Guided Missile Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 Makes me wonder about Crouch, Corbett et al and their choice of candidate... Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: Where is the investment coming from? A couple days ago, I spent £3 downloading the latest accounts on Merlion plc., Wilde's source of income and wealth. I am not completely sure if it his sole source of wealth to be used in his investment in Southampton Leisure plc, but I am pretty confident it is. I was hesitant to post my opinion on the strength of the finances he is relying on, because of the abuse the Mods allow me to get, but I'm going to anyway. Everything in it the accounts confirms what I have guessed about the guy. Lowe has picked up on the financial position as well and that is why his main question was, where will the investment in Saints come from? Unless Wilde has had a lottery win he's not telling us about, the balance sheet of the company he owns will definitely not be the source of the investment. He (I assume as he is the sole shareholder) has been bleeding the company of the majority of it's profits in 2003 and 2004 in the form of dividends so that, as Lowe has noticed, it has got only about £980,000 in net assets at the date of the last return (31st December, 2004). Merlion had total assets of approx. £10.7M against which they owe about £9.7M. So, we have a guy with an appetite for borrowing, gearing a company to the hilt and bleeding it's profits in the form of dividends for the shareholders. He has taken significant dividends out, presumably to avoid taking a UK salary, avoiding National Insurance deductions and availing himself of the more favourable tax structure in Jersey. He is in too deep to make peace with Lowe, because, in my opinion, if he does and calls off the EGM, he will have to pay his advisors himself, rather than getting the Southampton Leisure plc to pay his costs, when he takes control. Now, I could be wrong about his personal financial position, but I am suspicious. I don't think he will put significant money into Saints, because he doesn't have significant funds available. The question could be easily answered as I am sure he could post a response on this board. My problem is, I don't have access to more recent data (31st December, 2004) to accurately assess his companies' financial health (sound familiar?) If his total wealth is largely based on the balance sheet I have seen, there is only one word I can use for anyone that supports him at the EGM. Suckers......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 GM...were you not banned from S4E for posting such info...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 GM...were you not banned from S4E for posting such info...? It was a bit worse than that. Wilde threatened legal action via his attack poodle, Legg: From: Keith To: Guided Missile Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:15 pm Subject: I think.. ..your posts about Wilde's personal finances could be construed as possibly libellous. He has given you a response and won't talk further on the subject. I think you've tried to made a point and like many of yours, they are based on half arsed information and your own agenda. From: Guided Missile To: Keith Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:28 pm Subject: Re: I think So Mike Wilde has threatened to sue me and you for libel, has he Keith? Listen, you well know my post was pure conjecture regarding his personal finances. With regard to Merlion plc, my information was based on the returns he files with Companies' House, so that post was hardly libellous. By the way, I have no agenda but finding out as much as I can about someone who is about to control the football club I support. I expect the same transparency from Rupert Lowe. Look in the mirror and ask yourself what your agenda is. By the way, if Mr Wilde is threatening to sue me for libel, my lawyers details are : Contact: ******** ******** ******** ******** ****** does all my corporate legal work and is a really nice guy. PS I don't really want my tenner back, just this site's impartiality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 Hand up John - you were right and many of us including Crouch and friends should have been as diligent as you were in checking Wilde's credentials (how is he keeping himself afloat). However i would plead an element of mitigation. Lowe had made himself so unpopular by that stage that normal reasoning and judgement was put to one side such was the desire to see him gone. In other words he created the feeding frenzy. A couple of months ago Crouch told me that when he purchased that 10% it was by no means a certainity that it would be Wilde who got his support. Indeed right up until that last week he was unsure as to whether he was backing the right man. What swayed him in the end to eventually support Wilde was he saw Lowe's relationship with the fans as having gone past redemption and because of that his (Lowe's) position was simply untenable. Of course had he he had your foresight (and of course he should have done the homework you did) then he would have been faced with an awkward decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 Hand up John - you were right and many of us including Crouch and friends should have been as diligent as you were in checking Wilde's credentials (how is he keeping himself afloat). However i would plead an element of mitigation. Lowe had made himself so unpopular by that stage that normal reasoning and judgement was put to one side such was the desire to see him gone. In other words he created the feeding frenzy. A couple of months ago Crouch told me that when he purchased that 10% it was by no means a certainity that it would be Wilde who got his support. Indeed right up until that last week he was unsure as to whether he was backing the right man. What swayed him in the end to eventually support Wilde was he saw Lowe's relationship with the fans as having gone past redemption and because of that his (Lowe's) position was simply untenable. Of course had he he had your foresight (and of course he should have done the homework you did) then he would have been faced with an awkward decision. This thread is about posts fans have made that were wrong, TBF and I have to say, this part of my post was totally wrong: "He (Wilde) is in too deep to make peace with Lowe," :smt044 You couldn't make it up, could you, Duncan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 Lowe had made himself so unpopular by that stage that normal reasoning and judgement was put to one side such was the desire to see him gone. Sorry Duncan, but that's the lamest excuse ever. Some of us had warned about Wilde for months and months... it wasn't like a bolt from the blue exactly, you and others made the conscious decision to ignore the warnings as addressing them didn't suit your ultimate aim. Obviously Legg tried to stop it on S4E too including having IP addresses traced and personal/work details posted. In fact, for people who wanted something so badly, it's even more inexcusable not to do the job properly - and, ironically, by not doing that job properly you've all let him back in. A couple of months ago Crouch told me that when he purchased that 10% it was by no means a certainity that it would be Wilde who got his support. Indeed right up until that last week he was unsure as to whether he was backing the right man. What swayed him in the end to eventually support Wilde was he saw Lowe's relationship with the fans as having gone past redemption and because of that his (Lowe's) position was simply untenable. Of course had he he had your foresight (and of course he should have done the homework you did) then he would have been faced with an awkward decision. So the man who spent £1.6m on shares, paid legal and PR teams, didn't spend £3 and 5 minutes to check out the man he was backing? It's just so ridiculous it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The same of course can be said for others like Mary Corbett. The same lack of diligence continued with Dulieu and Hone whilst a deliberate blind eye was taken when it came to the lies of Crouch, Wilde and the Saints Trust about share proxies. Or the lies about not being able to invest due to closed periods / Takeover Panel / phase of the moon which were propagated by Jim Hone. Not to mention the lies about investment from Wilde and Trant, and the ongoing bravado from Crouch that he will invest "if others do" (since November 2006!). Just how difficult would it have been to have investigated these people a little from public information and demanded guarantees over investment before backing them? The sad thing is, you just know that all the same mistakes will be made again as soon as the opportunity arises... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 "McGoldrick and our hungry young strikers will score 20+ goals this season" " anyone could do a better job than him (Burley)" " who needs Niemi when we have Paul Smith " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 The sad thing is, you just know that all the same mistakes will be made again as soon as the opportunity arises... But thats what this club does....Stuart Gray, Wigley then Dodd/Gorman now JP/Gorre/ Wotte and still lessons are never learn't by those running us are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 Sorry Duncan, but that's the lamest excuse ever. Some of us had warned about Wilde for months and months... it wasn't like a bolt from the blue exactly, you and others made the conscious decision to ignore the warnings as addressing them didn't suit your ultimate aim. Obviously Legg tried to stop it on S4E too including having IP addresses traced and personal/work details posted. In fact, for people who wanted something so badly, it's even more inexcusable not to do the job properly - and, ironically, by not doing that job properly you've all let him back in. So the man who spent £1.6m on shares, paid legal and PR teams, didn't spend £3 and 5 minutes to check out the man he was backing? It's just so ridiculous it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The same of course can be said for others like Mary Corbett. The same lack of diligence continued with Dulieu and Hone whilst a deliberate blind eye was taken when it came to the lies of Crouch, Wilde and the Saints Trust about share proxies. Or the lies about not being able to invest due to closed periods / Takeover Panel / phase of the moon which were propagated by Jim Hone. Not to mention the lies about investment from Wilde and Trant, and the ongoing bravado from Crouch that he will invest "if others do" (since November 2006!). Just how difficult would it have been to have investigated these people a little from public information and demanded guarantees over investment before backing them? The sad thing is, you just know that all the same mistakes will be made again as soon as the opportunity arises... This is worth a read.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 "Burley knows what he is doing, Rasiak might have scored 20 goals but BWP is a better striker"...... "Our young lads could be like when Man Utd played with Giggs,Scholes,Beckham,Butt etc.." That one always made me laugh. "We are aiming for promotion and were in with a good chance" (Michael Wilde before start of the season) "Our strikers will easily score 20 goals this season" "I don't think were in a relegation battle" (Jan before xmas) "Wotten is like a CCC version of Roy Keane, your see". I see the similarities now, as in both past it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 ...and this. Thursday, 29 June 2006 Lowe claims the currenty board offer stability. He also attacked Wilde's manifesto, saying he sees no signs of a big money investor. Wilde's counter claims are that Lowe can hardly call for stability from a standpoint of having 10 managers in as many years, and that they have investors ready to pump in funds as soon as Lowe departs. Saints' management team of George Burley and Sir Clive Woodward have been paraded to confirm their contentment with the current board, while the Wilde bunch have rolled out some big guns to fire off support. The big calibre ordnance includes former BBC chairman and City big-shot Gavyn Davies, ex-Saints boss Lawrie McMenemy, and former Dell hero Mike Channon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 Sorry Duncan, but that's the lamest excuse ever. Some of us had warned about Wilde for months and months... it wasn't like a bolt from the blue exactly, you and others made the conscious decision to ignore the warnings as addressing them didn't suit your ultimate aim. Obviously Legg tried to stop it on S4E too including having IP addresses traced and personal/work details posted. In fact, for people who wanted something so badly, it's even more inexcusable not to do the job properly - and, ironically, by not doing that job properly you've all let him back in. So the man who spent £1.6m on shares, paid legal and PR teams, didn't spend £3 and 5 minutes to check out the man he was backing? It's just so ridiculous it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The same of course can be said for others like Mary Corbett. The same lack of diligence continued with Dulieu and Hone whilst a deliberate blind eye was taken when it came to the lies of Crouch, Wilde and the Saints Trust about share proxies. Or the lies about not being able to invest due to closed periods / Takeover Panel / phase of the moon which were propagated by Jim Hone. Not to mention the lies about investment from Wilde and Trant, and the ongoing bravado from Crouch that he will invest "if others do" (since November 2006!). Just how difficult would it have been to have investigated these people a little from public information and demanded guarantees over investment before backing them? The sad thing is, you just know that all the same mistakes will be made again as soon as the opportunity arises... Mark - you and I have long disagreed about the benefits or otherwise of Lowe's continured presence but I admit you were quite right re Wilde. Unfortunately I did not heed your wisdom because I honestly thought you were just stirring it because you didn't want Lowe to be ousted. I guess a lot of others thought the same and closed their ears. My excuse is, in hindsight lame, but trenches had been dug at that stage and there wasn't much appetite for trench swopping going on, back then. I have to admit surprise at the lack of diligence conducted by the Crouch camp but I think very quickly on they were too wrapped up in their own battle with the executives. They certainly made mistakes (Mary Corbett was good enough to hold her hands up at the AGM and say as much) and for that reason have probably blown any realistic chances of being given another go. As for Crouch's promise I believe it to be genuinely made - and in writing too - but if I was him I would not want to fork out 2m of my private money merely to keep Wilde and Lowe in power. I guess you wouldn't either? If Crouch's £2m is the only thing between us and administration surely even you would swallow your antipathy to the man albeit on a temporary basis? Like most on this forum I think we have all had enough of the whole farce and its participants but right now I have tethered my horse on the outskirts of the Crouch camp due to it being the best positioned - in my opinion - to survive the winter intact. But who knows what the future holds. Rgds Duncan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Shango Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 "Steve Wigley has a touch of the Arsene Wenger about him" "He's [Wigley] is like the new Alan Curbishley" You could not move for people bigging up Wiggers when he was appointed, and even six games in people were still salivating over the dinlow. And then the same people salivating about Dodd and Gorman even though, again, it was an obvious disaster of an appointment. You couldn't move for the hero worship. And the precise same people have the gaul to moan about the appointments in hindsight. What the **** are you on about? Maybe a couple of people on the internet said those things, but 95% of fans thought Wigley was completely useless from day one. Everyone I spoke to thought he was a clown. He didn't get those "you don't know what you're doing" chants for nothing. To say you couldn't move for people bigging up Wiggers is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsash saint Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 Leandre Griffit is PL quality springs to mind Telfer's not good enough for us but went off and played in the Champions League was a good one. Let's go Wilde of course is the all time winner Thats gotta be a Greenwich Saint if ever there was one :yawinkle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 What the **** are you on about? Maybe a couple of people on the internet said those things, but 95% of fans thought Wigley was completely useless from day one. Everyone I spoke to thought he was a clown. He didn't get those "you don't know what you're doing" chants for nothing. To say you couldn't move for people bigging up Wiggers is ridiculous. Agreed, I actually said to my friends in the pub before the Bolton game that Rupert had just relegated us with that decision and I didn't get huge amounts of disagreement, particularly after the game where Bolton won every 50/50, our players bottled challenges and it was clear the players had no respect for Wigley. People were put off by Gray. To put some balance on this post, Leon Crouch was even more stupid going with Dodd and Gorman, for the same organisation to make the exact same mistake 3 times in only 7 years defies belief and shows you none of them have a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 "Sorry, but I think Shearer misses too many one on one's. I don't rate him" By yours truly, under East Stand, circa 1988 I said that as well. Lol but to be fair when he was woth us he was not clinical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpb Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 'Ripley and Ostenstat have got a really exciting understanding!' I can remember saying that after we played Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 It was a bit worse than that. Wilde threatened legal action via his attack poodle, Legg: From: Keith To: Guided Missile Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:15 pm Subject: I think.. ..your posts about Wilde's personal finances could be construed as possibly libellous. He has given you a response and won't talk further on the subject. I think you've tried to made a point and like many of yours, they are based on half arsed information and your own agenda. From: Guided Missile To: Keith Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:28 pm Subject: Re: I think So Mike Wilde has threatened to sue me and you for libel, has he Keith? Listen, you well know my post was pure conjecture regarding his personal finances. With regard to Merlion plc, my information was based on the returns he files with Companies' House, so that post was hardly libellous. By the way, I have no agenda but finding out as much as I can about someone who is about to control the football club I support. I expect the same transparency from Rupert Lowe. Look in the mirror and ask yourself what your agenda is. By the way, if Mr Wilde is threatening to sue me for libel, my lawyers details are : Contact: ******** ******** ******** ******** ****** does all my corporate legal work and is a really nice guy. PS I don't really want my tenner back, just this site's impartiality. LOL at Leggs pm - a good many of us were on the receiving end of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 (edited) "Beattie is an absolute bloody disgrace and should never wear the Saints shirt again" - Me, the game before he went on his goal streak in WGS's first season. "This Ali Dia doesnt look bad" - Me, just after his first touch was a shot on goal in his only game. I also told my old man "Perry Groves will be a bloody good signing for us" On the plus side i never liked Lowe from the first time I saw or heard him !!!! Edited 12 January, 2009 by beatlesaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 LOL at Leggs pm - a good many of us were on the receiving end of them. yep...i remember i was on the end of one when I claimed that our academy was not as good as the hype and we would find out one day... he knew best I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 12 January, 2009 Share Posted 12 January, 2009 ...and this. Thursday, 29 June 2006 Lowe claims the currenty board offer stability. He also attacked Wilde's manifesto, saying he sees no signs of a big money investor. Wilde's counter claims are that Lowe can hardly call for stability from a standpoint of having 10 managers in as many years, and that they have investors ready to pump in funds as soon as Lowe departs. Saints' management team of George Burley and Sir Clive Woodward have been paraded to confirm their contentment with the current board, while the Wilde bunch have rolled out some big guns to fire off support. The big calibre ordnance includes former BBC chairman and City big-shot Gavyn Davies, ex-Saints boss Lawrie McMenemy, and former Dell hero Mike Channon. So Lowe may have been right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 davis is crap,fuller is crap ,k jones is crap , mcgoldrick is crap ,bennet is crap etc, the usual rubbish is to have a hatchet man for our team . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 davis is crap,fuller is crap ,k jones is crap , mcgoldrick is crap ,bennet is crap etc, the usual rubbish is to have a hatchet man for our team . to be fair...no, being brutally honest, those comments were given when the players in question were horrendous.. note to you...see how davis is getting all the praise now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:36 pm I have received the following from Mike Wilde in regard to your points: Merlion Group’s turnover rose to approx STG 20m in 2005 and is expected (on current projections) to achieve in excess of STG 30m in 2006. This dramatic growth is due to the establishment of our speculative housing arm Infinity Homes Ltd. In respect of dividends there is a firm dividend policy in place at moment that prevents extraction of any more than 50% of taxable profit. I can also confirm that Merlion Group is certainly not my only source of income. I have substantial financial interests in a number of overseas countries as well as other companies and I have an established Family Trust which looks after family matters. I am not prepared to give information regarding my net worth as I am sure everyone can understand that it is not their business!! Thank Mike for the information and I am glad to hear that the plc he controls is growing from strength to strength. A couple points of clarification, if possible, as I am sure you want to get away from the computer to enjoy the sun in Jersey. 1. Do you intend to run Southampton Leisure plc with similar borrowing and thus interest coverage as you do Merlion plc and also a similar dividend policy? 2. £1,008,378 in dividends was taken out of Merlion plc in the financial year ending December 31st, 2003. Taxable profits before taxation were £569,069. Did you get the 50% round the wrong way that year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Who the h**l is that muppet, he couldn't hit a barn door Me at Victoria Park Salisbury in a pre-season friendly making (I think) his debut for Saints The player was MLT who missed about 3 one on one's.... Ho hum, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 1. Do you intend to run Southampton Leisure plc with similar borrowing and thus interest coverage as you do Merlion plc and also a similar dividend policy? 2. £1,008,378 in dividends was taken out of Merlion plc in the financial year ending December 31st, 2003. Taxable profits before taxation were £569,069. Did you get the 50% round the wrong way that year? Hey GM, don't forget that whilst drawing twice his gross profit in divvies he also increased Merlion's debt by borrowing an additional £1.2m and then £1.5m either side of his divvies - straight from the bank into his pocket! After mentioning this on W4E, I mean S4E, Wilde changed Merlion from being a plc to a private listed company - in fact, he did it the day after the AGM. This change meant: o he was no longer restricted in only making dividend payments when net assets exceed called up share capital and undistributable reserves o he could delay publishing Merlion's next accounts by a further 3 months o he no longer needed to present Merlion's own Profit and Loss Account As for the many Legg classics how about: I honestly get the impression the new board are using you, and I think it might all come back to haunt you to support them so unequivocably. You know full well that Wilde & Trant will put money into the club... plus possibly Davies, Salz, and a couple of other wealthy Saints fans who will probably be revealed next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 o he could delay publishing Merlion's next accounts by a further 3 months Mark, I think you meant to say that "he could delay publishing Merlion's next accounts by at least a further 12 months" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Mark - you and I have long disagreed about the benefits or otherwise of Lowe's continured presence but I admit you were quite right re Wilde. Unfortunately I did not heed your wisdom because I honestly thought you were just stirring it because you didn't want Lowe to be ousted. I guess a lot of others thought the same and closed their ears. My excuse is, in hindsight lame, but trenches had been dug at that stage and there wasn't much appetite for trench swopping going on, back then. I have to admit surprise at the lack of diligence conducted by the Crouch camp but I think very quickly on they were too wrapped up in their own battle with the executives. They certainly made mistakes (Mary Corbett was good enough to hold her hands up at the AGM and say as much) and for that reason have probably blown any realistic chances of being given another go. As for Crouch's promise I believe it to be genuinely made - and in writing too - but if I was him I would not want to fork out 2m of my private money merely to keep Wilde and Lowe in power. I guess you wouldn't either? If Crouch's £2m is the only thing between us and administration surely even you would swallow your antipathy to the man albeit on a temporary basis? Like most on this forum I think we have all had enough of the whole farce and its participants but right now I have tethered my horse on the outskirts of the Crouch camp due to it being the best positioned - in my opinion - to survive the winter intact. But who knows what the future holds. Rgds Duncan HI Duncan how are things? I think this whole episode shows that the biggest mistake made by the fans overall and this continues today is that we saw this as too clearly a contest. A contest between Lowe and wilde/Crouch and now Lowe/Wilde and Crouch. There were a few at the time that tried to argue for caution - fine, agree that Lowe is not right and has to go, but just because fans wanted Lowe out and felt he should go now, did not mean that it made Wilde suddenly RIGHT for the club, or Crouch for that matter or even those who may have a historic connection. It was just assumed they woudld be because they were not Lowe and seemed to talk the right wayt o fans. The two were never and are not now linked. For that reason, some of us questioned Crouch and Wilde, only to be labelled the classice 'Lowe luvvies' and the rest as they say is history. Its almost comic book stuff, as you say. You say you are loosely tethered to the Crouch camp... my question would be why? When he was around last time my perennial question was show us your strategy, which from a fans perspective consisted of wheeling out Laurie Mac who made as far as I can see feck all contribution. He may well be a decent guy and a decent fan, but I have not seen anything that communicates his plan, good bad or indifferent. The same could be said for Wilde both then and now - it was the biggest criticism - he had nothing concrete just platitudes and was NOT lowe. We know little more know, apart from perhaps his long term goal for perperty speculation (obviously a deadend strategy for the time being). With Lowe, at teh very least you knew his strategy, even if you did not agree with it or considered it flawed in total or in part, but you knew it - Youth, sports science, sell to fund, Coach rather than old school manager etc.... Depending on your point of view on all this tended to make up your mind on teh validity of it - and then there were those (probably teh majority) that were just sick and tired of the divisions and thus felt teh only way to resolve it was to get rid....again I woudl ahve had no beef with taht, had it not been for the final line of the sentence.... 'get rid...anything is better than Lowe'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 HI Duncan how are things? I think this whole episode shows that the biggest mistake made by the fans overall and this continues today is that we saw this as too clearly a contest. A contest between Lowe and wilde/Crouch and now Lowe/Wilde and Crouch. There were a few at the time that tried to argue for caution - fine, agree that Lowe is not right and has to go, but just because fans wanted Lowe out and felt he should go now, did not mean that it made Wilde suddenly RIGHT for the club, or Crouch for that matter or even those who may have a historic connection. It was just assumed they woudld be because they were not Lowe and seemed to talk the right wayt o fans. The two were never and are not now linked. For that reason, some of us questioned Crouch and Wilde, only to be labelled the classice 'Lowe luvvies' and the rest as they say is history. Its almost comic book stuff, as you say. You say you are loosely tethered to the Crouch camp... my question would be why? When he was around last time my perennial question was show us your strategy, which from a fans perspective consisted of wheeling out Laurie Mac who made as far as I can see feck all contribution. He may well be a decent guy and a decent fan, but I have not seen anything that communicates his plan, good bad or indifferent. The same could be said for Wilde both then and now - it was the biggest criticism - he had nothing concrete just platitudes and was NOT lowe. We know little more know, apart from perhaps his long term goal for perperty speculation (obviously a deadend strategy for the time being). With Lowe, at teh very least you knew his strategy, even if you did not agree with it or considered it flawed in total or in part, but you knew it - Youth, sports science, sell to fund, Coach rather than old school manager etc.... Depending on your point of view on all this tended to make up your mind on teh validity of it - and then there were those (probably teh majority) that were just sick and tired of the divisions and thus felt teh only way to resolve it was to get rid....again I woudl ahve had no beef with taht, had it not been for the final line of the sentence.... 'get rid...anything is better than Lowe'. Yes I think this sums up the situation well Crouch as you say never puts forward a consistent strategy Lowe does but whether it is the correct one time will tell probably. Football is not like a business where it may not matter if there are two bad years in Football two bad years may lead us to Div 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 HI Duncan how are things? I think this whole episode shows that the biggest mistake made by the fans overall and this continues today is that we saw this as too clearly a contest. A contest between Lowe and wilde/Crouch and now Lowe/Wilde and Crouch. There were a few at the time that tried to argue for caution - fine, agree that Lowe is not right and has to go, but just because fans wanted Lowe out and felt he should go now, did not mean that it made Wilde suddenly RIGHT for the club, or Crouch for that matter or even those who may have a historic connection. It was just assumed they woudld be because they were not Lowe and seemed to talk the right wayt o fans. The two were never and are not now linked. For that reason, some of us questioned Crouch and Wilde, only to be labelled the classice 'Lowe luvvies' and the rest as they say is history. Its almost comic book stuff, as you say. You say you are loosely tethered to the Crouch camp... my question would be why? When he was around last time my perennial question was show us your strategy, which from a fans perspective consisted of wheeling out Laurie Mac who made as far as I can see feck all contribution. He may well be a decent guy and a decent fan, but I have not seen anything that communicates his plan, good bad or indifferent. The same could be said for Wilde both then and now - it was the biggest criticism - he had nothing concrete just platitudes and was NOT lowe. We know little more know, apart from perhaps his long term goal for perperty speculation (obviously a deadend strategy for the time being). With Lowe, at teh very least you knew his strategy, even if you did not agree with it or considered it flawed in total or in part, but you knew it - Youth, sports science, sell to fund, Coach rather than old school manager etc.... Depending on your point of view on all this tended to make up your mind on teh validity of it - and then there were those (probably teh majority) that were just sick and tired of the divisions and thus felt teh only way to resolve it was to get rid....again I woudl ahve had no beef with taht, had it not been for the final line of the sentence.... 'get rid...anything is better than Lowe'. More fluff from Lowe's biggest apologist. You questioned Crouch and Wilde because you are a Lowe Luvvie, not out of the interests of the governance of Southampton FC. The biggest problem with Lowe before was his lack of strategy, he just lurched from one set of events to another reacting along the way. There was never long term thinking, 'youth, sports science and selling to fund' is what all smaller clubs have to to do. Its like saying selling tickets to watch the Saints was part of Lowes strategy. Wilde had a strategy, Crouch never had time to enact his. The Monster Raving Loony Party has a strategy doesn't mean they are fit to run the country, but put that next to Lowes strategy this time round they look like progressive political thinkers. Back to the drawing board FC, no matter how hard you try you wont rewrite history. Lowe was and is bad news for this club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Mark - you and I have long disagreed about the benefits or otherwise of Lowe's continured presence but I admit you were quite right re Wilde. Unfortunately I did not heed your wisdom because I honestly thought you were just stirring it because you didn't want Lowe to be ousted. I guess a lot of others thought the same and closed their ears. My excuse is, in hindsight lame, but trenches had been dug at that stage and there wasn't much appetite for trench swopping going on, back then. I have to admit surprise at the lack of diligence conducted by the Crouch camp but I think very quickly on they were too wrapped up in their own battle with the executives. They certainly made mistakes (Mary Corbett was good enough to hold her hands up at the AGM and say as much) and for that reason have probably blown any realistic chances of being given another go. As for Crouch's promise I believe it to be genuinely made - and in writing too - but if I was him I would not want to fork out 2m of my private money merely to keep Wilde and Lowe in power. I guess you wouldn't either? If Crouch's £2m is the only thing between us and administration surely even you would swallow your antipathy to the man albeit on a temporary basis? Like most on this forum I think we have all had enough of the whole farce and its participants but right now I have tethered my horse on the outskirts of the Crouch camp due to it being the best positioned - in my opinion - to survive the winter intact. But who knows what the future holds. Rgds Duncan When Wilde came in I was of a similar position as yourself. The only concerns I held were for continuity of the set up, but soon clear that was ok. When things went pear shaped and I realised what exactly happened, I looked back at how this had come about. One noticeable thing was the support from S4E and the outright lies being peddled in support of Wilde. I distinctly remember the lie regarding Burley being in full suppport of Wilde, subsequently laid bare by the letter to the share holders from Burley, SCW and Claus. I certainly don't count you among these liars, but even you would admit to giving succour to their cause. Then the issue over mythical investment? You can always argue what harm comes from supporting the dream? Well to me one of the most biggest underlying factors over the mess we got ourselves in, is because everyone had in the back of their mind was "don't worry, what ever happens we can always sell up to an investor". We even see this in the dying embers with Crouch hunkered down in the boardroom waiting for Fulthorpe to come riding in and save the day, having added to our wage bill. I am fully behind the plan implemented by Lowe and Wilde as it makes sense, equally Crouch can have his name attached to it and I would feel no different. Difficult decisions needed to be made and more importantly acted upon. So when others attack Lowe for being so nasty towards Skacel it leaves you thinking, surely anyone should be doing this and more if our future depends upon this? If you cannot separate the actions from the man and what are best for Saints, are you really a supporter of Saints or a hater of Lowe? When I see those that made all the excuses going for Wilde until siding with Lowe, then suddenly reincarnated as Judas himself. You really have to question what their priorities are? because Saints welfare does not appear the priority. I look through at all of the people having been involved with Saints at boardroom level over recent years and all are intelligent and successful in their own right. But then just look at the idiotic things they have done and said where Saints have been involved. I just cannot understand the actions they have taken with Saints, that they would never of considered in their own line of work. If Crouch assumed control again we should just have to hope where he takes us, but there is nothing in any of his statements or actions that give the glimmer of hope or rationality. I take your point regarding Crouch and the money he is prepared to put in, but I keep thinking will the real cost of such a change just wipe that out based upon his previous actions and statements. I have always said that the best possible outcome Saints is for all the major share holders to work together to bring that about. The offer of £2M is not to be sniffed at, but again looking at this practically lets take this a stage further. Crouch is perfectly happy to put that money in and lose it in the process, as we are led to believe by many. But if Lowe or Wilde is still there, that would not happen and he would be quite happy to see Saints go down the pan. You can certainly accuse Lowe for allowing this to happen, but you can definitively point out that Crouch is more concerned with his hate of Lowe than his love for Saints? And from Lowe and Wildes point of view, that the acceptance of Crouch could well cost you more than he will bring to the table from previous actions and statements. I look back at the Crystal Palace who were relegated with Saints. When you consider the vein of talent left from the youth is not dissimilar to Palace, then factor in the increased transfer fees we have received over Palace, there is no reason why we should not be in a similar position to Palace at the present time. Having that bit more money to be able to compete for those experienced pro's in this league to compliment these youngsters and I cannot see any reason why we should not be in a similar position. That's not an option because we ****ed all that up against the wall. Crouch has stated that he was fighting the exec's tooth and nail in this regard, but I can point to his own statements and actions which are diametrically opposed to this position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Get ready, Lowey and his army are on the march again. Frank's cousin, John B, up and away and good old jonah (our resident computer mechanic with the financial times under his arm, Lowey has taught me so much about finance, I must be an expert soon) Well team be ready to follow him down the plughole once again. Bunch of Lemmings, the lot of you sat at that top table...Not one of you could come up with any business sucess this man has had and for running a football club. Running it into the ground is more to the point. Full of hot air the whole team, in my humble opinion. Saints Football supporters....No chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 So when others attack Lowe for being so nasty towards Skacel it leaves you thinking, surely anyone should be doing this and more if our future depends upon this? If you cannot separate the actions from the man and what are best for Saints, are you really a supporter of Saints or a hater of Lowe? Or may be instead of bringing in 3 or 4 loanees, who never play for us, start with somebody with experience from day one. Whilst cost cutting is needed and indeed necessary, the plan to date has failed miserably. Within the same cost restrictions we are currently under, i truly believe we could have acheived sigificantly more points, through a more tempered introduction of anybody under the age of 20 who can get to St Marys for 2.00pm on a Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 I look back at the Crystal Palace who were relegated with Saints. When you consider the vein of talent left from the youth is not dissimilar to Palace, then factor in the increased transfer fees we have received over Palace, there is no reason why we should not be in a similar position to Palace at the present time. Having that bit more money to be able to compete for those experienced pro's in this league to compliment these youngsters and I cannot see any reason why we should not be in a similar position. That's not an option because we ****ed all that up against the wall. Crouch has stated that he was fighting the exec's tooth and nail in this regard, but I can point to his own statements and actions which are diametrically opposed to this position. Your post is so contradictary though, you say that you are very supportive of what Wilde and Crouch are doing then go on to say we should be like Palace! The main difference is that Palace didn't go for some mental Dutch experiment but employed a manager in Warnock that knew how to get results in this league. Like a lot of Lowe apologists the kids excuse cannot be used here either given that Palace squad have younger players than ours! That is something you cannot blame Crouch for but that mental egotist you follow so blindly. Had we not ****ed up the wall what little money we had on loan and agent fees on Pulis, Gasmi, Smith, Forecast, Robertson and Gorre we just might of been able to recruit the experienced players you mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 HI Duncan how are things? I think this whole episode shows that the biggest mistake made by the fans overall and this continues today is that we saw this as too clearly a contest. A contest between Lowe and wilde/Crouch and now Lowe/Wilde and Crouch. There were a few at the time that tried to argue for caution - fine, agree that Lowe is not right and has to go, but just because fans wanted Lowe out and felt he should go now, did not mean that it made Wilde suddenly RIGHT for the club, or Crouch for that matter or even those who may have a historic connection. It was just assumed they woudld be because they were not Lowe and seemed to talk the right wayt o fans. The two were never and are not now linked. For that reason, some of us questioned Crouch and Wilde, only to be labelled the classice 'Lowe luvvies' and the rest as they say is history. Its almost comic book stuff, as you say. You say you are loosely tethered to the Crouch camp... my question would be why? When he was around last time my perennial question was show us your strategy, which from a fans perspective consisted of wheeling out Laurie Mac who made as far as I can see feck all contribution. He may well be a decent guy and a decent fan, but I have not seen anything that communicates his plan, good bad or indifferent. The same could be said for Wilde both then and now - it was the biggest criticism - he had nothing concrete just platitudes and was NOT lowe. We know little more know, apart from perhaps his long term goal for perperty speculation (obviously a deadend strategy for the time being). With Lowe, at teh very least you knew his strategy, even if you did not agree with it or considered it flawed in total or in part, but you knew it - Youth, sports science, sell to fund, Coach rather than old school manager etc.... Depending on your point of view on all this tended to make up your mind on teh validity of it - and then there were those (probably teh majority) that were just sick and tired of the divisions and thus felt teh only way to resolve it was to get rid....again I woudl ahve had no beef with taht, had it not been for the final line of the sentence.... 'get rid...anything is better than Lowe'. Hi Frank - fine thanks. You ask why I am loosely tethered to Crouch's camp? Fair question. I think he is the best of a bad bunch. He has some money to bring to the party. The bank respect him due to the fact he runs a highly profitable business. Salz backs him and although I haven't met Anthony Salz personally people I know and trust have, and are full of praise. Having met Leon Crouch quite a bit recently I can say he is definately not bitter towards Wilde or Lowe on a personal level - in fact I was surprised at how little personal venom he showed. He is also a good fan often driving himself up to long distance away matches by himself. Plus he sorted out the Bates statue fiasco which was causing the Bates family (for whom I have a great deal of time) a lot of distress None of the above qualifies him to be Chairman of SFC and like I said he made mistakes but in the absence of a white knight coming over the hill (unlikely) my horse will continue to partake of Crouch's hay for the forseeable future. Kind regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Hi Frank - fine thanks. You ask why I am loosely tethered to Crouch's camp? Fair question. I think he is the best of a bad bunch. He has some money to bring to the party. The bank respect him due to the fact he runs a highly profitable business. Salz backs him and although I haven't met Anthony Salz personally people I know and trust have, and are full of praise. Having met Leon Crouch quite a bit recently I can say he is definately not bitter towards Wilde or Lowe on a personal level - in fact I was surprised at how little personal venom he showed. He is also a good fan often driving himself up to long distance away matches by himself. Plus he sorted out the Bates statue fiasco which was causing the Bates family (for whom I have a great deal of time) a lot of distress None of the above qualifies him to be Chairman of SFC and like I said he made mistakes but in the absence of a white knight coming over the hill (unlikely) my horse will continue to partake of Crouch's hay for the forseeable future. Kind regards Is it not possible for someone to mediate between the two parties so you can eat either party's hay neither party seems to be entirely in the right or wrong A cease fire surely is called for as the bickering is causing great distress the fans and the financial stability of the clubs. Because the club is divided it appears to be lurching towards relegation and possible relegation. Surely we need large crowds and united shareholders to make sure this does not happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Is it not possible for someone to mediate between the two parties so you can eat either party's hay neither party seems to be entirely in the right or wrong A cease fire surely is called for as the bickering is causing great distress the fans and the financial stability of the clubs. Because the club is divided it appears to be lurching towards relegation and possible relegation. Surely we need large crowds and united shareholders to make sure this does not happen Of course John, you are right but I really do think too much has happened for a reconciliation of any sorts - the men involved just don't have it in them. Sad but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 More fluff from Lowe's biggest apologist. You questioned Crouch and Wilde because you are a Lowe Luvvie, not out of the interests of the governance of Southampton FC. The biggest problem with Lowe before was his lack of strategy, he just lurched from one set of events to another reacting along the way. There was never long term thinking, 'youth, sports science and selling to fund' is what all smaller clubs have to to do. Its like saying selling tickets to watch the Saints was part of Lowes strategy. Wilde had a strategy, Crouch never had time to enact his. The Monster Raving Loony Party has a strategy doesn't mean they are fit to run the country, but put that next to Lowes strategy this time round they look like progressive political thinkers. Back to the drawing board FC, no matter how hard you try you wont rewrite history. Lowe was and is bad news for this club. Funny as feck that Fanny, truely remarkable how you manage to be so blinkered (stupid/ignorant?) as to completely and continually misinterpret my posts....anyone would think you had a prejudiced agenda? The simple FACT remains: Wilde: strategy based on 'guarranteed' investment waiting in the wings - some merely questioned these claims - could not have been happier if this had actually been true.... Crouch: the passion man - did not communicate his strategy, and resisted reduction in spending to reduce losses initially - why? because he seemed to dazzled by teh idea of being the 'popular choice' with much fan friendly rhetoric Lowe: strategy based on living within a clubs means - develop youth, sell the best and get the best from the rest by improving sports science etc. Now, I agree with Lowe's strategy - never said otherwise, but have also acknowledged elsewhere on numerous occaisions that it was Lowe's inabilty to listen to expert advice and adapt and fine tune this approach to meet the vagaries of modern game that resulted in the failure of many (not all) but many ideas and approaches. Crouch and Wilde both have positives to add from what i have read and heard, despite my reservations ABOUT THEIR COMMUNICATED strategies or lack their of and the biggest frustration of them all is that these guys could not find common ground back in 06 and work together for the benefit of SFC. If you believe you first sentence rather that it just being a provocative wind up - then quite frankly you really are a bit dim... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Get ready, Lowey and his army are on the march again. Frank's cousin, John B, up and away and good old jonah (our resident computer mechanic with the financial times under his arm, Lowey has taught me so much about finance, I must be an expert soon) Well team be ready to follow him down the plughole once again. Bunch of Lemmings, the lot of you sat at that top table...Not one of you could come up with any business sucess this man has had and for running a football club. Running it into the ground is more to the point. Full of hot air the whole team, in my humble opinion. Saints Football supporters....No chance. Tell me, would you welcome the Risdale approach? Is that more in keeping with your ideals of running a football club? Of course most fans struggle with managemnet that appears to 'lack ambition' by not spending what it does not have - of course most fans struggle with accepting ideas that are at odds with what the 'establishment' believes is the only way to succeed (also one of many ways to administration).... fans want instant results, its about results FFS we know that - we are fickle, one minute quetioning the boards sanity in appointing Strachan, the next making him a god...its in a fans nature. Its fine running a club for the fans and fans alone if happy and content in the lower amateur leagues, but the control of the game is with the media powerbrokers and agents and that means the decisions taken by boards will inevitably be in some cases unpopular with fans - I admit I am an apologist for that, but as mentioned above, if you think there is more to it than that, again sadly misguided.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Is it not possible for someone to mediate between the two parties so you can eat either party's hay neither party seems to be entirely in the right or wrong A cease fire surely is called for as the bickering is causing great distress the fans and the financial stability of the clubs. Because the club is divided it appears to be lurching towards relegation and possible relegation. Surely we need large crowds and united shareholders to make sure this does not happen Common sense - so therefore being Saints it won't happen! They could do it to stop SISU happening though last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Originally Posted by up and away I look back at the Crystal Palace who were relegated with Saints. When you consider the vein of talent left from the youth is not dissimilar to Palace, then factor in the increased transfer fees we have received over Palace, there is no reason why we should not be in a similar position to Palace at the present time. Having that bit more money to be able to compete for those experienced pro's in this league to compliment these youngsters and I cannot see any reason why we should not be in a similar position. That's not an option because we ****ed all that up against the wall. Crouch has stated that he was fighting the exec's tooth and nail in this regard, but I can point to his own statements and actions which are diametrically opposed to this position. Your post is so contradictary though, you say that you are very supportive of what Wilde and Crouch are doing then go on to say we should be like Palace! The main difference is that Palace didn't go for some mental Dutch experiment but employed a manager in Warnock that knew how to get results in this league. Like a lot of Lowe apologists the kids excuse cannot be used here either given that Palace squad have younger players than ours! That is something you cannot blame Crouch for but that mental egotist you follow so blindly. Had we not ****ed up the wall what little money we had on loan and agent fees on Pulis, Gasmi, Smith, Forecast, Robertson and Gorre we just might of been able to recruit the experienced players you mention. There is no contradiction apart from me being very supportive of Wilde and Crouch. The overwhelming reason we our in this current predicament is because we are flat broke and our spending is governed by the bank. Take away those horrendous handicaps and a whole load of other options become available that are viable with some funds. We could so easily have been in a similar position to Crystal Palace, but that mountain of debt and the purse strings being held by the bank has removed that option from us. We ****ed it all against the wall and you never put up a squeak then. Now we are in this mess you have the stupidity to ignore all these restrictions and believe we should be competing equally? We would struggle financially against league 1 clubs to get the experienced pro's we require to get that good balance because of the financial pressures we are under. This all goes back directly to our debt and the bank controlling our finances. This is just not for this season but will extend for many seasons to come due to the magnitude of our problems. We will need to sell some of this talent to keep afloat and that will hardly come from selling on experienced pro's we pick up along the way. It is vital the the system allows us to keep all that young talent that can save us financially, even to the extent of the team being biased because of this policy. This is not only about the now but several years down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Tell me, would you welcome the Risdale approach? Is that more in keeping with your ideals of running a football club? Of course most fans struggle with managemnet that appears to 'lack ambition' by not spending what it does not have - of course most fans struggle with accepting ideas that are at odds with what the 'establishment' believes is the only way to succeed (also one of many ways to administration).... fans want instant results, its about results FFS we know that - we are fickle, one minute quetioning the boards sanity in appointing Strachan, the next making him a god...its in a fans nature. Its fine running a club for the fans and fans alone if happy and content in the lower amateur leagues, but the control of the game is with the media powerbrokers and agents and that means the decisions taken by boards will inevitably be in some cases unpopular with fans - I admit I am an apologist for that, but as mentioned above, if you think there is more to it than that, again sadly misguided.... The problem with Southampton Football Club is Rupert Lowe and Michael Wilde. I have studied, Financial matters for many years now and having found no evidence of Lowe and Wilde having any business acumen and as a result, I know full well, that this pair will not be our saviours. More than welcome to receive some proof, that either man has a sucessful business portfolio. I felt the same way about the previous group brought in by Wilde without leadership or control the Hone/Hoos group. The PLC is a major problem as well, along with Lowe holding the club to ransom with such a low ownership of shares... Lowe and his mob, should never have been allowed to take over Southampton Football Club in the first place. (Askham and greed come to mind) Once again, Lowe is allowed through the back door and we have his group of supporters, shouting from the roof tops, beating up anyone who asks questions of his ability. Stating there is no other master, than King Rupert. That decision alone, was obviously ridiclous, knowing that Rupert would rid the club of many loyal supporters, even before he opened his mouth. I am not impressed with what has happened since Rupert first appeared on the scene and it has been downhill ever since. Many of my family and large group of freinds, don't even bother with Saints anymore and it will be a very difficult task to turn this around. Whatever people say, it has nothing to do with results, although they always help. Lowe and his group show no appreciation of customer care or interest in getting the fans on side. Even this time around, he has kept his stupid statements and his pathetic behaviour, in check, to a certain degree. But he is once again, a Rupert accident, waiting to happen. Like some of his fellow 'Royals' he can't help himself. The bottom line,for me, the longer Lowe remains, the more this football club of ours will fall down the leagues. Although, I don't want Wilde around , I feel he owes it to The club and the fans, to save us, by whatever means and then depart. Lowe, Askham and Mob have to go now. In my opinion, you are not just an apologist, you are one of the Askham mob or at least able to sit at the top table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 We could so easily have been in a similar position to Crystal Palace, but that mountain of debt and the purse strings being held by the bank has removed that option from us. We ****ed it all against the wall and you never put up a squeak then. Now we are in this mess you have the stupidity to ignore all these restrictions and believe we should be competing equally? We would struggle financially against league 1 clubs to get the experienced pro's we require to get that good balance because of the financial pressures we are under. This all goes back directly to our debt and the bank controlling our finances. /QUOTE] "Stupidity to ignore all these restrictions" what restrictions were they to sign all the players I mentioned that are so bad can't get in ahead of Oscar and untried 17 year old? Pearson managed to bring in Lucketti who went on a free to Huddersfield and he would of been ideal here but no as we had to go the kids route and the waste what little we had we cant sign him. That has nothing to do with banks restrictions that's pure unadultered **** poor management by Lowe and the Dutch experiment. Do the bank control the wasted money on agents fees, loan fees and wasted wages that accumulatively would of allowed us to sign decent experienced players or are you too blindly following Lowe that you refuse to see it? I am no Crouch fan either and this club needs the back of all of them especially Judas Coward Wilde who in my eyes is really the main culprit here with his choice of execs. But to hide behind the banks finances as an excuse for totally going the Dutch experiment and youth route is complete hogwash. If we had a proper management team that saw us winning more than one home game we would have crowds of 14k....of course not and bigger gates mean bigger revenue meaning less financial pressure yet still you hide behind that tosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 It was a bit worse than that. Wilde threatened legal action via his attack poodle, Legg: From: Keith To: Guided Missile Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:15 pm Subject: I think.. ..your posts about Wilde's personal finances could be construed as possibly libellous. He has given you a response and won't talk further on the subject. I think you've tried to made a point and like many of yours, they are based on half arsed information and your own agenda. From: Guided Missile To: Keith Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:28 pm Subject: Re: I think So Mike Wilde has threatened to sue me and you for libel, has he Keith? Listen, you well know my post was pure conjecture regarding his personal finances. With regard to Merlion plc, my information was based on the returns he files with Companies' House, so that post was hardly libellous. By the way, I have no agenda but finding out as much as I can about someone who is about to control the football club I support. I expect the same transparency from Rupert Lowe. Look in the mirror and ask yourself what your agenda is. By the way, if Mr Wilde is threatening to sue me for libel, my lawyers details are : Contact: ******** ******** ******** ******** ****** does all my corporate legal work and is a really nice guy. PS I don't really want my tenner back, just this site's impartiality. Do you know what GM, through the years I really have enjoyed your well informed and well written posts. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Funny as feck that Fanny, truely remarkable how you manage to be so blinkered (stupid/ignorant?) as to completely and continually misinterpret my posts....anyone would think you had a prejudiced agenda? The simple FACT remains: Wilde: strategy based on 'guarranteed' investment waiting in the wings - some merely questioned these claims - could not have been happier if this had actually been true.... Crouch: the passion man - did not communicate his strategy, and resisted reduction in spending to reduce losses initially - why? because he seemed to dazzled by teh idea of being the 'popular choice' with much fan friendly rhetoric Lowe: strategy based on living within a clubs means - develop youth, sell the best and get the best from the rest by improving sports science etc. Now, I agree with Lowe's strategy - never said otherwise, but have also acknowledged elsewhere on numerous occaisions that it was Lowe's inabilty to listen to expert advice and adapt and fine tune this approach to meet the vagaries of modern game that resulted in the failure of many (not all) but many ideas and approaches. Crouch and Wilde both have positives to add from what i have read and heard, despite my reservations ABOUT THEIR COMMUNICATED strategies or lack their of and the biggest frustration of them all is that these guys could not find common ground back in 06 and work together for the benefit of SFC. If you believe you first sentence rather that it just being a provocative wind up - then quite frankly you really are a bit dim... I can't see how I misinterpreted your post, you stated the good thing about Lowe is that you can see a clear strategy. It is my opinion that in his first tenure he had no long term strategy at all and this is why we eventually went down. He employed methods that every club uses to maximise it potential, he wasn't enacting some revolutionary approach that transformed the fortunes of the club. He took over an average run club and continued to manage it in an average manner. He devised on a new way of running our club towards the end of his last tenure and he didn't enact it fully (for what ever reason I don’t know) but he’s now back and he is trying to do it now. I am all for a club trying something different but as a part of an established approach not wholesale like he is doing now. His clear strategy this tenure is failing and will fail. He was no good for this club before and he still isn't, the good thing for you guys is that Wilde and Crouch have had mini tenures and this just conveniently clouds the whole issue for you. You never talk about Lowe in isolation but always in reflection of the follow on tenures. You fail to understand that Lowe is not the saviour of our football club, he is a ball and chain around our necks slowly pulling us down. The problem I have is you talk fluff, there is no substance to your long posts, you come across a little bit 'this is how it is and if only everybody else had the insight I have, they would realise it'. You post your latest thought on the subject, which then gets followed up by the usual faces saying 'this sums it up for me', when you have not put together a reasonable argument, its just rhetoric posted as fact. The level of your argument to someone questioning Lowes approach is 'do you want to do a Risdale', is that becasue there only a rizla thickness of difference between them. I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 (edited) I can't see how I misinterpreted your post, you stated the good thing about Lowe is that you can see a clear strategy. It is my opinion that in his first tenure he had no long term strategy at all and this is why we eventually went down. He employed methods that every club uses to maximise it potential, he wasn't enacting some revolutionary approach that transformed the fortunes of the club. He took over an average run club and continued to manage it in an average manner. He devised on a new way of running our club towards the end of his last tenure and he didn't enact it fully (for what ever reason I don’t know) but he’s now back and he is trying to do it now. I am all for a club trying something different but as a part of an established approach not wholesale like he is doing now. His clear strategy this tenure is failing and will fail. He was no good for this club before and he still isn't, the good thing for you guys is that Wilde and Crouch have had mini tenures and this just conveniently clouds the whole issue for you. You never talk about Lowe in isolation but always in reflection of the follow on tenures. You fail to understand that Lowe is not the saviour of our football club, he is a ball and chain around our necks slowly pulling us down. The problem I have is you talk fluff, there is no substance to your long posts, you come across a little bit 'this is how it is and if only everybody else had the insight I have, they would realise it'. You post your latest thought on the subject, which then gets followed up by the usual faces saying 'this sums it up for me', when you have not put together a reasonable argument, its just rhetoric posted as fact. The level of your argument to someone questioning Lowes approach is 'do you want to do a Risdale', is that becasue there only a rizla thickness of difference between them. I don't think so. Fanthe flames, Thanks for at least talking the time to put your opinion/argument in context and in a clear way - contrary to opinion, I do respect what you say when put across in this way, but I wiould still argue that you are missing the point i am trying to make, and if thats because it lacks clarity I aplogise, but surely my language/communications skills are not the issue. 1. I do NOT see Lowe as the saviour of this club - I acknowledge and have doen in many previous pposts that there many better placed and experienced folk out there that could and would do a better job. The problem is none have come forward and made a claim - and in part this is because many will know that being a club chairmen of a club such as ours is a thankless task - balancing the financial restrictions dictating strategy v fan expectation is IMHO currently an impossible task. 2. I beg for you to see though that I DIFFERENTIATE between ideas and those who ideas they are - if the situation was reveresed and it was Wilde or CRouch advocating the ideas that in my opinion are good (even if Lowe has compromised them in implementation) - I would be EQUALLY supportive of those ideas - note not the person, but strategy. 3. Like all ideas and approaches, they are only as good as their execution - and in the how well suited they are to a particular set of circumstances - I believe that up until 2003, the plan was working to some extent either by luck or judgement we were on the up. The 1st team squad was realtively good, we had a good manager in place who had a good working relationship with the board, we had the buzz of the new ground and a cup run and an an academy squad that was in the top 4 in the country - and surely when you look at it from that perspective it looks like SFC was being run correctly for a club of our size? And that was despite teh animosity against Lowe from some fans, be they the SMALL number who had an uissue from the start re the reverse takeover shenanigans, or those LOwe had himself alienated by is PR gaffs and insults. 4. I acknowledge that the mistakes in manager selection in 2004/5 that Lowe made directly contributed to relegation and for this he must bare responsibilty. I will however, defend the strategy of not going mad with cash we did not have, but again he needs to take responsibilty for allowing these managers to build a bloated squad of average, rather than 2-3 better players - (yet had he insisted on that, we would have had the uproar that he was again interfereing with manager choices?) BUT we also need to acknowledge the problem caused by injuries, poor form, morlae and plain bad luck that also contributed to the problem. 5. Buisness practise/experience- you ask for examples that demonstrate Lowe has teh appropriate business accumen to successfully run a club. OK, the fact is that when he took over he had nothing that wa srelevent on his CV, nor did Wilde, nor does Crouch, because as many have stated even if Lowe was a master in fields, there are unique qualities required in football - the delicate balance between managing expectations of the fans versus those of the business as a whole given we had investment needs such as SMS and the academy etc... In addition, the Theory of extending potential revenue sources from other commercial sources is also a good one. 6. Please tell me you can see that what I am defending is an approach and the ideas - and that its the problems in the implementation of these ideals that has caused our problems, and YES Lowe's personality and inabilty to listen to those with more experience taht have been the major factor in these problems. Lowe is NOT the saviour, but he is currently the one in charge as no one else seems willing to do the necessary and put their money where their mouth is. I have said it and will say it again - the best of the current bunch is not Lowe, but ideally 3 grown ups burying the hatchet and working together constructively as each has something to give. Sadly as Duncan points out,that option was never on the table and is now impossible. PS. gave up smoking recently so over sensitive and more iritable than normal! Edited 14 January, 2009 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Talk about over complicating things! Get a good manager and keep him here - that's by far the most important ingredient for success and something Lowe is not capable of. You can have the best acadamy, sports science, club set up in the World - throw in a **** manager, the team gets relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 14 January, 2009 Share Posted 14 January, 2009 Cheers Frank C, sorry my posts were based on a bit of a pre-judgement. Onwards and upwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Talk about over complicating things! Get a good manager and keep him here - that's by far the most important ingredient for success and something Lowe is not capable of. You can have the best acadamy, sports science, club set up in the World - throw in a **** manager, the team gets relegated. Too true, and this did make me smile, because it is common sense I guess - Lets be honest though, our problem has been that we have selected managers who are risky - LM was risky having never played the game, but had a strong mentor in Ted. we appointed Bally, NIchol etc not really tried and tested in managerial capacity - it worked, we appointed HOddle, considered a good choice and it sort of worked, but he ditched us, Strachen... thought of as risky as he had failed at Coventry etc but that worked.... its really tbe fair down to Wigley and Gray - no different really from the risk of appointing Nichol - logically good in that promoting from with in potentially more loyal and dedicated and respected coaches.... Sturrock was an odd one never know what really happened there, Reknapp onsidered a coup, but failed, Burley, considered a good apointmnet but obviously could do nothing without cash. Peasron a big risk, untried, but showed promise with that squad, JP a Huge risk, but given that so is having a squad of nothing but kids wo knows. I do think he is doing OK with the resources he has - kids bound to be inconsistent. I think we also need some realism - we are no onger a club that will attract or can afford some of more experienced managers that we see favoured by fans. As alway, continuity is the key Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 15 January, 2009 Share Posted 15 January, 2009 Cheers Frank C, sorry my posts were based on a bit of a pre-judgement. Onwards and upwards. NO worries, its only the fact we all care that makes come across as a bit daft at times...the passion ...and giving up the fags for me.... 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