Rupert in The Times...

[Summers]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/movers_and_shakers/article6031890.ece

 

Balanced start to the argument, could argue that basically he was a pillock to change his spots and side with Wilde, but then the article begin to lick his arse. But just remember we are just trying to look at facts.

 

Interestingly he mentions Barclays and what's happened.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

In the Telegraph we have not only the o-so-predictable 'it's not my fault' argument that will convince few on here but also the welcome news that our former chairman will definitely not be making a bid to buy the club off the Administrator - thank Christ for that I hear you say .

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/championship/southampton/5102649/Former-Southampton-chairman-Rupert-Lowe-claims-the-high-ground.html

Edited 4 April, 2009 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Gingeletiss]

Love this bit:-

 

 

Father-of-four Mr Lowe, 51, was educated at Oxford's exclusive Dragon School and the equally exclusive Radley College before studying estates management at Reading University. From there he enjoyed a successful City career, working as a futures trader at Morgan Grenfell, the investment bank, and its later owner Deutsche Bank. A former colleague recalls: “He was great fun. Full of energy - but a bit of an unguided missile.”

 

Um!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;)

 

There's more:rolleyes:

 

One City source says: “Lowe has run a very tight ship, financially, he is very astute, but he had a tendancy to do odd things. He is not very good at listening to people.”

 

No sh1t Einstein:)

[WestSaint]

I seems to me that Rupert believes that the best form of defence is attack. Lets not forget the Company has gone into administration under his stewardship and that is what the records will always show.

[Wopper]

What a mug you are Rupert.

[Johnny Bognor]

There's nothing like going quietly is there?

[Alain Perrin]

In fairness I think that is a reasonably balanced article. I know I would say that, but it shows the good and the bad of RL (without the emotion that colours our judgement as Saints fans..

[sidthesquid]

Matters got more difficult when, having agreed a facility with Barclays, Southampton's management were summoned to the bank's head office in London's Canary Wharf last September, where they were told that the facility was being cut to £4 million.

 

Mr Lowe says: “We told them this would make life very difficult. It has forced us to cut costs. It has meant that, this season, our first team has largely comprised many of our young academy players, plus a few seasoned old professionals.”

 

However, The Times has seen a draft of Southampton's results for the six months to the end of December, which bear out Mr Lowe's claim that the club was being restored to a sounder financial footing. Operating losses were slashed from £7.3 million to £3.3 million despite an 11 per cent drop in the company's revenues.

 

I know the Lowe-haters will ignore the above two quotes, but interesting nonetheless. Barclays really do seem like a bunch of bankers, don't they? And his desire to play youngsters, freeze out the old pros & have cheap manager make a little more sense - ie, I don't think he had a choice

[Mustapha Fag]

Matters got more difficult when, having agreed a facility with Barclays, Southampton's management were summoned to the bank's head office in London's Canary Wharf last September, where they were told that the facility was being cut to £4 million.

 

 

Might be my imagination Sid but wasnt the magnificent dutch revolution and the decision to use mainly youth players taken way before September?

[Professor]

Might be my imagination Sid but wasnt the magnificent dutch revolution and the decision to use mainly youth players taken way before September?

Yes, of course it was, but it didn't take the bank to tell the new board when they took over that the club was deep in debt and running at a huge loss. Quite a shock, given that it held been left in a healthy finacial position two years earlier. From the information now available it ishould be obvious to anyone, except a dedicated 'Lowe-hater' that those decisions to cut costs by saving money on the manager, selling players with value and with high wages, and reducing running costs by playing young players, had to be taken. The fault since then clearly lies with Barclays for failing to acknowledge those cost cutting steps and by putting even more pressure on the club by talking about 'targets' that were simply incompatible. The bank say they expected the board to make more player sales, increase income and raise attendances. To do all three would be impossible since more player sales would have made relegation even more certain and gates would have fallen even more. To find that the bank had expected that is incredible. The club's overdraft is not even a large amount of money. You only have to compare it to the salaries and bonus's of just one Barclay's director, to see how the bank's actions are totally outrageous.

[Channon's Sideburns]

Yes, of course it was, but it didn't take the bank to tell the new board when they took over that the club was deep in debt and running at a huge loss. Quite a shock, given that it held been left in a healthy finacial position two years earlier. From the information now available it ishould be obvious to anyone, except a dedicated 'Lowe-hater' that those decisions to cut costs by saving money on the manager, selling players with value and with high wages, and reducing running costs by playing young players, had to be taken. The fault since then clearly lies with Barclays for failing to acknowledge those cost cutting steps and by putting even more pressure on the club by talking about 'targets' that were simply incompatible. The bank say they expected the board to make more player sales, increase income and raise attendances. To do all three would be impossible since more player sales would have made relegation even more certain and gates would have fallen even more. To find that the bank had expected that is incredible. The club's overdraft is not even a large amount of money. You only have to compare it to the salaries and bonus's of just one Barclay's director, to see how the bank's actions are totally outrageous.

 

 

Agreed re Barclays but isn't it a little presumptious to think that ONLY Lowe was going to make those tough decisions??

[LostBoys]

It appears to me that Mr Lowe promised far more than he could deliver to Barclays and thereby lost credibility with them. I consider that he genuinely thought that his very risky strategy of a dutch revolution would work, ignoring the adage that you win nothing with youngsters because unfortunately he always considered he was always THE expert on football matters.

 

I do not blame him for the entire drop in attendances this season but his persistent alienation of the fans who he never recognised as customers with a choice, is partly attributable. Due to the extreme circumstances we may have a doubling of attendances until the end of the season and he and his cabal will be damned as a result and on balance as his failures totally outstrip any successes, rightly so.

[70's Mike]

Yes, of course it was, but it didn't take the bank to tell the new board when they took over that the club was deep in debt and running at a huge loss. Quite a shock, given that it held been left in a healthy finacial position two years earlier. From the information now available it ishould be obvious to anyone, except a dedicated 'Lowe-hater' that those decisions to cut costs by saving money on the manager, selling players with value and with high wages, and reducing running costs by playing young players, had to be taken. The fault since then clearly lies with Barclays for failing to acknowledge those cost cutting steps and by putting even more pressure on the club by talking about 'targets' that were simply incompatible. The bank say they expected the board to make more player sales, increase income and raise attendances. To do all three would be impossible since more player sales would have made relegation even more certain and gates would have fallen even more. To find that the bank had expected that is incredible. The club's overdraft is not even a large amount of money. You only have to compare it to the salaries and bonus's of just one Barclay's director, to see how the bank's actions are totally outrageous.

 

 

the issue is that £4m was not a big overdraft when we had a turnover of £40m but it is when turnover had dropped too todays levels.

but i agree barclays seem a little premature in cutting us a drift

[SaintRobbie]

The man's history, bad history.

 

We know he's a fake, a liar, incompetent and knows nothing about the job he's been doing in football. He's gone.

 

Lets move on now.

[OldNick]

Agreed re Barclays but isn't it a little presumptious to think that ONLY Lowe was going to make those tough decisions??

I think that is fair CS.Perhaps LC would have but Im a little unsure whether he would have liked to be that unpopular to do those unsavoury thigns that would have had the fans on his back.The point is we are now seeing a clearer picture and SOMEof Lowes strategy can be seen to be correct.

To me it was in a financial sense a very good effort cutting those overheads to such a degree. I dont expect the more rabid antis to take it in but at least now we can see why it was all happening.

[70's Mike]

I think that is fair CS.Perhaps LC would have but Im a little unsure whether he would have liked to be that unpopular to do those unsavoury thigns that would have had the fans on his back.The point is we are now seeing a clearer picture and SOMEof Lowes strategy can be seen to be correct.

To me it was in a financial sense a very good effort cutting those overheads to such a degree. I dont expect the more rabid antis to take it in but at least now we can see why it was all happening.

 

 

i think that very few actually disagreed that we needed to cut costs , the disagreements came from how we chose to spend what we had, exactly as it was in 2003.

all football clubs ultimately require a successful first team and definitely one that wins at home to be financially stable imo rupert only ever looked at the cost savings he appears to have ignored the income generation side of the equation

[OldNick]

i think that very few actually disagreed that we needed to cut costs , the disagreements came from how we chose to spend what we had, exactly as it was in 2003.

all football clubs ultimately require a successful first team and definitely one that wins at home to be financially stable imo rupert only ever looked at the cost savings he appears to have ignored the income generation side of the equation

i agree Mike but you cannot guarentee an improvement of income on the basis that the first team may string some wins together. Yes had we kept NP and some of the high ly paid players we may have won a few more games and perhaps more fans would have come in through the gates.By making definite cuts the bank would have been eased and so supported us(HIndsight shows differently) To me I think the only way forward for clubs in the lower leagues is that you have to start at very low cost base and then develop from there. Lowe did that job well but his decision to employ the wrong man of the 2 was our downfall.Again in hindsight , had he put Wotte in charge we may have won more games and so the crowds would have improved.I agree there are some who wouldnt go whatever but you cant spend your life in business just appeasing a few, as you then would have to appease those who were not going for other reasons.The core business waws to get the club on a sound footing and it surprises me that he had shown the bank that he had slashed costs.I can only assume he got up one of the bank managers noses(no surprise) and so they pulled the plug.It still was not a clever thing to do.I wish my business was with them as id move banks in protest.

[ribbo]

well that explains a small part of the gardening leave for 1 of our coachs, he wasnt paid. It also shows the boom or bust mentality when he left in2006 that cost us big, i can understand him being slightly annoyed at that, wouldnt you?

 

very balenced article, though, shows him in both lights a pompus twit who annoys far too many people and a careful scrough with the coffers who was afraid to kick on after the FAcup final.

[ottery st mary]

i agree Mike but you cannot guarentee an improvement of income on the basis that the first team may string some wins together. Yes had we kept NP and some of the high ly paid players we may have won a few more games and perhaps more fans would have come in through the gates.By making definite cuts the bank would have been eased and so supported us(HIndsight shows differently) To me I think the only way forward for clubs in the lower leagues is that you have to start at very low cost base and then develop from there. Lowe did that job well but his decision to employ the wrong man of the 2 was our downfall.Again in hindsight , had he put Wotte in charge we may have won more games and so the crowds would have improved.I agree there are some who wouldnt go whatever but you cant spend your life in business just appeasing a few, as you then would have to appease those who were not going for other reasons.The core business waws to get the club on a sound footing and it surprises me that he had shown the bank that he had slashed costs.I can only assume he got up one of the bank managers noses(no surprise) and so they pulled the plug.It still was not a clever thing to do.I wish my business was with them as id move banks in protest.

 

Rupert is an idiot and always has been.:mad: No matter how you gloss over it and blame fans..He did this to Southampton and most are glad he has gone..Get over yourself and forget him IF you can.:smt049..Saints will survive and Rupert will long be forgotten when we climb back up the league table..Rember Non football fans him and his little group and very much Failed businessmen..Hopefully his little group have left as well.

[Channon's Sideburns]

well that explains a small part of the gardening leave for 1 of our coachs, he wasnt paid. It also shows the boom or bust mentality when he left in2006 that cost us big, i can understand him being slightly annoyed at that, wouldnt you?

 

very balenced article, though, shows him in both lights a pompus twit who annoys far too many people and a careful scrough with the coffers who was afraid to kick on after the FAcup final.

 

But if that was recent...it would have been Keith Granger not paid, not Webster.

[glkdcdes]

I think that is fair CS.Perhaps LC would have but Im a little unsure whether he would have liked to be that unpopular to do those unsavoury thigns that would have had the fans on his back.The point is we are now seeing a clearer picture and SOMEof Lowes strategy can be seen to be correct.

To me it was in a financial sense a very good effort cutting those overheads to such a degree. I dont expect the more rabid antis to take it in but at least now we can see why it was all happening.

 

Nickh, you try so hard[sometimes to hard] to be balanced and that is fair enough, but as one of the rabid Lowe antis, i have to say that for us not to take in the correctness of Lowes strategy and efforts in cutting costs is slightly patronising and missing the point.

 

My reason for detesting Lowe is nothing to do with his financial or management acumen. It is because he is an egotist of the worst kind, self serving and self publicising. He is a man with no soul, i believe he is in many ways dishonest and certainly self deluding.[ see his latest proclamations of self righteous words in the press over the last few days.] As a character he is inpenetrable and i detest the fact that with the damage he has done to our club that he will never come within a mile of understanding his part.

 

Some people are innately loveable. Lowe is the opposite.

 

Any one may list, as he will the good things he may have done over the years for the club and no doubt he has had in his mind good intentions, but weighing all these with the terrible errors he has made, with the appalling character that he is, unfortunately i find him guilty of staining the history of our club.

 

All this now is history as he has now gone. All i say is good riddance and at last we can continue our journey with the hope that things can never be as bad again.

[um pahars]

But if that was recent...it would have been Keith Granger not paid' date=' not Webster.[/quote']

 

I understand Webster is still on gardening leave so we would still be paying him (or not as was the case the other week).

[um pahars]

well that explains a small part of the gardening leave for 1 of our coachs, he wasnt paid. It also shows the boom or bust mentality when he left in2006 that cost us big, i can understand him being slightly annoyed at that, wouldnt you?

 

Webster was appointed by Lowe, who must have paid off Coles for Webster to come in and who is still being paid after I understand Lowe turned down Webster's request to get off the payroll and go to Ipswich last summer.

[OldNick]

Nickh, you try so hard[sometimes to hard] to be balanced and that is fair enough, but as one of the rabid Lowe antis, i have to say that for us not to take in the correctness of Lowes strategy and efforts in cutting costs is slightly patronising and missing the point.

 

My reason for detesting Lowe is nothing to do with his financial or management acumen. It is because he is an egotist of the worst kind, self serving and self publicising. He is a man with no soul, i believe he is in many ways dishonest and certainly self deluding.[ see his latest proclamations of self righteous words in the press over the last few days.] As a character he is inpenetrable and i detest the fact that with the damage he has done to our club that he will never come within a mile of understanding his part.

 

Some people are innately loveable. Lowe is the opposite.

 

Any one may list, as he will the good things he may have done over the years for the club and no doubt he has had in his mind good intentions, but weighing all these with the terrible errors he has made, with the appalling character that he is, unfortunately i find him guilty of staining the history of our club.

 

All this now is history as he has now gone. All i say is good riddance and at last we can continue our journey with the hope that things can never be as bad again.

I have never met him but I agree he is a most unlovable type of character.No humour no charm that I can see. He ios the target of the fans ire and as the frontman I can see why but as with the Wilde bunch we have been duped because the people who really are responsible were still sitting in the directors box yesterday.It sickens me, these people who were there before Lowe who were the people who invited Lowes overtures and made a killing, Although now some have not walked away with much, but as they are still there how do we know what deal has been struck up prior to Admin, think Freddie Goodwin!!!

Yes the face has gone but not the cynical users.

I supported Lowe for his financial sense not for his mangerial decisons where some were good some were OK some were awful.

[SaintRobbie]

I supported Lowe for his financial sense .

 

Unlike the professionals at Barclays Bank who effectively sacked him at the first opportunity when it was demonstrated he had no financial sense.

 

Lowe's 'financial sense' was and is a myth. He's all-round bluff. A failure and a loser.

 

He's gone.

 

There's now hope.

[um pahars]

I supported Lowe for his financial sense

 

Look around you nickh, we're in administration!!!!

 

His financial sense has been found to be as wanting as his footbal sense.

[OldNick]

Look around you nickh, we're in administration!!!!

 

His financial sense has been found to be as wanting as his footbal sense.

The arguement why we are is yet to be fully uncovered.On the face of it yes you are right as we have gone into administration.Only when we see the facts and figures will we be able to learn more.

[Legod Third Coming]

The arguement why we are is yet to be fully uncovered.On the face of it yes you are right as we have gone into administration.Only when we see the facts and figures will we be able to learn more.

 

Nick, i like you. But it's like you are denying the holocaust. With so much evidence what more do you need to see.

 

Lowe took from the club from day one. He claims he was not resposnible for the debt, but 90% of the debt is a mortgage on a stadium...

 

Ask yourself what the following has cost us:

 

A radio station

Manager payoffs

Share dividends and buybacks

Director salaries

Clive Woodward

EGMs

Change in plc status

 

Oh and

 

RELEGATION - TWICE!!!!

[OldNick]

Nick, i like you. But it's like you are denying the holocaust. With so much evidence what more do you need to see.

 

Lowe took from the club from day one. He claims he was not resposnible for the debt, but 90% of the debt is a mortgage on a stadium...

 

Ask yourself what the following has cost us:

 

A radio station

Manager payoffs

Share dividends and buybacks

Director salaries

Clive Woodward

EGMs

Change in plc status

 

Oh and

 

RELEGATION - TWICE!!!!

Fair points but it is easy to pick out the bad (there is a lot of it to choose from)I myself will not criticise the radio station.I liked the thought of pro saints stuff being broadcast and there would have been invisible earnings from that.At that stage we had good income and it was forward thinking.I know how Id feel if it was Pompey radio broadcasting over us.The managerr payoffs of course were expensive but the manager turnaround was not down just to RL.We had some who started the rot by leaving us.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Fair points but it is easy to pick out the bad (there is a lot of it to choose from)I myself will not criticise the radio station.I liked the thought of pro saints stuff being broadcast and there would have been invisible earnings from that.At that stage we had good income and it was forward thinking.I know how Id feel if it was Pompey radio broadcasting over us.The managerr payoffs of course were expensive but the manager turnaround was not down just to RL.We had some who started the rot by leaving us.

 

As you say we had good income but he wasted it on a radio station,an insurance scheme

while sanctioning only enough money for very little

improvement to the playing squad...

We stood still and the rest of the premier league overtook us...

 

Yet Lowe will not even accept a shred of responsiblity for any of it...

 

Good riddance to bad rubbish!!

[Legod Third Coming]

As you say we had good income but he wasted it on a radio station,an insurance scheme

while sanctioning only enough money for very little

improvement to the playing squad...

We stood still and the rest of the premier league overtook us...

 

Yet Lowe will not even accept a shred of responsiblity for any of it...

 

Good riddance to bad rubbish!!

 

And for me, this is why he should be hounded from Hampshire for good.

 

He cannot look a single fan in the eye and apologise. He's like Brown.

 

"I built the stadium" he claims. I bet he couldn't name a trowel in a line-up of kitchen utensils!!!

 

Rupert. You did some good. You did some harm - and latterly more of that than good. But you never once appreciated that there are two assets you had at your disposal, totally overlooking their contributions - your people and the fans.

 

Be honest with yourself old chum or else your life is destined to be wasted.

[Gingeletiss]

I'm afraid chaps, that where nickh is concerned, you are banging your head against a brick wall. He will not be swayed, no matter the evidence against Lowe, nick's in love, it's that simple.

[The Rover]

Has anyone else seen this crap in today's Sunday Times for Rod Liddle who I assume must be a Chelsea or Man U supporter?

 

Cash-strapped Saints should go for broke

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/rod_liddle/article6036576.ece

[St Paul]

The fact we went into admin over such a small amount shows just what tin pots Wilde and Lowe were. £100,000, that's £50,000 each. I think crouch would have paid out of his own pocket. Once last Thursday's deadline passed we should have done whatever we could to get to the end of the season. If anyone thinks we're not heading for -10, they're seriously deluded. Football is littered with examples of where directors have bailed Clubs out with loans, and donations to help Clubs. Lowe was paid an graet deal of money by SLH over the years, the fact we went into admin over £100,000 sticks in the throat.

[aintforever]

The fact we went into admin over such a small amount shows just what tin pots Wilde and Lowe were. £100,000, that's £50,000 each. I think crouch would have paid out of his own pocket. Once last Thursday's deadline passed we should have done whatever we could to get to the end of the season. If anyone thinks we're not heading for -10, they're seriously deluded. Football is littered with examples of where directors have bailed Clubs out with loans, and donations to help Clubs. Lowe was paid an graet deal of money by SLH over the years, the fact we went into admin over £100,000 sticks in the throat.

 

Exactly, I still want to know why they didn't put us in admin before last Thursday's deadline?

 

It was either very bad management or done out of spite, either way it has ****ed us up good and proper.