Leon Crouch - a very successful business man.

[70's Mike]

Total Tosh

 

So the fans are not supporting the club financially then? ie season tickets gate prices & merchandise?

 

 

only when it suits ruperts army

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

You can point to the opposite where he actually allowed the players wage bill to increase significantly.

The increase in players wages (to a level commensurate with what it was under Lowe in the first season down) occurred when Hone & his cohorts had effective control of the day to day running of the Club.

 

Crouch had had no real power from the day Wilde stepped down, when power was effectively handed to the Executives, led by Hone. They were the ones who were in control and decided to let the wage bill increase during that period.

 

The position of the Executives was enforced in the summer with Crouch being removed from the Football Club Board, Hunt stepping down from the PLC board and Oldknow being appointed to it.

 

All this effectively gave Hone a free run of the place. He and his inner circle were taking the decisions that led to the increase in players wages. Someone with a good source has already pointed out that Crouch was against giving Euell such a handsome contract, but Hone pushed it through.

 

In fact, in the early days, when the board was more evenly balanced and Crouch played a role along with Wilde and others, wages actually fell by £3million from when Lowe left office.

 

When Crouch resumed any real control he was limited by what he could do, given it was halfway through a season. Contracts normally run out in the summer (i.e. Claus and others) and the main dealing period is the summer close season. Nonetheless he oversaw the loans of our two highest earners in Skacel & Rasiak, whilst keeping the bank on side.

 

This probably allowed for some flexibility when we hit the rocks on the pitch and allowed us to bring in some very important loans (even if they did cost some money) under Pearson. But the cost of these loans to the Club is small time in comparison to the cost of relegation and the disaster that would have surely followed.

 

Crouch made mistakes, I'm sure even he would admit to that, but blaming him for some poor financial decisions when others had their hand on the tiller is somewhat misguided, a common theme that comes across in many of your posts.

 

The reference made to the increase in players wages is from information quoted by Lowe and Wilde regarding the period we have seen no accounts for as yet.

 

Throughout all of the period where Crouch has been involved in the club, can you point to one instance where you believe he has tried / or urged others to try and remedy the financial position, before it was too late? I can give you examples of where the opposite is true and so many statements telling us it was not true.

 

Crouch made a big point of stating the executives were incorrect with their summary after the SISU bid in that we would have to sell the senior pro's to survive. This was clearly true but once again Crouch buried his head in the sand again, mumbling the opposite. In fact things were so bad that failing to find a buyer, we had to let them go out on loan. One for a player we could have gained £2M in fees 3 months previously, only to keep him and barely use him, then find we could no longer sell him on.

 

Don't try and make out Crouch was urging Hone to get the club on a level financial standing , because that was not the case, in fact the opposite. If at any time either Wilde or Crouch had asked the executives to get the club on a sound financial footing, it would have happened with the support of Lowe. The executives could not ignore that major share holding.

[Long Shot]

The reference made to the increase in players wages is from information quoted by Lowe and Wilde regarding the period we have seen no accounts for as yet.

 

Throughout all of the period where Crouch has been involved in the club, can you point to one instance where you believe he has tried / or urged others to try and remedy the financial position, before it was too late? I can give you examples of where the opposite is true and so many statements telling us it was not true.

 

Crouch made a big point of stating the executives were incorrect with their summary after the SISU bid in that we would have to sell the senior pro's to survive. This was clearly true but once again Crouch buried his head in the sand again, mumbling the opposite. In fact things were so bad that failing to find a buyer, we had to let them go out on loan. One for a player we could have gained £2M in fees 3 months previously, only to keep him and barely use him, then find we could no longer sell him on.

 

Don't try and make out Crouch was urging Hone to get the club on a level financial standing , because that was not the case, in fact the opposite. If at any time either Wilde or Crouch had asked the executives to get the club on a sound financial footing, it would have happened with the support of Lowe. The executives could not ignore that major share holding.

 

 

Sorry mate - this is utter uninformed garbage

[um pahars]

The reference made to the increase in players wages is from information quoted by Lowe and Wilde regarding the period we have seen no accounts for as yet.

 

I have no idea what you're getting at here, but then again, that shouldn't come as any surprise from someone who tried to claim that wages under Lowe were £6m a year (when they actually double that figure).

 

Throughout all of the period where Crouch has been involved in the club, can you point to one instance where you believe he has tried / or urged others to try and remedy the financial position, before it was too late? I can give you examples of where the opposite is true and so many statements telling us it was not true.

 

Crouch made a big point of stating the executives were incorrect with their summary after the SISU bid in that we would have to sell the senior pro's to survive. This was clearly true but once again Crouch buried his head in the sand again, mumbling the opposite. In fact things were so bad that failing to find a buyer, we had to let them go out on loan. One for a player we could have gained £2M in fees 3 months previously, only to keep him and barely use him, then find we could no longer sell him on.

 

But there's a world of difference between rhetoric, badmouthing the Executives & slagging off Hone on one hand, and actually signing players & increasing our wages on the other.

 

Crouch was guilty of the first one and was doing & saying anything to have a go at Hone, but that doesn't translate into putting a signature on a contract, something which Hone and his cabal were guilty of.

 

Hone made the decisions to increase the wages and not implement Plan B during that summer where he had full control of the day to day running.

 

If at any time either Wilde or Crouch had asked the executives to get the club on a sound financial footing, it would have happened with the support of Lowe. The executives could not ignore that major share holding.

 

And as I have said before, on this point Crouch is as guilty as Lowe and Wilde, in that whilst they were all bickering amongst themselves and refusing to work together, it allowed Hone to keep singing the contracts that sent the wages ever higher.

 

In time they eventually got together, and the Runnymede minutes show that they were not happy with the situation, with Crouch advocating removing the Executives, whilst Cowen was also questioning why the Executives had not implemented Plan B.

 

However, even this opposition was fraught with difficulties with each group (Lowe, Wilde and Crouch) rejecting each others alternative plans. It even got so bad that neither Lowe or Wilde could agree to work together. So at this point, it could be argued that Crouch was the only one who was really up for burying the hatchet to get rid of the Executives (the other two were still fighting in the playground).

 

However, the infighting between the shareholders and the free reign it gave Hone, should in no way exonerate him from not being responsible for overseeing the rise in wages.

 

That was ultimately his, and his cabal's, decision and as an experienced football executive he should have been more than aware of where it was leading the Club (it would also be good to hear David Jones view on this sad little episode).

Edited 12 October, 2008 by um pahars

[OldNick]

 

In fact, in the early days, when the board was more evenly balanced and Crouch played a role along with Wilde and others, wages actually fell by £3million from when Lowe left office.

 

 

Crouch made mistakes, I'm sure even he would admit to that, but blaming him for some poor financial decisions when others had their hand on the tiller is somewhat misguided, a common theme that comes across in many of your posts.

As I have stated before, the second season when the wage bill came down was a carry over from RL installing GB whose remit was to slash the wage bill and get rid of the hgh earners, hence over 20 players departing.

I dont know for certain who was in charge and making the decisions at any one time after Lowes removal but All that came in oversaw an increase on wages and that is criminal in a financial sense.

It is not about RL being better but the wage bill was being slashed but the 'saviuors, and anyone but RL' crew took us back to the same heoights of wages that we had when we had a squad of PL salaried players when we first came down.

It is a disaster and however you dress it up we were let down

[um pahars]

As I have stated before, the second season when the wage bill came down was a carry over from RL installing GB whose remit was to slash the wage bill and get rid of the hgh earners, hence over 20 players departing.

 

The wages under Burley in his first six months were at a similar level to the six months under Redknapp, so after the first drop from Premiership wages, Lowe did not oversee a further step drop.

 

The next drop in wages came about from that summer when Wilde, Crouch, Hone and the others rocked up. As well as reducing wages, they also reduced other costs as well (and also delivered a play off spot).

 

I dont know for certain who was in charge and making the decisions at any one time after Lowes removal but All that came in oversaw an increase on wages and that is criminal in a financial sense.

 

And as I have proved above, not "All that came in oversaw an increase in wages". Indeed, the first regime (Wilde, Crouch & Hone) oversaw a reduction.

 

The second regime (Hone & the Executives) oversaw the increase back up the Lowe levels of wages.

 

It is not about RL being better but the wage bill was being slashed but the 'saviuors, and anyone but RL' crew took us back to the same heoights of wages that we had when we had a squad of PL salaried players when we first came down.

 

Once again, you fail to discern between the two different eras post Lowe, and instead lump everyone in together.

 

Similarly, you obviously don't know the make up of our salary base if you think that we had a bunch of PL salaried players in that first season down . Go and have a look at the step reduction that occurred when we fell out of the top flight (an effort that Lowe should get some recognition for).

 

It is a disaster and however you dress it up we were let down

 

It is all relative. Allowing the wages to go up by a couple of million certainly is not good news. It's something I would never advocate and it's something I have always opposed.

 

However, the use of the word disaster is somewhat over the top, particularly when put up against the loss of tens of millions from the top line.

 

That was the disaster that has changed this Club.

[Weston Saint]

These are total wages for SLH

 

Wage costs y/e 2005 £27,805,000

Wage costs y/e 2006 £18,811,000 (13 months)

Wage costs y/e 2007 £15,062,000

[um pahars]

These are total wages for SLH

 

Wage costs y/e 2005 £27,805,000

Wage costs y/e 2006 £18,811,000 (13 months)

Wage costs y/e 2007 £15,062,000

 

And players salaries only were:

 

Players wages y/e 2005 £23.2m

Players wages y/e 2006 £13.6m (13 months)

Players wages y/e 2007 £10.5m

 

Players wages y/e 2008 £12.1m (est)

[Alucard]

The wages under Burley in his first six months were at a similar level to the six months under Redknapp, so after the first drop from Premiership wages, Lowe did not oversee a further step drop.

.

How can this be true. As soon as Burley arrived Niemi, McCann, Wise, Ormerod, Haito , Quashie and Delap from our high wage earners left in the January transfer window along with Blayney, Walcott, Mills and McNiel. That's 11 players leaving with 3 coming in (Bialkowski, Brennan and Ostlund)

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2471

 

 

I must be missing something as I would have thought this substantially reduced the wage bill under Lowe.

[um pahars]

How can this be true. As soon as Burley arrived Niemi, McCann, Wise, Ormerod, Haito , Quashie and Delap from our high wage earners left in the January transfer window along with Blayney, Walcott, Mills and McNiel. That's 11 players leaving with 3 coming in (Bialkowski, Brennan and Ostlund)

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2471

 

 

I must be missing something as I would have thought this substantially reduced the wage bill under Lowe.

 

You must indeed be missing something, as pre and post the January window, our wages were constant at approx £1m per month:

 

6 months to Nov 2005 (under Redknapp) - £6.2m

 

7 months to June 2006 (effectively Burley) - £7.4m

 

Rasiak came in on loan under Burley, and he cost a decent wedge, but those numbers are taken from the interims and Annual Report.

[OldNick]

How can this be true. As soon as Burley arrived Niemi, McCann, Wise, Ormerod, Haito , Quashie and Delap from our high wage earners left in the January transfer window along with Blayney, Walcott, Mills and McNiel. That's 11 players leaving with 3 coming in (Bialkowski, Brennan and Ostlund)

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2471

 

 

I must be missing something as I would have thought this substantially reduced the wage bill under Lowe.

its no use trying to try and persuade Ump any differently. I suspect on many points is correct and weak on others.

He has great affection for LC and so will always defend any of his actions.He may be correct but as in all these things there is a little from them all. I myself beleive the new lot tried to curry favour with the fans in poplarist moves and forgot the finances as the parachute payments were ending.

[um pahars]

its no use trying to try and persuade Ump any differently. I suspect on many points is correct and weak on others.

He has great affection for LC and so will always defend any of his actions.He may be correct but as in all these things there is a little from them all. I myself beleive the new lot tried to curry favour with the fans in poplarist moves and forgot the finances as the parachute payments were ending.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Once again I can only presume that you fail to read posts and instead just post waffle, conveniently ignoring the salient points (not to mention ignoring clear evidence).

 

The plain facts (as noted above, lifted from the Interims and Annual Report) clearly display the trend in wages over four season. You would do well to sit back and digest them, as opposed to keep coming back on here and revealing that you are poorly informed on this area.

 

As for having great affection for Crouch and always defending his actions, well that's just the same, lame jibe you trot out when you have no other defence. It's up there with "you only hate Lowe cos he's posh" in terms of lameness.

 

If you had cared to read some of my posts, then you would have seen that I judge him by the same standards Ijudge anyone in control of the Club (e.g. I was critical of is handling of the cashing in on Theo, dallying when Burley left, how Rasiak and Skacel being loaned out was dressed upand a number of other areas where his management was poor).

 

However, what I won't do is try and hold him accountable for things that did not occur under his stewardship, which is where this debate was going before you bumbled in with your ill informed posts.

[up and away]

Crouch said: "I have only two non-executive supporters on the PLC board - Keith Wiseman and Patrick Trant - who will vote for me. That means there will be five against. I am bound to lose. It is all over.

"I am gutted it has come to this. I have spent the last nine months working tirelessly for this club representing the fans, but I have been a thorn in their (the executive board members) side.

"I opposed the mass exodus of staff at the club, we are losing too many good people. I knew it would be a real battle and it has been. I am devastated. I have spent the last 18 months battling these people."

 

 

There are many on here who totally ignore this statement from Crouch's own lips and still maintain he had nothing to do with our financial mess. Even to the extent that Crouch would have done the opposite.

[um pahars]

Crouch said: "I have only two non-executive supporters on the PLC board - Keith Wiseman and Patrick Trant - who will vote for me. That means there will be five against. I am bound to lose. It is all over.

"I am gutted it has come to this. I have spent the last nine months working tirelessly for this club representing the fans, but I have been a thorn in their (the executive board members) side.

"I opposed the mass exodus of staff at the club, we are losing too many good people. I knew it would be a real battle and it has been. I am devastated. I have spent the last 18 months battling these people."

 

 

There are many on here who totally ignore this statement from Crouch's own lips and still maintain he had nothing to do with our financial mess. Even to the extent that Crouch would have done the opposite.

 

And you would do well to read that first part, which clearly demonstrates that the power at the Club, at that time, lay with the Executives under Hone.

 

Crouch could moan, whinge and stir up trouble as much as he liked, but it was Jim Hone's signature on the contracts for the players that saw our wages rise in the summer of 2007.

 

We have no idea of knowing just what Crouch would have done had he been in control. He might have increased wages further, he might have lowered them, but for some reason you continue to ignore tha plain fact that he had no day to day say in the Players Wages at the Club during the period that they went back up.

[exit2]

How can this be true. As soon as Burley arrived Niemi, McCann, Wise, Ormerod, Haito , Quashie and Delap from our high wage earners left in the January transfer window along with Blayney, Walcott, Mills and McNiel. That's 11 players leaving with 3 coming in (Bialkowski, Brennan and Ostlund)

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2471

 

 

I must be missing something as I would have thought this substantially reduced the wage bill under Lowe.

 

People are forgetting the "compensation" that is being payed to these players after they leave. It was the clubs choice for them to go and so that means many players had at least 1 year on their contract. If you remember last year people like McCann, Omerod etc were still being paid by Southampton after they left or when they left they took a big cheque. This is normal practice, and many people are unaware of this. So looking at soccer stat sites doesnt tell you much.

 

One example is that when Kevin Davies signed for Blackburn on £20k a week on a 5 yr contract, when he came back here Blackburn were still paying him I think £8k a week for a couple of years.

 

In the long run, it is cheaper for the club selling the players to do this.

 

This why so many players "hand in a transfer request". This wavers all bonus, and contractual payment owed to the player and is an incentive for the club selling to agree.

 

A more recent example is Freddy Lundberg leaving West Ham I think it cost them £6m for him to leave and this was to reduce their wage bill!

[OldNick]

:rolleyes:

 

Once again I can only presume that you fail to read posts and instead just post waffle, conveniently ignoring the salient points (not to mention ignoring clear evidence).

 

The plain facts (as noted above, lifted from the Interims and Annual Report) clearly display the trend in wages over four season. You would do well to sit back and digest them, as opposed to keep coming back on here and revealing that you are poorly informed on this area.

 

As for having great affection for Crouch and always defending his actions, well that's just the same, lame jibe you trot out when you have no other defence. It's up there with "you only hate Lowe cos he's posh" in terms of lameness.

 

If you had cared to read some of my posts, then you would have seen that I judge him by the same standards Ijudge anyone in control of the Club (e.g. I was critical of is handling of the cashing in on Theo, dallying when Burley left, how Rasiak and Skacel being loaned out was dressed upand a number of other areas where his management was poor).

 

However, what I won't do is try and hold him accountable for things that did not occur under his stewardship, which is where this debate was going before you bumbled in with your ill informed posts.

If you think that your patronising and attempting to be offensive posts effect me you have another thing coming.

You may be able to put across your belief that you are some kind of financial guru but it doesnt cut with me.

You dont see the effects of cuts straight away and many go forward into the next yerars figures.

we came down with a pL wage bill and that would take time to reduce or do contracts and fixed costs mean nothing . Gb came to the club and axed over 20 players on high wages.It is something you dont seem to want to accept. that was in the period before the Wilde bunch tookover. Those savings would have been still filtering down in the following years figures that you seem to be putting to Crouch Wilde and co.

They came in on a popularist vote and spent spent spent. those figures then follow onto the rising of the salary bill.

The wage bill rose back up, and it doesnt matter whether LC or whoever signed the cheques they were custodians and they are responsible for the actions of the people they put in charge.

The whole of the Wilde bunch were culpable as they took over the club and ran it into the ground and did not plan ahead correctly.

As for your comment and constant going back to the relegation situation that was indeed a disaster but many companies lose major clients and with it finance, they dont then go out and employ more, they reduce cuts and take drastic action to make things financially stable.

That is my criticism, if i lost my best client I wouldnt then go and stock up in goods that he required in the past or increase any of my costs. It is so straightforward and undefendable IMO. Whether you wish to point at Hone or Hoos I dont care , but the real financial problems have come to the fore under their stewardship.

 

ps I notice you have had to resort to the funny faces to try and strengthen your debating, I had thought you had grown up a bit and refrained form using them.It may impress some of the youngsters but the mature posters would see through them.You are above having to resort to those.

Edited 12 October, 2008 by OldNick

[um pahars]

If you think that your patronising and attempting to be offensive posts effect me you have another thing coming.

You may be able to put across your belief that you are some kind of financial guru but it doesnt cut with me.

You dont see the effects of cuts straight away and many go forward into the next yerars figures.

we came down with a pL wage bill and that would take time to reduce or do contracts and fixed costs mean nothing . Gb came to the club and axed over 20 players on high wages.It is something you dont seem to want to accept. that was in the period before the Wilde bunch tookover. Those savings would have been still filtering down in the following years figures that you seem to be putting to Crouch Wilde and co.

They came in on a popularist vote and spent spent spent. those figures then follow onto the rising of the salary bill.

The wage bill rose back up, and it doesnt matter whether LC or whoever signed the cheques they were custodians and they are responsible for the actions of the people they put in charge.

The whole of the Wilde bunch were culpable as they took over the club and ran it into the ground and did not plan ahead correctly.

As for your comment and constant going back to the relegation situation that was indeed a disaster but many companies lose major clients and with it finance, they dont then go out and employ more, they reduce cuts and take drastic action to make things financially stable.

That is my criticism, if i lost my best client I wouldnt then go and stock up in goods that he required in the past or increase any of my costs. It is so straightforward and undefendable IMO. Whether you wish to point at Hone or Hoos I dont care , but the real financial problems have come to the fore under their stewardship.

 

ps I notice you have had to resort to the funny faces to try and strengthen your debating, I had thought you had grown up a bit and refrained form using them.It may impress some of the youngsters but the mature posters would see through them.You are above having to resort to those.

 

With this post, methinks you have surpassed yourself in highlighting your total lack of knowledge and understanding on this subject.:rolleyes:

 

Just as it was impossible to try and explain our Operating Loss to you , so it would appear that it will be impossible to try and explain our cost structure and how it has impacted on the Club in recent years.

 

Besides, this debate was to do with Leon Crouch and his part in increasing the wage bill (or not as is the case in fact), so it would probably be best if you took your bumblings to some other thread.

 

Take my advice, go and do some research, look at the numbers put up here by myself and others relating to wages, put them in a timeline, understand how costs are treated in the books (inc terminated contracts) and then maybe, just maybe you might be able to add something tangible to this debate.

[exit2]

It doesnt matter whether LC or whoever signed the cheques they were custodians and they are responsible for the actions of the people they put in charge.

 

Nick, you say THEY? Are you referring to Crouch and Wilde? Im sorry to say but that is actually incorrect. The people you refer to ie Hoos, Hone, Delieu were brought in by Wilde and were "headhunted" by him via Vantis (Sports Advisory Sector). He told me a week after he brought up his first tranch of shares about these guys, and this was before Crouch was on the scene. It took several attempts for Hoos, Delieu, Hones, Trant (Wilde had personal issues in Singapore / Jersey) to get Crouch on side (this included meals, and cigars at the Harbour House and GD4 , which were owned by Trant)and when they did,this is when Lowe resigned to the fact he was out and left the Football club.

 

Im not sticking for Crouch here in anyway as he has made mistakes as had everyone else but, people seem to forget very quickly the events that have happened.

 

Wilde put in those executives who then basically got rid of him, and because of the way the votes was carried, Leon Crouch was asked to leave also. It was a close shop as it is now.

[Alucard]

And as I have proved above, not "All that came in oversaw an increase in wages". Indeed, the first regime (Wilde, Crouch & Hone) oversaw a reduction.

 

The second regime (Hone & the Executives) oversaw the increase back up the Lowe levels of wages.

.

 

No the first regime (Wilde, Crouch & Hone) inherited the wage reduction brought about from Lowe's January cull. The first regime then brought in BWP, JW, Pele, KD, Skacel, Viafara, Makin & Idiakez.

Out went Paul Smith, Folly, Oakley, Higginbotham, Blackstock & Fuller. Fuller must have been a really large wedge if you think this turnover of players brought a wage reduction.

[OldNick]

With this post, methinks you have surpassed yourself in highlighting your total lack of knowledge and understanding on this subject.:rolleyes:

 

Just as it was impossible to try and explain our Operating Loss to you , so it would appear that it will be impossible to try and explain our cost structure and how it has impacted on the Club in recent years.

 

Besides, this debate was to do with Leon Crouch and his part in increasing the wage bill (or not as is the case in fact), so it would probably be best if you took your bumblings to some other thread.

 

Take my advice, go and do some research, look at the numbers put up here by myself and others relating to wages, put them in a timeline, understand how costs are treated in the books (inc terminated contracts) and then maybe, just maybe you might be able to add something tangible to this debate.

you keep to your juvenile smileys to try and add some kind of moral support to your points. You believe that you are the Finnacial god on here when patently you are not.

You may try and play the 'i know how to read the financial reports 'etc but you still do not answer the questions but skip over them with your attempts to discredit.

The fact is RL took on Gb who culled the squad.Losing over 20 players on the wage bill doesnt happen immediately and some is held over to later accounts.

You obviously have ties of loyalty over LC and thats fine and so defend his actions to the hilt.

If a serious fraud had happened the board would be looked at as well as the people employed to do the work, and so the same goes for financial mismanagement.

The whole of the Wilde bunch oversaw this during their tenure and LC was in charge in the last 6 months.In that time many high salaried loans were brought in, that also incurred expensive loan fees, hotel and relocation costs. He may have bene forced to do so due to our league standing but it was still at a high financial cost.

I await the usual smileys and arrogant replies of 'but it was 5months 3 days not 6 months' etc.

Do you agree that if a company loses a large part of its financial stream it should look to slash costs and make sure it is financially secure before taking on higher debt or costs?

[um pahars]

No the first regime (Wilde, Crouch & Hone) inherited the wage reduction brought about from Lowe's January cull. The first regime then brought in BWP, JW, Pele, KD, Skacel, Viafara, Makin & Idiakez.

Out went Paul Smith, Folly, Oakley, Higginbotham, Blackstock & Fuller. Fuller must have been a really large wedge if you think this turnover of players brought a wage reduction.

 

The last seven months of the Lowe regime (Dec through to end June, the start of the Burley era) had a wage bill of £7.4m, whilst the proceeding 6 mths (the end of the Redknapp era) was £6.2m.

 

This would suggest that despite your January cull, wages for the period after the January transfer window were similar to the period before i.e. the net outcome was that there was no real discernible reduction.

 

These figures come from the Interim and Annual Reports are not up for debate.

 

So although we may have lost players like Quashie and Niemi (and the many others you mentioned), we also replaced them with others that netted these savings out, and these included Rasiak, Madsen, Ostlund, Pele, Potter, Brennan, Bart, Chaplow, Wright, Miller.

 

The first six months under Wilde (July to Dec) had a wage bill of £5m.

[OldNick]

Nick, you say THEY? Are you referring to Crouch and Wilde? Im sorry to say but that is actually incorrect. The people you refer to ie Hoos, Hone, Delieu were brought in by Wilde and were "headhunted" by him via Vantis (Sports Advisory Sector). He told me a week after he brought up his first tranch of shares about these guys, and this was before Crouch was on the scene. It took several attempts for Hoos, Delieu, Hones, Trant (Wilde had personal issues in Singapore / Jersey) to get Crouch on side (this included meals, and cigars at the Harbour House and GD4 , which were owned by Trant)and when they did,this is when Lowe resigned to the fact he was out and left the Football club.

 

Im not sticking for Crouch here in anyway as he has made mistakes as had everyone else but, people seem to forget very quickly the events that have happened.

 

Wilde put in those executives who then basically got rid of him, and because of the way the votes was carried, Leon Crouch was asked to leave also. It was a close shop as it is now.

Exit I generalise as IMO it was during the tenure of the whole Wilde bunch that the action for longterm financial security was not made no 1 in priority.

LC without a doubt is a fantastic Saints fan and I have been told of him underwrting transfers etc I he may have a few loan notes on the club.

I doubt he would let his business be run like he and the rest oversaw the football club.

I am not singling him out any more than MW or the others who thought they would ride into the club and become heroes. They made a misjudgement and we are all paying for it , fans like myself who warned against it and the gushing fans like Umpahars who were sucked in by the promises and agrued that we should run into their arms.

So no doubt I will get loads of rolley eyed things and told how stupid I am, but history tells us I was correct, they were wrong for the club.

It is no different than what has happened in the global markets, others have made the bad calls and I and all the other decent people are left to pick up the bill.

[um pahars]

you keep to your juvenile smileys to try and add some kind of moral support to your points. You believe that you are the Finnacial god on here when patently you are not.

 

I certainly don't believe that I am the financial god on here, but what is patently clear is that you are out of your depth whenever you try to add to the debate in this sphere.

 

You may try and play the 'i know how to read the financial reports 'etc but you still do not answer the questions but skip over them with your attempts to discredit.

 

The financial reports aren't difficult to read (see Weston Saints post above), but sadly you and a few others fail to believe anything that is written in them because they don't fit in with your biased perception of events.

 

As for answering questions, then feel free to repeat any of your questions that I may have missed and I would be only too ready to answer them. I await your gripping questions:rolleyes:

 

The fact is RL took on Gb who culled the squad.Losing over 20 players on the wage bill doesnt happen immediately and some is held over to later accounts.

 

And as I have noted above, we may have lost players during the early part of Burley's tenure (feel free to list the 20, as that seems excessve), but we also brought in quite a few (I have listed at least 10 above).

 

Look at the figures pre and post the January window and our wage costs are similar at around £1m a month.

 

As for "some is held over to later accounts", what are you bumbling on about?

 

You obviously have ties of loyalty over LC and thats fine and so defend his actions to the hilt.

 

Once again you display a noddy like approach to reading other peoples posts and a poor attempt at being consistent and rational in your arguments.

 

If a serious fraud had happened the board would be looked at as well as the people employed to do the work, and so the same goes for financial mismanagement. The whole of the Wilde bunch oversaw this during their tenure and LC was in charge in the last 6 months.

 

You obviously fail to appreciate how the Club was run on a day to day basis fom the time when Wilde stepped down and where the power lay with regards the Executives and the Non Executives (depsite it being highlighted on many occasions on this forum - nd even this thread - and in the real world).

 

Try and read some posts and try and do some of your own research before you spout off rubbish and embarrass yourself on here.

 

In that time many high salaried loans were brought in, that also incurred expensive loan fees, hotel and relocation costs. He may have bene forced to do so due to our league standing but it was still at a high financial cost.

I await the usual smileys and arrogant replies of 'but it was 5months 3 days not 6 months' etc.

 

Spending money on the loans of Lucketti, Wright and others was not ideal, particularly when Hone had already increased the wage bill in the summer of 2007, but when looked at in a rational and sensible manner, that money was money very well spent.

 

Arguably some of those short term additions helped secure our status in the second division and staved off the footballing and financial disaster that would certainly have followed relegation to the third tier.

 

Attacking Crouch for sanctioning these short term loans is an astonishing position to take nickh, a very weak argument indeed.

 

Do you agree that if a company loses a large part of its financial stream it should look to slash costs and make sure it is financially secure before taking on higher debt or costs?

 

You would have to look at the company the industry and the context of where it finds itself.

 

In the case of Saints, like Lowe and others, I would have pursued a position of exploiting every conceivable advantage during the parachute payment, even if it meant a small increase in net debt or some player trading to cover the deficit.

 

I would then have looked at retrenching after those two years.

[Mole]

I am not singling him out any more than MW or the others who thought they would ride into the club and become heroes. They made a misjudgement and we are all paying for it , fans like myself who warned against it and the gushing fans like Umpahars who were sucked in by the promises and agrued that we should run into their arms.

So no doubt I will get loads of rolley eyed things and told how stupid I am, but history tells us I was correct, they were wrong for the club.

 

To be fair you didn't have to be a Lowe Luvvie to be against Wilde. I was and am dead against Lowe but even so wasn't taken in by Wilde for very long. Wilde uses fans. He used Keith on SaintsForever and the alarm bells started ringing. Then he saw the opportunity of good PR by using - and in doing so killing off - the Saints Trust. He even went as far as telling Andrew Cowen the SOS people wanted him back as chairman when they didn't. MW is clearly not to be trusted.

[Long Shot]

Nick, you say THEY? Are you referring to Crouch and Wilde? Im sorry to say but that is actually incorrect. The people you refer to ie Hoos, Hone, Delieu were brought in by Wilde and were "headhunted" by him via Vantis (Sports Advisory Sector). He told me a week after he brought up his first tranch of shares about these guys, and this was before Crouch was on the scene. It took several attempts for Hoos, Delieu, Hones, Trant (Wilde had personal issues in Singapore / Jersey) to get Crouch on side (this included meals, and cigars at the Harbour House and GD4 , which were owned by Trant)and when they did,this is when Lowe resigned to the fact he was out and left the Football club.

 

Im not sticking for Crouch here in anyway as he has made mistakes as had everyone else but, people seem to forget very quickly the events that have happened.

 

Wilde put in those executives who then basically got rid of him, and because of the way the votes was carried, Leon Crouch was asked to leave also. It was a close shop as it is now.

 

 

NickH - you would be wise to read this as it is correct. Um Pahars is also spot on. Sometimes I think you do not read other's [posts carefully. No offence because I think you mean well but if you are going to respond on complicated issues raised it would be best to try and fully understand what is being said. I think this is the reason Um Pahars resorts to smilies which you seem to spend more time considering.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by exit2

Nick, you say THEY? Are you referring to Crouch and Wilde? Im sorry to say but that is actually incorrect. The people you refer to ie Hoos, Hone, Delieu were brought in by Wilde and were "headhunted" by him via Vantis (Sports Advisory Sector). He told me a week after he brought up his first tranch of shares about these guys, and this was before Crouch was on the scene. It took several attempts for Hoos, Delieu, Hones, Trant (Wilde had personal issues in Singapore / Jersey) to get Crouch on side (this included meals, and cigars at the Harbour House and GD4 :smile: , which were owned by Trant)and when they did,this is when Lowe resigned to the fact he was out and left the Football club.

 

Im not sticking for Crouch here in anyway as he has made mistakes as had everyone else but, people seem to forget very quickly the events that have happened.

 

Wilde put in those executives who then basically got rid of him, and because of the way the votes was carried, Leon Crouch was asked to leave also. It was a close shop as it is now.

NickH - you would be wise to read this as it is correct. Um Pahars is also spot on. Sometimes I think you do not read other's [posts carefully. No offence because I think you mean well but if you are going to respond on complicated issues raised it would be best to try and fully understand what is being said. I think this is the reason Um Pahars resorts to smilies which you seem to spend more time considering.

 

The executives polled the major share holders regarding the position of chairman and whether they wanted Thompson to be elected. If the share holders wanted Thompson in, that would have been done and the executives paid off. When the share holders indicated they did not want Thompson installed as chairman, they also polled about the direction of the club. If any 2 of the major share holders demanded financial prudence, it would of happened.

 

As for that financial dinlo that is UMP, he still cannot figure out that when Lowe left there was only half a squad.

[70's Mike]

The executives polled the major share holders regarding the position of chairman and whether they wanted Thompson to be elected. If the share holders wanted Thompson in, that would have been done and the executives paid off. When the share holders indicated they did not want Thompson installed as chairman, they also polled about the direction of the club. If any 2 of the major share holders demanded financial prudence, it would of happened.

 

As for that financial dinlo that is UMP, he still cannot figure out that when Lowe left there was only half a squad.

 

not sure if i understand are you say ruperts little gang did not want financial prudence ?

[Long Shot]

To be fair you didn't have to be a Lowe Luvvie to be against Wilde. I was and am dead against Lowe but even so wasn't taken in by Wilde for very long. Wilde uses fans. He used Keith on SaintsForever and the alarm bells started ringing. Then he saw the opportunity of good PR by using - and in doing so killing off - the Saints Trust. He even went as far as telling Andrew Cowen the SOS people wanted him back as chairman when they didn't. MW is clearly not to be trusted.

 

 

Wise words Stanley, I had forgotten Wilde's betrayal of the SoS crowd.

[um pahars]

they also polled about the direction of the club. If any 2 of the major share holders demanded financial prudence, it would of happened.

 

So they asked Lowe & Wilde whether they should implement Plan B that summer???

 

I presume you think that Lowe's cabal said yes and Wilde said no, and therefore they carried on as normal signing those contracts and salary cheques.

 

Your grip on the reality of the situation last summer is about as tenuous as nickh's grip on the financial situation.

[OldNick]

So they asked Lowe & Wilde whether they should implement Plan B that summer???

 

I presume you think that Lowe's cabal said yes and Wilde said no, and therefore they carried on as normal signing those contracts and salary cheques.

 

Your grip on the reality of the situation last summer is about as tenuous as nickh's grip on the financial situation.

Ump, you have no confidence in my grasp of things, that is fine, I immediately have no faith in any of your judgement because you were on S4E really biigiing up the Wilde bunch and argueing against caution.Therefore your credibility in my eyes has been dampened wheras Jonah talked a lot of sense and seemed to have a far better grasp of the matter.Sadly he doesnt post on here anymore and then we would have a better balanced debate as he was better placed to show any inaccurcies.

It is only a drop in the sea but if you also notice with the accounts that the salaries without players wages went up over 10k a week not down.That is hardly cutting costs.

There was a 10m drop in the wage bill between 05 -06 and it is hard with figures that contain half of one season and the first half of another to exactly see where the wage bill was slashed.

The people who were employed to run the club may well have had a closed shop, but when you have a major shreholder not happy invaribly he can get allies to get them removed.

As I have stated before I dont beleive LC is the major reason it all went #its up but he was part of the cause and should hae acted.

If people like myself could see we were heading for the iceberg then why did the custodians.

[OldNick]

NickH - you would be wise to read this as it is correct. Um Pahars is also spot on. Sometimes I think you do not read other's [posts carefully. No offence because I think you mean well but if you are going to respond on complicated issues raised it would be best to try and fully understand what is being said. I think this is the reason Um Pahars resorts to smilies which you seem to spend more time considering.

Longshot thankyou for your reply but as I put you as part of the gang of 3 I feel a little less likely to take it.

Ump is quite entitled to put up his smileys and rolley eyes, to me it is childish but if he wishes to do so fine.

I can imagine at meetings with his bosses him pulling faces to his workmates to try and show how anarchic he is. It holds no water with me.

I do accept he does put good points across and does look up the figures but as you know figures are only part of any arguement.

It would be better if all these had more clarity (not Umps, because Im not saying he distorts them) but say up to when RL left, and again some of the cost savings take time to feed into the system something that I put across badly or Ump didnt want to see.

My gripe with the Wilde bunch is that we knew that the parachute payments were ending and so should have planned for their loss, it is no good harping on about losing the £m's if we had been in the Pl as we knew that had happened and so needed to act.

the firsat season was going to be a quandary as it was stupid to completely dismantle the PL structure as we may have bounced back, but 2nd and 3rd was the only opportunity to restructure without getting into a mess.

Now some sya we had to go for it, thats fine but perhaps it would have bene better to have gone for it without taking big long term contracts.Then compounding things with other high contracts after the para payments were gone.

[NickG]

A Question for everyone. Who out of Lowe, Wilde and Crouch do you trust the least?

 

is there a "none of the above" option?

 

Lowe seems to thinks he way or no-way, Wilde -who knows what he thinks, Crouch - not sure but seemed to interested in speaking to the ego -sought publicity more than Lowe.

 

Personally I would go for someone with serious investment on offer or leave it be for a change.

[NickG]

sorry added it to wrong thread!

[lordswoodsaints]

Are you for real? Crouch is a self made multi millionnaire. He didn't get where he is by being a mug. He was streetwise enough to appoint Nigel Pearson who should have been allowed to become a Saints Legend. And during his brief spell he started putting right the mess created by Lowe and then Wildes Execs by reducing costs loaning out top earners and proposing the closure of the corners.

 

Above all Leon Crouch is an honourable and generous man. He has the ethics we deserve in a chairman of our once proud club.

 

are you for real?

the only reason NP was appointed is because lawrie mac junior was getting a great big payday for doing the deal.crouch may well be all of those things you said but he was an average chairman being led by a greedy fvcker.

[Roman]

are you for real?

the only reason NP was appointed is because lawrie mac junior was getting a great big payday for doing the deal.crouch may well be all of those things you said but he was an average chairman being led by a greedy fvcker.

 

Just a question: wasn't this the rumour going around at the time, which turned out to be false?

[lordswoodsaints]

Just a question: wasn't this the rumour going around at the time, which turned out to be false?

 

no,it is true lawrie and son made money from the deal.senior will never change his ways.

[Long Shot]

no,it is true lawrie and son made money from the deal.senior will never change his ways.

 

 

I would be careful what you allege Lordswood.

Like many I thought there could be some truth in the rumours when Pearson was first appointed but I can state with conviction that neither L Mac or his son had a hand in NP's appointment or made any financial gain from it.

[Snowballs2]

I would be careful what you allege Lordswood.

Like many I thought there could be some truth in the rumours when Pearson was first appointed but I can state with conviction that neither L Mac or his son had a hand in NP's appointment or made any financial gain from it.

 

Strange, now from a source very close I have seen a copy of an e mail which tells a slightly different story. But I suppose they could br forged, I wish I had not deleted it

[Weston Saint]

Strange, now from a source very close I have seen a copy of an e mail which tells a slightly different story. But I suppose they could br forged, I wish I had not deleted it

If your source was Tom McLoughlin, treat it with caution. I too thought it might be LM & son but I am hearing different now.

[Roman]

no,it is true lawrie and son made money from the deal.senior will never change his ways.

 

I remember the enormously long thread about it at the time on TSF. I also remember that it contained not a single piece of checkable evidence that CM was Nigel Pearson's agent and that LM personally profited from the deal.

 

I also recall - though I'm a bit more hazy about this - that Pearson himself said that CM was not his agent.

 

It's just that if we're going to accuse one of our most successful managers of being corrupt in the appointment of Pearson, it would be nice if we were right.

 

Can you point towards, say, an agency website that states: CM is Pearson's agent? And to anywhere in the club's accounts that shows that LM took a cut of the deal?

[lordswoodsaints]

I remember the enormously long thread about it at the time on TSF. I also remember that it contained not a single piece of checkable evidence that CM was Nigel Pearson's agent and that LM personally profited from the deal.

 

I also recall - though I'm a bit more hazy about this - that Pearson himself said that CM was not his agent.

 

It's just that if we're going to accuse one of our most successful managers of being corrupt in the appointment of Pearson, it would be nice if we were right.

 

Can you point towards, say, an agency website that states: CM is Pearson's agent? And to anywhere in the club's accounts that shows that LM took a cut of the deal?

 

great manager,but im afraid that my views of him have been tainted over the years.

[eelpie]

Interesting comment. Seems to be managing his business pretty well.

 

... and the spin put out by the Wilde/Lowe axis about his administrative failings were very untrue.

[benjii]

If your source was Tom McLoughlin, treat it with caution. I too thought it might be LM & son but I am hearing different now.

 

 

 

No, no, no. I'm a mod and I can vouch for him wholeheartedly. :smt045

[Roman]

great manager,but im afraid that my views of him have been tainted over the years.

 

Thanks, but as I say, any real evidence?

[Snowballs2]

At the end of the day I would welcome a return of Leon instead of the current pair of dead necks, particularly if it was coupled with Saltz and maybe Gavin Davies. He is a supporter and goes to most away games as well as home. I have no link or connection with him, but would honestly trust him more than the deadly duo, particularly if coupled with a steady hand on the tiller, to curb his enthusiasm when necessary.

[Wade Garrett]

I think that Wilde started the Chris Mac story when Pearson was appointed. I might be wrong, but he may have dropped it into the conversation he had with a few supporters from the forum.

 

The man is a complete c*nt.

[benjii]

At the end of the day I would welcome a return of Leon instead of the current pair of dead necks, particularly if it was coupled with Saltz and maybe Gavin Davies. He is a supporter and goes to most away games as well as home. I have no link or connection with him, but would honestly trust him more than the deadly duo, particularly if coupled with a steady hand on the tiller, to curb his enthusiasm when necessary.

 

 

 

Prreeeeeeetttyyy, preeeeettty good.

[Snowballs2]

 

Prreeeeeeetttyyy, preeeeettty good.

 

Strange as it may seem the photo could have been me, it bearsb an uncanny resemblance. ...I know before anyone says it I am an old ugly bugger