Article in the Echo RE Wages

[SaintRobbie]

No mention of Directors Wages I notice

 

Nail on head there John.

[alpine_saint]

Is it a pointless dig rather than a relevant question just because it doesn't suit your own pointless agenda? Its the same old song from the anti-Lowe camp who are happy to rant unjustified about Lowe and the board and yet expect those who support the club to justify every comment and still be ridiculed.

 

This forum with the return of the sanctimonious Duncan Holley and the pious ramblings of Wheeler not to mention the lunacy of the likes of Stanley and SaintRobbie it really is becoming a parody of a forum for debate and perhaps the whiole site should be relabelled 'Muppet Show'.

 

Thankfully the most venomous and unhinged characters are not representative of the 12,000 fans who are still going to games and clearly don't post on this site but who knows what damage they are capable within their 'social circles'. The Beautiful South? Not for much longer if the lunatics once again try to take over the asylum instead of seizing on every little rumour or morsel of gossip to bring down their own house. You're in danger of turning this club into a house of cards unless you are able to assess the situation with an iota of balance and subjectivity.

 

Many of you should try typing your words without showering your monitors in spit.

 

If Sundance isnt Lowe himself, he's very close to him.....

[John B]

problem is we really needed a good young centreback at the time - and we still do

 

yet again Mills and Cranie probably would have been much cheaper options - and probably just as good - not to mention Baird

 

perhaps we should have played Cranie and Mills and offered them decent contracts (so they wouldn't have left us on tribunal fees) and not wasted our money on Thomas amd Davies

 

maybe we should have kept Baird as well - in the long run he would have been a much cheaper option than Thomas or Davies even though at the time we needed the cash from his sale

 

That is what I think Lowe is trying to address but it is working at the moment.

 

If Wilde had not come in perhaps we would have had a team with Cranie Blackstock and Mills plus a few reasonable players bought in

[Rebel]

If the intension was to discredit Leon Crouch, then i think they have failed. The damage was done by leaving the Exec's to run Wilde, (pun-intended). From what i can gather Leon was adjusting the situation when everything changed again.Time to come to the front Michael Wilde and explain.You owe all the supporters an answer.

 

Lowe got us relegated there is no doubt about that - with his penny pinching in the premiership, a squad full of journeymen and his 10 managers in 10 years and particularly with his choice of Sturrock, Wigley and Redknapp

 

but Wilde and his execs put us in the state we are in now - facing relegation again and possibly adminstration.

 

It was Wilde who ousted Lowe and Co and then appointed Hone, Hoos and Oldknow -and also promised to spend £7 million that was never there

 

Hone & Co then ousted Wilde and continued to spend the £7 million that never was - even though they new it didn't exist - and it was the main reason they'd ousted Wilde

 

this is what Crouch fell out with them about - spending money we didn't have and money which wasn't even theirs!

 

Jones was and is simply a yes man - not a Financial Director

[Greenridge]

Is it a pointless dig rather than a relevant question just because it doesn't suit your own pointless agenda? Its the same old song from the anti-Lowe camp who are happy to rant unjustified about Lowe and the board and yet expect those who support the club to justify every comment and still be ridiculed.

 

blah blah blah

 

Many of you should try typing your words without showering your monitors in spit.

 

John B pointed out that it was a genuine queston so that would appear to piddle on your little bonfire SunnyD. As I stated Davies was easily our best player during his time here so your point is?

 

What is interesting is that your messiah has leaked details of player wages that directly point the finger at two of his closest allies in Jones and Wilde. A last throw of the dice it would appear.

[saint_stevo]

I blame Rupert Lowe and Michael Wilde

[alpine_saint]

If the club has leaked this info, as seems likely, would they not be liable to face legal action from the players concerned?

 

I'm pretty sure employers aren't allowed to release individual players' salaries into the public domain. Imagine if your boss went round telling people what you earn, would you be happy?

 

This does seem like an abuse of power (because this must be a leak from the club approved by Lowe), and I would be suprised if it doesnt break the terms of the sort of NDA we know Lowe loves to impose on club employees (do they work in both directions ?), but break the law ? I doubt it somehow. It probably grazes on the edge of DPA legality, but there is probably something governing PLC exchange-listed companies reporting/disclosing expenditure that can be interpreted as permitting it..

 

For me what is interesting is finally there is some discussion about Dave Jones's role in all this - the one constant factor over the last 6-odd years of fook-ups. I questioned his activities on here back in September, and was attacked for it. And it does seem like Lowe may be scapegoating Wilde and Jones here to deflect attention from him. As has been rightly pointed out, Rasiak and BWP's wages were almost certainly agreed by Lowe...

[John B]

Lowe got us relegated there is no doubt about that - with his penny pinching in the premiership, a squad full of journeymen and his 10 managers in 10 years and particularly with his choice of Sturrock, Wigley and Redknapp

 

but Wilde and his execs put us in the state we are in now - facing relegation again and possibly adminstration.

 

It was Wilde who ousted Lowe and Co and then appointed Hone, Hoos and Oldknow -and also promised to spend £7 million that was never there

 

Hone & Co then ousted Wilde and continued to spend the £7 million that never was - even though they new it didn't exist - and it was the main reason they'd ousted Wilde

 

this is what Crouch fell out with them about - spending money we didn't have and money which wasn't even theirs!

 

Jones was and is simply a yes man - not a Financial Director

 

Yes a reasonable summation I feel

 

Not really sure what Crouch's role in all this was though

[SaintRobbie]

I think that trying to make any of them look bad is like shooting fish in a barrel, Stanley. The Echo must love it.

 

I think that sums it all up perfectly Ponty!

 

To be honest though, I worry when I read this sort of thing for a couple of reasons:

 

1. It shoes how poor the Execs were - although we must remember they delivered SISU at the end which Lowe, Wilde and others refused to accept. So they did have a back up plan to counter this gamble.

 

2. It shows Lowe is trying to clear his name from all blame, despite putting us in the CCC in the first place and having come up with this absolutely barking gamble himself - which frankly (finance driven or not) is the biggest single error of the last 40 odd years at the Club. He has now set us up perfectly for League 1 relegation and possibly even relegation to League 2 thereafter.

 

So I am afraid Lowe can demonstrate how poor those were in recent years before him all he likes. He's in charge now and was before. He's the one who relegated the club - probably TWICE as it will turn out. He and Wilde refused the SISU deal.

 

Why is Lowe trying to clear his name and blame others? Is he planning on running away and wants to keep his CV just mildly embarrassing or is he planning to stay and ruin us further?

 

Just go.

Edited 8 January, 2009 by SaintRobbie

[trousers]

Is it a pointless dig rather than a relevant question just because it doesn't suit your own pointless agenda? Its the same old song from the anti-Lowe camp who are happy to rant unjustified about Lowe and the board and yet expect those who support the club to justify every comment and still be ridiculed.

 

This forum with the return of the sanctimonious Duncan Holley and the pious ramblings of Wheeler not to mention the lunacy of the likes of Stanley and SaintRobbie it really is becoming a parody of a forum for debate and perhaps the whiole site should be relabelled 'Muppet Show'.

 

Thankfully the most venomous and unhinged characters are not representative of the 12,000 fans who are still going to games and clearly don't post on this site but who knows what damage they are capable within their 'social circles'. The Beautiful South? Not for much longer if the lunatics once again try to take over the asylum instead of seizing on every little rumour or morsel of gossip to bring down their own house. You're in danger of turning this club into a house of cards unless you are able to assess the situation with an iota of balance and subjectivity.

 

Many of you should try typing your words without showering your monitors in spit.

 

A warm welcome back to the chap who was using the 'Sundance Beast' login id prior to December 08. Almost a seamless handover....

[dubai_phil]

This does seem like an abuse of power (because this must be a leak from the club approved by Lowe), and I would be suprised if it doesnt break the terms of the sort of NDA we know Lowe loves to impose on club employees (do they work in both directions ?), but break the law ? I doubt it somehow. It probably grazes on the edge of DPA legality, but there is probably something governing PLC exchange-listed companies reporting/disclosing expenditure that can be interpreted as permitting it..

 

For me what is interesting is finally there is some discussion about Dave Jones's role in all this - the one constant factor over the last 6-odd years of fook-ups. I questioned his activities on here back in September, and was attacked for it. And it does seem like Lowe may be scapegoating Wilde and Jones here to deflect attention from him. As has been rightly pointed out, Rasiak and BWP's wages were almost certainly agreed by Lowe...

 

One thing continues to puzzle me.

 

Last season we were ambling along sort of looking up towards the play-offs and then the "Open Warfare" broke out the day before (I think) the Charlton game, when the Execs went public with their warning that we were living beyond our means.

 

The forum went into melt down, the Execs were locked into the stocks and we threw metaphoric rotten vegetables at them.

 

The team flopped horrendously against Charlton and from that moment it seemed as if GB lost the plot political melt-down started, Runnymede came and went, Leon made his coup and it all led to the return of Rupert

 

Now it comes back to bug me - IF the Execs publicly stated we were in trouble financially and needed to do something about it, how come "they" are taking all the flak for it now?

 

Something isn't quite right here and it isn't just how did the Echo put all this together.

[Rebel]

That is what I think Lowe is trying to address but it is working at the moment.

 

If Wilde had not come in perhaps we would have had a team with Cranie Blackstock and Mills plus a few reasonable players bought in

 

and that is probably the most depressing thing - if Lowe had stayed as Chairman we would probably be financially stable and have a better team full of young and promising players like Cranie, Mills, Best, Blackstock, Baird, Surman

 

his vision of the academy and home grown players is a good one - its just a bit too late for it now!

 

Wilde has been nothing but bad for this club and made a crisis into a disaster and a bad situation much much worse

[Rebel]

saying that Lowe has made things worse with his return by going Dutch - we'd be a lot better off now if Crouch was still chairman and Pearson still manager

 

I'd like to see the back of Wilde first and foremost - but followed closely by Lowe and Cowan for good - and ultimately by yes men such as Jones!

 

At least with Crouch you know where his heart is - and that he is trying to do the right things for the right reason - he may not always get it right it has to be said!

[John B]

One thing continues to puzzle me.

 

Last season we were ambling along sort of looking up towards the play-offs and then the "Open Warfare" broke out the day before (I think) the Charlton game, when the Execs went public with their warning that we were living beyond our means.

 

The forum went into melt down, the Execs were locked into the stocks and we threw metaphoric rotten vegetables at them.

 

The team flopped horrendously against Charlton and from that moment it seemed as if GB lost the plot political melt-down started, Runnymede came and went, Leon made his coup and it all led to the return of Rupert

 

Now it comes back to bug me - IF the Execs publicly stated we were in trouble financially and needed to do something about it, how come "they" are taking all the flak for it now?

 

Something isn't quite right here and it isn't just how did the Echo put all this together.

 

Because they should have stopped it happening in the first place.

 

It was probably only in November 2007 they started looking at the figures.

 

It would be better not starting a fire in the first place and then ringing 999 when it is in full flow

[dubai_phil]

Hmm

 

Following on my train of thought on this whole game.

 

What would the club have actually achieved by leaking this information at this time? Were they trying to make a point after the player articles?

 

Or is this a drip feed of leaks from another source with an axe to grind and pressure to build up?

 

Hmm who else would have known these figures besides the club?

 

Any ex directors around these days?

 

Looks like game on again in the world of political fighting and the Echo and TSW marching blindly off into the Mustard Gas...

 

Sod the lot of 'em

[Sheff Saint]

That is what I think Lowe is trying to address but it is working at the moment.

 

If Wilde had not come in perhaps we would have had a team with Cranie Blackstock and Mills plus a few reasonable players bought in

 

But the harsh facts are Cranie, Blackstock and Mills are only very average CCC players in their own right. And that is with older players around them to help them.

 

There is no proof that if they'd all broken into the Saints team together we'd be doing much better than now. Although i happen to think Mills and Cranie are better than the likes of Lancashire, you'd still need experience alongside them. Even Man Utd, when they played all their 'kids' had Bruce and Palliaster and Cantona etc in the squad to help them through.

 

We have had too many journeymen at the club, but now we've gone full circle and got too many kids. Is it just me that thinks it's bleeding ovibus we need a blend of both?

[alpine_saint]

Because they should have stopped it happening in the first place.

 

It was probably only in November 2007 they started looking at the figures.

 

It would be better not starting a fire in the first place and then ringing 999 when it is in full flow

 

that is completely unfair.

 

They were told by Wilde that investment was on the way.

 

The correct analogy would be that they started the fire, believing that the fire engine was waiting for the call round the corner, then discovering it would take 10 hours to get there...

[Greenridge]

Hmm

 

Sod the lot of 'em

 

and therein probably lies the answer Phil - a clean sweep but that is unlikely to happen in the short term.

[SaintRobbie]

Is it a pointless dig rather than a relevant question just because it doesn't suit your own pointless agenda? Its the same old song from the anti-Lowe camp who are happy to rant unjustified about Lowe and the board and yet expect those who support the club to justify every comment and still be ridiculed.

 

This forum with the return of the sanctimonious Duncan Holley and the pious ramblings of Wheeler not to mention the lunacy of the likes of Stanley and SaintRobbie it really is becoming a parody of a forum for debate and perhaps the whiole site should be relabelled 'Muppet Show'.

 

Thankfully the most venomous and unhinged characters are not representative of the 12,000 fans who are still going to games and clearly don't post on this site but who knows what damage they are capable within their 'social circles'. The Beautiful South? Not for much longer if the lunatics once again try to take over the asylum instead of seizing on every little rumour or morsel of gossip to bring down their own house. You're in danger of turning this club into a house of cards unless you are able to assess the situation with an iota of balance and subjectivity.

 

Many of you should try typing your words without showering your monitors in spit.

 

I am a lunatic now. LOL. A lunatic for suggesting Lowe is not very good - and nor have the Execs or Crouch been - that Wilde's time is over - that the only hope is to seak out a buyer by forming a respectable team to do it (hey if Hoos and Hone could get SISU there's always hope). Lunatic for suggesting that the plc and competition from ALL boardmembers has ruined this club. Lunatic for daring to suggest Lowe's Total Football is a joke or at best a smoke screen for asset stripping in an attempt to maintain a failing plc at the expense of a football club. Lunatic for suggesting Lowe's priority has been to a failing business and its shareholders and not a football club loved by thousands. Lunatic for suggesting something - just something - might be a little bit wrong with Lowe if he couldnt keep 10 managers in as many years.

 

And Sundance suggests I'm mad. LOL.

 

Posting too close to the truth often singles people out for abuse, especially if nails are being hit firmly on the head when Lowe is trying to save his reputation.

 

Sundance, I suggest you add another 30 odd regular posters to the 'Lowe is a man we can do without' lunatic asylum. And while you're at it speak to anyone in any pub in Southampton.

 

LOL... 'lunatic'... made my day that.

Edited 8 January, 2009 by SaintRobbie

[JustMike]

who the fook agreed that deal for Euell?????? no wonder we are in the ****e

[John B]

saying that Lowe has made things worse with his return by going Dutch - we'd be a lot better off now if Crouch was still chairman and Pearson still manager

 

I'd like to see the back of Wilde first and foremost - but followed closely by Lowe and Cowan for good - and ultimately by yes men such as Jones!

 

At least with Crouch you know where his heart is - and that he is trying to do the right things for the right reason - he may not always get it right it has to be said!

 

Possibly we would be higher in the table with Crouch and Pearson but eventually something like Lowe is doing now would have had to be done to reduce costs.

 

crouch appears to like being popular so i dont believe he is capable of cutting costs in an agressive manner of course there is no reason why he should not be Chairman in future.

[Rebel]

One thing continues to puzzle me.

 

Last season we were ambling along sort of looking up towards the play-offs and then the "Open Warfare" broke out the day before (I think) the Charlton game, when the Execs went public with their warning that we were living beyond our means.

 

The forum went into melt down, the Execs were locked into the stocks and we threw metaphoric rotten vegetables at them.

 

The team flopped horrendously against Charlton and from that moment it seemed as if GB lost the plot political melt-down started, Runnymede came and went, Leon made his coup and it all led to the return of Rupert

 

Now it comes back to bug me - IF the Execs publicly stated we were in trouble financially and needed to do something about it, how come "they" are taking all the flak for it now?

 

Something isn't quite right here and it isn't just how did the Echo put all this together.

 

they said that at the time purely to push through the takeover by SISU - which was a bad deal for all of the shareholders - by putting pressure on them to accept the offer

 

As part of the Saints Trust I had several face-to-face conversations with Hone, Hoos and Oldknow about the club living within its means

 

we argued that not only was operating at break even and living with its means essential for the long term survival of SFC it was also the way to attract a buyer

 

they disagreed and thought the only way was to throw more bad money after bad money and push for a play-off place to attract a takeover

 

they seemed to ignore the fact we were in a relegation battle at the time

 

at the time I really didn't understand where they were coming from - and could only think they had some hidden agenda

[John B]

that is completely unfair.

 

They were told by Wilde that investment was on the way.

 

The correct analogy would be that they started the fire, believing that the fire engine was waiting for the call round the corner, then discovering it would take 10 hours to get there...

 

Wilde had left long before that

 

It was them who bought in Thomas Euell Saga and John not Wilde as documented by Rebel

 

But your agenda does not appear to allow you to see that

Edited 8 January, 2009 by John B

[SaintRobbie]

that is completely unfair.

 

They were told by Wilde that investment was on the way.

 

The correct analogy would be that they started the fire, believing that the fire engine was waiting for the call round the corner, then discovering it would take 10 hours to get there...

 

Like that analogy. Actually, they realised that Wilde wasnt going to get a fire engine so they went and found their own SISU fire engine, but the shareholders stood in the way of the hoses in a poorly calculated and vain hope that a tropical storm might make its way to Southampton to put it out.

[John B]

Like that analogy. Actually, they realised that Wilde wasnt going to get a fire engine so they went and found their own SISU fire engine, but the shareholders stood in the way of the hoses in a poorly calculated and vain hope that a tropical storm might make its way to Southampton to put it out.

 

But Wilde was gone then

 

They were in sole charge feeding from the trough whlist SFC burnt

Edited 8 January, 2009 by John B

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Why does the Echo article refer to the current player's wages in the past tense? "so and so's wage WAS blah, etc...". Ok, I appreciate the wages were established in the past but they are what they are currently being paid so it seems strange to refer to current wages in the past tense....

 

Perhaps the person who leaked this to the Echo knows something about the short term (non)future of the club?

 

 

My take on this, Trousers, is this has been leaked by Lowe to prepare for his absolvement of blame when the club goes into administration later this month. Lowe is simply getting his "not my fault guv" excuse in early.

 

Whilst certainly most of the excesses took place while the execs and Wilde were running the show it is also fair to say his previous mistakes laid the not so fertile ground into which Hone and Co wasted what litle crop we had to sow. (A farming analogy rather than a nautical one for a change).

 

Leon Crouch himself told me the circumstances of Euell's arrival. He was at Staplewood and had a meeting with Hone (with Burley present) to discuss whether or not to sanction the signing. Crouch maintains he was against it due to the prohibitive cost but the board was split 50/50%. Hone and Crouch had a blazing row. The impasse only ended when David Jones sweet-talked Keith Wiseman into believing the club could afford the wages etc and Wiseman's vote sealed the deal. This was the start of the Crouch/Hone battle which culminated in Crouch's removal from the PLC board - only to mount a comeback (aided by a payoff) to remove the execs in December 07. Why the execs were so hellbent on supporting Burley (who by then had already been spoken to by Hone over his lifestyle problems), I have no idea except perhaps they had no long term interest and were happy to gamble. (I can confirm Hone had spoken to Burley - in case anyone accuses me of spreading rumours -because Oldknow told me in person on one of the many times I was summoned to SMS to discuss my anti execs postings on the previous forums).

 

David Jones is the man Lowe (and us) should be blaming the most - he has been there more than 10 years and was the person most responsible for the finances. At the recent AGM he tried to weasel out of the "81% accusations" by rather ingeniously saying that Euell and Co would be gone in a couple of years and the percentage would then drastically lower. It was a pretty tame and limp explanation and one Lowe did not invite him to expand upon.

 

So as the club lurches into administration the blame game continues to be played and whilst no one is free of culpability some are certainly guiltier than others. For me Lowe, Wilde and Jones are the main villains alongside the execs but as the latter group have already ridden off into the sunset with their saddlebags full of cash is it not time for the former group to take their leave too? It is my honest belief having spoken to him that if Lowe and Wilde resigned, Crouch would put enough cash in to stave of administration but Lowe would rather the club go under than hand back the reigns to the man whio engineered his first forced removal.

[Guided Missile]

The reason we got into this mess is very simple and was confirmed by Crouch to me. The executive directors were given the task of finding a buyer for the club. The value of the shares was related not to our wage bill or profitability, but our position in the league/prospects for promotion. The executive directors were likely to get a fat pay packet themselves and/or a bonus, on the successful sale of the club. They simply gambled with any money available on mediocre players and money grabbing agents (McMenemy jr. anyone ?). The best part for them is that it wasn't their money. SISU saw them for what they were and ran off to Coventry, pulling the rug from under them.

 

Mind you, it nearly came off until Leon Best had a mare...and also ran off to Coventry.

[SaintRobbie]

But Wilde was gone then

 

They were in sole charge feeding from the trough whlist SFC burnt

 

But not as a major shareholder refusing the SISU deal John. The reference was to Alp's assumption that when the Execs were put in Wilde had promised them investment which didnt materialise.

[Thedelldays]

£200k signing on fee for the mule

 

 

 

what a wast...lol

[John B]

The reason we got into this mess is very simple and was confirmed by Crouch to me. The executive directors were given the task of finding a buyer for the club. The value of the shares was related not to our wage bill or profitability, but our position in the league/prospects for promotion. The executive directors were likely to get a fat pay packet themselves and/or a bonus, on the successful sale of the club. They simply gambled with any money available on mediocre players and money grabbing agents (McMenemy jr. anyone ?). The best part for them is that it wasn't their money. SISU saw them for what they were and ran off to Coventry, pulling the rug from under them.

 

Mind you, it nearly came off until Leon Best had a mare...and also ran off to Coventry.

 

 

Yes makes sense now.

 

A common scenario Bonuses being paid for the wrong criteria should probably be paid on a number.

[John B]

But not as a major shareholder refusing the SISU deal John. The reference was to Alp's assumption that when the Execs were put in Wilde had promised them investment which didnt materialise.

 

Yes I know that but according to Crouch Wilde was living in a Walter Mitty world.

 

The club should have regrouped after failing in the playoffs that is where I am coming from.

 

But I find this thread very interesting dont you?

[SaintRobbie]

My take on this, Trousers, is this has been leaked by Lowe to prepare for his absolvement of blame when the club goes into administration later this month. Lowe is simply getting his "not my fault guv" excuse in early.

 

Whilst certainly most of the excesses took place while the execs and Wilde were running the show it is also fair to say his previous mistakes laid the not so fertile ground into which Hone and Co wasted what litle crop we had to sow. (A farming analogy rather than a nautical one for a change).

 

Leon Crouch himself told me the circumstances of Euell's arrival. He was at Staplewood and had a meeting with Hone (with Burley present) to discuss whether or not to sanction the signing. Crouch maintains he was against it due to the prohibitive cost but the board was split 50/50%. Hone and Crouch had a blazing row. The impasse only ended when David Jones sweet-talked Keith Wiseman into believing the club could afford the wages etc and Wiseman's vote sealed the deal. This was the start of the Crouch/Hone battle which culminated in Crouch's removal from the PLC board - only to mount a comeback (aided by a payoff) to remove the execs in December 07. Why the execs were so hellbent on supporting Burley (who by then had already been spoken to by Hone over his lifestyle problems), I have no idea except perhaps they had no long term interest and were happy to gamble. (I can confirm Hone had spoken to Burley - in case anyone accuses me of spreading rumours -because Oldknow told me in person on one of the many times I was summoned to SMS to discuss my anti execs postings on the previous forums).

 

David Jones is the man Lowe (and us) should be blaming the most - he has been there more than 10 years and was the person most responsible for the finances. At the recent AGM he tried to weasel out of the "81% accusations" by rather ingeniously saying that Euell and Co would be gone in a couple of years and the percentage would then drastically lower. It was a pretty tame and limp explanation and one Lowe did not invite him to expand upon.

 

So as the club lurches into administration the blame game continues to be played and whilst no one is free of culpability some are certainly guiltier than others. For me Lowe, Wilde and Jones are the main villains alongside the execs but as the latter group have already ridden off into the sunset with their saddlebags full of cash is it not time for the former group to take their leave too? It is my honest belief having spoken to him that if Lowe and Wilde resigned, Crouch would put enough cash in to stave of administration but Lowe would rather the club go under than hand back the reigns to the man whio engineered his first forced removal.

 

Post of the day. Indeed, for me should go to the old Golden Posts as it is so important right now.

 

This needs to be discussed on a new thread, it really is that critical. Particularly the bottom line in bold. Duncan - I suggest this is cut and pasted into a new thread for discussion my friend. When I say that Lowe is leaking it to clear his name I get called a lunatic by Sundance!

 

Seriously though it is very important. Given the timescales we may now be working to - potentially less than a month away from administration - I think loyal supporter and fan Leon Crouch needs to now declare openly his intention to save the club.

Edited 8 January, 2009 by SaintRobbie

[John B]

Post of the day. Indeed, for me should go to the old Golden Posts as it is so important right now.

 

This needs to be discussed on a new thread, it really is that critical. Particularly the bottom line in bold. Duncan - I suggest this is cut and pasted into a new thread for discussion my friend. When I say that Lowe is leaking it to clear his name I get called a lunatic by Sundance!

 

Seriously though it is very important. Given the timescales we may now be working to - potentially less than a month away from administration - I think loyal supporter and fan Leon Crouch needs to now declare openly his intention to save the club.

 

 

Alternatively it could be a ruse by Crouch to put Lowe in a bad light.

 

Obviously I am not in the know like other posters but pondering all scenarios.

 

Was there not a throw away line in the Annual Report that in the event of Adminisration alternative funding would be found which I took to be Crouch.

[alpine_saint]

My take on this, Trousers, is this has been leaked by Lowe to prepare for his absolvement of blame when the club goes into administration later this month. Lowe is simply getting his "not my fault guv" excuse in early.

 

Whilst certainly most of the excesses took place while the execs and Wilde were running the show it is also fair to say his previous mistakes laid the not so fertile ground into which Hone and Co wasted what litle crop we had to sow. (A farming analogy rather than a nautical one for a change).

 

Leon Crouch himself told me the circumstances of Euell's arrival. He was at Staplewood and had a meeting with Hone (with Burley present) to discuss whether or not to sanction the signing. Crouch maintains he was against it due to the prohibitive cost but the board was split 50/50%. Hone and Crouch had a blazing row. The impasse only ended when David Jones sweet-talked Keith Wiseman into believing the club could afford the wages etc and Wiseman's vote sealed the deal. This was the start of the Crouch/Hone battle which culminated in Crouch's removal from the PLC board - only to mount a comeback (aided by a payoff) to remove the execs in December 07. Why the execs were so hellbent on supporting Burley (who by then had already been spoken to by Hone over his lifestyle problems), I have no idea except perhaps they had no long term interest and were happy to gamble. (I can confirm Hone had spoken to Burley - in case anyone accuses me of spreading rumours -because Oldknow told me in person on one of the many times I was summoned to SMS to discuss my anti execs postings on the previous forums).

 

David Jones is the man Lowe (and us) should be blaming the most - he has been there more than 10 years and was the person most responsible for the finances. At the recent AGM he tried to weasel out of the "81% accusations" by rather ingeniously saying that Euell and Co would be gone in a couple of years and the percentage would then drastically lower. It was a pretty tame and limp explanation and one Lowe did not invite him to expand upon.

 

So as the club lurches into administration the blame game continues to be played and whilst no one is free of culpability some are certainly guiltier than others. For me Lowe, Wilde and Jones are the main villains alongside the execs but as the latter group have already ridden off into the sunset with their saddlebags full of cash is it not time for the former group to take their leave too? It is my honest belief having spoken to him that if Lowe and Wilde resigned, Crouch would put enough cash in to stave of administration but Lowe would rather the club go under than hand back the reigns to the man whio engineered his first forced removal.

 

Wow. This is a BIG post.

 

I would suggest that if we have another board change, sod the continuity. It is well time the club was rid of the services of Jones too.

[John B]

Wow. This is a BIG post.

 

I would suggest that if we have another board change, sod the continuity. It is well time the club was rid of the services of Jones too.

 

Yes I am with you on this one Alpine the most interesting thread I have seen

 

I dont know why you got so much stick when you raised the Jones question last year.

 

 

Obviously all you rants cannot be wrong

[SaintRobbie]

Yes I know that but according to Crouch Wilde was living in a Walter Mitty world.

 

The club should have regrouped after failing in the playoffs that is where I am coming from.

 

But I find this thread very interesting dont you?

 

Ah understand - Yes I do find this interesting. And I think Duncan has summed it up perfectly in a very imformed and timely post.

[Weston Saint]

Wow, the Echo reveal details of players wages that have been known to many on here for ages and the forum goes into anti Lowe overdrive.

 

Let's try to get a balance and not try to take sides.

 

Lowe was responsible for Rasiaks wages and they were unsustainable in the league we were in but comparable to those in the squad at that time who did not have the 50% relegation clause in their contract when we came down. Lowe was, by his choice of Managers in the Premier, a big part of the responsibility for the relegation. That is a given

 

Wilde & the Executives then carried on this wanton disregard for keeping the wage bill within our reasonable means although I am happy to confirm the fact that Crouch did oppose the Euell signing.

 

During his term Crouch paid a centre back who had been out with injury for long spells at his previous club and had yet to gain a reputation as a good defender £10,000 a week in the Championship!!!

 

For those who argue he balanced that out with the loan deal for Rasiac & Skacel that is wrong. When he signed Davies he had every intention of keeping that pair. Rasiak went because Bolton made an offer that could not be refused and Skacel, having confirmed to Hone he was happy to stay then pushed for a loan much to their disappointment.

 

So they have all played a major part in our downfall with a common denominator being our Financial Director, Jones.

 

So let's not start portioning blame. Let's not give credit to any of the above. Let's all unite in condemming all that has occurred leading up to and since our relegation without exceptions.

 

Bickering over who is to blame is as decisive as those who have put our once great club in this position.

[John B]

Ah understand - Yes I do find this interesting. And I think Duncan has summed it up perfectly in a very imformed and timely post.

 

Yes I agree but is it going to help us beat Barnsley in our attempt to stave off relegation

 

 

Because on the field counts for everything in the long term

 

I doubt it .

[SaintRobbie]

Alternatively it could be a ruse by Crouch to put Lowe in a bad light.

 

Obviously I am not in the know like other posters but pondering all scenarios.

 

Was there not a throw away line in the Annual Report that in the event of Adminisration alternative funding would be found which I took to be Crouch.

 

Could be John. That's why I think Crouch needs to - carefully and consideredly - show us how he intends saving the Club he loves from Administration. I have never doubted Crouch was anything other than like me; a passionate fan who wants the best for his club and fires from the hip! Too close to me for my liking He needs to be considered and careful but declare soon how he intends to save something that is clearly dear to him.

 

Right now - poor or not last time - I'd have Crouch back in running the show before Lowe. At least we'd trust him just slightly more.

 

There is one problem however, if he did save the Club, who's going to pay for the statue of him next to Ted?

[Thedelldays]

even with all the money we were throwing around...burley still failed terribly

[trousers]

Hmm who else would have known these figures besides the club?

 

Anyone who has been through the pre-takeover due diligence process recently?

[alpine_saint]

even with all the money we were throwing around...burley still failed terribly

 

No argument from me there.

[trousers]

Post of the day. Indeed, for me should go to the old Golden Posts as it is so important right now.

 

The 'old' Golden Posts were sadly 'lost' when the previous forum crashed....

[Mr X]

Is it me, or doesn't the first line make sense? I thought income was money in? I feel dumb today

 

THE Daily Echo can today reveal some of the high salaries that resulted in Saints’ wage bill soaring to 81 per cent of the club’s total income last season.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4030894.Saints__wage_bill_shocker/

 

Complete spin, I do believe we were paying players out of proportion to our income, but this is like others have stated simply a way for Lowe to try and be seen as some kind of financial saviour while at the same time trying to dispose of the players the club clearly doesn't want on the books.

 

Lowe was obviously hoping this statistical fact bending would go down well

[trousers]

This one thread has answered many of the loose-end questions that have arisen over the last two years. It's like finding missing pieces of an old jigsaw puzzle down the back of the sofa. I'm still looking for the picture on the lid mind you....

[John B]

Complete spin, I do believe we were paying players out of proportion to our income, but this is like others have stated simply a way for Lowe to try and be seen as some kind of financial saviour while at the same time trying to dispose of the players the club clearly doesn't want on the books.

 

Lowe was obviously hoping this statistical fact bending would go down well

 

It is not fact bending

 

It is the facts why we are in a financial mess which has to be resolved

[Danny]

£200k signing on fee for the mule

 

 

 

what a wast...lol

 

That's £200k x 2, as he got another £200k at the start of this season...

 

The mind boggles.

[Flyer]

Yes I agree but Burley never gave him a real chance

Hes worth £4m now with Prem clubs after him!

[John B]

Hes worth £4m now with Prem clubs after him!

 

You are joking

[KMondo]

During his term Crouch paid a centre back who had been out with injury for long spells at his previous club and had yet to gain a reputation as a good defender £10,000 a week in the Championship!!!

 

That line is a little harsh. Davies's 'reputation' was established during a very successful loan spell, plus (unlike Euell) was young and likely to hold his value. If we had failed to sign him after the nightmares we had had at centre half prior to his arrival, the forum would have gone into meltdown.