Angela Lowes gone


Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that a bit of an easy out mate.

She's overseen everything from almost overspending into financial oblivion under Short to penny pinching asset stripping under Donald and everything in between. If a man was FD and this had happened his sex would not even be mentioned - just his incompetence. A bit like Rodwell. She doesn't get criticism because she's a woman in my opinion based on the very limited amount of threads there have been on her and I don't recall seeing any sexist or misogynistic comments about her on here. Just comments about the general financial performance of the club under her watch.
There's at least one misogynistic comment on this thread tbf, but I generally agree. Lowes didn't inspire much of the grubbier stuff on here, thankfully. Probably due to her relatively low profile. That being said, there's plenty of posters on here who will have decided about her competence long before there was tangible evidence available simply because she's a woman. That was certainly the case on here with Byrne long before it became clear she was poor at her job. That's just human nature, unfortunately.
 
Really? That's unusual. My wife qualified ACCA (now FCCA) from PW, and that's only because she was working in the trust department, and was part-qualified when she joined. As I recall, she was the only certified in the Birmingham office.
Yes, it is. When I was training only people in the corporate recovery department did ACCA, not sure why that was. But the departing FD qualified in 1999, after she had left public practice. I know plenty of colleagues who got bounced from the firm for failing ACA exams and then qualified ACCA or CIMA working in industry though.
 
There's at least one misogynistic comment on this thread tbf, but I generally agree. Lowes didn't inspire much of the grubbier stuff on here, thankfully. Probably due to her relatively low profile. That being said, there's plenty of posters on here who will have decided about her competence long before there was tangible evidence available simply because she's a woman. That was certainly the case on here with Byrne long before it became clear she was poor at her job. That's just human nature, unfortunately.

I think a lot of the stuff with Byrne wasn't due to her sex. I think a lot just saw she'd been company secretary and misunderstood the role. That led to quite a few thinking she had been doing the admin and then suddenly got catapulted onto the board
 
Yes, it is. When I was training only people in the corporate recovery department did ACCA, not sure why that was. But the departing FD qualified in 1999, after she had left public practice. I know plenty of colleagues who got bounced from the firm for failing ACA exams and then qualified ACCA or CIMA working in industry though.

i qualified in the 80's when the pass rates were horrific. There were 25 in our intake and only 7 got through with all first-time passes. I think we lost about 7 or 8 along the way.
 
For doing what she was told? 🤷‍♂️

Very harsh. :rolleyes:

She was a club director and sat on the board for 10 years, if she's not responsible for financial management then what was her job? It may well be that her hands were tied and she was working in difficult circumstances but her job title and board level position suggests at least some level of responsibility and influence though.

Anyone categorically stating on here that she was bad at her job or we're well rid is poor form though, as only people who have worked with her directly would know what she's really been like. Could just be that KLD wants to bring in his own senior team and she's pretty replaceable.
 
She was a club director and sat on the board for 10 years, if she's not responsible for financial management then what was her job? It may well be that her hands were tied and she was working in difficult circumstances but her job title and board level position suggests at least some level of responsibility and influence though.

Anyone categorically stating on here that she was bad at her job or we're well rid is poor form though, as only people who have worked with her directly would know what she's really been like. Could just be that KLD wants to bring in his own senior team and she's pretty replaceable.

If I was raising valid objections and being ignored, that would be my signal to start looking for another job where I'd actually be valued,
 
This is another positive development for me. Lowes seemed to be one of those background figures who was respected enough and in theory there was no need for her to have a higher profile, so she glided along. She then came along to a couple of meetings with fans, at which she never opened her mouth once. I have no idea how good she was but it should be no surprise that KLD will want an organisation he can rely on at every angle.

For a club with a multi-million pound turnover it always amazes me when people question whether we need organisational appointments. Compared to player salaries, it's not a significant outlay but they can have a big impact. Sunderland's history seems to be one of over-promoting people who ended up being catapulted into senior directorships. Gary Hutchinson and Margaret Byrne to name two, but there are others.

If KLD is bringing in senior people to oversee or deliver good governance then so much the better. They should be not only better at their roles but should also have a range of contacts and partners that could be good for the club.
 
Not if the owner is writing a cheque

The owner writing an annual cheque to cover all losses should not absolve our finance dept of all fiscal responsibility, any serious FD worth their salt would be able to see that it was unsustainable.
If I was raising valid objections and being ignored, that would be my signal to start looking for another job where I'd actually be valued,

Depends on her priorities, perhaps she'd be unlikely to get a similar position/salary if she left?
 
Last edited:
She was a club director and sat on the board for 10 years, if she's not responsible for financial management then what was her job? It may well be that her hands were tied and she was working in difficult circumstances but her job title and board level position suggests at least some level of responsibility and influence though.

Anyone categorically stating on here that she was bad at her job or we're well rid is poor form though, as only people who have worked with her directly would know what she's really been like. Could just be that KLD wants to bring in his own senior team and she's pretty replaceable.
Yep agree,plus isnt one of KLD new directors earmarked for this.Imight of misread but sure at least one is a financial wizard
 
The owner writing an annual cheque to cover all losses should not absolve our finance dept of all fiscal responsibility, any serious FD worth their salt would be able to see that it was unsustainable.


Depends on her priorities, perhaps she'd be unlikely to get a similar position/salary if she left?
I agree, but in that situation she can only really advice, rspecially if you have an owner will to cover the losses each month.
I'm sure she could see it was unsustainable, I think everyone in the club would see that, its seeing it and being able to do something about it.
 
The owner writing an annual cheque to cover all losses should not absolve our finance dept of all fiscal responsibility, any serious FD worth their salt would be able to see that it was unsustainable.


Depends on her priorities, perhaps she'd be unlikely to get a similar position/salary if she left?

1. If the owner decides to write a cheque despite being told his business is being run unsustainably, the owner's not got his business head on.

2. Professional pride is a real thing. Unless she was actually overpromoted, moving to another FD role should be possible; the skillset is pretty transferable. Whether it would have paid as much is a different matter.
I am with you GOM. I have seen it close-up.

Most FDs I worked for never prepared a spreadsheet, unless it was to analyse some other data prepared by someone else. They spent a hell of a lot of time reviewing spreadsheets prepared by other people though (or, more accurately, printouts - it's difficult to write "Rubbish - see me" in red ink on a spreadsheet with the requisite venom)
 
Last edited:
The owner writing an annual cheque to cover all losses should not absolve our finance dept of all fiscal responsibility, any serious FD worth their salt would be able to see that it was unsustainable.


Depends on her priorities, perhaps she'd be unlikely to get a similar position/salary if she left?
You can't have it both ways though. She was a director and boards share collective responsibility for the impact of their decisions. If she stayed because she liked the title and the money despite not being involved or listened to in decision making, then she's as open to criticism as if she had made all the poor decisions herself.
 
Angela Goes then

Had more lives than a cat so I wondered when the 9th would expire - and if she knew much in her capacity on the Djilobodji (£7 mill when Chels got him for £1 mill six months prior and didn't play him once), Nmong, Alvarez, Grigg, Mika (a £mill from nowhere and nearly fell through) deals and potential recoups and machinations it's rather overdue.
 
I agree, but in that situation she can only really advice, rspecially if you have an owner will to cover the losses each month.
I'm sure she could see it was unsustainable, I think everyone in the club would see that, its seeing it and being able to do something about it.

Fair point but there's been several examples over the years of the club making poor financial decisions that probably fell outside of Short's willingness to fund transfers etc. If the plant pot story is true then I would have thought the FD should have been aware and cut that out before Donald rocked up. Same for the six figure cryotherapy unit nobody was using. Making a loss on the concerts etc.
You can't have it both ways though. She was a director and boards share collective responsibility for the impact of their decisions. If she stayed because she liked the title and the money despite not being involved or listened to in decision making, then she's as open to criticism as if she had made all the poor decisions herself.

Totally agree, at best it looks like she's been happy to take the money and sit back while others make terrible decisions.
 
Last edited:
You can't have it both ways though. She was a director and boards share collective responsibility for the impact of their decisions. If she stayed because she liked the title and the money despite not being involved or listened to in decision making, then she's as open to criticism as if she had made all the poor decisions herself.

This is the simple fact. The FD has exactly the same fiduciary duties as any other director. The title just denotes an expertise in one area, but the responsibility is for the whole business.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top