Leon Crouch speaks

[saintjay77]

The sad fact on here is that it identifies the posters who can forgive Lowe anything. I wonder what they get out of it? Is it free tickets or other financial benefits?

In the real world it is like supporting an African dictator who is seeking to ruin his country.

I trust Crouch more than the other dubious duo.

 

Its not a case of forgiving Lowe of anything. I just dont think his mistakes make him any worse than the others. The Board of directors made decissions and collectivly they are at fault.

 

The current Board of Directors are trying to turn the club around doing what IMO is a pretty good way forward. We are certainly seeing better football this year compared to last year and I hope it works because building a team from our acadamy that goes on to do well will make us a stronger team all round.

[jonah]

you have nothing to say about Loweys cronies, like, Askham, Richards, Whithers and Windsor wots his name. As I have said before these are the hidden core of our continued downfall.The merry mob who have done nothing for this club but put the front mouth piece in place..

 

I have nothing in particular in favour of Askham or Richards, but Windsor-Clive, Lowe and Withers (and Cowen) all bought their Secure shares at full-price. These are not people who "inadvertently" benefitted from the reverse-takeover, they took the gamble with their own cash and that should be recognised. That puts them on a par with Wilde and Crouch in so far as putting their own money where their mouths are.

 

However the additional point about Lowe and Withers (a life-long Saints fan who grew up next door to the Dell) is that they were 2 of the 5 who underwrote the open offer (usually referred to as the rights issue) for the stadium funding - I believe both underwrote about £250k each and ended up buying about £130k of the new shares (plus their entitlements for existing holdings). That money went straight into the club and towards the stadium. Where was the cash from Wilde & Crouch back then when there was no prospect of becoming chairman eh?

 

Let's not forget, for all their bluster Wilde and Crouch have never put a penny into the club - they have hidden behind (false) Takeover Panel claims and press bravado about "I'll put money in if they do". There is nothing to stop them having a placing to raise funds for the club, and if Crouch really believes he would happily give away his £2m in shares then why not keep them and simply put new cash into the club instead? Wilde and Crouch (not to mention the dreadful Trant) promised to put new money into the club and failed to do so - they're like the gobby kids in the school playground (or on this forum) who don't have a clue but just want to be popular.

 

One final point about Lowe's comments in the annual report - since obviously most people on here haven't actually read them - he doesn't mention Crouch anywhere in the entire report. He doesn't even refer to "previous chairman". And I'm sure the Echo, as usual, have helped to stoke the fire in their own reporting... do they still have that P*mpey fan as Sports Editor?

 

PS. Matt, can't you just use your own name, we all know who you are anyway?

[Weston Saint]

According to the Daily Echo:

 

Right, just before Lowe stood down then. So Wilde had 16% and Crouch would have had about 19%.

 

What Leon forgot at that time was he might have been considered part of the "concert party" holding over 30% and would have been forced to make a full bid for the company.

 

I know it does not change to fact that Lowe rejected it but when Leon received advice from those who knew the rules, would he have backed off anyway?

[OldNick]

With all due respect your financial analysis is wide of the mark.

 

Lowe did not leave this Club in a healthy financial state.

 

Cast your mind back to that first year down and we had massive sale of players to pay the bills.

 

We had Lowe being quoted as saying "We don't know where the next penny is coming from!".

 

The accounts for that year showed we haemoraghed 9 million in cash on normal operations (even after getting a 7 million parachute).

 

The idea that he left a robust, cash rich, forward looking business is a myth.

 

The financials of this Club were holed below the waterline the minute we got relegated and tens of millions of revenue were lost.

 

Some of the decisions over the last two years have not been good and have added to the inherent problem (including Hine's decision not to implement Plan B), but they are the drop in the ocean compared to the millions of revenue that we have lost when we got relegated during Lowe's tenure.

Um if those figures of losing 9m cash and the 7m parachute payment come to 16m. That was first season down, surely then the losses should have been cut considerably after that. We knew we were where we were and so should have taken steps (whoever was running the ship) I dont think our costs are much less even now.

As for the millions lost by being relegated, yes that is a fact but as we both know it was not just down to 1 person.We were not in the bottom 3 when HR was appointed in fact I think we were quite a few points above, and so he was given ample time to make us safe.I will not go through all the other reasons of us avoiding the drop but like Leicesters relegation last season, there was no way that squad should have gone down.(I do notice the comparison of 3 managers in a season) That is what irks me about your standpoint most that you blame RL solely for our relegation when he was only a part of many reasons. As a personality I dont care for him ( I have never met him in the flesh and so dont know what h is likeaway from the media) but I can see what he is trying to do and so support that way ahead.

[Weston Saint]

I have nothing in particular in favour of Askham or Richards, but Windsor-Clive, Lowe and Withers (and Cowen) all bought their Secure shares at full-price. These are not people who "inadvertently" benefitted from the reverse-takeover, they took the gamble with their own cash and that should be recognised. That puts them on a par with Wilde and Crouch in so far as putting their own money where their mouths are.

 

However the additional point about Lowe and Withers (a life-long Saints fan who grew up next door to the Dell) is that they were 2 of the 5 who underwrote the open offer (usually referred to as the rights issue) for the stadium funding - I believe both underwrote about £250k each and ended up buying about £130k of the new shares (plus their entitlements for existing holdings). That money went straight into the club and towards the stadium. Where was the cash from Wilde & Crouch back then when there was no prospect of becoming chairman eh?

 

Let's not forget, for all their bluster Wilde and Crouch have never put a penny into the club - they have hidden behind (false) Takeover Panel claims and press bravado about "I'll put money in if they do". There is nothing to stop them having a placing to raise funds for the club, and if Crouch really believes he would happily give away his £2m in shares then why not keep them and simply put new cash into the club instead? Wilde and Crouch (not to mention the dreadful Trant) promised to put new money into the club and failed to do so - they're like the gobby kids in the school playground (or on this forum) who don't have a clue but just want to be popular.

 

One final point about Lowe's comments in the annual report - since obviously most people on here haven't actually read them - he doesn't mention Crouch anywhere in the entire report. He doesn't even refer to "previous chairman". And I'm sure the Echo, as usual, have helped to stoke the fire in their own reporting... do they still have that P*mpey fan as Sports Editor?

 

PS. Matt, can't you just use your own name, we all know who you are anyway?

 

Mark, if you have any contact with the present "rulers" of the club go and ask them about a recent event concerning someone wanting to put cash into the club and having that rejected.

[OldNick]

The sad fact on here is that it identifies the posters who can forgive Lowe anything. I wonder what they get out of it? Is it free tickets or other financial benefits?

In the real world it is like supporting an African dictator who is seeking to ruin his country.

I trust Crouch more than the other dubious duo.

and do you receive free tickets or financial benifits for supporting him then?

[OldNick]

Mark, if you have any contact with the present "rulers" of the club go and ask them about a recent event concerning someone wanting to put cash into the club and having that rejected.

care to enlighten us Weston?

[Weston Saint]

care to enlighten us Weston?

Simple answer Nick, no. Sorry.

[OldNick]

It might be worth listening to radio Hampshire tonight between 6-8, I hear Crouch will be interviewed, and there may be a phone in.

If you are rabid anti Lowe it will be a fest.Mark Dennis does not hide his anti Lowe position and so it will hardly be a balanced debate.He was a great full back for us though

[OldNick]

Simple answer Nick, no. Sorry.

I thought you might say that Weston

[dubai_phil]

Its simply a question of personalities, all of the protagonists will be divisive, it would be nice to have a chair that was popular with all, but what are the chances ?

 

Somehow I don't think even Henry Kissinger in his prime would have wanted THAT role. Would you?

 

Which is probably why Salz and others kept themselves out of the firiing line.

 

Until circumstances bring them all together OR all gone, trying to build any fences is one step too far

[Long Shot]

I hear Anthony Salz has had no involvement with the club since he and Rupert had words in the summer. These days, on matchdays he can be found in the Kingsland where he has a ST.

[jonah]

Mark, if you have any contact with the present "rulers" of the club go and ask them about a recent event concerning someone wanting to put cash into the club and having that rejected.

 

Well you know full well they cannot divulge that information to me or anyone else - and that comment could mean anything at all couldn't it... I could offer to put in £500k for 29.99% of the club, but they wouldn't accept it would they. Without any details I'm afraid your comment is a bit pointless - feel free to let me know details off board, and if there is any mileage in the offer I for one would be right behind it, but somehow I doubt they would turn down any genuine offer... how could that possibly be in their or the shareholders interests? It wouldn't make any sense.

[slickmick]

Go in any pub and try and find a luvvie, go in any workplace and try and find a luvvie - they are a insignificant minority.

 

 

Yes I agree,

But now try and go in any pub and find a Crouchie, go in any workplace and try and find a Crouchie- again they are an insignificant minority.

[saint1977]

What this comes back to is what I said in the summer - Lowe's strategy should have been "Right, I'm returning to sort out the finances and stop the company going into administration. This is going to involve some difficult decisions but I do ask the supporters to back us. Andrew Cowen is going to be Chairman and I will not be involved on a daily basis in running the football club so all enquiries and the day-to-day running will be Andrew's responsibility. I will retain my shareholding until the club is financially sustainable and moreover, able to attract a buyer which is our stated aim as soon as is feasibly possible".

 

This would have got a majority of fans on board, me included but Rupert just can't help himself. I'm not particularly ITK but I do know that he has been an obstacle in the past and his comment in the past of "If someone wants to buy the club they can put up £25m" was not for him to say as he only owns what 5-6%?

 

I'm with Dubai Phil, I want all of them gone and their playground politics via Charles Sale, the Echo etc and we will not move forward until they do. Um is right to state the facts about 05/06 though, we were left in a mess by Rupert, not least leaking a lot of money on SCW and paying off people from that failed experiment and wasting the first season's parachute money. I'm not nearly as anti-Lowe as most on here but Lowe's supporters cannot hide from that fact and he (or it may have been directed by Wilde) does paint a misleading statement Jonah in the recent summary.

 

Still, as I've said before I've got a lot more respect for Rupert than I'll ever have for Wilde - I have 0% respect for Wilde and he's on a par with Redknapp, Branfoot, Askham, Richards, Wiseman and Mandaric for me.

[saint1977]

Yes I agree,

But now try and go in any pub and find a Crouchie, go in any workplace and try and find a Crouchie- again they are an insignificant minority.

 

That's true also for Wilde and any of the board members for the last 4 years. I want all of them gone and that puts me in a majority of Saints fans. Can't they (the so-called 3 Amigos) get that into their heads?

[trousers]

Mark, if you have any contact with the present "rulers" of the club go and ask them about a recent event concerning someone wanting to put cash into the club and having that rejected.

 

A 6 or 7 figure sum? (if that's not giving away too much....)

 

cheers

[NickG]

What this comes back to is what I said in the summer - Lowe's strategy should have been "Right, I'm returning to sort out the finances and stop the company going into administration. This is going to involve some difficult decisions but I do ask the supporters to back us. Andrew Cowen is going to be Chairman and I will not be involved on a daily basis in running the football club so all enquiries and the day-to-day running will be Andrew's responsibility. I will retain my shareholding until the club is financially sustainable and moreover, able to attract a buyer which is our stated aim as soon as is feasibly possible".

 

This would have got a majority of fans on board, me included but Rupert just can't help himself. I'm not particularly ITK but I do know that he has been an obstacle in the past and his comment in the past of "If someone wants to buy the club they can put up £25m" was not for him to say as he only owns what 5-6%?

 

I'm with Dubai Phil, I want all of them gone and their playground politics via Charles Sale, the Echo etc and we will not move forward until they do. Um is right to state the facts about 05/06 though, we were left in a mess by Rupert, not least leaking a lot of money on SCW and paying off people from that failed experiment and wasting the first season's parachute money. I'm not nearly as anti-Lowe as most on here but Lowe's supporters cannot hide from that fact and he (or it may have been directed by Wilde) does paint a misleading statement Jonah in the recent summary.

 

Still, as I've said before I've got a lot more respect for Rupert than I'll ever have for Wilde - I have 0% respect for Wilde and he's on a par with Redknapp, Branfoot, Askham, Richards, Wiseman and Mandaric for me.

 

Cowen was asked about this as a solution and stated that he didn't feel he has the experience/expertise to run the football side and it was better placed with Lowe.

[charliemiller]

Simple answer Nick, no. Sorry.

 

what i believe you are talking about Ron would only cause more destabilisation and in fighting at a time when the political fighting has to stop or better be hidden.

 

Thats why it was rejected.

[up and away]

The sad fact on here is that it identifies the posters who can forgive Lowe anything. I wonder what they get out of it? Is it free tickets or other financial benefits?

In the real world it is like supporting an African dictator who is seeking to ruin his country.

I trust Crouch more than the other dubious duo.

 

Show me any fan who stopped going to St Mary's (or even quoted) because Lowe was no longer there? There are several fans who despise Wilde and Crouch, but I have never heard one of them who was not going to St Mary's for that reason. So you have fans that just want the best for the club irrespective and others only willing to give their support where they can get to select the board, who exactly are the fans? I have never said it has to be Lowe, just someone who would tackle the problems we face in a realistic manner. Someone who is prepared to make the difficult decisions the fans don't like. If I thought Crouch was capable I would have no problems, but from his previous statements and actions, he is the last pick of the bunch.

Just how could all these fans on the board let things get so bad? They were perfectly happy to speak out about other issues, but on the question of the finances they remained stunningly silent or actually argued black was white.

 

The thwatty matty's believe they are the genuine fans and everyone should follow, irrespective of what is best for Saints. But their actions compared to others fall far short of a description of fan.

[lordswoodsaints]

Yes I agree,

But now try and go in any pub and find a Crouchie, go in any workplace and try and find a Crouchie- again they are an insignificant minority.

 

i agree,nobody in the fanbase really likes any of them,nobody really wants any of them but they are here and we seem to be stuck with them for now.

im not a fan of crouch but i liked what he said about giving his shares away to the right person,this is what all of them should be doing,i would like all of them to publicly state that this is what they will do if the right person comes along........but what or who is the right person? is the right person the man who will also make sure that crouch gets a plum job in return for his shares?.......this is the bit that worries me.

nobody in their right mind just gives thousands of pounds of shares away without wanting something in return,remember crouch paid a silly over inflated price for his,he may be rich but he didnt get rich by giving money away.

 

i wish they would all fvck off today but who will fill the void?,you cannot just wish them away and not have a plan in place hoping that things will run smoothly,there has to be a handover period.this is of course if you can find somebody who wants the gig in the first place.

 

im sick to death of the lot of them and the whole thing is becoming very tedious and predictable...............we are never going to go anywhere whilst the majority of the shares are distributed between 3 main players who hate each other.crouch dislikes lowe,lowe dislikes crouch,croouch dislikes wilde and his marriage of convenience to lowe,lowe dislikes everybody.............what they all should be liking is SFC and disliking the state we are in and to show this they should all pull together to get us out of this mess and consequently safeguard their investments and make us more attractive to any possible investors.

 

but im afraid this is never going to happen whilst they are not willing to work together.

[CB Fry]

Once again ye oldey, wisey one, in what you have spoken, I have hung on every word and once again, I will obey without question.

 

 

I haven't asked you to do anything. By all means obey me when I give you clear instruction, but not before. Carry on.

[Wade Garrett]

Show me any fan who stopped going to St Mary's (or even quoted) because Lowe was no longer there? There are several fans who despise Wilde and Crouch, but I have never heard one of them who was not going to St Mary's for that reason. So you have fans that just want the best for the club irrespective and others only willing to give their support where they can get to select the board, who exactly are the fans? I have never said it has to be Lowe, just someone who would tackle the problems we face in a realistic manner. Someone who is prepared to make the difficult decisions the fans don't like. If I thought Crouch was capable I would have no problems, but from his previous statements and actions, he is the last pick of the bunch.

Just how could all these fans on the board let things get so bad? They were perfectly happy to speak out about other issues, but on the question of the finances they remained stunningly silent or actually argued black was white.

 

The thwatty matty's believe they are the genuine fans and everyone should follow, irrespective of what is best for Saints. But their actions compared to others fall far short of a description of fan.

 

This 'who are the fans' argument is getting a bit boring.

 

Put simply, I would have to say that anyone who is boycotting the club at the moment (me included, although Crouch has made me think again), can't really call themselves fans.

 

However, I would say that the boycotters care about the club as much as anyone, and are staying away for what they think are decent reasons.

 

I wouldn't knock anyone who goes to games, I wouldn't knock anyone who is boycotting. Each to their own. But these futile arguments are getting a bit much now.

[NickG]

there is no league table for fans and its petty and irrelevant to compete on that front.

 

why should anyone go if they don't want to? its not cheap and there are other things to do - its meant to be entertainment or a hobby after all - and fun!

 

the only reasoning that collapses under questioning is the high moral brigade - stay away due to a higher calling -just comical. Just people like that ex-fan who slagged off others for still going in the echo, or Stanley who wouldn't answer why he wouldn't go if we improved under Lowe

[Snowballs2]

and do you receive free tickets or financial benifits for supporting him then?

 

Me support Lowe..now I know that you are brain dead!!!

[OldNick]

Me support Lowe..now I know that you are brain dead!!!

I of course mean your friend LC

[Baird of the land]

I don't mind fans not going for many reasons. It's the concept that some aren't going not because they don't want to or can't but they see it as a of forcing a regime change that irks me. How thay can so easily forget the last goon(wilde) tons of fools rallied round and proclaimed a saviour. I don't like lowe much but i think the fans should focus their attention on the team rather than meddling in boardroom affairs. Let's wait for someone with proper money to come and make an offer for us rather than trying to Build Crouch into something he's not(a Saviour)

[Snowballs2]

I of course mean your friend LC

 

Not a friend of Crouch either..However I do respect his business acumen far more Than either Wilde or Lowe. People should also realise that Crouch on his own was only given 5 months at the head Of Slh, far far shorter than Lowe or Wilde , the pair screwed up far more than Crouch.

[um pahars]

Cowen was asked about this as a solution and stated that he didn't feel he has the experience/expertise to run the football side and it was better placed with Lowe.

 

Then get Cowen and/or Richards on as Non Execs and look outside the gene pool for a CEO.

 

I have no idea why people think the CEO has to come from the shareholder base. In fact, most companies would probably appoint someone from outside to come in and run the Club.

 

I have no problem with the shareholders sitting on the Board and there should be Non Exec positions for all of them, but there I fail to see why Lowe has to be CEO or Chairman.

 

I personally don't think his record as a CEO is up to scratch and as for being a Chairman, well I think we can all see why he might not be the best appointment to take up a position of independence and be a figurehead of the PLC.

[up and away]

This 'who are the fans' argument is getting a bit boring.

 

Put simply, I would have to say that anyone who is boycotting the club at the moment (me included, although Crouch has made me think again), can't really call themselves fans.

 

However, I would say that the boycotters care about the club as much as anyone, and are staying away for what they think are decent reasons.

 

I wouldn't knock anyone who goes to games, I wouldn't knock anyone who is boycotting. Each to their own. But these futile arguments are getting a bit much now.

 

Let's take this on then, any fan who feels strongly about the board or chairman should boycott to show they are a fan that really cares. It is utter stupidity that once engrained will carry over to the next chairman or board. So if Crouch becomes our next chairman and things are just as bad, if we think he's useless we should all boycott St Mary's. We will get what we deserve and in reality I can't see this fan base any where near deserving to many others in the CCC. We shall reap what we sow, because if we wanted to do something about it we could.

[Baird of the land]

Snowballs2 wrote "Not a friend of Crouch either..However I do respect his business acumen far more Than either Wilde or Lowe. People should also realise that Crouch on his own was only given 5 months at the head Of Slh, far far shorter than Lowe or Wilde , the pair screwed up far more than Crouch."

 

my opinion is that anyone with proper business sense would have known that he would have needed to get wilde on side if he was to hope to remain chairman. the fact that lowe was able to outmaneovre him and gather the support to remove him shows he's a much more savvy businessman. Crouch strikes me as someone who's used to being in sole charge and getting his way by telling people what to do. At the moment without a single owner its about governemnt by consensus in putting together a long term strategy. He's not the nicest of blokes lowe but i respect his ability in the current situation much more than crouch.

[Legod Third Coming]

The sad fact on here is that it identifies the posters who can forgive Lowe anything. I wonder what they get out of it? Is it free tickets or other financial benefits?

In the real world it is like supporting an African dictator who is seeking to ruin his country.

I trust Crouch more than the other dubious duo.

 

What total cobblers.

 

Lowe got us relegated fact.

 

So did Peter Varney at Charlton.

So have hundreds of Chairmen at football clubs.

 

In every case, do the fans demand the removal of the chairmen??

 

99% of fans know as much about being a football chairman and running a business as they do about the Mongolian motor industry.

 

For ten years Lowe presided over a team doing ok.

For one year he got us relegated.

 

And that's your evidence? That's it? Thats why he's an African Dictator??

 

That's why I might be classed as somehow having my snout in the trough because I just want him to get on and do the job?

 

Oh, I forgot - anyone's better than Rupert - like gun runners, Islamic dictators, wanted criminals, presidents who have presided over state-sponsored murder, Americans who bought cheap land from indigenous populations, made their money through slavery, how about Germans who traded Jews during the war??

 

There's no qualification to be a football chairman. There's no packet of magic beans to grow a 'super' one.

 

We've got what we've got. We could have better. We could have worse.

 

Deal with it. Or raise the money and buy the club.

 

Everything else is a pointless waste of ether and memory.

[Snowballs2]

What total cobblers.

 

Lowe got us relegated fact.

 

So did Peter Varney at Charlton.

So have hundreds of Chairmen at football clubs.

 

In every case, do the fans demand the removal of the chairmen??

 

99% of fans know as much about being a football chairman and running a business as they do about the Mongolian motor industry.

 

For ten years Lowe presided over a team doing ok.

For one year he got us relegated.

 

And that's your evidence? That's it? Thats why he's an African Dictator??

 

That's why I might be classed as somehow having my snout in the trough because I just want him to get on and do the job?

 

Oh, I forgot - anyone's better than Rupert - like gun runners, Islamic dictators, wanted criminals, presidents who have presided over state-sponsored murder, Americans who bought cheap land from indigenous populations, made their money through slavery, how about Germans who traded Jews during the war??

 

There's no qualification to be a football chairman. There's no packet of magic beans to grow a 'super' one.

 

We've got what we've got. We could have better. We could have worse.

 

Deal with it. Or raise the money and buy the club.

 

Everything else is a pointless waste of ether and memory.

 

 

Lowe had his chance and failed, to return again was crasse stupidity

[Wade Garrett]

Let's take this on then, any fan who feels strongly about the board or chairman should boycott to show they are a fan that really cares. It is utter stupidity that once engrained will carry over to the next chairman or board. So if Crouch becomes our next chairman and things are just as bad, if we think he's useless we should all boycott St Mary's. We will get what we deserve and in reality I can't see this fan base any where near deserving to many others in the CCC. We shall reap what we sow, because if we wanted to do something about it we could.

 

You f*ckwit. I already said the boycotters can't call themselves fans, although it doesn't mean they don't care about the club.

 

Dickhead.

[Snowballs2]

Snowballs2 wrote "Not a friend of Crouch either..However I do respect his business acumen far more Than either Wilde or Lowe. People should also realise that Crouch on his own was only given 5 months at the head Of Slh, far far shorter than Lowe or Wilde , the pair screwed up far more than Crouch."

 

my opinion is that anyone with proper business sense would have known that he would have needed to get wilde on side if he was to hope to remain chairman. the fact that lowe was able to outmaneovre him and gather the support to remove him shows he's a much more savvy businessman. Crouch strikes me as someone who's used to being in sole charge and getting his way by telling people what to do. At the moment without a single owner its about governemnt by consensus in putting together a long term strategy. He's not the nicest of blokes lowe but i respect his ability in the current situation much more than crouch.

 

 

Lets just agree to disagree on this one

[Red and White Army]

I have no idea why people think the CEO has to come from the shareholder base. In fact, most companies would probably appoint someone from outside to come in and run the Club.

 

Most closely held companies like SLH are run by the largest shareholders.

 

Getting outsiders (Hone and Dulieu) didn't work very well last time, did it? We can't afford to pay someone now anyway, so the point is moot.... unless you are a Crouch pillow biter.

[Mole]

Crouch pillow biter.

 

It'll never catch on like "Lowe Luvvies" did.

[um pahars]

Most closely held companies like SLH are run by the largest shareholders..

 

Not on a day to day basis they're not. Most have representation at board level, but out in the real world, shareholders own companies and paid executives run them (although of course there are exceptions).

 

Even meglomaniac's or sole owners in football like Gaydamark, Mandaric, Sullivan/Gold, Abramovich, Gibson, Glazer, Gillet & Hicks all appoint people to run the football side of the business.

 

Getting outsiders (Hone and Dulieu) didn't work very well last time, did it? We can't afford to pay someone now anyway

 

I would argue that it worked last time for the first year (play offs, reduced costs, reduced debt), but also concede that when the parachute ended, the major shareholders really started squabbling and SISU turned up, then that set of Executives failed in those six months.

 

So whilst I wouldn't employ Jim Hone again, I would not be averse to going out into the wider world and seeing if we can get someone in to run the Club on a porfessional basis.

 

If the alternative is solely going through the same gene pool of shareholders, do the shareholders just take turns???

 

What happens when Lowe retires, do we go for a hereditary CEO (do we allow female succession)???

 

As for not having enough money to employ an independent CEO, we only need to find 60% of the wages (as Lowe is understood to be drawing 2 days a week - or is it more?).

 

Just like paying some good money to get the best possible manager, I also think getting someone in such an important position is key if this Club is to move forward.

 

Going cheap, or getting the wrong person in these two key positions may well prove to be a false economy.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

 

I would argue that it worked last time for the first year (reduced costs, reduced debt)

 

 

I also think getting someone in such an important position is key if this Club is to move forward.

Going cheap, or getting the wrong person in these two key positions may well prove to be a false economy.

 

Did they really reduce our costs and debts ???

 

Don't think Kenyon would take the job, anyone else know of someone with the same credentials available at the moment ?

[jonah]

Most closely held companies like SLH are run by the largest shareholders..

 

Not on a day to day basis they're not. Most have representation at board level, but out in the real world, shareholders own companies and paid executives run them (although of course there are exceptions).

 

Go take a look at all the other small caps on AIM and you will see the vast majority of closely held companies are run by the largest shareholders. There is obviously a good reason why it works this way in the real world... with small caps individuals really can own sizeable/controlling interests in entire companies, and when they have that much control in one company they want a big say in how it's run. For most it is their only major investment and so that is done in a hands-on manner - if you had most of your wealth tied up in a single company would you delegate? There are very few people with sizeable/controlling holdings in a number of companies which is where they would delegate that control to other paid execs. It's just common sense.

 

Of course this in turn can lead to appallingly bad behaviour, for example CapCon and Ken Dulieu where he and the other members of the board offered themselves massively discounted convertibles in order to try to gain control as a concert party. When this was blocked by other shareholders they tried to sell themselves part of the business at another hugely discounted price - when other shareholders then offered a much higher price they decided not to sell at all.

 

For both of these reasons, once the club is financially secure (2-3 years time I guess), I would like to see Lowe, Wilde and Crouch all sell down their holdings to under 5% each. This leaves them each with a "voice" but far less control, enabling them to retain non-exec representation at board level but *potentially* allowing a different CEO (or 2) to run the club. And there is no reason why they couldn't all sign up to this idea now to help placate the fans and show a way forward for the club. Although no doubt some would still be unhappy with that!

[um pahars]

Go take a look at all the other small caps on AIM and you will see the vast majority of closely held companies are run by the largest shareholders.!

 

But IMHO we're not a closely held company.

 

The man who has the two boss jobs has 5% of the company and has the suport of about 8 others who hold 20%. That support appears fairly stable.

 

After that, he currently has the support of one individual with 16%, who couldn't stand him a year ago, so hardly a solid relationship.

 

After that you have something like 58% of the shares held by a myriad of others, with only Crouch having a notable stake (at 10%).

 

I fully accept that where an individual truly has a majority shareholding, then they can either take the boss job for themself or appoint someone they want, but that is not the case in our situation.

 

I can see no reason why the CEO and the Chairman position has to come from the same gene pool (and include Crouch, Wilde and others in that).

 

We should simply be looking to appoint the best person for the job, and quite frankly if those supporting Lowe think he is the best man, then I can only think they are rather myopic and insular in their outlook.