JohnnyFartPants Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Which I'm sure Lowelife & Wilde know, which is why they made the offer. I don't believe that is true. It is an early counter offer and it at least shows that Lowe would go if terms could be agreed. As it is he is willing to walk for no financial gain as long as the overdraft is paid up meaning his shares could be a long term investment again. He is being the business man to the end but if Crouch can get enough interest from other people it might be a very good end to this whole sorry affair. There simply has to be a clause in it to say "no return" though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 27 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2009 On reading that title i had a brief moment of happiness, it was heaven Sorry fella, needed an eye catching title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 It leaves Lowe/Wilde in a no lose situation if the rumours of admin are close. The risk would be better for them to see if Leon can turn things around rather than carry on as we are. True, I didnt think of it like that. But then if the rumours of admin are true why is Wotte allowed to bring in a striker and possibly more players to strengthen the team? (not saying he has but thats the impression he has been giving) To me its an empty offer from Lowe and Wilde and Leon has been guilty of the same sort of thing in the past. They are all pr1cks IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 We know Crouch has £2m, he has already offered it on conditions. Now all he needs to do is find some others that can make up the £4m deficit. Then hopefully have enough spare change to buy out Lowe/Wilde. (This is the key bit) Problem is, the only people likely to stump up would be those who will lose out if we go bust. So the shareholders then. It's not a very attractive proposition for someone who isn't already involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Like a poker game these players do not trust each other and who can blame them after what has gone before. Maybe they have all come to their senses and see that this is the one last throw of the dice. Hoping whatever happens is the best for Saints and to cap it all we beat Norwich tonight. COYR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 We knew Wilde did not have £2m, we doubted Lowe had £2m, we now know Crouch is not rich enough to risk £6m. The problem is that any money would be in the form of a loan to get the banks off our backs. lt would only have shifted the debt, admittedly with little or no interest but the problems of finance would still be haunting the club. In the event that we went into Administration such loan would fall into the unsecure creditor group. For this reason I believe it is a non story but does show Lowe and Wildes position is weakening or they were calling Crouch's bluff knowing he had a weak hand. Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Gavin Davies will not buy into Saints whilst Lowe and Wilde still own shares Gavin Davies said he would not buy into saints as long as Lowe was in charge, nothing to do with Wilde, when the Wilde bunch took over he was very quiet and did fvck all otherwise which means he is full of wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 It does say in the article that Crouch does NOT have the £6 million, therefore its all a bit academic Agree and feel it was a bit of a game between them all, Crouch is aware they will not stump up 2mil each, they are aware Crouch will not stump up 6mil, still... grabbed a headline on the eve of yet another very important match for our club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Can't wait to see what Leons response to this will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Difficult decision for Crouch and any possible associates..Hopefully enough interested like minded people to rid this club of Lowe for good. Wilde needs to sell as well and hopefully still has a soft spot for Saints and therefore could help the deal along. Whatever happens Lowe to go and NEVER be seen at Southampton again. PLEASE. This wouldnt happen though. The offer is for Crouch to clear the debt. Wilde and Lowe keep there shares but they just let Leon run the club. If he fails they will be back. If he looks like he will succeed they will snipe from the outside. Lets face it they all do that from the outside. Wilde and Lowe think they can turn the club round, if they had the supprt of all shareholders it may stand more chance of actually succeeding. Same as if Leon was in charge, if Wilde and Lowe supported him he would have a better chance. When ever someone is on the outside they will always be stiring and conspiring for those on the inside to fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Buying Wilde and Lowes shares is not putting money into the club, just into the afore mentioned shareholders pockets Which includes Crouch right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 the article says they said if he gave £6m to the club -not them -to wipe out debts -then they would walk away. He hasn't got enough money. Do you really think that getting rid of them by boycotts etc with all that negativity but still with a debt is better than them walking away quietly and the club having no debts?? Very strange! I'd need way more information than what you have said above before forming a realistic opinion on this. As it stands, Crouch pays out £6 million, but what does Lowe and Wilde "walking away" entail? What does it achieve if they still have voting rights with their shares? If there were some legal way of removing voting rights to them, then perhaps it might look better, otherwise nothing to stop Lowe and Wilde proxying them to their toadies. Noboby has provided any information yet to address my comment that Lowe has an agreement with said toadies that he would not sell his shares unless they all got the same price for theirs. What happens about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 We knew Wilde did not have £2m, we doubted Lowe had £2m, we now know Crouch is not rich enough to risk £6m. The problem is that any money would be in the form of a loan to get the banks off our backs. lt would only have shifted the debt, admittedly with little or no interest but the problems of finance would still be haunting the club. In the event that we went into Administration such loan would fall into the unsecure creditor group. For this reason I believe it is a non story but does show Lowe and Wildes position is weakening or they were calling Crouch's bluff knowing he had a weak hand. Time will tell. It could be a risk worth taking for someone. Lets say I had £4m towards it, but on the condition that if we were to get promoted , I would get my £4m back plus a bonus and on the condition that if the share price does go up Lowe/Wilde would have accepted a pre-promotion price, that they would sell no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 another stupid offer or idea. i am struggling to believe anyone would clear an overdraft and leave rupert/wilde with their shares or for that matter leave Guy, Mike times 2 , and Clive with their shares because they will still be in a position to stab Crouch in the back. Weird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe and Wilde will still have their shares thus leaving them both with the opportunity to return,which no doubt they will, when crouch is seen to be making crass decisions,no doubt he will. Will we still be going round in ever decreasing circles with the same three attempting to steer a rudderless ship accompanied by the ineviatable infighting,no doubt we will. All p1ss and wind,the three of them. All IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 This is a VERY positive start. But must be looked at as only an interim step. Crouch's desire for success coupled with a CEO in Lowe's place could steady the ship and cement fan support for the forthcoming relegation battle. But - Crouch needs a fighting British manager now who can attract in some men to add some spine to the team. So he has to bring in a new man. (When one adds Wottes comments on Monday to this there is no way Wotte can be allowed (or will be allowed) to continue.) Crouch will need to recall at least Dyer and Rasiak...possibly John... to give us some goal-scoring options in midfield and upfront. IF he can do that we're in for a good chance of survival. Then comes the long term strategy. That must involve Crouch finding a buyer for this club in order to take us up to mid-table next season and the Premiership the next. We have to remove the plc and all of the shareholders forever - as a system of running this club it has been proven to fail. If we can end up with a club saved by Crouch this season, a strong owner next and the back of the plc and shareholders for good... we will rise again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 The forum had a good week last week, there was some sensible debate for a change and a few things seemed to be going on. But a lot of it descended as usual into the same old "forceful opinion stating", and our undying conviction that everyone around this soap opera is a complete idiot. I think we missed something, it just seems like there are a lot of jigsaw pieces around and nobody yet has found out where they start to fit together. We're all useless as we never let any facts get in the way of a good row, but as a lot of these hints have been in the public arena, something's going on. Meeting at Staplewood - my guess JP tells the Board "we doubling our efforts" then tells the Echo what he told the Board. We know the eventual outcome, but maybe other discussions went on, we were confused by the statements, but actually who would say anything different to their boss when they are pulled in for a review and would then tell the first person who asked them what they said at the meeting. But what went on AFTERWARDS, there were hints of more meetings, but we lost that in the "why haven't they sacked JP on the spot arguments. Admin in March or whatever in the Mail & Echo. Now why was that made public? Was it to annoy the Forum again or was there a message being sent to somebody else? Wotte is appointed. Obviously that was just done to annoy us again and fuel more protests. What other reason could there be for not wanting to tie a new manager to a long term contract? An obvious one is the Admin in March so reduce the payments due to employees, why else could that have been? Because Crouch was coming back? Maybe somebody new? Leon lets it be known he was at SMS for a game nobody except nickh had heard about. Why? What was discussed? Mary Corbett appears from nowhere, letting everyone know she is the soul and rightful heir of the club. Obviously she speaks out because she cares or is there a darker motive? Perhaps she is reminding everyone that she should have a seat at the table because of history rather than ability? (Oh by the way did anyone ask about those odd allegations about here part in the downfall of the non-PA bid?) There is a behind doors friendly at SMS. Talks of allegiances, leaks about people being shown round from ground staff. And then today Crouch gets control for 6mil is in the press. Analyse that - his 2mil offer of a loan and then around 4mil to buy up the 45 ish% of the 28million ish shares. So not rocket science , and not anything particularly new there. So WHY. Like I said, there are simply too many odd leaks after months of nothing. What's going on? Either a major deckchair shuffle is really about to happen, maybe the people who want the train set back are trying to build on the fans protests for their own needs, or maybe we really are getting squeezed by the bank and everybody is panicking. I've always stated I am strongly against a simple deckchair reshuffle, because quite simply the whole damned bunch of them should be gone and this will just keep going on and on and on. hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Can't wait to see what Leons response to this will be. I can ...no deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 I'd need way more information than what you have said above before forming a realistic opinion on this. As it stands, Crouch pays out £6 million, but what does Lowe and Wilde "walking away" entail? What does it achieve if they still have voting rights with their shares? If there were some legal way of removing voting rights to them, then perhaps it might look better, otherwise nothing to stop Lowe and Wilde proxying them to their toadies. Noboby has provided any information yet to address my comment that Lowe has an agreement with said toadies that he would not sell his shares unless they all got the same price for theirs. What happens about that? All in the detail I would have thought Crouch is not going to give £6m without a watertight deal probably will get Lowe/Wilde shares as Proxies. The most important thing if this is to go forward is getting £4million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 I don't believe that is true. It is an early counter offer and it at least shows that Lowe would go if terms could be agreed. As it is he is willing to walk for no financial gain as long as the overdraft is paid up meaning his shares could be a long term investment again. He is being the business man to the end but if Crouch can get enough interest from other people it might be a very good end to this whole sorry affair. There simply has to be a clause in it to say "no return" though. I agree with this. The £6m will restore value to the shareprice so it gets Lowe and Wilde out of a hole. As an aside the relationship between Lowe and Wilde must be totally non-existent given Wilde and his executives blew more than £6m on rubbish players and their salaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheff Saint Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 I don't believe that is true. It is an early counter offer and it at least shows that Lowe would go if terms could be agreed. As it is he is willing to walk for no financial gain as long as the overdraft is paid up meaning his shares could be a long term investment again. He is being the business man to the end but if Crouch can get enough interest from other people it might be a very good end to this whole sorry affair. There simply has to be a clause in it to say "no return" though. This seems logical. Can we also suggest then that admin isn't that close, following this logic through to the end. If we were only days away from going under, surely Lowe and Wilde would have taken Crouch's 2mil? Ok, they'd lose power but if Lowe is only interested in his long term investment, Crouch would be making that more secure (by shaving 33% of the od off) than it would be if we went into admin? And why would Barclays come knocking for 6 million overdraft if a)we're paying a massive interest rate and b) we've stopped losing money (this needs ratifying, of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 If Crouch stumps up £6m. In todays Echo. IF that story IS true ......... then, by the very nature of him saying it, Lowe HAS weakened his own Credibility .......... It just could be the thin end of the wedge, as I am sure Lowe would not have evn contemplated any such offer, if he were not now running a little bit scared ( Can someone now send round the Johnson Brothers to have a word with Judas Wilde ??? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corky morris Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe has only ever been interested in personal gain. If that coincided with a benefit to SFC that was ok. He then spouted off about his financial acumen which we all know has been way short of what he suggested. Why on earth would Crouch give the club £6m to clear debt & retain such a small portion of the equity? Lowe is simply blowing hot air to try & get people off his back. Sheff Saint, Banks are no longer interested in the rate people are paying it is the risk to capital that they lent which is paramount which means that reducing loans helps their financial strength which in turn should increase their share price & secure their long term well being. Clearing loans out of the system is indiscriminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 We knew Wilde did not have £2m, we doubted Lowe had £2m, we now know Crouch is not rich enough to risk £6m. The problem is that any money would be in the form of a loan to get the banks off our backs. lt would only have shifted the debt, admittedly with little or no interest but the problems of finance would still be haunting the club. In the event that we went into Administration such loan would fall into the unsecure creditor group. For this reason I believe it is a non story but does show Lowe and Wildes position is weakening or they were calling Crouch's bluff knowing he had a weak hand. Time will tell. Agree with first part of this. Who is calling who's bluff though? Crouch NEVER offered to loan £6 million so how are they calling his bluff and in what way does he have a weak hand?. They may as well have asked for £60 million. Crouch is a successful businessman not a fool. It probably illustrates how comitted Lowe and Wilde are though. I wonder if they offered ANY funds to help the club out? I suspect not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheff Saint Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe has only ever been interested in personal gain. If that coincided with a benefit to SFC that was ok. He then spouted off about his financial acumen which we all know has been way short of what he suggested. Why on earth would Crouch give the club £6m to clear debt & retain such a small portion of the equity? Lowe is simply blowing hot air to try & get people off his back. Sheff Saint, Banks are no longer interested in the rate people are paying it is the risk to capital that they lent which is paramount which means that reducing loans helps their financial strength which in turn should increase their share price & secure their long term well being. Clearing loans out of the system is indiscriminate. They may be reducing loans, but admin doesn't help with that. They'd not see anywhere near that 6 million if we went into admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 The forum had a good week last week, there was some sensible debate for a change and a few things seemed to be going on. But a lot of it descended as usual into the same old "forceful opinion stating", and our undying conviction that everyone around this soap opera is a complete idiot. hmmm So, Monsieur Poirot, was it the butler or the mistress?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landford.saint Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 REALLY REALLY REALY SILLY IDEA. What if fans put in money to club on a long term interest free loan basis to be repaid on reaching Premeirship. SAY £200 each.. 5000 people would be £1 million ... That would help get rid of Lowe and Wilde I know stupid idea I'm going...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 So, Monsieur Poirot, was it the butler or the mistress?? OK if you really want my opinion - I think we missed some earlobes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe has fallen a long way, as have we under his stewardship. He used to state for all to hear that if someboby were to stump up £25 million, he would move aside as chairman. Now it would only take £6 million for the both of them. Mind you, when he used to spout that drivel, we were in the Premiership and most used to mistakenly believe his shareholding to be 75% or so. Now everybody but the least informed knows that he has under 6%. I'd keep your cash in the bank, Leon. We'll get rid of the leeches by campaigns and boycotts and you can then use the £6 million on players. Anyway, I thought that Lowe had a pact with his cronies that he wouldn't sell his shares unless they all got the same price for theirs. Does this deal include them too? TB Fair Wes, that quote is always taken out of context - he was not saying - give me personally 25 mill for my shares and you can take over - he was saying he would ahppily step down as chairman if there was someone out their willing to put money into the club (eg Sugar daddy role) which would be used to supplement the playing side - not share purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fos1 Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Agree with first part of this. It probably illustrates how comitted Lowe and Wilde are though. I wonder if they offered ANY funds to help the club out? I suspect not. Lowe could pay back his pay off he received 2 years ago !! That would pay for a couple of loan signings, we all know this is not going to happen, he has only ever taken money out the club in wages, bonuses ! etc never put money in !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 It seems a nonsense.i heard a little bit on radio hants and thought it meant the 2 to walk if LC stumped up 6m.It seems not quite that way after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 TB Fair Wes' date=' that quote is always taken out of context - he was not saying - give me personally 25 mill for my shares and you can take over - he was saying he would ahppily step down as chairman if there was someone out their willing to put money into the club (eg Sugar daddy role) which would be used to supplement the playing side - not share purchase.[/quote'] indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe could pay back his pay off he received 2 years ago !! That would pay for a couple of loan signings, we all know this is not going to happen, he has only ever taken money out the club in wages, bonuses ! etc never put money in !! And exactly how many shareholders have? And I'm not talking about buying match tickets or funding Statues! I'm asking how many of the SLH shareholders have directly put money into the club? Has LC not given you any response to this yet that you can disseminate to the forum?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe could pay back his pay off he received 2 years ago !! That would pay for a couple of loan signings, we all know this is not going to happen, he has only ever taken money out the club in wages, bonuses ! etc never put money in !! Have the former chairman of Woolies paid money back.It doesnt happen. Lm has made shedloads out of our club but he isnt expected to do either.LC is a fan and wealthy man, he would stump up. When the Wilde bunch arrived trant said he'd provide cash but that never arrived . Too many talk the talk but dont then walk the walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 The forum had a good week last week, there was some sensible debate for a change and a few things seemed to be going on. But a lot of it descended as usual into the same old "forceful opinion stating", and our undying conviction that everyone around this soap opera is a complete idiot. I think we missed something, it just seems like there are a lot of jigsaw pieces around and nobody yet has found out where they start to fit together. We're all useless as we never let any facts get in the way of a good row, but as a lot of these hints have been in the public arena, something's going on. Meeting at Staplewood - my guess JP tells the Board "we doubling our efforts" then tells the Echo what he told the Board. We know the eventual outcome, but maybe other discussions went on, we were confused by the statements, but actually who would say anything different to their boss when they are pulled in for a review and would then tell the first person who asked them what they said at the meeting. But what went on AFTERWARDS, there were hints of more meetings, but we lost that in the "why haven't they sacked JP on the spot arguments. Admin in March or whatever in the Mail & Echo. Now why was that made public? Was it to annoy the Forum again or was there a message being sent to somebody else? Wotte is appointed. Obviously that was just done to annoy us again and fuel more protests. What other reason could there be for not wanting to tie a new manager to a long term contract? An obvious one is the Admin in March so reduce the payments due to employees, why else could that have been? Because Crouch was coming back? Maybe somebody new? Leon lets it be known he was at SMS for a game nobody except nickh had heard about. Why? What was discussed? Mary Corbett appears from nowhere, letting everyone know she is the soul and rightful heir of the club. Obviously she speaks out because she cares or is there a darker motive? Perhaps she is reminding everyone that she should have a seat at the table because of history rather than ability? (Oh by the way did anyone ask about those odd allegations about here part in the downfall of the non-PA bid?) There is a behind doors friendly at SMS. Talks of allegiances, leaks about people being shown round from ground staff. And then today Crouch gets control for 6mil is in the press. Analyse that - his 2mil offer of a loan and then around 4mil to buy up the 45 ish% of the 28million ish shares. So not rocket science , and not anything particularly new there. So WHY. Like I said, there are simply too many odd leaks after months of nothing. What's going on? Either a major deckchair shuffle is really about to happen, maybe the people who want the train set back are trying to build on the fans protests for their own needs, or maybe we really are getting squeezed by the bank and everybody is panicking. I've always stated I am strongly against a simple deckchair reshuffle, because quite simply the whole damned bunch of them should be gone and this will just keep going on and on and on. hmmm Good post, Phil. All this reminds me in a way of the old days of the Cold War, when announcements from the Kremlin were always pored over in an attempt to find the deeper meaning hidden between the lines. Apparently bland statements often indicated serious things happening behind the scenes, and nothing was ever taken at face value. Yep, sounds familiar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe, Wilde and Crouch would be mad to put any money in SFC at the present time. It does not make sense for any businessman to do this. There is nobody in the UK either who would do this in the current climate, only a rich sheik would be a possibility and that is unlikely. (We would still be a better bet than Citeh though on a return on equity basis). All we can hope for is that Wotte improves performance on the pitch and we rise up the table to stay in the second division. We can then hope for an improved performance next year to bring the crowds back and get out of this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 It seems a nonsense.i heard a little bit on radio hants and thought it meant the 2 to walk if LC stumped up 6m.It seems not quite that way after all. Please explain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLOTH EARS Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 If Crouch had the £6m to put in I am sure he wouldn't just chuck it in to pay off the overdraft, surely he'd want to negotiate with the bank to pay that off in stages whilst using the bulk of the £6m to buy players. Lowe & Wilde know that crouch isn't going to chuck his money into paying off the overdraft, its just bluster from the pair of twerps!!! They are trying to make it look as if Crouch hasn't got the finance to come in. If I were Crouch and I had the £6m to put in I would just reply by saying I'll put the money in but it will be used the way I want to use it NOT the way you want me to use it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 I just have the feeling it was Crouch who told this story to the Echo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 If Crouch had the £6m to put in I am sure he wouldn't just chuck it in to pay off the overdraft, surely he'd want to negotiate with the bank to pay that off in stages whilst using the bulk of the £6m to buy players. Lowe & Wilde know that crouch isn't going to chuck his money into paying off the overdraft, its just bluster from the pair of twerps!!! They are trying to make it look as if Crouch hasn't got the finance to come in. If I were Crouch and I had the £6m to put in I would just reply by saying I'll put the money in but it will be used the way I want to use it NOT the way you want me to use it! We need any investment to be used so that we dont go into administration . But the whole idea is beginning to look ridiculous I agree with Weston I just have the feeling it was Crouch who told this story to the Echo to make himself look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 If Crouch stumps up £6m. In todays Echo. Crouch will basically put in 2 million if wilde and Lowe do likewise but the other two have refused this and are asking for the whole 6 million from crouch! Am I correct? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 I just have the feeling it was Crouch who told this story to the Echo. Theres a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fos1 Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Have the former chairman of Woolies paid money back.It doesnt . Sorry has the chairman of Woolies returned then !! and being paid !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wopper Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Let them ruin the club and pick up the pieces Leon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 (edited) Crouch will basically put in 2 million if wilde and Lowe do likewise but the other two have refused this and are asking for the whole 6 million from crouch! Am I correct? :confused: Possibly true but Crouch maybe be saying he will put in £2million knowing Wilde/Lowe wont or cant match it. Edited 27 January, 2009 by John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe & Wilde know that crouch isn't going to chuck his money into paying off the overdraft, its just bluster from the pair of twerps!!! Just like LC knew that MW and RL wouldn't be able to match the £2m he was offering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Gavin Davies will not buy into Saints whilst Lowe and Wilde still own shares the share value is hardly likely to increase much..perhaps if Gavin Davies is so keen to get rid of Lowe/Wilde- he'll buy them out ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Possibly true but Crouch maybe be saying he will put in £2million knowing Wilde/Lowe wont or cant match it. It is too much for me Me too all I'm sure on is that nothing will come of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carljack Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Lowe could pay back his pay off he received 2 years ago !! That would pay for a couple of loan signings, we all know this is not going to happen, he has only ever taken money out the club in wages, bonuses ! etc never put money in !! Very true! 250k a year as the second highest paid Chairman in the Football league this was before expenses etc, like all PARASITES he will only drop off the corpse when the blood or flesh has been consumed,Leon Crouch is feeding the cuckoo Lowe,As much as I hate to even think it Administration is the only way to rid the us of the bloodsucking Lowe Cowan and Wilde. SAINT TILL I DIE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Crouch will basically put in 2 million if wilde and Lowe do likewise but the other two have refused this and are asking for the whole 6 million from crouch! Am I correct? :confused: Just a question but if Crouch offers to put 2mil in based on his % of shares shouldnt the deal be that Wilde and Lowe put in the equivilent compared to there ammount of shares? Therfor this offer should be open to anyone that holds shares and they should put in the equivilent compared to there shareholding. The shareholder fight always seems to be about the main 3 but there are several in the board room that hold shares and many others out of it. If they all agreed to put in 2% of the value of there shares would that not bring in some much needed dosh? I know some would have to pay more but if you own half of a company then the problem is half yours also. if you only own a 1/4 of a company then you only have a 1/4 of the problem. 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