woksaintly Posted 8 January, 2009 Share Posted 8 January, 2009 No just an ex amatuer player of many years ago and a life long fan who used to regularly contribute on Saintsforever who like many have become disenfranchised, disenchanted, disgruntled with recent board room farce. However, you cannot change the team you support. There is no divorce !! I wish I could switch off at 3 on a Saturday but am still compelled to know how we got on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delmary Posted 8 January, 2009 Share Posted 8 January, 2009 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.Great post Ron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreog Posted 8 January, 2009 Share Posted 8 January, 2009 The Euell deal is simply beyond belief in terms of what he has put back into the club for the money............thank god i'm avoiding the place now..........all that for a token effort now and again...........unbelievable!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 8 January, 2009 Share Posted 8 January, 2009 So they have all played a major part in our downfall with a common denominator being our Financial Director, Jones. This is what I really don't understand. How has Teflon Jones managed to maintain his position throughout the carnage of all of the previous administrations? Does he have some kind of hold over all of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 8 January, 2009 Share Posted 8 January, 2009 Blimey. I think that is what they call a 'bombshell' in these 'ere parts! All we need now is an explanation of the NAMG 'episode' and we've got the full set! what was NAMG all about. I remember spending hours (perhaps minutes!) following your comments sometime ago. Was there also a firm in Chandlers Ford that you were interested in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 January, 2009 Share Posted 8 January, 2009 what was NAMG all about. I remember spending hours (perhaps minutes!) following your comments sometime ago. It was posted on here that it turned out to be a bogus company & website that was (somehow) used to dupe the board at the time (or visa versa....sorry, memory not too good) ....or perhaps it was all a weird dream? Was there also a firm in Chandlers Ford that you were interested in? Wasn't that a website that someone found with a potential connection to 'Sundance Beast' who then got all un-proportionally defensive when denying he had anything to do with it? Again, memory on the blink tonight.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 It was posted on here that it turned out to be a bogus company & website that was (somehow) used to dupe the board at the time (or visa versa....sorry, memory not too good) ....or perhaps it was all a weird dream? Wasn't that a website that someone found with a potential connection to 'Sundance Beast' who then got all un-proportionally defensive when denying he had anything to do with it? Again, memory on the blink tonight.... Wasn't NAMG purporting to be a legitimate construction/engineering company with apparently enormous plans/contracts to regenerate what of the smaller Arab states? Their head offices was in London but on closer investigation it appeared that they'd stolen the entire content for their web site from a legitimate construction/engineering company in "Poland?". Somebody made an attempt to contact the head office if memory serves and I thought they got through to someone. But I can't remember how they were supposed to be connected with the club. And didn't one of their press releases claim to have signed a definitive agreement to do "something" with a football club? I think the conclusion was that it might be a scam company but that we might not have been the intended victims. Having said all this I think I may have over the years one conspiracy/takeover has blended into the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 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. This bit confuses me. If Barclays knew that Leon would put the cash in to stave off administation on these conditions, then surely Barclays would call the shots come the 11th hour. It reminds me of the Coventry and SISSU situation where the club was about to go under and the shares be worthless or accept a deal with SISSU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 As we're getting things out into the open.... Was TSF poster Leonard "fellow travellers" Coming (who was subsequently banned for no publicly apparent reason) a Tommac inspired stooge at Vulcan Capital? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 Originally Posted by adriansfc Jesus, can't believe the wages of Thomas, BWP and Euell. It's utterly ridiculous these sums were offered. I know people hate Lowe but surely they realise what we were doing when he was gone was suicide? 3 crap players costing us over 20k a week together and towards a million in signing fees. what the hell?! It's fine to say we have too many kids in the team etc., but the kids are no worse than those 3 IMO, many of them are better and will become better. All three of those took us very, very close to relegation last season anyway. Mate don't get sucked in by the spin, Lowe signed BWP & Rasiak!!!! Also just one other small point, the % of income against players wages were naturaly going up anyway as the turnover went from £23.3m down to £14.9m so even with out the extra signings the existing contracts would of taken a larger %. Please note: That by no means exucesses The Euell deal!!! Lowe exercised the buy option on Rasiak, but he only agreed a 1-year loan of BWP. When Lowe left we only had half a team with no other big earners having been signed. The intention was to get the wage bill down to around 50% of income (without allowing for the final parachute payment), so that adjustments that had to be made would not be major and easily within our reach come the end of the season. Lowe had just gone through the biggest player cull seen at Saints to get the finances in order, he was not going to put that in jeopardy by immediately starting another spending spree when adjustments would soon have to be made for the loss of the parachute payments. We could still have had a good tilt at promotion that season with a reduced squad and loans financed by the parachute for that season, without financially handicapping us for the future. Originally Posted by Weston Saint 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. Crouch’s opposition to the Euell signing in no way can be used as proof of wanting to get the finances in order, only one of personal opinion regarding the player. Why, because of the subsequent signing of Andrew Davies, which we all know Crouch was fully behind, even to the extent of helping the deal with a loan, some months after we had signed Euell. So if you are concerned about the financial stability of the club, you don’t say cut back one minute, then months later load an even bigger cost onto the finances by bringing in an even more expensive player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpofshipperley Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 This bit confuses me. If Barclays knew that Leon would put the cash in to stave off administation on these conditions, then surely Barclays would call the shots come the 11th hour. It reminds me of the Coventry and SISSU situation where the club was about to go under and the shares be worthless or accept a deal with SISSU. All it would do is delay the inevitable and Crouch would have just lost a lot more money. Unless someone is going to buy us and pump in a load of cash nothing will have changed. To be honest I don't see any wiggle room for us. We are where we are and we can only hope the young team can produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_John Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 Um, I wish you had put the full quote from the Echo AGM article And here's what David Jones thought of the numbers: Originally Posted by David Jones (FD) We do forward forecast and the player wage bill was 81 per cent in June 08 but .......... the player wage bill was an artificial blip Would loved to have been a fly on the wall in the office after the AGM with Rupe's leading on the stupidness of the 81% figure and Jones responding that it was a mere blip!!!!!!! ..... "We do forward forecast and the player wage bill was 81 per cent in June 08 but, with Claus Lundekvam, Chris Makin, Alexander Ostlund, Inigo Idiakez, Mario Licka and Jermaine Wright out of contract, the player wage bill was an artificial blip…" Which shows that the 81% is made up of SIX players who I believe were ALL on high wages (higher than BWP mentioned in the Echo article anyway) and have now left. It would be nice if the Echo had asked their leak to tell us what the percentage was on the 1st July rather that single out a few players here now and exclude six others. Thinking about there were other players who David Jones missed from his list who left on the 30 June as well :- Powell and Vignal (end of contract), plus Safri (sold) I would be very suprised if the percentage on July 1st was greater than 50%, probably less, and the only thing the dark lord MAY have done differently from ANYONE ELSE was sell Safri. LOWE OUT !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 Um, I wish you had put the full quote from the Echo AGM article Which shows that the 81% is made up of SIX players who I believe were ALL on high wages (higher than BWP mentioned in the Echo article anyway) and have now left. It would be nice if the Echo had asked their leak to tell us what the percentage was on the 1st July rather that single out a few players here now and exclude six others. Thinking about there were other players who David Jones missed from his list who left on the 30 June as well :- Powell and Vignal (end of contract), plus Safri (sold) I would be very suprised if the percentage on July 1st was greater than 50%, probably less, and the only thing the dark lord MAY have done differently from ANYONE ELSE was sell Safri. LOWE OUT !! Doesn't the 81% INCLUDE these six plus all the others rather than these six being the ONLY wages behind the 81%? Or am I being dense? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 That is what I am saying but I think Wilde is more to blame for the current situation it was him who brought Lowe back. I never thought Lowe would return as upsets supporters like yourself. But as he does not care about being popular is probably the best guy in the current abysmal situation Surely the villain is D.Jones, who runs with the fox and hunts with the hounds. He seems a distinct liability to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 Surely the villain is D.Jones, who runs with the fox and hunts with the hounds. He seems a distinct liability to me. I wonder if he has to do as he's told - or lose his job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 He's a bean-counter. And as all good bean-counters know, you keep your head down when the big decisions are made and just tell them afterwards how much they have lost. It's what bean-counters do - dynamic/egotistical people don't sit and tally numbers all day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Been out of the loop for a few days.... Was wondering if the club ever issued a denial about this wages leak and/or condemned whoever did it? As any conspiracy theorist worth his salt will tell you, saying nowt about such an event is potentially revealing given all the other 'rumours' that are deemed worthy of a comment on the OS.... Not that I'm making accusations of inconsistency I hasten to add.... (advance apologies if the club have issued a comment and I missed it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corsacar saint Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 sidthesquid is spot on. The same thing was told to me by a knowledgeable person[ on the subject] the other night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Doesn't the 81% INCLUDE these six plus all the others rather than these six being the ONLY wages behind the 81%? Or am I being dense? :confused: 81% is the total, of course we'll only get to estimate how much the "unmentionables" ie Claus and Idiakiez were on when the half year figures for the current year to come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 16 January, 2009 Share Posted 16 January, 2009 There's a rumour on 606 that the sports editor of The Echo has been sacked over revealing the plaers wages story. Probably rubbish.. but hey ho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now