bungle Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 If Crouch really realised that the Exec Board Wilde had put together was useless and the main problem, then instead of trying hopelessly into forcing them to change, he should have tried to team up with Lowe himself for the best of the club. I imagine at that point Lowe would have been happy to support him to remain outside the limelight, as long as he knew the club was being run properly. As it was, although Crouch might have been chairman voting against many things the board did, the board as a whole were still running the club irresonpisbly, it it is no wonder Lowe decided to return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 Duncan, the whole thing is sad I agree. It's not just you, it's the feeling on here, if you don't slag off Lowe then you support him? Where does that come from? Hi Bob No, I accept 100% Steve is not a Lowe or Wilde supporter. I also accept it would be ideal if none of the 3 had any remaining power interest in SFC. My point about Crouch is that he was only in real power for a short period (6months) - I don't regard him having total control while the execs were around and therefore to heap as much of the blame on him is out of proportion. Having been lucky enough to attend the AGM pre-meet and find out first hand the thinking behind the people Steve was criticising in his post - I thought it important to set him straight re talk of organised walking out and non-voting. We are where we are - with the likes Of Salz and Fulthorpe either unwilling or unable to give us the craved for options so its either stick with Lowe and JP or give LC another bash. Not a marvellous choice, I accept...but possibly unlike Ron or Steve I have - as previously mentioned - decided to tether my horse on the outskirts of Crouch's camp - therefore I suppose I am a Crouch supporter. The fact those two are still looking for somewhere to tether their horses, worries me because like I said there are only ever likely to be two camps unless you count nomansland as an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 If Crouch really realised that the Exec Board Wilde had put together was useless and the main problem, then instead of trying hopelessly into forcing them to change, he should have tried to team up with Lowe himself for the best of the club. I imagine at that point Lowe would have been happy to support him to remain outside the limelight, as long as he knew the club was being run properly. As it was, although Crouch might have been chairman voting against many things the board did, the board as a whole were still running the club irresonpisbly, it it is no wonder Lowe decided to return. I think if you read the Runnymede minutes which were recently published on here Crouch was not the fly in the ointment - it was Lowe who would not work with the other two at the time without overall control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 We were going backwards last season under Burley.. Do you believe Crouch would have sacked GB ? I think not, so, YOU could say we were fortunate to have got the approach and subsequent money from Scotland, equally I do not believe we would have ended up in a relegation fight had he stayed, so therefore Crouch would have struggled to justify his dismissal due to the pay off, so just a load of if's and but's. Still do not understand how Trant is not subject to criticism due to his failure to inject capital as HE stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 Actually, as much as it irks me to say it, maybe the person we should be thanking for keeping us last season is Lawrie Mc (and the SFA) I firmly believe that he was the person behind getting Pearson in via his son. And I'm pretty convinced (with not empirical evidence) to believe that Chris Mc was more responsible for the loan signings than NP!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 And I'm pretty convinced (with not empirical evidence) to believe that Chris Mc was more responsible for the loan signings than NP!! The point being is that he has contacts in English football that JP does not (OK, JP has recently remedied that with the CB from Holland). I just think if you took a CCC Football Manager's job description, that Perason would win on every single point in a direct comparison with JP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliemiller Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 I think if you read the Runnymede minutes which were recently published on here Crouch was not the fly in the ointment - it was Lowe who would not work with the other two at the time without overall control. That is grossly inaccurate Duncan , Wilde was the biggest issue in the runneymede meeting not Lowe , crouch or any of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 I think if you read the Runnymede minutes which were recently published on here Crouch was not the fly in the ointment - it was Lowe who would not work with the other two at the time without overall control. I wish someone would do a clickly-linky thingy to these legendary Runnymede minutes. I still have not seen them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 The point being is that he has contacts in English football that JP does not (OK, JP has recently remedied that with the CB from Holland). I just think if you took a CCC Football Manager's job description, that Perason would win on every single point in a direct comparison with JP. So, another reason for Crouch to work with MW and RL and suggest we use the contacts that we used before to good effect!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 (edited) That is grossly inaccurate Duncan , Wilde was the biggest issue in the runneymede meeting not Lowe , crouch or any of the others. Sorry if my memory is failing but I was under the impression twas Lowe. Will dig them out and have another look but I am away from a computer now for a while so any apology will have to wait. Just had a quick glance and I see the 3 things that could not be agreed and minuted at the end were 1. Mike Richards as Chairman - further discussion essential to see if this can be agreed 2. Rupert Lowe to decide if he is prepared to serve on board with Michael Wilde. 3. Michael Wilde to decide if he is prepared to serve on board with Rupert Lowe. So it appears that the two culprits then were both Lowe and Wilde. Edited 21 January, 2009 by Fitzhugh Fella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 Sorry if my memory is failing but I was under the impression twas Lowe. Will dig them out and have another look but I am away from a computer now for a while so any apology will have to wait. Just had a quick glance and I see the 3 things that could not be agreed and minuted at the end were 1. Mike Richards as Chairman - further discussion essential to see if this can be agreed 2. Rupert Lowe to decide if he is prepared to serve on board with Michael Wilde. 3. Michael Wilde to decide if he is prepared to serve on board with Rupert Lowe. So it appears that the two culprits then were both Lowe and Wilde. An odd analysis, considering they clearly did manage to agree to work together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 That is grossly inaccurate Duncan , Wilde was the biggest issue in the runneymede meeting not Lowe , crouch or any of the others. Sorry, but you're the one whose recollection is inaccurate: Wilde would not agree to serve on a board with Lowe, and, Lowe would not agree to serve on a board with Wilde. The only time where there was a semblence of an agreement over some issues (e.g. vetoing the SISU bid and ousting the Execs), the egos of Lowe and Wilde could not agree to work together going forward. Yet they're now running the show!!!!! (although arguably Lowe is running the show and Wilde is just a figurehead). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 Sorry, but you're the one whose recollection is inaccurate: Wilde would not agree to serve on a board with Lowe, and, Lowe would not agree to serve on a board with Wilde. The only time where there was a semblence of an agreement over some issues (e.g. vetoing the SISU bid and ousting the Execs), the egos of Lowe and Wilde could not agree to work together going forward. Yet they're now running the show!!!!! (although arguably Lowe is running the show and Wilde is just a figurehead). surely you can come up with a better adjective than figurehead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeg Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 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 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 !! quite correct and no I dont think Leon was a disgrace at all - what do you want him to do sit there like some timid schoolboy while lowe is spouting rubbish/lies - he is a respected businessman who knew far more than we can ever about the board room at St Marys and was not prepared for the lies to continue what leon displayed is passion - something that I applaud - for far too long these board members are locked away from the real thought of the ordinary fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 This 'Guilt by association' Leon Crouch has been subject to on this thread I find both grossly unfair and without any foundation in fact . The record shows LC to be an astute businessman and a genuine Saints fan whom I would trust with the running of this football club unreservedly - the fact that he is not is a minor tragedy for SFC and all those who hold it's welfare close to their hearts . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 January, 2009 This 'Guilt by association' Leon Crouch has been subject to on this thread I find both grossly unfair and without any foundation in fact . The record shows LC to be an astute businessman and a genuine Saints fan whom I would trust with the running of this football club unreservedly - the fact that he is not is a minor tragedy for SFC and all those who hold it's welfare close to their hearts . You know I think I agree with you. I'm still struggling to make out what he has done so wrong as to be assosciated with Wilde and Lowe. So far he lost his temper at the AGM and made a mistake which he owned up to and rectified before it was too late. I would trust him and he is the best of the three. He should be in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 21 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 January, 2009 Steve I am interested to know, what would you like to happen with the club say between now and the summer? Realistic obviously, not the 3 of them working together or some mystery investor. 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