Huffton Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 Apparently both were paid a not inconsiderable sum when they were turfed out the first time. Has a single penny of it been paid back, what withg the club being in such a poor financial state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 From memory I believe the accounts refer to total payments in respect of directors' terminations in the relevant period of £563,000. If anyone is inclined to check that, there are links to the figures on the OS somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huffton Posted 7 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 February, 2009 The accounts refer to total payments in respect of directors' terminations in the relevant period of £563,000. So quite a tidy sum then. Half a mil could do quite a bit for a club in the state we are in. So I ask again, has any of it been paid back now they have returned to power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 From memory I believe the accounts refer to total payments in respect of directors' terminations in the relevant period of £563,000. If anyone is inclined to check that, there are links to the figures on the OS somewhere. And, presumably, if they are 'terminated' again, they'll get another pay-off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 So quite a tidy sum then. Half a mil could do quite a bit for a club in the state we are in. So I ask again, has any of it been paid back now they have returned to power? It would be very unlikely if there was any obligation to pay it back.... therefore one might conclude it is very unlikely that any of it has been paid back. I have suggested in the past that, in my opinion, it would be nice if it could at least be loaned back to the club on favourable terms. That would also exhibit that the directors at least had a little faith in their own ability to make a positive impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 And, presumably, if they are 'terminated' again, they'll get another pay-off? Who knows? We have no idea what their contractual terms are. Well, I don't - does anyone else? It would be interesting to know if the previous payments were existing contractual entitlements or the result of a compromise agreement being reached as part of their resignation (don't forget, they would have been booted out at a shareholders' vote if they hadn't resigned, so their only compensation would have been any contracutal entitlement already due, had the vote gone ahead). It's true to say that it is unusual for high level employees to leave an organisation without some sort of compromise agreement (which will involve a payment being made) being put in place. It would, however, be poor governance for a company which is, at the public admission of the very directors in question, in perilous financial circumstances to offer lucrative service agreements to directors which could only be terminated on onerous terms. Isn't Lowe part-time though? And Cowan is a non-exec. It would be extraordinary if they were contractually entitled to a large pay-off now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 (edited) Lowe must have taken millions out of the club since he's been here. Wages, bonuses, dividends, pay-offs. Edited 7 February, 2009 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 You should probably edit the end of that methinks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 You should probably edit the end of that methinks.... Mainly because a very good point will get completely and utterly lost as everyone gets all hysterical about one comment.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 Point taken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 Did Crouch get any severance pay when he left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 point taken hth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 Lowe must have taken millions out of the club since he's been here. Wages, bonuses, dividends, pay-offs. Nah........leave it in, could make a good discussion point;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 Did Crouch get any severance pay when he left? In the year ended 30th June 2008 £600,000 was paid out for "Compensation for loss of office" with respect to directors. That year saw the departure of Hone, Hoos, Dulieu, Oldknow... etc. in addition to Crouch. Who got what is unknown (in the same way that Lowe and Cowen's share of the £563k is unknown). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Farmer Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 The share buy backs were a great idea from Lowe as well, firmed up his own (and the cabal's) share percentage and took funds out of the club. Well done Rupes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 Apparently both were paid a not inconsiderable sum when they were turfed out the first time. Has a single penny of it been paid back, what withg the club being in such a poor financial state? Irrespective of the club's financial position, if executive directors are ousted from a company and are entitled to a pay off, then unless there is any contractual obligation to do so, why would anyone pay the money back? I wonder how many people on here would actually pay back a huge some of money if they weren't legally obliged to do so? Answer, with the best will in the world, none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 Irrespective of the club's financial position, if executive directors are ousted from a company and are entitled to a pay off, then unless there is any contractual obligation to do so, why would anyone pay the money back? I wonder how many people on here would actually pay back a huge some of money if they weren't legally obliged to do so? Answer, with the best will in the world, none. When they were once again on the gravy train of the same company, which happens to be in serious finanical difficulty, and in which they were signifcant shareholders. I'm sure you're aware that companies turn to their shareholders for funding? It would, as I said above, at the very least be a public show of commitment and faith in their own ability if they offered an unsecured loan on a real-terms interest-free basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 When they were once again on the gravy train of the same company, which happens to be in serious finanical difficulty, and in which they were signifcant shareholders. I'm sure you're aware that companies turn to their shareholders for funding? It would, as I said above, at the very least be a public show of commitment and faith in their own ability if they offered an unsecured loan on a real-terms interest-free basis. Yes, that's fine and I take your point, but what I find a bit rich is that people are having a go when the chances are that given the same circumstances they would not put their hands in their pockets either. If I had half a million to "loan" to a PLC that was close to administration, I'd be a bit foolish to loan it when the chances are that I would lose it should administration actually happen. These guys may be well off compared with us, but they don't have the funds that Russian oil billionaires do and those sums are still significant to them. I would also hazard a guess to say that their return to the club is on very different terms from their last tenures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 Yes, that's fine and I take your point, but what I find a bit rich is that people are having a go when the chances are that given the same circumstances they would not put their hands in their pockets either. If I had half a million to "loan" to a PLC that was close to administration, I'd be a bit foolish to loan it when the chances are that I would lose it should administration actually happen. These guys may be well off compared with us, but they don't have the funds that Russian oil billionaires do and those sums are still significant to them. I would also hazard a guess to say that their return to the club is on very different terms from their last tenures Lowe could easily have resigned and left without a massive pay-off. And he could easily have returned without insisting on a wage (didn't Leon Crouch work unpaid?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 Lowe could easily have resigned and left without a massive pay-off. And he could easily have returned without insisting on a wage (didn't Leon Crouch work unpaid?). he could of..but he did what most people do and take a wage tragic I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 he could of..but he did what most people do and take a wage tragic I know But if hes going to take a wage,surely it wouldnt be too much to ask if he could do his job properly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 Lowe could easily have resigned and left without a massive pay-off. And he could easily have returned without insisting on a wage (didn't Leon Crouch work unpaid?). I'm sure he could, but he was under the impression that he was going to win at the EGM because Crouch was to vote for him, not against. As it was, Crouch changed his mind at the last minute. No-one is likely to resign if they feel they are going to be successful. I think people are looking for any excuse to have a go at Lowe and Cowen, but in this case, I would challenge anyone who has half a million in the bank to separate business from being a football fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 In the year ended 30th June 2008 £600,000 was paid out for "Compensation for loss of office" with respect to directors. That year saw the departure of Hone, Hoos, Dulieu, Oldknow... etc. in addition to Crouch. Who got what is unknown (in the same way that Lowe and Cowen's share of the £563k is unknown). Crickey :smt103............how many season tickets have to be sold to = £600,000 :-k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamesaint Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 Crickey :smt103............how many season tickets have to be sold to = £600,000 :-k ... and maybe we could have afforded a proper manager like Pearson without these payoffs. :-) :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 February, 2009 Share Posted 7 February, 2009 Yes, that's fine and I take your point, but what I find a bit rich is that people are having a go when the chances are that given the same circumstances they would not put their hands in their pockets either. If I had half a million to "loan" to a PLC that was close to administration, I'd be a bit foolish to loan it when the chances are that I would lose it should administration actually happen. These guys may be well off compared with us, but they don't have the funds that Russian oil billionaires do and those sums are still significant to them. I would also hazard a guess to say that their return to the club is on very different terms from their last tenures Generally, I do agree. Was playing devil's advocate to a certain extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 So quite a tidy sum then. Half a mil could do quite a bit for a club in the state we are in. So I ask again, has any of it been paid back now they have returned to power? Have any of the players, or managers who were responsible for getting us into this mess paid any of their wages back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 From memory I believe the accounts refer to total payments in respect of directors' terminations in the relevant period of £563,000. In the year ended 30th June 2008 £600,000 was paid out for "Compensation for loss of office" with respect to directors. That year saw the departure of Hone, Hoos, Dulieu, Oldknow... etc. in addition to Crouch. Who got what is unknown (in the same way that Lowe and Cowen's share of the £563k is unknown). It won't surprise you to know i've also mentioned Lowe and Cowens pay-off several times. It's disgusting that they took this money out of a club in dire need of money. It speaks volumes. If you combine the £563,000 and the £600,000 this means that Michael Wilde has cost the club £1.2 million in compensation alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 It won't surprise you to know i've also mentioned Lowe and Cowens pay-off several times. It's disgusting that they took this money out of a club in dire need of money. It speaks volumes. If you combine the £563,000 and the £600,000 this means that Michael Wilde has cost the club £1.2 million in compensation alone. 1. Its not disgusting, they were contractually entitled. I'm thinking we should ask Woolworths staff to pay back their wages on the basis that if they had't taken a wage the firm wouldn't have gone down. 2. Whgen Lowe and Cowen left, we were not in a financial mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 1. Its not disgusting, they were contractually entitled. I'm thinking we should ask Woolworths staff to pay back their wages on the basis that if they had't taken a wage the firm wouldn't have gone down. 2. Whgen Lowe and Cowen left, we were not in a financial mess. I say it's disgusting, you say it's not. Let's agree to disagree. In lieu of Lowe and Cowens windfall neither can complain about fans boycotting though, and neither can you given your stance. By boycotting i'm purposefully depriving the club of money - the same sentiment shown by Lowe and Cowen when they demanded their severance pay. If anyone is umming and arghing about Boycotting just consider how much Lowe and Cowen cared for the clubs finances when they took their payout. Do you really want to support the club to support them and their shareholding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 1. Its not disgusting, they were contractually entitled. I'm thinking we should ask Woolworths staff to pay back their wages on the basis that if they had't taken a wage the firm wouldn't have gone down. 2. Whgen Lowe and Cowen left, we were not in a financial mess. ????????????????????????????????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 2. Whgen Lowe and Cowen left, we were not in a financial mess. You cannot be serious ? The radio station and Insurance company were losing money hand over fist, it was, ironically, Wilde and co. who sold off/pulled the plug on those two turkeys. I am sure, given the type of man Lowe is, that IF he had paid back his severance pay we would have heard about it by now, if not via his own mouth through one of his media links ! Not bad is it, get a big pay off then two years later roll back into town !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 1. Its not disgusting, they were contractually entitled. I'm thinking we should ask Woolworths staff to pay back their wages on the basis that if they had't taken a wage the firm wouldn't have gone down. They were indeed entitled to their contractual pay offs and were duly paid up (as were Hone & Hoos etc) when they departed. Whether Directors who "fail" should receive these payments is a much wider argument, not just confined to SLH. But, IMHO, by taking these pay offs, both Lowe and Cowne surrendered any moral highground they may have had with regards trying to unite the CLub and they have also made it more difficult for them to be able to play the "Be Loyal" card to the supporters. After all, if things start to get really tough, who will respond to one of their calls to support the Club financially, when they have taken out a decnet six figure sum each. It would be akin to wheeling out Jason Euell in an attempt to get fans to support the Club financially! Nothing wrong contractually etc, but hardly likely to engender a spirit of unity and togetherness either. 2. Whgen Lowe and Cowen left, we were not in a financial mess. Behave yourself. In that first season down, we lost £9m cash out the door on normal operations and that was even after receiving a £7m one off parachute payment. To say we were not in a financial mess shows a very serious lack of appreciation of the situatin we found ourselves in post relegation. They left with a Club that had been holed below the waterline and one that needed to bounce straight back up if it was to avoid the financial meltdown endured by many other clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 Apparently both were paid a not inconsiderable sum when they were turfed out the first time. Has a single penny of it been paid back, what withg the club being in such a poor financial state? If so, were Crouch and co also paid severance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 (edited) If so, were Crouch and co also paid severance? Those that were paid executives of the club would certainly have got a severance payment,same as anyone else in any walk of life who is made redundant or has his contract revoked.As far as I know Crouch took no salary from the club and would therefore have got no payout.McMenemy is perhaps a different matter. Anyway the sums are in the accounts on each occasion.Not individualised of course, just the total. Edited 8 February, 2009 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 But, IMHO, by taking these pay offs, both Lowe and Cowne surrendered any moral highground they may have had with regards trying to unite the CLub and they have also made it more difficult for them to be able to play the "Be Loyal" card to the supporters. The only way this club will be united again is to be successful and start winning. If you can show me one person who, entitled to a significant some of money contractually when leaving an organisation would say "no, don't worry, I know you're up sh1t creek financially, please keep the money" then I'll show you a liar. The problem with Saintsweb is that the same arguments crop up day after day after day and have done for the last 2-3 years. On this particular issue, I'm not defending Lowe, nor Andrew Cowen, but merely looking at things from a business perspective and thinking what I would do in the same circumstances and it's all very well people trying to take the principled approach as fans, but life is not like that. By all means condemn the appointment of Poortvlieet and "revolutionary" coaching set up, but let's not be hypocrites where money is concerned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 You cannot be serious ? The radio station and Insurance company were losing money hand over fist, it was, ironically, Wilde and co. who sold off/pulled the plug on those two turkeys. I am sure, given the type of man Lowe is, that IF he had paid back his severance pay we would have heard about it by now, if not via his own mouth through one of his media links ! Not bad is it, get a big pay off then two years later roll back into town !! This is what really bugs.... made up stuff to support your outrage... What is this issue with Lowe and a wage and a compromise agreemnet for termination of his excutive contract? its legal and fair as we all have similar clauses in our own employment contracts - just because the figures seem higher than we coudl expect its only relative. With respect to teh radio staion and insurance - the insrance arm was not losing moeny, but nor was it a making any, it was a long term thing and is similar to schemes run at many other clubs....the radio staion was agian a long term thing and yes the club subsidised it to about £250k a year when in the prem, because it was considered that it would eventually generate revenue from additioanl advertising as well as providing a SERVICE to fans.... FFS slag Lowe for the feck ups, but at lesast stop at making up ****** .... otherwise your post lacks all credibilty. There are more fans on here who folk consider luvvies because they defend against the made up rubbish, that would be far more sympathetic to the 'Lowe's a moron' calls if fans stayed with the truth rather than making up rubbish every five minutes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jam Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 Those that we're paid executives of the club would certainly have got a severance payment,same as anyone else in any walk of life who is made redundant or has his contract revoked.As far as I know Crouch took no salary from the club and would therefore have got no payout.McMenemy is perhaps a different matter. Anyway the sums are in the accounts on each occasion.Not individualised of course, just the total. Shocking. After you pulled up poor old nickH about his spelling of definitely as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 Shocking. After you pulled up poor old nickH about his spelling of definitely as well... :smt022:smt022:smt022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 If you can show me one person who, entitled to a significant some of money contractually when leaving an organisation would say "no, don't worry, I know you're up sh1t creek financially, please keep the money" then I'll show you a liar. And as such I made that point absolutely clear. Lowe and Cowen were contractually entitled to that money and they did nothing wrong in taken that money for loss of office, as it was clearly their contractual entititlement. In the business world this happens all the time and people rarley blink an eye. However, this is a football club, and although people try and liken it to a "normal" everyday business, in many ways it is anything but "normal". Moast "normal" businesses don't rely on the loyalty in the way that football clubs do, most "normal" businesses don't end up looking to their supporters to help bail them out of trouble. By taking that money, I think Lowe and Cowen have put themselves in a very difficult position when they then start asking supporters to help out the Club financially by means of support, as supporters will quite rightly remember that they have taken some serious money out of the Club at a time when the Club was under immense financial pressure. By taking this money, however contractually and legally entitled to it they were, they have lost some of their ability to galvanise and unite this Club (that's if they have any left anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 And as such I made that point absolutely clear. Lowe and Cowen were contractually entitled to that money and they did nothing wrong in taken that money for loss of office, as it was clearly their contractual entititlement. In the business world this happens all the time and people rarley blink an eye. However, this is a football club, and although people try and liken it to a "normal" everyday business, in many ways it is anything but "normal". Moast "normal" businesses don't rely on the loyalty in the way that football clubs do, most "normal" businesses don't end up looking to their supporters to help bail them out of trouble. By taking that money, I think Lowe and Cowen have put themselves in a very difficult position when they then start asking supporters to help out the Club financially by means of support, as supporters will quite rightly remember that they have taken some serious money out of the Club at a time when the Club was under immense financial pressure. By taking this money, however contractually and legally entitled to it they were, they have lost some of their ability to galvanise and unite this Club (that's if they have any left anyway). Anyway Lowe's and Cowan's payoffs pale into insignificance when compared to the pay-offs we've had to make to bad managers in the recent past. How much do you think we had to give to Dodd and Gorman or Gray or Wiggley or Sturrock. I seem to rember that the total bandied about for Gray and his "assistant" was well over 2 million £. Lowe error of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 If you can show me one person who, entitled to a significant some of money contractually when leaving an organisation would say "no, don't worry, I know you're up sh1t creek financially, please keep the money" then I'll show you a liar. On this particular issue, I'm not defending Lowe, nor Andrew Cowen, but merely looking at things from a business perspective and thinking what I would do in the same circumstances and it's all very well people trying to take the principled approach as fans, but life is not like that. By all means condemn the appointment of Poortvlieet and "revolutionary" coaching set up, but let's not be hypocrites where money is concerned Didn't Crouch work for nothing last season? If so, this proves there are people who'll put the Club and it's financial problems ahead of personal gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 Didn't Crouch work for nothing last season? If so, this proves there are people who'll put the Club and it's financial problems ahead of personal gain. To be honest I don't know if that is true or not, but I'm referring specifically to the people on here who condemn without first putting themselves in the same situation. Crouch is very good at saying he'll put up large sums of money, but has he ever actually put in the mythical £2 million? I'm not having a go at Crouch per se, but it's very easy to make yourself look good against an unpopular regime and in this case without any kind of payment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingpong Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 we weren't in such a mess when lowe left - otherwise how did we spend 7mill on players when wilde came in? and how could we afford to pay lawrie so much just for some PR? if you look at money wastage over the last few years, lowe's payoff is small fry compared to the irresponsibility of the early wilde months where we spent freely on stuff like LM and expanding wilde's seat, redecorating the boardrooms, buying average players at high cost etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 the radio staion was agian a long term thing and yes the club subsidised it to about £250k a year when in the prem' date=' because it was considered that it would eventually generate revenue from additioanl advertising as well as providing a SERVICE to fans.... FFS slag Lowe for the feck ups, but at lesast stop at making up ****** .... otherwise your post lacks all credibilty.[/quote'] The poster was contesting the flawed claim that Lowe and co. did not leave the Club in a financial mess, something which he was quite right to do. And to help he do so, he highlighted a couple of areas which augmented his argument that we were not financially sound when they walked away. The radio station cost the Club a serious amount of money from day one, particularly when you add in the purchase price and the losses that drained money from the Club. Quite simply, it was a poor financial decision from day one and something that never contributed to the Club. It was never intended to be a subsidised service to the fans, instead it when we acquired 100% of the service it was trumpeted that it was going to be a "significant revenue generator for the club" (they just never forgot to mention that it would also be a significant COST generator for the club). What is wrong with this poster highlighting one area to show that we were not as financially robust as some like to claim (If you want us to list all the other problems as well, then I'm sure that between us we could do that!)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 Anyway Lowe's and Cowan's payoffs pale into insignificance when compared to the pay-offs we've had to make to bad managers in the recent past. How much do you think we had to give to Dodd and Gorman or Gray or Wiggley or Sturrock. I seem to rember that the total bandied about for Gray and his "assistant" was well over 2 million £. Lowe error of course. I agree, but I very much doubt any of those will be overseeing any future drives to try and get fans to contribute to the Club's survival. I have no problems with their pay offs per se, but I do have a worry that in taking the money and then returning, Lowe and Cowen will have lost the ability to galavanise the Club and it's supporters in it's hour of need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 we weren't in such a mess when lowe left . In which case you clearly know nothing relating to the financing of football clubs, and particularly the case at Saints. We are not immune to this, and there have been a number of clubs who have also fallen foul of the fallout from relegation, but if you think we weren't in such a mess when Lowe left, then you're probably thinking things are hunky dorey now as well. (After all, we didn't know where the next penny was coming from!!!!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 I agree with you Um and what concerns me even more is the thought that they'll take a second payout when they're removed a second time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 what about LM and Keith Wiseman doing the same as they sold their shares? Did LC get severance pay? how about every footballer who has left the club after taking loyalty bonusses.It goes on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 I agree, but I very much doubt any of those will be overseeing any future drives to try and get fans to contribute to the Club's survival. I have no problems with their pay offs per se, but I do have a worry that in taking the money and then returning, Lowe and Cowen will have lost the ability to galavanise the Club and it's supporters in it's hour of need. Anyway it would seem to me that only one thing will galvanise the support base. 2 straight wins in the immediate future. Remember the mood swing when we went and beat Reading at the Madjeski. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 8 February, 2009 Share Posted 8 February, 2009 I agree with you Um and what concerns me even more is the thought that they'll take a second payout when they're removed a second time! As they're only on part time salaries and haven't been back long the figure would be insignificant. Probably wouldn't pay Jason Euell for a month. 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