript of this piece of the AGM??? not sure if it is full transcript. rupert is full of two faced attacks, Jones and Wilde were all part of problem time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 24 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 24 December, 2008 There's a bit in todays Telegraph that says: He (Lowe) has since stinging in is criticisms of his predecessors, claiming they abused thier "fiduciary duty" by allowing the wage bill to spiral to 81% of the club's turnover Now with Jones a PLC Director at this time, then the accusation that their fiduciary duty was abused has to be levelled at him as well. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/championship/southampton/3919594/Supporter-throws-coins-at-Southampton-chairman-Rupert-Lowe.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 With gates down by a third, I doubt if wages are down that much, so wages could be a higher percentage of turnover than the previous regimes imo. Would like more info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 IF...81% of the turnover on wages was/is true....then that proves whoever was responsible s not fit to run the club either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelkel31 Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 its big spin really, the wages would have been generated in the playoff season, when average attendances were closer to 25k, and therefore would not have been anywhere near 81% at that time. its only due to the team failing to produce that kind of form, and the attendances drastically lowering that would generate the 81% of turnover. if anyone could have predicted that after the playoff we would not have continued to overacheive then we wouldnt be in this mess in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_John Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 Indeed, he was still a Director of the PLC and was under the same fiduciary responsibilities. Any criticism of the previous regimes must therefore also be a criticism of Jones. And that's what I'm trying to find out about, because the feedback I got was that Jones was defending the 81% figure, whilst Lowe has been using it as his main thrust of attack on the previous regime. Has the Echo got the full transcript of this piece of the AGM??? The Echo says DJ said :- "We do forward forecast and the player wage bill was 81 per cent in June 08 but, with Claus, Makin, Jesus, Idiakez, Licka and Jermaine out of contract, the player wage bill was an artificial blip ......" In other words that 81% assumes we would have renewed all those players contracts at the end of June 08. I was at the meeting yesterday and I would just like to say I cannot believe anybody can support a man who is so OUT OF TOUCH with the real world. Waving a piece of paper and some of the other totally mental ramblings that lowe came out with should show everyone that he is in no fit state to run our club. Rupert is so far up his own ego it is unbelievable, he make a complete fool of himself yesterday IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 if anyone could have predicted that after the playoff we would not have continued to overacheive then we wouldnt be in this mess in the first place. i think any sane person would have predicted loss of form/players after the playoff season down to the very fact the parachute payments were stopping.. this place was full of IDIOTS claiming the CCC was fair and exciting when it was not fair at all seeing as we HAD parachute payments and others did not... there was infact a few of us who tried to highlight the real CCC and got laughed at and told to shut the **** up.... now we all know the real CCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gully Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 With gates down by a third, I doubt if wages are down that much, so wages could be a higher percentage of turnover than the previous regimes imo. Would like more info. Tbf, its likely they've fallen by more then a third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 Tbf, its likely they've fallen by more then a third. Probably halved, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 24 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 24 December, 2008 The Echo says DJ said :- "We do forward forecast and the player wage bill was 81 per cent in June 08 but, with Claus, Makin, Jesus, Idiakez, Licka and Jermaine out of contract, the player wage bill was an artificial blip ......" So Jones is telling everyone at the AGM that this figure was a mere artificial blip, whilst Lowe continues to use this 81% figure as a stick to beat previous regimes with. Any wonder why there is a total loss of confidence in those running the Club at the moment. Right arm left arm:rolleyes::rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 So Jones is telling everyone at the AGM that this figure was a mere artificial blip, whilst Lowe continues to use this 81% figure as a stick to beat previous regimes with. Any wonder why there is a total loss of confidence in those running the Club at the moment. Right arm left arm:rolleyes::rolleyes: fair pointl...but what about the fact that it was at 81% in the first place....sheer lunacy all round I reckon.. shows NONE are fit to run the club.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 Surely it's about time David Jones took some responsiblity, if it's not the finance director's job to look after the finances then I don't know who's it is. He appears to be just interested in sving his own bacon, sucking the ass of whoever has the power - didn'yt he even side with the useless execs while they bankrupted the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 December, 2008 Share Posted 24 December, 2008 Surely it's about time David Jones took some responsiblity, if it's not the finance director's job to look after the finances then I don't know who's it is. He appears to be just interested in sving his own bacon, sucking the ass of whoever has the power - didn'yt he even side with the useless execs while they bankrupted the club? I think he does...does he not say he takes his share of the blame and offered to step down when wilde came in...? he was asked to stay on..? (i think that's what it says anyway).. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 24 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 24 December, 2008 fair pointl...but what about the fact that it was at 81% in the first place....sheer lunacy all round I reckon.. shows NONE are fit to run the club.. Well it all depends on who you believe. Lowe thinks it was lunacy and Jones thinks it was a manageable blip. Who do you believe????? What was shown from that transcrpt is that Crouch was up for implementing a Plan B, yet the Execs (inc Jones) went for another route. Maybe Lowe's rants about the 81% would be be better directed at a) The Finance Director sat next to him, and b) His football club chairman who headhunted the executive team. Then the three of them can argue as to whether it was lunacy or an artificial blip. 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