hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Leon is often slagged off on here and he has just been described as "out of his depth" when he was in charge. I would be interested to know what evidence there is to support this? I have heard that he actually had the support of the banks whilst he was here and it was he who proposed closing the corners so he clearly had a cost cutting plan. He is the most successful out of Lowe And Wilde and is also a fan (could be hampering but I'd like to see the evidence of things he has done wrong.) It seems that every bad thing he is accused of doing actually happened when Hone and Hoos effectively had control in the board room. Is it true that he actually opposed Euell's signing? So come on everyone who has slagged Crouch off, what has he actually done?
Pancake Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Leon is often slagged off on here and he has just been described as "out of his depth" when he was in charge. I would be interested to know what evidence there is to support this? I have heard that he actually had the support of the banks whilst he was here and it was he who proposed closing the corners so he clearly had a cost cutting plan. He is the most successful out of Lowe And Wilde and is also a fan (could be hampering but I'd like to see the evidence of things he has done wrong.) It seems that every bad thing he is accused of doing actually happened when Hone and Hoos effectively had control in the board room. Is it true that he actually opposed Euell's signing? So come on everyone who has slagged Crouch off, what has he actually done? Without being funny Hypo, you seems to know the answer, so why no ask the direct question?
Master Bates Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 I know to begin with he got the wrong man to make the Ted Bates Statue. I think the "out of his depth" remarks were about him being in the swimming pool because he's short.
Saint_clark Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Nothing, but Lowes PR plants were the ones who spun things and made out he was a petulant immature man who didn't know what he was doing, when in actual fact he loaned out Rasiak and Skacel to try and reduce the wage bill and paid for Richard Wrights wages.
fos1 Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Leon is often slagged off on here and he has just been described as "out of his depth" when he was in charge. I would be interested to know what evidence there is to support this? I have heard that he actually had the support of the banks whilst he was here and it was he who proposed closing the corners so he clearly had a cost cutting plan. He is the most successful out of Lowe And Wilde and is also a fan (could be hampering but I'd like to see the evidence of things he has done wrong.) It seems that every bad thing he is accused of doing actually happened when Hone and Hoos effectively had control in the board room. Is it true that he actually opposed Euell's signing? So come on everyone who has slagged Crouch off, what has he actually done? Spot on, yes it is true that he opposed Euells signing on massive wages, this was signed off by Hone and Wiseman !! Duncan Holly will back this up.
Saint_clark Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Dodd and Gorman. Come on, we all gave them a chance. At least he admitted he was wrong and sacked them pretty sharpish, something Lowe refuses to do.
alpine_saint Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Leon is often slagged off on here and he has just been described as "out of his depth" when he was in charge. I would be interested to know what evidence there is to support this? I have heard that he actually had the support of the banks whilst he was here and it was he who proposed closing the corners so he clearly had a cost cutting plan. He is the most successful out of Lowe And Wilde and is also a fan (could be hampering but I'd like to see the evidence of things he has done wrong.) It seems that every bad thing he is accused of doing actually happened when Hone and Hoos effectively had control in the board room. Is it true that he actually opposed Euell's signing? So come on everyone who has slagged Crouch off, what has he actually done? I was extremely piissed when he put Rasiak and Skacel out on loan on the last day of the trasnfer window a year ago, but compared to utter stinking f**k-up that Lowe and Wilde have presided over since, that now seems like a bagatelle. It seems to me Crouuch knew the problems and had a plan which would have taken us down a similar cost-saving route with more conventional and successful footballing philosophy, attendances would have been more stable, the losses less, the cost-cutting required less and the club would not have been staring relegation and administration in the face.
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2009 Author Posted 20 January, 2009 Without being funny Hypo, you seems to know the answer, so why no ask the direct question? No. I said everything he is accused of were actually things that he had no control over (they happened when Hone and Hoos were in charge and not himself.)
John B Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Leon is often slagged off on here and he has just been described as "out of his depth" when he was in charge. I would be interested to know what evidence there is to support this? I have heard that he actually had the support of the banks whilst he was here and it was he who proposed closing the corners so he clearly had a cost cutting plan. He is the most successful out of Lowe And Wilde and is also a fan (could be hampering but I'd like to see the evidence of things he has done wrong.) It seems that every bad thing he is accused of doing actually happened when Hone and Hoos effectively had control in the board room. Is it true that he actually opposed Euell's signing? So come on everyone who has slagged Crouch off, what has he actually done? What did he do right is a better question I would have thought he does not appear to have a strategy to get us out of our present situation He did not do much wrong compared with Wilde and his cronies but appears to lack judgement in supporting Wilde and believing in takeovers. In better times he would probably make a good Chairman but appears to want to please fans all the time which is probably not what is required by a Chairman. Lowe however appears does not to want to please the fans at all.
stevegrant Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 I know to begin with he got the wrong man to make the Ted Bates Statue. To be fair to him there, he wasn't involved at all until the first one was unveiled. Dodd and Gorman was a schoolboy error - given the mistakes of his predecessor (and successor) on that front with Gray and Wigley, I was stunned that he would follow the same path. I suspect he would probably admit that it was a big mistake. His conduct at the AGM was, to put it bluntly, a complete disgrace. He completely lost the plot and, I suspect, a great deal of potential support in the process.
Window Cleaner Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Come on, we all gave them a chance. At least he admitted he was wrong and sacked them pretty sharpish, something Lowe refuses to do. Did he actually sack them completely? Or did he just remove them from first team affairs.I thought that was the case actually..
slickmick Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Come on, we all gave them a chance. At least he admitted he was wrong and sacked them pretty sharpish, something Lowe refuses to do. Yes he did and in my eyes got the right man in. Although I would prefer him to what we have, without others to come in with him and back up his £2m promise, I can't see him being able to save us this season.
St Marco Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 In comparison to what Lowe and Wilde have done, nothing. He made mistakes but his mistakes didn't lead to us being relegated or worse off financially. He gave Dodd and Gorman the reigns but appointing assistants happens so often. He made up for it by getting Pearson. He got in Davies,Wright,Perry and Lucketti who all saved our ass last year. Crouch is normally blamed by the Lowe/Wilde supporters as having messed up.
stevegrant Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 I was extremely piissed when he put Rasiak and Skacel out on loan on the last day of the trasnfer window a year ago, but compared to utter stinking f**k-up that Lowe and Wilde have presided over since, that now seems like a bagatelle. It seems to me Crouuch knew the problems and had a plan which would have taken us down a similar cost-saving route with more conventional and successful footballing philosophy, attendances would have been more stable, the losses less, the cost-cutting required less and the club would not have been staring relegation and administration in the face. So Crouch puts our top scorer out on loan and it's fine because he "knew the problems", but Lowe does the same and it's not on? Cracking logic there.
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2009 Author Posted 20 January, 2009 So far the only thing people have said is that he loaned out Skacel and Rasiak on the last day. I would agree with that but it's a relatively minor mistake IMO. I just want to dispell the myth that he was totally irresponsible. I just can't find anything to back this up and many unsubstantiated things written about him on here appear to have beccome fact for some.
Snowballs2 Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Dodd and Gormless were his biggest failings...but I would forgive him that if he came back. The way that I see it is that at times he was over enthusiastic, he is such a fan of the club that this may have clouded his decision making at times. However I feel he HAS learned from the past and would say that of the 3 Amigos he is the best by far.
Give it to Ron Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Couple of things as mentioned above - Dodd and Gorman how many times do the management need to learn that taking the cheap option does not work here! Plus I think he could of checked out Judas Coward Wilde a bit better before siding with him - had Leon decided to stick with old rosey cheeks just maybe things might have turned out better - although we will never no and given the fact that everything Lowe touches turns to ****e I doubt it.
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2009 Author Posted 20 January, 2009 What did he do right is a better question I would have thought he does not appear to have a strategy to get us out of our present situation This seems contrary to many reports including people who have spoken directly to him that he in fact had the banks support. It also had something to do with many of his businesses using aviva? Maybe my memory needs improving. He did not do much wrong compared with Wilde and his cronies but appears to lack judgement in supporting Wilde and believing in takeovers. I think most people were at the time. I think that's a valid argument though, at the time he was probably blinded by his dislike of Lowe like all fans were. He should have displayed better judgement in that case. In better times he would probably make a good Chairman but appears to want to please fans all the time which is probably not what is required by a Chairman. Where does he appear to do this? This isn't an accusation but I genuinely want to know. Lowe however appears does not to want to please the fans at all. Agreed.
JonnyLove Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 I know to begin with he got the wrong man to make the Ted Bates Statue. I think the "out of his depth" remarks were about him being in the swimming pool because he's short. No he didn't the statue creator was chosen even before Wilde came on the scene. What Crouch did was pay out of his own pocket to have the statue sorted out.
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2009 Author Posted 20 January, 2009 In fairness to Leon, he did rectify that mistake and unlike Lowe managed to make it a success.
Master Bates Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 No he didn't the statue creator was chosen even before Wilde came on the scene. What Crouch did was pay out of his own pocket to have the statue sorted out. Shhh
fos1 Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 So Crouch puts our top scorer out on loan and it's fine because he "knew the problems", but Lowe does the same and it's not on? Cracking logic there. Difference being we had Saga and John still at the club !! when Lowe let John go who did we have left ??
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2009 Author Posted 20 January, 2009 To be fair to him there, he wasn't involved at all until the first one was unveiled. Dodd and Gorman was a schoolboy error - given the mistakes of his predecessor (and successor) on that front with Gray and Wigley, I was stunned that he would follow the same path. I suspect he would probably admit that it was a big mistake. Yep that's true His conduct at the AGM was, to put it bluntly, a complete disgrace. He completely lost the plot and, I suspect, a great deal of potential support in the process. Hmmm. According to reports he was fully supported by a number of people there? I wasn't there so can't say for sure. I think everyone (or most) can admit to losing it over the decisions Lowe is making which is killing the club
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2009 Author Posted 20 January, 2009 If we go down I think we will look back and say getting rid of John was one of the big contributing factors.
stevegrant Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 In fairness to Leon, he did rectify that mistake and unlike Lowe managed to make it a success. Depends what you quantify as "success", really. I wouldn't necessarily call going from 13th when Burley left in January to staying up on the final day after other results go our way much of a success, to be honest. I also wouldn't say that that pretty dramatic drop in form is necessarily his fault either, given that he wasn't the one conceding stupid goals and failing to score at the other end, but if Lowe's going to get stick for his appointments, it's only fair that other chairmen who make dubious appointments get treated the same. Pearson may have made a better fist of it this season with the young players, as he seems to be doing at Leicester (although he bloody well should do with the squad at his disposal in that division), but to say he was a "great" manager for us last season is inaccurate.
stevegrant Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Hmmm. According to reports he was fully supported by a number of people there? I wasn't there so can't say for sure. I think everyone (or most) can admit to losing it over the decisions Lowe is making which is killing the club Given that he is in a position of relative power, he needs to be able to control his temper and emotions in that sort of situation. With the situation the club is in, whoever is in charge needs to keep their emotions intact, and I'm afraid he spectacularly failed to do so there. He was supported by a number of people there, but that's to be expected. He was against Lowe. Anybody who said anything remotely against Lowe got a cheer and a standing ovation from the same 20-30 people. The most notable thing to me from the AGM was that he - and most of the aforementioned 20-30 people, including Lawrie McMenemy - chose not to a) vote, meaning the figures were massively skewed in Lowe's favour, and b) stay and listen to what Jan Poortvliet had to say. To me, that says they were all more interested in just having a go at Lowe than actually caring about what's going on on the pitch and at the training ground.
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2009 Author Posted 20 January, 2009 Depends what you quantify as "success", really. I wouldn't necessarily call going from 13th when Burley left in January to staying up on the final day after other results go our way much of a success, to be honest. I also wouldn't say that that pretty dramatic drop in form is necessarily his fault either, given that he wasn't the one conceding stupid goals and failing to score at the other end, but if Lowe's going to get stick for his appointments, it's only fair that other chairmen who make dubious appointments get treated the same. Pearson may have made a better fist of it this season with the young players, as he seems to be doing at Leicester (although he bloody well should do with the squad at his disposal in that division), but to say he was a "great" manager for us last season is inaccurate. I really liked Pearson and yes I did think we was very good for us. When he came in confidence was terribly dented and it was obvious that it would take time to turn things around and getting people to play his way. The problem was we didn't have much time. By the end of the season there were real signs that we would turn the corner for the next year. There was real fight at the WBA and Sheffield United games like the saints of old. Most importantly, almost all the fans who attended games were fully supportive and behind the manager. It was great to hear the chants for Pearson after the pitch invasion. I felt a real unity and togetherness that others have told me they also felt. Things like this would have made a real difference and contributed to this season had we kept Crouch and Pearson in charge.
John B Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Agreed. Well what was his plan then? What players was he going to get in how were they to be paid? I just think he is a fan like you and me with lots of money
fos1 Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 (edited) Given that he is in a position of relative power, he needs to be able to control his temper and emotions in that sort of situation. With the situation the club is in, whoever is in charge needs to keep their emotions intact, and I'm afraid he spectacularly failed to do so there. He was supported by a number of people there, but that's to be expected. He was against Lowe. Anybody who said anything remotely against Lowe got a cheer and a standing ovation from the same 20-30 people. The most notable thing to me from the AGM was that he - and most of the aforementioned 20-30 people, including Lawrie McMenemy - chose not to a) vote, meaning the figures were massively skewed in Lowe's favour, and b) stay and listen to what Jan Poortvliet had to say. To me, that says they were all more interested in just having a go at Lowe than actually caring about what's going on on the pitch and at the training ground. Steve you are wrong 20-30 people!! I would say almost the whole room with the exception of 1-2 people, I am sure this will be backed up by other people who attended the Agm People left the room as it was not fair to call Poortvliet a man clearly out of his depth into a room with Lowe talking such rubbish, the letter he started with, set the tone for the whole AGM !! Edited 20 January, 2009 by fos1
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2009 Author Posted 20 January, 2009 (edited) Well what was his plan then? What players was he going to get in how were they to be paid? I just think he is a fan like you and me with lots of money Right so because he did not shout about his plans as a "revolutionary coaching setup" he suddenly did not have one? How do you create that logic? We only knew about Lowe's "plan" because he used it as spin on the OS as justification for getting rid of Pearson and starting this ridiculous campaign of buyin g and playing youth players. It seemed obvious to me that Crouch would have stuck with Pearson, removed the relevant players to trim the wage bill and brought in experienced yet cheap pros mixed with some of the talented youth players we already had at our disposal. Edited 20 January, 2009 by hypochondriac
Thedelldays Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Dodd and Gorman. there you have it.....for all the mistakes made before him that wre painfully obvious to see...we went with dodd and gorman..when we all knew it would not work... what made it worse was how lawrie mac championed their cause
Puddings and Monkeys Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 All SFC chairmen have been crap; the only bright spot has been WGS' tenure under Lowe. The club does not need ANY of them back - a totally new person, untarred by mistakes of the past (on all sides) and without any of the separate factions that support Lowe and Crouch is now what we need.
John B Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 there you have it.....for all the mistakes made before him that wre painfully obvious to see...we went with dodd and gorman..when we all knew it would not work... what made it worse was how lawrie mac championed their cause I think Crouch was waiting for the takeover so he felt there was no need to appoint a short term manager. His football advisor probably agreed.
SaintRobbie Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 I think Crouch was waiting for the takeover so he felt there was no need to appoint a short term manager. His football advisor probably agreed. and to be fair a takeover WAS put on the table. (SISU)
sotonist Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 So far the only thing people have said is that he loaned out Skacel and Rasiak on the last day. I would agree with that but it's a relatively minor mistake IMO. I just want to dispell the myth that he was totally irresponsible. I just can't find anything to back this up and many unsubstantiated things written about him on here appear to have beccome fact for some. whatever leon did wrong with regard to what team we could field, he still kept us up. we're not down yet, but i've got a worse feeling this time than the season we finished rock bottom of the prem.
sotonist Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 and i agree, dodd and gorman. poor decision.
Master Bates Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 What would it be like with Lawrie Mac as Chairman?
Master Bates Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Mike Osman!! Looks a wee bit like Mike Barnes from Hollyoaks.
stevegrant Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Steve you are wrong 20-30 people!! I would say almost the whole room with the exception of 1-2 people, I am sure this will be backed up by other people who attended the Agm I was there, as you know. I know what I saw. You can twist it to suit your own agenda as much as you like, but I know what I saw. While many others in the room may have agreed with what was being said and applauded accordingly, they weren't standing and cheering. 20-30 people were stood at various points, and they all left when the vote was taken. People left the room as it was not fair to call Poortvliet a man clearly out of his depth into a room with Lowe talking such rubbish, Sorry, but that's crap. Why didn't the lot of you want to hear what he had to say, particularly if you felt sorry for him/thought he was out of his depth? You could have put Lowe on the spot, but you chose to walk out and not listen, because you'd already made your judgement before even giving the bloke a chance to put his opinions across. the letter he started with, set the tone for the whole AGM !! That I do agree with, and have said so in the past. That doesn't excuse Crouch's behaviour though.
Big Bad Bob Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 What would it be like with Lawrie Mac as Chairman? Don't.....just don't, OK?
stevegrant Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 and to be fair a takeover WAS put on the table. (SISU) which the three "wise" men rejected. That £12m could have come in handy, really.
Window Cleaner Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 All SFC chairmen have been crap; the only bright spot has been WGS' tenure under Lowe. The club does not need ANY of them back - a totally new person, untarred by mistakes of the past (on all sides) and without any of the separate factions that support Lowe and Crouch is now what we need. I think that's an erroneous statement. some have been well loved and respected. John Corbett and George Reader were certainly anything but crap
SaintRobbie Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 which the three "wise" men rejected. That £12m could have come in handy, really. I agree. There is a lesson here that Nick Illingworth has recently discovered. The only hope is a takeover. So can we please work towards finding one again...but this time ensure that the 'wise' men accept it!?
Puddings and Monkeys Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 I think that's an erroneous statement. some have been well loved and respected. John Corbett and George Reader were certainly anything but crap All recent chairmen...I should probably have said.
Thedelldays Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 on SISU..im still waiting for cov to go tits up....like the ITKs said on here..
bungle Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 I agree. There is a lesson here that Nick Illingworth has recently discovered. The only hope is a takeover. So can we please work towards finding one again...but this time ensure that the 'wise' men accept it!? Why should be forced to accept a takeover from a dodgy hedge fund?
Thedelldays Posted 20 January, 2009 Posted 20 January, 2009 Why should be forced to accept a takeover from a dodgy hedge fund? what is dodgy about it then..?
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