I've been pretty impressed with Lowe.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

They were sitting amongst the Saints fans in the Upper Stand at Loftus Road, not something I recall Wilde and Lowe doing when they are out of office

Morph

 

Ashley did that whilst in office, don't think he will for the rest of his tenure or indeed thereafter, what does this REALLY tell us ??

 

I find it ironic that those having a pop in the latter pages of this thread are those who do not attend games

[OldNick]

Your memory is either pretty poor or you are very young. To compare us to Rochdale is not just stupid but disrespectful to your club and its supporters.

 

Way before MLT we were never punching above our weight - we were there because we deserved to be and we played good football so we finished 2nd in Div 1 and got to a final or two. We were a decent size club with good support.

 

Thats been f8cked completely now by Lowe and either through blind faith or selected memory you choose to ignore this fact. Moral: never believe a word Lowe and his cronies utter - his actions and motivations are and have proved to be totally in his own interests.

Are you saying that we didnt punch above our weight when we were stuck in a ground reduced in capacity by the Taylor report Or when we signed KK ? We punched above our weight period, and great credit goes to the club for doing so.

As for Rochdale comment, why is that wrong I could have put Exeter or any other team that has never had any success and not been privilaged like we have. I cant see any problem with that I hardly am comparing them with us or saying our away fans are foolish unlike some have.

[John B]

I said RL is he best man out of him and LC for the job.

If there were any other options I may decide on another route.

 

That is quite obvious Nickh.

 

However the fanbase lacks pragmatism s gets upset when Saints lose games and has little or no patience.

 

 

We are where are we should get behind the team so that hopefully we will not get relegated.

 

 

Not going to games is not in anyway going to help the situation.

[um pahars]

You conveniently forget that those comments by Crouch when he was first removed form the football board. " We have lost too many good people, I have fought them at every turn"?

 

Not only do people swallow this crap, some are so blind as to stick it in a roll and apply a line of mustard before eating.

 

Lowe oversaw relegation, Wilde is the culprit by starting this off by the overspend, but Crouch is the architect of where we find ourselves now.

 

First we have your noddy financial analysis and now this.

 

This was all "started off" by relegation and the tens of millions wiped off of the top line as a result, so sadly Lowe has to ake the blame on that one.

 

As for what happened after, then you need to engage your brain, see where Crouch was in the balance of power, and then relate that to the two year time frame.

 

Crouch was certainly an accomplice in the initial period when Wilde and co first took over, but I bring you back to the results delivered for that first season when we go to the play off spot.

 

Your financial analysis was shown up to be pathetically out of touch with reality, with costs reduced, losses and cash outflow reduced and net debt at its lowest for years.

 

So for the period when Crouch had any real say, the financial position wasn't that bad (particularly when compared with what went before and after).

 

When Wilde jumped (before he was pushed) Crouch was immediatelyy marginalised, as at that point the Executives, under Hone, had control of the decision making and control of the PLC board.

 

This was further enhanced that summer, with the resignation of Hunt & the appointment of Oldknow, and Hone had full power (hence Crouch being kicked off the Football Club Board).

 

Crouch only got in the top seat half way through last season, so slightly unsure how you can accuse him as being architect of all the financial problems we now face.

 

Sadly, once again your understanding and appreciation of the situation has been found wanting.

[up and away]

I'm far from Crouch's biggest fan but virtually all of the over spending happend with Lowe's mate Wilde in charge, Crouch only over saw the post Xmas period where he made unpopular descisions like loaning out Rasiak and Skacel and also brought in loanies like Wright, Perry and Lucketti that probably saved the club from relegation and certain financial meltdown.

 

Wilde and his execs were the ones who really ****ed up.

 

Wilde started the ball rolling and the executives were dumb enough to believe the idiocy that he came out with, but subsequently the the execs played it straight down the line. Go back and look at all their statements and they are all consistent with the actual finacial position of the club. If at any time Crouch had said we must get the finances in order, they would have followed that line, unless Lowe were to back Crouch and demand a spend.

We had plenty of time to get out of the financial mire but Crouch had his head in the sand and is still to this day awaiting the magical investment. What a dumb arsed plan. Then go back and look at Crouch's ludicrous statements! We are not that bad off, we don't need to sell players we want? So desperate that unable to find a buyer, he loans them out to try and get out of the mess he has ignored for so long. Then the embarassment over the remainder of the Walcott fee, coming out and denying one small peice to give the impression all of it was untrue. Then go back to the ridiculous fawning over the Paul Allen bid, must be true, look who introduced him?

 

Then you have the other muppets who will not go to St Mary's whilst Lowe is there, yet happily proclaim the 32000 under the biggest idiot we have had in the directors box. There are those that have senior moments, but this one is 24 carat. He could not have created so much mess if he actually intended it in the first place.

[Guest Hacienda]

Nothing was ever Lowe's fault. No sir, nothing.

 

It was all the fault of other people.

[um pahars]

Wilde started the ball rolling and the executives were dumb enough to believe the idiocy that he came out with, but subsequently the the execs played it straight down the line. Go back and look at all their statements and they are all consistent with the actual finacial position of the club.

 

Feel free to reconcile such a "straight down the line approach" with their reckless failure to cut back last summer when the parachute payment ended and we became another £7m worse off overnight.

 

Hone cemented his position with the appointment of Oldknow (and the stepping down of Hunt) and was calling all the shots up until his removal in December (but of course, feel free to blame Crouch:rolleyes::rolleyes:).

[John B]

Feel free to reconcile such a "straight down the line approach" with their reckless failure to cut back last summer when the parachute payment ended and we became another £7m worse off overnight.

 

Hone cemented his position with the appointment of Oldknow (and the stepping down of Hunt) and was calling all the shots up until his removal in December (but of course, feel free to blame Crouch:rolleyes::rolleyes:).

 

I dont think Crouch is to blame for much.

 

Wilde employed Hone and got shafted.

 

Hone was the one who should have done something but was courting SISU who would have paid him handsomely if they had taken over.

 

In my opinion Hone is the villian in the piece followed by Wilde who not a villian was probably extremely niave.

[Lunatic Fridge]

Wilde started the ball rolling and the executives were dumb enough to believe the idiocy that he came out with, but subsequently the the execs played it straight down the line. Go back and look at all their statements and they are all consistent with the actual finacial position of the club. If at any time Crouch had said we must get the finances in order, they would have followed that line, unless Lowe were to back Crouch and demand a spend.

We had plenty of time to get out of the financial mire but Crouch had his head in the sand and is still to this day awaiting the magical investment. What a dumb arsed plan. Then go back and look at Crouch's ludicrous statements! We are not that bad off, we don't need to sell players we want? So desperate that unable to find a buyer, he loans them out to try and get out of the mess he has ignored for so long. Then the embarassment over the remainder of the Walcott fee, coming out and denying one small peice to give the impression all of it was untrue. Then go back to the ridiculous fawning over the Paul Allen bid, must be true, look who introduced him?

 

Then you have the other muppets who will not go to St Mary's whilst Lowe is there, yet happily proclaim the 32000 under the biggest idiot we have had in the directors box. There are those that have senior moments, but this one is 24 carat. He could not have created so much mess if he actually intended it in the first place.

 

 

So where are the other missing 15000 supporters - tell me you appear to have the answers to why everyone f8cked up other than chummy boy. No sunshine the only muppet around here is you et al those who believe in the Lowe's ability to run a proper football club - forward with Lowe Disunited eh my friend!

[Thedelldays]

So where are the other missing 15000 supporters - tell me you appear to have the answers to why everyone f8cked up other than chummy boy. No sunshine the only muppet around here is you et al those who believe in the Lowe's ability to run a proper football club - forward with Lowe Disunited eh my friend!

they have gone as we are in the lower reaches on the 2nd tier of english football..

 

no brainer...hence why the likes of crewe, barnet and the like get considerably less than us....

 

when you look at our form over the last 12 months, the attendance figures out perform the playing stats..

 

that is all to it.

[aintforever]

Wilde started the ball rolling and the executives were dumb enough to believe the idiocy that he came out with, but subsequently the the execs played it straight down the line. Go back and look at all their statements and they are all consistent with the actual finacial position of the club. If at any time Crouch had said we must get the finances in order, they would have followed that line, unless Lowe were to back Crouch and demand a spend.

We had plenty of time to get out of the financial mire but Crouch had his head in the sand and is still to this day awaiting the magical investment. What a dumb arsed plan. Then go back and look at Crouch's ludicrous statements! We are not that bad off, we don't need to sell players we want? So desperate that unable to find a buyer, he loans them out to try and get out of the mess he has ignored for so long. Then the embarassment over the remainder of the Walcott fee, coming out and denying one small peice to give the impression all of it was untrue. Then go back to the ridiculous fawning over the Paul Allen bid, must be true, look who introduced him?

 

Then you have the other muppets who will not go to St Mary's whilst Lowe is there, yet happily proclaim the 32000 under the biggest idiot we have had in the directors box. There are those that have senior moments, but this one is 24 carat. He could not have created so much mess if he actually intended it in the first place.

 

Why do you keep banging on about what he said, fact is Crouch was not in charge when the descisions were made that put is in the poo. Is it really that hard to understand? Lowe's mate Wilde and his execs made virtually all the descisions.

[OldNick]

Feel free to reconcile such a "straight down the line approach" with their reckless failure to cut back last summer when the parachute payment ended and we became another £7m worse off overnight.

 

Hone cemented his position with the appointment of Oldknow (and the stepping down of Hunt) and was calling all the shots up until his removal in December (but of course, feel free to blame Crouch:rolleyes::rolleyes:).

Perhaps the real culprits were the buffoons who think they are very streetwise who ran into the arms of the Wilde bunch when they were warned to sit back and really examine what was really on the table.

Its easy to criticise fans like U&P and have a higher than mighty attitude but yours like all of of us are opinions and none of us have the full facts.

As for LC who you hold in great esteem, he was in the chair for a short period but crucial period and he was also in the boardroom making votes while the parachute payments were coming to an end.He would also have santioned quite a few of the expensive contracts that we are having trouble unloading.

Planning ahead does not seem to have been on the agenda as the costs spiralled and losses mounted but cuts and measures were not made to try and soften some of the pain now.

The whole sorry tale has lots of villains but the innocents in all this the everyday fan has to pick up the pieces, very much like in the world now where the bankers had a merry time and now expect the taxpayer to bail them out. Its ok for financial people to think they know it all , they might know how to lend money but that doesnt mean they are any good competent in any other facet of life/business.

[OldNick]

Nothing was ever Lowe's fault. No sir, nothing.

 

It was all the fault of other people.

RL obviously was in part at fault, but only part it is a complex arguement and there are so many others factors.

The disaster of relegation came and we knew as a club that the parachute payments would stop.

If your bank told you that the loan only was to last 2 years would you wait until the eve of its recall to make the plans to get ready to py it back? I doubt it as you probably are more responsible than that.

[fos1]

[in he was also in the boardroom making votes while the parachute payments were coming to an end.He would also have santioned quite a few of the expensive contracts that we are having trouble unloading.

 

Who were the expensive contracts that he sanctioned ?

[NickG]

First we have your noddy financial analysis and now this.

 

This was all "started off" by relegation and the tens of millions wiped off of the top line as a result, so sadly Lowe has to ake the blame on that one.As for what happened after, then you need to engage your brain, see where Crouch was in the balance of power, and then relate that to the two year time frame.

 

Crouch was certainly an accomplice in the initial period when Wilde and co first took over, but I bring you back to the results delivered for that first season when we go to the play off spot.

 

Your financial analysis was shown up to be pathetically out of touch with reality, with costs reduced, losses and cash outflow reduced and net debt at its lowest for years.

 

So for the period when Crouch had any real say, the financial position wasn't that bad (particularly when compared with what went before and after).

 

When Wilde jumped (before he was pushed) Crouch was immediatelyy marginalised, as at that point the Executives, under Hone, had control of the decision making and control of the PLC board.

 

This was further enhanced that summer, with the resignation of Hunt & the appointment of Oldknow, and Hone had full power (hence Crouch being kicked off the Football Club Board).

 

Crouch only got in the top seat half way through last season, so slightly unsure how you can accuse him as being architect of all the financial problems we now face.

 

Sadly, once again your understanding and appreciation of the situation has been found wanting.

 

not saying he wasn't blameworthy but its not as simple as that -just as I am sure you wouldn't have said that Lowe should have had all the credit when we stayed up (bigger clubs going down each year) nor for getting us to the cup final?

[um pahars]

If your bank told you that the loan only was to last 2 years would you wait until the eve of its recall to make the plans to get ready to py it back? I doubt it as you probably are more responsible than that.

 

Which is why just before Wilde and co took over Lowe committed us to a 4 year deal with Rasiak making him our highest paid player by far (and promised to bankroll Burley further).

 

When Wilde and co came in, they carried on with this and apart from sanctioning a further £2m, they ran the Club in ostensibly the same way as it was before. The only difference was that rather than a flirtation with relegation, and promotion nowhere in sight, the first season without Lowe saw us get to the play offs.

 

The reason for running the Club this way was that they all knew that the only place this Club can survive in its current form is in the top flight and the best chance of getting back there was during the parachute period.

 

So for two years we ran as a quasi premiership club (beyond out meas for sure, but for a limited period using every advantage available).

 

The tie to retrench was last summer, but instead the Executives had their eye on a takeover, whilst the shareholders were too busy fighting each other to ake them to task over not imlementing Plan B.

[Delmary]

The tie to retrench was last summer, but instead the Executives had their eye on a takeover, whilst the shareholders were too busy fighting each other to ake them to task over not imlementing Plan B.

Agree totally.

[eelpie]

Not sure we were "muscled" off the ball, simply we didn't make enough space when we had 11 men. Later when the game opened up a little more we did make more around the edge of the box, but I think it is as much that we lack that killer instinct around the box as muscle. DMG will make the grade but would much prefer SJ for the first hour in the next game, once Peckhart came on KD started kicking long more often with obvious results

 

I was in the lower tier beside the goal and time and time again QPR's back four wrestled and tugged Saints players when they were threatening. So we rarely got a sight of goal. Lallana's was an exceptional bit of play which outwitted and wrong-footed the heavies. At the other end Saints were crowded out in goalmouth scrambles. Sadly it was men against boys again. One striker up front doesn't work.

[Fan The Flames]

Which is why just before Wilde and co took over Lowe committed us to a 4 year deal with Rasiak making him our highest paid player by far (and promised to bankroll Burley further).

 

When Wilde and co came in, they carried on with this and apart from sanctioning a further £2m, they ran the Club in ostensibly the same way as it was before. The only difference was that rather than a flirtation with relegation, and promotion nowhere in sight, the first season without Lowe saw us get to the play offs.

 

The reason for running the Club this way was that they all knew that the only place this Club can survive in its current form is in the top flight and the best chance of getting back there was during the parachute period.

 

So for two years we ran as a quasi premiership club (beyond out meas for sure, but for a limited period using every advantage available).

 

The tie to retrench was last summer, but instead the Executives had their eye on a takeover, whilst the shareholders were too busy fighting each other to ake them to task over not imlementing Plan B.

 

Spot on again.

 

I also wonder about cutting the wages when we first came down, it may have been prudent but did it have a demoralising effect, especially if some didn't have it in their contracts.

 

You have to try and get back up straight away and the best way to do that is as you say act like a quasi top flight club. We had a two year window and wasted the first year adjusting to the Championship, compounded by the wage cut, where as we should have carried on as we were minus the few players who would not play in a non-premiership side and maybe we would have been more competitive in our first season down. Then adjusted the wages when the parachute cash finished.

 

Southampton’s history is about missed opportunities.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

I think my point was clear enough.

 

I agree the players were over paid but they were also some of the best in the championship and even D&G got some improved performances, though not results, out of them.

 

But fine, if you are impressed with Pearsons 16 points out of 13 games then I am not going to try and convince you otherwise. I have no problem with him, but I dont see how some can idolise him on the basis of what he did at the club.

 

As has been shown but people refuse to take it in, take all results over the last 14 games and Saints postion was one position and one point below exactly half way. Therefore Pearson's results were "mid table". It was just that many teams down in the bottom third also performed far better than one would have normally expected, so overall mid-table form didn't mean a final mid-table position. Clubs got relegated with higher than usual points.

[up and away]

First we have your noddy financial analysis and now this.

 

This was all "started off" by relegation and the tens of millions wiped off of the top line as a result, so sadly Lowe has to ake the blame on that one.

 

As for what happened after, then you need to engage your brain, see where Crouch was in the balance of power, and then relate that to the two year time frame.

 

Crouch was certainly an accomplice in the initial period when Wilde and co first took over, but I bring you back to the results delivered for that first season when we go to the play off spot.

 

Your financial analysis was shown up to be pathetically out of touch with reality, with costs reduced, losses and cash outflow reduced and net debt at its lowest for years.

 

So for the period when Crouch had any real say, the financial position wasn't that bad (particularly when compared with what went before and after).

 

When Wilde jumped (before he was pushed) Crouch was immediatelyy marginalised, as at that point the Executives, under Hone, had control of the decision making and control of the PLC board.

 

This was further enhanced that summer, with the resignation of Hunt & the appointment of Oldknow, and Hone had full power (hence Crouch being kicked off the Football Club Board).

 

Crouch only got in the top seat half way through last season, so slightly unsure how you can accuse him as being architect of all the financial problems we now face.

 

Sadly, once again your understanding and appreciation of the situation has been found wanting.

 

Listen to the village idiots guide to finance! "These accounts are not that bad, I don't know what the fuss is about". And how many times have we heard you say Wilde was not the real problem, just misunderstood? Well that understanding soon disappeared when he showed up with Lowe in tow and you eventually had to crawl in on yourself to come to terms with the whole episode.

 

Why don't you follow Hiley over to his new website and see if you can get him booted out of that job! You did such a good job last time!

[70's Mike]

I was in the lower tier beside the goal and time and time again QPR's back four wrestled and tugged Saints players when they were threatening. So we rarely got a sight of goal. Lallana's was an exceptional bit of play which outwitted and wrong-footed the heavies. At the other end Saints were crowded out in goalmouth scrambles. Sadly it was men against boys again. One striker up front doesn't work.

 

 

Sums up our problems on the pitch for me, it is not about tackling strength but upper body strength and we lack it.

[um pahars]

Listen to the village idiots guide to finance! "These accounts are not that bad, I don't know what the fuss is about". And how many times have we heard you say Wilde was not the real problem, just misunderstood? Well that understanding soon disappeared when he showed up with Lowe in tow and you eventually had to crawl in on yourself to come to terms with the whole episode.

 

Why don't you follow Hiley over to his new website and see if you can get him booted out of that job! You did such a good job last time!

 

Some very salient and relevant comments on why Crouch is the architect of the financal problems that are now manifesting themselves.

 

Excellent, you've surpassed yourself with that response.

 

Did I really pay a fiver to be associated with such people :confused:

[Long Shot]

Listen to the village idiots guide to finance! "These accounts are not that bad, I don't know what the fuss is about". And how many times have we heard you say Wilde was not the real problem, just misunderstood? Well that understanding soon disappeared when he showed up with Lowe in tow and you eventually had to crawl in on yourself to come to terms with the whole episode.

 

Why don't you follow Hiley over to his new website and see if you can get him booted out of that job! You did such a good job last time!

 

Shame you cannot seem to present your point with a little more courtesy to your fellow posters.

Yea sure Crouch was naive, sure his website utterings were cringeworthy, sure he was out of his depth in terms of running a football club but he is way down the pecking order of blame when we look at why we are where we are.

And, at the end of the day, I have a little more respect for him compared to Wilde and Lowe. At least he has put some of his personal wealth into the club. He saved our blushes over the statue fiasco and probably - most importantly in my eyes - he is a fan who goes to home and away matches. Like I say none of the above makes him the right man to have his hand on the tiller but it is blatantly unfair to castigate the way you do.

[Wes Tender]

Listen to the village idiots guide to finance! "These accounts are not that bad, I don't know what the fuss is about". And how many times have we heard you say Wilde was not the real problem, just misunderstood? Well that understanding soon disappeared when he showed up with Lowe in tow and you eventually had to crawl in on yourself to come to terms with the whole episode.

 

Why don't you follow Hiley over to his new website and see if you can get him booted out of that job! You did such a good job last time!

 

Seems to me that UPs summing up was perfectly reasonable and you know that somebody has lost the argument when they have to adopt a sneering tone rather than debating the points made and countering them.

 

Whereas I am not a Crouch fan, it is plain to me that when it comes to apportioning blame for our current parlous state, Crouch is responsible for nothing near the culpability that attaches to Lowe and Wilde.

[John B]

Seems to me that UPs summing up was perfectly reasonable and you know that somebody has lost the argument when they have to adopt a sneering tone rather than debating the points made and countering them.

 

Whereas I am not a Crouch fan, it is plain to me that when it comes to apportioning blame for our current parlous state, Crouch is responsible for nothing near the culpability that attaches to Lowe and Wilde.

 

I agree with you Wes but I think Hone is the main culprit for our current financial mess as he appears to have little to address the problem except trying to get SISU to take us over.

[70's Mike]

I agree with you Wes but I think Hone is the main culprit for our current financial mess as he appears to have little to address the problem except trying to get SISU to take us over.

 

and Hone was appointed by and worked for ?

[John B]

and Hone was appointed by and worked for ?

 

I dont know who he worked for but he was the chief executive who was appointed by the board that replaced Lowe on false promises.

[Wes Tender]

I dont know who he worked for but he was the chief executive who was appointed by the board that replaced Lowe on false promises.

 

Hone, Dulieu and Hoos were appointed by Wilde. Hone could argue with justification that with SISU he had managed to come closer to gaining investment than Lowe had managed to in a decade. I think that it is difficult to make Hone and his board a scapegoat in all this. He had a difficult job when there was a lot of antagonism caused by power struggles between the execs and the non-execs.

 

I wouldn't say that promises made by Wilde in his little manifesto were necessarily false; merely that he was unable to deliver on them, despite his good intentions.

[OldNick]

Which is why just before Wilde and co took over Lowe committed us to a 4 year deal with Rasiak making him our highest paid player by far (and promised to bankroll Burley further).

 

When Wilde and co came in, they carried on with this and apart from sanctioning a further £2m, they ran the Club in ostensibly the same way as it was before. The only difference was that rather than a flirtation with relegation, and promotion nowhere in sight, the first season without Lowe saw us get to the play offs.

 

The reason for running the Club this way was that they all knew that the only place this Club can survive in its current form is in the top flight and the best chance of getting back there was during the parachute period.

 

So for two years we ran as a quasi premiership club (beyond out meas for sure, but for a limited period using every advantage available).

 

The tie to retrench was last summer, but instead the Executives had their eye on a takeover, whilst the shareholders were too busy fighting each other to ake them to task over not imlementing Plan B.

As I put earlier I dont know who was chairman when Rasiak was signed, I will accept it was lowe if you say so. We had many discussions about RL and his lack of backing the team, and you questioned his 'war chest' by your post you must now accept RL did have money put aside to invest in the squad.

The first full season we did get to the playoffs and after that it was obvious that the parachute payments were coming to an end, to me nothing was done to make contingency plans to start cutting costs. The whole Wilde bunch are culpable including LC (I respect himas he was the only one of them to put his hand in his own pocket] but he still did not act quickly and decisivily to cut costs.Yes he went and got Theo's fee paid up at a much reduced rate quickly and may have done some others as well for the short term, it seems RL has done the same. This 4 year period has been one of the saddest episodes in the clubs history,no one comes out with any real credit and unfortunately we have a sack of snakes and who dares to put their hand in to pull one of them out. (I include all the hangers on in the background who take the perksand give little back)

[ottery st mary]

No more room for debate or opinion as john B has already decided that Lowey will have

3-4 years to allow his strategy to work. This was given without any explaination as to why this would be appropriate in a financial sense as any other person put in charge of any section of Lowey empire would be given 3-4 weeks. It may show your mindset john B but then again a short explaination might sway me from 3-4 weeks to 3-4 months.

 

Pearson 13 weeks and Lowey deserves from here to eternity bit unfair to me.

 

All I really want before October is a couple of wins or I will ask his little group to dethrone the old boy before it is too late.

[OldNick]

Why don't you follow Hiley over to his new website and see if you can get him booted out of that job! You did such a good job last time!

What website is that?

[OldNick]

No more room for debate or opinion as john B has already decided that Lowey will have

3-4 years to allow his strategy to work. This was given without any explaination as to why this would be appropriate in a financial sense as any other person put in charge of any section of Lowey empire would be given 3-4 weeks. It may show your mindset john B but then again a short explaination might sway me from 3-4 weeks to 3-4 months.

 

Pearson 13 weeks and Lowey deserves from here to eternity bit unfair to me.

 

All I really want before October is a couple of wins or I will ask his little group to dethrone the old boy before it is too late.

I dont understand all this love in with NP, he was OK not great but OK.

[John B]

Hone, Dulieu and Hoos were appointed by Wilde. Hone could argue with justification that with SISU he had managed to come closer to gaining investment than Lowe had managed to in a decade. I think that it is difficult to make Hone and his board a scapegoat in all this. He had a difficult job when there was a lot of antagonism caused by power struggles between the execs and the non-execs.

 

I wouldn't say that promises made by Wilde in his little manifesto were necessarily false; merely that he was unable to deliver on them, despite his good intentions.

 

I originally was agreeing with you that Crouch should not be the scape goat.

 

 

Wilde's promises made in the best intentions turned out as you say to be unrealistic and ultimately false.

 

 

But Hone was running the club when the wage bill started to increase alarmingly and should take a great deal of the responsibility for the current financial situation

[John B]

No more room for debate or opinion as john B has already decided that Lowey will have

3-4 years to allow his strategy to work. This was given without any explaination as to why this would be appropriate in a financial sense as any other person put in charge of any section of Lowey empire would be given 3-4 weeks. It may show your mindset john B but then again a short explaination might sway me from 3-4 weeks to 3-4 months.

 

Pearson 13 weeks and Lowey deserves from here to eternity bit unfair to me.

 

All I really want before October is a couple of wins or I will ask his little group to dethrone the old boy before it is too late.

 

Well you cannot make conclusions on a long term strategy after it has only started.

 

After we beat Brum lots of fans were saying the play offs were achievable all I am saying we will have to wait sometime before we can say what Lowe/Wilde are doing is going to be a success.

 

I do not understand what Pearson has to do with this debate he is long gone - overpaid and over at Leicester where he may well do a good job.

Edited 16 September, 2008 by John B

[70's Mike]

I originally was agreeing with you that Crouch should not be the scape goat.

 

 

Wilde's promises made in the best intentions turned out as you say to be unrealistic and ultimately false.

 

 

But Hone was running the club when the wage bill started to increase alarmingly and should take a great deal of the responsibility for the current financial situation

 

Which makes it strange why Rupert and Michael did not become best buddies then because the club was being run by someone who had no investment in it.

 

Wilde basically gave control and then kept in control Hone

[John B]

Which makes it strange why Rupert and Michael did not become best buddies then because the club was being run by someone who had no investment in it.

 

Wilde basically gave control and then kept in control Hone

 

I did not realise that Wilde had any involvement in running the club after he resigned.

 

I thought it was Hone Delieu etc I am sorry if I was wrong.

 

 

I must admit I never understood how Hone etc got so much power they even got rid of Crouch from being acting Chairman of the football club.

 

 

Perhaps someone should write a book about the goings on at SFC Ridsdale did at Leeds Utd

 

United We Fall. ill. . London: Macmillan, 2007. Hard Cover ISBN: 780230018662.

[ottery st mary]

I dont understand all this love in with NP, he was OK not great but OK.

 

Pearson for me is an appreciation of a real football man and at that early stage could at the most be construed as infatuation.

But you and Lowey ( not a real football man) now, I see that as true love nick and good luck to you and your little group. I admire loyalty but not to the detriment of the mighty Saints that is when things need to change, wether you like it or not.

If you and your little group need time to confer as you seem to have a group group approach on the various threads. Please be more gentle in your love.

 

Just my impression or am I going out of my mind.

Hope you love the Saints, even just a little.

[OldNick]

Pearson for me is an appreciation of a real football man and at that early stage could at the most be construed as infatuation.

But you and Lowey ( not a real football man) now, I see that as true love nick and good luck to you and your little group. I admire loyalty but not to the detriment of the mighty Saints that is when things need to change, wether you like it or not.

If you and your little group need time to confer as you seem to have a group group approach on the various threads. Please be more gentle in your love.

 

Just my impression or am I going out of my mind.

Hope you love the Saints, even just a little.

OSM you have been away a few days and I really do believe you have a problem.Your posts are so bizarre.

[ottery st mary]

OSM you have been away a few days and I really do believe you have a problem.Your posts are so bizarre.

 

I too am very concerned with what is happening with the mighty Saints and a few that seem to be leading us up the garden path.

Let us hope we start picking up points soon..Let us start with Ipswich and Barnsley. Keep the faith.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by 70's Mike

Which makes it strange why Rupert and Michael did not become best buddies then because the club was being run by someone who had no investment in it.

 

Wilde basically gave control and then kept in control Hone

I did not realise that Wilde had any involvement in running the club after he resigned.

 

I thought it was Hone Delieu etc I am sorry if I was wrong.

 

 

I must admit I never understood how Hone etc got so much power they even got rid of Crouch from being acting Chairman of the football club.

 

 

Perhaps someone should write a book about the goings on at SFC Ridsdale did at Leeds Utd

 

United We Fall. ill. . London: Macmillan, 2007. Hard Cover ISBN: 780230018662.

 

The exact position is not totally clear cut, you can make up your own mind on that. When the executives found out that there was not sufficient funds to cover the initial overspend they went nuclear. They gave an ultimatum that either control was ceded to them to run the company or they would resign. By run the company that meant operating within all regulations and guidelines but on a mandate set by the share holders. If the major share holders wanted them to make the finances balance, that is the direction they would have taken. They were not dictating policy apart from those requirements required by law. Wilde left the board, with the only major share holder remaining being Crouch. Lowe was completely isolated and kept out of things and could only have any influence if his view tied in with either Wilde or Crouch. Wilde’s role in this is unclear but he must have either allowed Crouch to have his head or acquiesced in some manner. If at any time 2 of the 3 main share holders had demanded that the club was run to a particular financial strategy, it would have happened.

When Crouch tried to install Thompson as chairman the executives went to Lowe and Wilde and asked them did they want this to happen. That was rebuffed and the board was then changed to give total control to the executives. If any two of the major share holders said at any point to stop the madness and square us financially it would have to happen. Now I am assuming throughout this that Lowe would back any move to operate within our financial limitations for the long term good of the club. That then would mean that throughout all of this period, that neither Crouch nor Wilde took this position for what ever reason.

 

If you believe that the executives went headlong with this financial master plan without the support of the major share holders, then explain why they were not removed at the first AGM or any subsequent EGM that the share holders wished to call? Look at all the decisions and directions taken by the executives and they were at the direction of the share holders or regulatory requirements.

[70's Mike]

The exact position is not totally clear cut, you can make up your own mind on that. When the executives found out that there was not sufficient funds to cover the initial overspend they went nuclear. They gave an ultimatum that either control was ceded to them to run the company or they would resign. By run the company that meant operating within all regulations and guidelines but on a mandate set by the share holders. If the major share holders wanted them to make the finances balance, that is the direction they would have taken. They were not dictating policy apart from those requirements required by law. Wilde left the board, with the only major share holder remaining being Crouch. Lowe was completely isolated and kept out of things and could only have any influence if his view tied in with either Wilde or Crouch. Wilde’s role in this is unclear but he must have either allowed Crouch to have his head or acquiesced in some manner. If at any time 2 of the 3 main share holders had demanded that the club was run to a particular financial strategy, it would have happened.

When Crouch tried to install Thompson as chairman the executives went to Lowe and Wilde and asked them did they want this to happen. That was rebuffed and the board was then changed to give total control to the executives. If any two of the major share holders said at any point to stop the madness and square us financially it would have to happen. Now I am assuming throughout this that Lowe would back any move to operate within our financial limitations for the long term good of the club. That then would mean that throughout all of this period, that neither Crouch nor Wilde took this position for what ever reason.

 

If you believe that the executives went headlong with this financial master plan without the support of the major share holders, then explain why they were not removed at the first AGM or any subsequent EGM that the share holders wished to call? Look at all the decisions and directions taken by the executives and they were at the direction of the share holders or regulatory requirements.

 

Good Summary.

How can 3 people **** it up for so many ?

 

All 3 should hang their heads in shame

[Wes Tender]

The exact position is not totally clear cut, you can make up your own mind on that. When the executives found out that there was not sufficient funds to cover the initial overspend they went nuclear. They gave an ultimatum that either control was ceded to them to run the company or they would resign. By run the company that meant operating within all regulations and guidelines but on a mandate set by the share holders. If the major share holders wanted them to make the finances balance, that is the direction they would have taken. They were not dictating policy apart from those requirements required by law. Wilde left the board, with the only major share holder remaining being Crouch. Lowe was completely isolated and kept out of things and could only have any influence if his view tied in with either Wilde or Crouch. Wilde’s role in this is unclear but he must have either allowed Crouch to have his head or acquiesced in some manner. If at any time 2 of the 3 main share holders had demanded that the club was run to a particular financial strategy, it would have happened.

When Crouch tried to install Thompson as chairman the executives went to Lowe and Wilde and asked them did they want this to happen. That was rebuffed and the board was then changed to give total control to the executives. If any two of the major share holders said at any point to stop the madness and square us financially it would have to happen. Now I am assuming throughout this that Lowe would back any move to operate within our financial limitations for the long term good of the club. That then would mean that throughout all of this period, that neither Crouch nor Wilde took this position for what ever reason.

 

If you believe that the executives went headlong with this financial master plan without the support of the major share holders, then explain why they were not removed at the first AGM or any subsequent EGM that the share holders wished to call? Look at all the decisions and directions taken by the executives and they were at the direction of the share holders or regulatory requirements.

 

I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but it needs to be assessed within the context that an EGM had been called to oust Lowe's board and that Hone, Dulieu and Hoos were appointees of the largest individual shareholder, Wilde. Whereas I agree that if a majority shareholding didn't like the direction that the Executive Directors were taking, they could have been told to change course, the majority shareholding was evidently in the hands of Wilde, Crouch and Corbett. Lowe held only a small shareholding percentage, but had the proxy of several others. So substantially it would have taken Wilde or Crouch allied to the Lowe group to have formed a majority opinion that might have swayed the Executive directors. Throughout this first couple of years, one is hard pressed to understand Wilde's position when he had stated in his manifesto that the non-executive directors should be in the majority over the execs and after that he had been deposed by the execs. I don't think that very much has been clearly established to explain satisfactorily the events that took place during the term that Hone and Co were in charge of running the club.

[um pahars]

I don't think that very much has been clearly established to explain satisfactorily the events that took place during the term that Hone and Co were in charge of running the club.

 

Hone and co maintained their position due to the power vacuum at the Club, caused by the continual infighting amongst the shareholders.

 

As for why they never implemented Plan B immediately after the parachute payments ran out, then I have to agree that it has never been fully explained.

 

The only answer I got from someone very senior at the Club was that the idea was to run the Club as a quasi Premership club until the January transfer window as this would make it more attractive to prospective buyers (SISU???), but if no buyer came forward by then, then the drastic cutbacks would then be made at that point (the January window as noted by Hone in his doomsday speech).

 

I' not overly comfortable with that response for a number of reasons, but hey ho.

 

Hone, Dulieu and co effectively had control the minute they forced Wilde to resign back in February 2007. If he hadn't have jumped then he would have been forced out as the entire PLC board (inc Crouch) were against him regarding his constant failure to secure the funding which he kept inferring was just around the corner.

 

The upshot of this was that it meant the roud robin of shareholders was complete with:

 

Lowe hating Wilde for instigating the EGM and removing him.

 

Lowe hating Crouch for supporting Wilde and removing him.

 

Wilde hating Lowe for "not running the Club correctly"

 

Wilde hating Crouch for being party to forcing him to resign.

 

Crouch hating Lowe for getting us relegated (and all the other stuff).

 

Crouch hating Wilde for being a charlatan.

 

It was this three way split and continual fighting that allowed Hone and co to remain in situ and carry on regardless.

 

No two groupings of shareholders were prepared to align themselves together as they weren't even on speaking terms.

 

Furthermore, any change in the boardroom might mean that one of their enemies might get their seat back, something all three of them couldn't handle, so instead they all sat back and let Hone defer Plan B.

 

PLC boards run companies, shareholders don't.

 

And that is exactly what our PLC board did. They ran the company as they saw fit.

 

Hone and co knew it was only short term until the major shareholders finally sorted themselves out, but whilst the three groupings weren't prepared to work together they were left alone to do as they saw fit.

 

They obviously had some contact with the major groupings, e.g. Hone and Crouch argued at every opportunity (regradless of whether it was in the Club's best interests), Wilde and Lowe were consulted over removing Crouch from the football board (but neither Lowe nor Wilde asked about Plan B at that time, they were more interested in sticking the knife into Crouch!!!).

 

It was only in the Autumn of 2007 that the shareholders got together after the SISU approach focussed their minds.

 

However, even then the animosity amongest the shareholders still shone through as noted in the Runnymede minutes with the action points including : Wilde to decide if he is prepared serve on a board with Lowe, and Lowe to decide if he is prepared to serve on a board with Wilde!!!!!!

Edited 16 September, 2008 by um pahars

[Chap in the Chapel]

Hone and co maintained their position due to the power vacuum at the Club, caused by the continual infighting amongst the shareholders.

 

As for why they never implemented Plan B immediately after the parachute payments ran out, then I have to agree that it has never been fully explained.

 

The only answer I got from someone very senior at the Club was that the idea was to run the Club as a quasi Premership club until the January transfer window as this would make it more attractive to prospective buyers (SISU???), but if no buyer came forward by then, then the drastic cutbacks would then be made at that point (the January window as noted by Hone in his doomsday speech).

 

I' not overly comfortable with that response for a number of reasons, but hey ho.

 

Hone, Dulieu and co effectively had control the minute they forced Wilde to resign back in February 2007. If he hadn't have jumped then he would have been forced out as the entire PLC board (inc Crouch) were against him regarding his constant failure to secure the funding which he kept inferring was just around the corner.

 

The upshot of this was that it meant the roud robin of shareholders was complete with:

 

Lowe hating Wilde for instigating the EGM and removing him.

 

Lowe hating Crouch for supporting Wilde and removing him.

 

Wilde hating Lowe for "not running the Club correctly"

 

Wilde hating Crouch for being party to forcing him to resign.

 

Crouch hating Lowe for getting us relegated (and all the other stuff).

 

Crouch hating Wilde for being a charlatan.

 

It was this three way split and continual fighting that allowed Hone and co to remain in situ and carry on regardless.

 

No two groupings of shareholders were prepared to align themselves together as they weren't even on speaking terms.

 

Furthermore, any change in the boardroom might mean that one of their enemies might get their seat back, something all three of them couldn't handle, so instead they all sat back and let Hone defer Plan B.

 

PLC boards run companies, shareholders don't.

 

And that is exactly what our PLC board did. They ran the company as they saw fit.

 

Hone and co knew it was only short term until the major shareholders finally sorted themselves out, but whilst the three groupings weren't prepared to work together they were left alone to do as they saw fit.

 

They obviously had some contact with the major groupings, e.g. Hone and Crouch argued at every opportunity (regradless of whether it was in the Club's best interests), Wilde and Lowe were consulted over removing Crouch from the football board (but neither Lowe nor Wilde asked about Plan B at that time, they were more interested in sticking the knife into Crouch!!!).

 

It was only in the Autumn of 2007 that the shareholders got together after the SISU approach focussed their minds.

 

However, even then the animosity amongest the shareholders still shone through as noted in the Runnymede minutes with the action points including : Wilde to decide if he is prepared serve on a board with Lowe, and Lowe to decide if he is prepared to serve on a bord with Wilde!!!!!!

 

Probably the best (short) summary of things I've seen. I can't wait to get shot of the bloody lot of them. While L, W & C bickered, the former execs milked the club for all they could, knowing that they could quit when someone else eventually decided to try and fix things. For all the stick that L, W & C get, Hone et al snuck away without getting anything like the flack they deserve.

[Wes Tender]

Hone and co maintained their position due to the power vacuum at the Club, caused by the continual infighting amongst the shareholders.

 

As for why they never implemented Plan B immediately after the parachute payments ran out, then I have to agree that it has never been fully explained.

 

The only answer I got from someone very senior at the Club was that the idea was to run the Club as a quasi Premership club until the January transfer window as this would make it more attractive to prospective buyers (SISU???), but if no buyer came forward by then, then the drastic cutbacks would then be made at that point (the January window as noted by Hone in his doomsday speech).

 

I' not overly comfortable with that response for a number of reasons, but hey ho.

 

Hone, Dulieu and co effectively had control the minute they forced Wilde to resign back in February 2007. If he hadn't have jumped then he would have been forced out as the entire PLC board (inc Crouch) were against him regarding his constant failure to secure the funding which he kept inferring was just around the corner.

 

The upshot of this was that it meant the roud robin of shareholders was complete with:

 

Lowe hating Wilde for instigating the EGM and removing him.

 

Lowe hating Crouch for supporting Wilde and removing him.

 

Wilde hating Lowe for "not running the Club correctly"

 

Wilde hating Crouch for being party to forcing him to resign.

 

Crouch hating Lowe for getting us relegated (and all the other stuff).

 

Crouch hating Wilde for being a charlatan.

 

It was this three way split and continual fighting that allowed Hone and co to remain in situ and carry on regardless.

 

No two groupings of shareholders were prepared to align themselves together as they weren't even on speaking terms.

 

Furthermore, any change in the boardroom might mean that one of their enemies might get their seat back, something all three of them couldn't handle, so instead they all sat back and let Hone defer Plan B.

 

PLC boards run companies, shareholders don't.

 

And that is exactly what our PLC board did. They ran the company as they saw fit.

 

Hone and co knew it was only short term until the major shareholders finally sorted themselves out, but whilst the three groupings weren't prepared to work together they were left alone to do as they saw fit.

 

They obviously had some contact with the major groupings, e.g. Hone and Crouch argued at every opportunity (regradless of whether it was in the Club's best interests), Wilde and Lowe were consulted over removing Crouch from the football board (but neither Lowe nor Wilde asked about Plan B at that time, they were more interested in sticking the knife into Crouch!!!).

 

It was only in the Autumn of 2007 that the shareholders got together after the SISU approach focussed their minds.

 

However, even then the animosity amongest the shareholders still shone through as noted in the Runnymede minutes with the action points including : Wilde to decide if he is prepared serve on a board with Lowe, and Lowe to decide if he is prepared to serve on a board with Wilde!!!!!!

 

I can't argue with anything you say in your summary, Steve. What a sad state of affairs it all was, a bit like a rudderless ship heading straight for the rocks whilst the crew argued amongst themselves as to who should be at the wheel.

[NickG]

Why not ? This situation has been entirely predictable, but has been allowed to occur because of blinkered penny-pinching.

 

Killer should have retired with his health more-or-less intact after his reconstructive surgery, and we would have had all our illusions about him coming back shattered once-and-for-all.

 

He could have played other roles at the club (perhaps he could being doing as good a job now as JP ?) which wouldnt have risked his health.

 

hope he hasn't retired yet!

[NickG]

Your drivel gets more pathetic by the hour.

 

He is a cripple because the way in which he would have chosen to lead his life has been crippled by a major injury.

 

What part of that dont you bloody understand ? I rated Killer as a massive player for us in 2002-2003, and I still think he could have a major impact if he can put his injury problems behind him, but I am sure he cannot.

 

And he was also a cheap option for Rupert Lowe that enabled him to push Davies out of the door. And just like the Killer/Fitz Hall situation in the relegation season, we are going to pay a huge price for that decision

 

..hope he is better and back in training

[NickG]

You are deny that Killer has been crippled by his injury, in that it has not had a major impact on the way he has led his life, and how he will lead it in the future ?

 

Yes, the bloke has worked a miracle to get himself fit, back on the field and to win a professional contract again, but it is clear that there the miracle ends.

 

The bloke is clearly in agony after every game. I would rather he got on with his life away from pro football and out of continual pain and discomfort.

 

You want to get on your moral high-horse and view use of the word "cripple" as a term of abuse without any context, you go ahead. But it makes you look foolish.

is he?

[NickG]

Accusing me of calling Killer a liar is one-dimensional, childish and pathetic.

 

You have absolutely no subtlety. You see everything in black-and-white.

 

The bloke has fought tooth-and-nail to recover from an major injury, get match-fit again, and win another professional contract.

 

And he made it, but the knee is not right and is still giving him grief.

 

After all he has been through, it is hardly surprising that he is somewhat in denial about his latest set-back. That is hardly the same as lying, but it comes as no surprise to me that you dont see the difference.

 

Let's see if he appears mid-week. If he does, I am wrong. If he doesnt......

 

hope he doesn't risk it recurring if he is in denial again