| Rupert Lowe in today's rag... on 23:54 - Feb 9 with 1091 views | TripleNiemi |
| Rupert Lowe in today's rag... on 21:55 - Feb 9 by SaintNick |
Sorry but you really do need to read up on a subject before spouting off on it.
Lowe was not a board member when the reverse takeover happened, he arrived at the Dell as part of that reverse takeover and yes he did benefit, but he unlike several other so called local businessmen who did benefit did so as a business opportunity for himself, not shafting a football club he professed to be a lifelong supporter of.
McMenemy would have been a minor shareholder and would have had little benefit and Souness was the team manager and not a board member not a shareholder and would have had no financial gain.
The reverse takeover was driven by our then board of directors not Secure Retirement who were just offered a business opportunity. |
Who said anything about Lowe coming in originally to 'shaft the football club'? What i said was, he 'returned to Saints' because he had money invested in the club by virtue of his shares and was looking (as anyone would) to protect it. I know Lowe wasn't the instigator of the reverse takeover as it was Saints that used this as a mechanism to float the club via a cheaper approach, and Lowe happened to be the chair or whatever for Secure Retirements but he did get an amount of shares by virtue of being a shareholder of Secure.
On the subject of Souness and Lawrie getting shares from the float i will accept your take on this however, i am now going to search for an old video i have of Harry Gration i think it was doing a piece on the reverse takeover at the time for South Today which discussed the beneficiaries. Maybe my mind is playing tricks but i think you are wrong. Still, i will accept your take for the time being. |  |
| Ready and waiting to mop up those European places...... |
|  |
| Rupert Lowe in today's rag... on 09:57 - Feb 10 with 1024 views | SaintNick |
| Rupert Lowe in today's rag... on 23:54 - Feb 9 by TripleNiemi |
Who said anything about Lowe coming in originally to 'shaft the football club'? What i said was, he 'returned to Saints' because he had money invested in the club by virtue of his shares and was looking (as anyone would) to protect it. I know Lowe wasn't the instigator of the reverse takeover as it was Saints that used this as a mechanism to float the club via a cheaper approach, and Lowe happened to be the chair or whatever for Secure Retirements but he did get an amount of shares by virtue of being a shareholder of Secure.
On the subject of Souness and Lawrie getting shares from the float i will accept your take on this however, i am now going to search for an old video i have of Harry Gration i think it was doing a piece on the reverse takeover at the time for South Today which discussed the beneficiaries. Maybe my mind is playing tricks but i think you are wrong. Still, i will accept your take for the time being. |
You are right Lowe returned to protect his shares, although by the time he returned the share price was so low it probably wasn't worth his while, it was a more ego driven thing that he would save the club and be the hero.
As I said McMenemy may have been a minor shareholder at the time of the reverse takeover so would have had some benefit, but Souness resigned when the takeover happened claiming that these people weren't football people and McMenemy resigned with him, although he later tried to say he hadn't resigned just threatened to, but Lowe would have none of it which instigated McMenemy's hatred of Lowe to this day. |  |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| Rupert Lowe in today's rag... on 11:37 - Feb 10 with 999 views | TripleNiemi |
| Rupert Lowe in today's rag... on 09:57 - Feb 10 by SaintNick |
You are right Lowe returned to protect his shares, although by the time he returned the share price was so low it probably wasn't worth his while, it was a more ego driven thing that he would save the club and be the hero.
As I said McMenemy may have been a minor shareholder at the time of the reverse takeover so would have had some benefit, but Souness resigned when the takeover happened claiming that these people weren't football people and McMenemy resigned with him, although he later tried to say he hadn't resigned just threatened to, but Lowe would have none of it which instigated McMenemy's hatred of Lowe to this day. |
Totally agree with your point in that when Rupes did come back the shares were almost worthless by then anyway. Yes it probably was a bit of an ego thing and i think he would have loved to have saved us as lets be fair, no one can deny he hadnt put a lot of time and effort into Saints. Ok, some might say he was paid a handsome salary but so be it.
Whilst it is easy for the fanbase to slate the bloke, he did do good for the club as well, such as getting St. Marys built which let's face it, whether Cowan was the main driver behind it or not, or the council for pushing the gas works site our way or whatever was responsible, it was on Rupert's watch and therefore he does deserve plaudits for that. Let's face it, for years previous Saints had never achieved that under Askham, Wiseman et al.
To simply castigate the bloke is not on imo as we need to weigh up the goods and bads of his tenure. That said, to claim the whole academy thing was a bit comical. | |
| Ready and waiting to mop up those European places...... |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
