John B Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 I wonder just how many of the pro Lowe and pro Wilde camp are getting some sort of beneficial free seats at SMS? I wonder if this is why they still have a little support Anything happening on getting the £6million we talked about on Monday or Leon just talking how things could be better
Snowballs2 Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Anything happening on getting the £6million we talked about on Monday or Leon just talking how things could be better No and don't hold your breath! I trust nobody
saintjay77 Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Saintjay I hear what your saying but it could be better, instead of Saints loaning/signing 15 poor players that can't get in the team then sub-sequently leave. We could of only signed 5, used the saving from the other 10 and made sure the 5 we'd signed we're better players and paying them more! I understand that too bud but half the argument on here is made of IFs and Could of's and Rumours that turn into facts because they get told so often. I thought Pearson deserved a chance and I agree he would probably have brought in better players. JP and co brought in too many naff players IMO although I would be happy for the likes of Gasmi and Pulis to prove me wrong. That said, the players that we put out on the pitch each week have shown several times that they are more than capable of putting in a decent performance and had they done it consistently we would be much higher up the league. again its another IF though.
alpine_saint Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 although I would be happy for the likes of Gasmi and Pulis to prove me wrong. When's that going to happen then ? anytime soon ? they are both so shiit they cannot even get on the bench in a sqaud screaming for even a little bit of quality
obelisk Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 I've just read through this thread of ifs, buts and maybes. Trouble is it really has driven me mad with all the "could of", "would of", "should of" and similar phrases. I don't know whether it's something to do with modern day education but it really distracts from the point being made as far as I'm concerned. Would it be at all possible to revert to the English of "could have", "would have", "should have", etc? Or even abbreviated to "could've" and so on if you really fancy it. I might just be able to concentrate on the various Lowe, Wilde and Crouch prejudices then. Cheers!
OldNick Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 I've just read through this thread of ifs, buts and maybes. Trouble is it really has driven me mad with all the "could of", "would of", "should of" and similar phrases. I don't know whether it's something to do with modern day education but it really distracts from the point being made as far as I'm concerned. Would it be at all possible to revert to the English of "could have", "would have", "should have", etc? Or even abbreviated to "could've" and so on if you really fancy it. I might just be able to concentrate on the various Lowe, Wilde and Crouch prejudices then. Cheers!you could've have joined in earlirer in fact you should of and we would of replied.To have done so would have been so much better.
obelisk Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 you could've have joined in earlirer in fact you should of and we would of replied.To have done so would have been so much better.I could've but have been snowed under with work instead. Then I went to the pub for a couple of pints although I could have started reading this earlier of course. Cheers!
saintjay77 Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Well the current masterplan under your idol is really working well isn't it! Lower gates, shocking squad of the poorest quality we have had, alienated and rampaging fan base . Yes we would of lost the loanees you mentioned but would Pearson of brought in lesser quality than what we have now ? Only Pericard was a waste but I can see why he brought him in as we were lacking height and a big striker. How do you know Pearson would of struggled...exactly you dont and you use that every time to disguise the fact that this Dutch experiment is a complete farce. I do not hold up Pearson as a god and we only won 3 but only lost 3 as well. He did not have the benefit of a pre-season like this Dutch joke of your idol. Like I said I want all 3 out of the club but at least under Crouch he put right the Dodd/Gorman farce this lot again followed the same mistake for a 4th time! All our arguments on either side uare based on Mights and Could of's. The Dutch experiment hasnt worked yet but the overdraft is being reduced and if we are talking about bringing in another player or 2 so I am guessing the threat of Admin is easing. The English system that Crouch wants has had over 10 years of effort with mainly Lowe the toss pot in charge but also when Wilde and then Crouch took over. How much good has it really done us? Dutch experiment mark 1 didnt work but Mark 2 has already shown he can make a change or 2 and it has made a difference. If he reverts back to a system that doesnt work more will want him gone but if he goes with what worked from the last game and builds on it why should we make yet another change? I know Crouch and Pearson didnt get a fair crack at it but I was more fearful of ending up in Admin with him than I am with Lowe. Even though there is obviously a strong possibility it can still happen .
dubai_phil Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 The more I hear Leon the more I wonder why NOW. I know we need some money but these seem strange tactics. If he thinks he is holding the right cards to get us out of bother in the short term then he knows he only has to wait and phone the bank at the right time - bingo he has control again. So the ONLY reason I can see for all this NOW is that he is worried Rupert has found the money or a way to save the club himself. (Ouch THAT's a nightmare scenario) and that Leon and his buddies are worried about not getting their seats in the hangers-on box or get to play with the train set again when the music stops I find it all a bit odd at the moment.
saintjay77 Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 When's that going to happen then ? anytime soon ? they are both so shiit they cannot even get on the bench in a sqaud screaming for even a little bit of quality How the hell would I know? I just said I would be hapoy for them to prove me wrong cause so far I dont see why they feel they should be wearing the Red and White stripes of Saints FC!
egreog Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 I would credit Crouch with having a great deal of common sense..........in which case he won't throw millions at a football club!! Hopefully he watched Sir Alan Sugar on BBC documentary to get an idea of the "benefits" of making such a move!!
St Landrew Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 (edited) saying if he was chairman we would be other end of table, bigger crowds and no financial problems - solent interview Hang on, hang on! IS this what Crouch said, or is it just NickG's interpretation of what he said? Let's have the words verbatim, otherwise this is just another personal agenda-type thread. Link? When was this exactly..? Radio Solent programmes are available to listen to again up to 7 days after the event. So if anyone knows the programme and the day, we could all have a listen to LC's comments. EDIT: Sorry DAY should have been TIME. I'm aware it was today [28th Jan, and before 8.30am] so presumably, that means Julian Clegg. Perhaps you can help look: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p0020ml8 ANOTHER EDIT: Found something - Go about 1 hour and 54 mins into the show. You'll be in the middle of a report on Saints match against Norwich. I believe Crouch follows with comments. No charge..! Edited 28 January, 2009 by St Landrew
saint lard Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 (edited) Radio Solent played a substantial part of the interview just prior to kick off last night,i posted some bullet points about it afterwards on another"crouch"thread. They said the whole interview would be available online from this morning. Edited 28 January, 2009 by saint lard
St Landrew Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Radio Solent played a subtantial part of the interview just prior to kick off last night,i posted some bullet points about it afterwards on another"crouch"thread. They said it would be available online from this morning. Err... look above your post.
St. Jason Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 I understand that too bud but half the argument on here is made of IFs and Could of's and Rumours that turn into facts because they get told so often. I thought Pearson deserved a chance and I agree he would probably have brought in better players. JP and co brought in too many naff players IMO although I would be happy for the likes of Gasmi and Pulis to prove me wrong. That said, the players that we put out on the pitch each week have shown several times that they are more than capable of putting in a decent performance and had they done it consistently we would be much higher up the league. again its another IF though. More of a 'had' than 'if' ;-) I would also like to Pulis and Gasmi to prove me wrong, is it only Lowe that signs injured players? He seems to have a decent record in this field, Delgardo, Schneriden, Gasmi, Pulis, how much money has been wasted just on that little bunch!!
Snowballs2 Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 The more I hear Leon the more I wonder why NOW. I know we need some money but these seem strange tactics. If he thinks he is holding the right cards to get us out of bother in the short term then he knows he only has to wait and phone the bank at the right time - bingo he has control again. So the ONLY reason I can see for all this NOW is that he is worried Rupert has found the money or a way to save the club himself. (Ouch THAT's a nightmare scenario) and that Leon and his buddies are worried about not getting their seats in the hangers-on box or get to play with the train set again when the music stops I find it all a bit odd at the moment. No way will Lowe EVER find money ...his or other peoples, I find that the Crouch knockers are disingenuous
Foxstone Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Same Old, Same old ! Cut the spin and the rhetoric Leon and come up with something constructive that would win big doubters like myself onside ! Otherwise leave the deckchairs alone !
saint lard Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Err... look above your post. Err....that is just a tiny fraction of what was played last night,and that wasnt the full article either.
St Landrew Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Err....that is just a tiny fraction of what was played last night,and that wasnt the full article either. OK, you find the rest then. There's the whole of Radio Solent's listen again facility to wade through. You're the best person to know where to look - off you go. I'll be expecting to hear the full interview later. Ta.
saint lard Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Trust me i have been hunting on the solent site and BBCi player..i will continue my search however as i want to hear the extended version..i couldnt type and listen to the substantial bit they played last night....
buctootim Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 When he kept his mouth shut Crouch fuelled division because many thought he was a more viable alternative to Lowe. Now the more fan friendly guff we hear and histrionics at the AGM and SMS, his credibility is disappearing fast.
saint lard Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 This what i managed to type last night just prior to kick off,whislt trying to take in what was being said..but it went on for an age...... Crouch "chance for others to put money where their mouth is" "Time for Rupert Lowe to put something back" "After all he takes money,through dividends,from SFC" "Deal would wipe out overdraught,appoint CCC manager,and get some experienced players in" Loads more but couldnt keep up,while trying to listen. Full interview online tomorrow apparently. He was extremely scathing towards both lowe and especially Wilde at times. "shouldve stayed with Pearson in charge" "Wilde promised so much but has delivered nothing" "we would be in a much better position if he was still at the helm"
Big Bad Bob Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7856053.stm And that is it really Former chairman Leon Crouch has said Southampton would be a top six Championship club this season if he was still at the helm. Crouch stepped down last May after major shareholders Rupert Lowe and Michael Wilde returned to the club. "We had a good manager (Nigel Pearson) and the fans were coming back," Crouch told BBC Radio Solent. "We had young players playing well and I think we would have pushed on and been up in the top six."
St Landrew Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7856053.stm And that is it really Well done BBB. Appreciate your efforts SL.
Big Bad Bob Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 No way will Lowe EVER find money ...his or other peoples, I find that the Crouch knockers are disingenuous Well, to be honest, I find the fact that you find people who don't fall for his particular brand of spin disingenuous disingenuous
CanadaSaint Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 The part I don't get is this: Why would Crouch walk into the lion's den and make a proposal he knew Lowe and Wilde couldn't/wouldn't accept AND THEN follow it up with this interview UNLESS he had something up his sleeve (or close)? You can call it popularity-seeking or posturing but he already had that high ground, for the most part, before opening his mouth. So why did he do it?
NickG Posted 28 January, 2009 Author Posted 28 January, 2009 I didn't make it up! It was solent sports news, think the 7.20 one this morning, maybe 8.20
Wopper Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 The part I don't get is this: Why would Crouch walk into the lion's den and make a proposal he knew Lowe and Wilde couldn't/wouldn't accept AND THEN follow it up with this interview UNLESS he had something up his sleeve (or close)? You can call it popularity-seeking or posturing but he already had that high ground, for the most part, before opening his mouth. So why did he do it? We could be close to meltdown.
1976_Child Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 why do people love Crouch so much? He is just as culpable for the crap we are in at the moment. Get rid of the lot of them i say. And as for this talk of "being the other end of the table". Please, whatever. ******. plain and simple.
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 this bit worries me: "I had the support of the bank, Norwich Union and Deloittes." aren't Deloittes administrators??????
Big Bad Bob Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 The part I don't get is this: Why would Crouch walk into the lion's den and make a proposal he knew Lowe and Wilde couldn't/wouldn't accept AND THEN follow it up with this interview UNLESS he had something up his sleeve (or close)? You can call it popularity-seeking or posturing but he already had that high ground, for the most part, before opening his mouth. So why did he do it? Pot stirring? **** measuring?
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 why do people love Crouch so much? He is just as culpable for the crap we are in at the moment. Get rid of the lot of them i say. And as for this talk of "being the other end of the table". Please, whatever. ******. plain and simple. because he's willing to put his own money in, even though he is NOTresponsible for the mess we are in. Only two people can be held accountable for it, Lowe and Wilde. Unless you had forgotten 'the previous regime' Lowe refers to was installed by Wilde. Leon only came in to try and sort out some of the god awful mess that was left behind when Wilde buggered off. All Leon has done wrong is be fooled by Wilde, just like the fans were, with his empty promises. Are you saying all of the fans are equally to blame too then? I'm confused
1976_Child Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 because he's willing to put his own money in, even though he is NOTresponsible for the mess we are in. Only two people can be held accountable for it, Lowe and Wilde. Unless you had forgotten 'the previous regime' Lowe refers to was installed by Wilde. Leon only came in to try and sort out some of the god awful mess that was left behind when Wilde buggered off. All Leon has done wrong is be fooled by Wilde, just like the fans were, with his empty promises. Are you saying all of the fans are equally to blame too then? I'm confused Mate, if you think that we outsiders know the truth of what goes on in that boardroom then you are mistaken. Crouch is not "the messiah" that this club needs. What is needed is a complete clean sheet. Ged rid of them all. They are like a bunch of politicians all grubbing around blaming each other. I wasn't impressed by Lowe's performance at the AGM but nor was i with Crouch either. They have all, between them, resided over the worst decade of SFC's history and frankly I won't be applauding any of them. End of.
Window Cleaner Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Same Old, Same old ! Cut the spin and the rhetoric Leon and come up with something constructive that would win big doubters like myself onside ! Otherwise leave the deckchairs alone ! I have a question. When Crouch was in charge why didn't he loan us 2 million quid and keep our overdraft within it's approved limits.? I mean he ran us up to 6.62 million against a 4.5 million agreement didn't he?? Or does "having the support of the bank" mean that it was OK to overun our overdraft limit?
OldNick Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 "After all he takes money,through dividends,from SFC" "Deal would wipe out overdraught,appoint CCC manager,and get some experienced players in" "are dividends still beig paid??? I thought we were losing money not paying out dividends. As for the deal, what is it?
Window Cleaner Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 are dividends still beig paid??? I thought we were losing money not paying out dividends. As for the deal, what is it? Don't think I've had a dividend since nineteen canteen, or rather 2004.
1976_Child Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 I have a question. When Crouch was in charge why didn't he loan us 2 million quid and keep our overdraft within it's approved limits.? I mean he ran us up to 6.62 million against a 4.5 million agreement didn't he?? Or does "having the support of the bank" mean that it was OK to overun our overdraft limit? bingo.
St. Jason Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 (edited) I have a question. When Crouch was in charge why didn't he loan us 2 million quid and keep our overdraft within it's approved limits.? I mean he ran us up to 6.62 million against a 4.5 million agreement didn't he?? Or does "having the support of the bank" mean that it was OK to overun our overdraft limit? Did he now, i was under the understanding that Crouch took over the chairmanship of Saints in December 2007 leaving his post in May 2008. Mr. Crouch loaned out the 2 highest earners brought in by Burley (who appointed Burley??) to cut costs, so maybe his name was on the final accounts but all the signings we're made in the summer before he took over, which would suggest he didn't run the overdraft up, if anything he was already cutting costs! Why would Crouch put £2m of his own money in the club with no others doing the same?? So Crouch puts in £2m only to see Wilde & Lowe saddle up together, bye bye £2m! Note: In the said accounts and Lowe's statements it states when lowe left there was £3.6m in the bank, this was the last parachute payment, so basicaly after 10 years in the job, a cup final, Europe 32k sell outs, massive player sells, premiership sponsorship and the only money left in the account was the final parachute payment, yeah your right, Crouch ran the club shockingly in his 5 months!!!!! Edited 28 January, 2009 by St. Jason
Window Cleaner Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Did he now, i was under the understanding that Crouch took over the chairmanship of Saints in December 2007 leaving his post in May 2008. Mr. Crouch loaned out the 2 highest earners brought in by Burley (who appointed Burley??) to cut costs, so maybe his name was on the final accounts but all the signings we're made in the summer before he took over, which would suggest he didn't run the overdraft up, if anything he was already cutting costs! Why would Crouch put £2m of his own money in the club with no others doing the same?? So Crouch puts in £2m only to see Wilde & Lowe saddle up together, bye bye £2m! Note: In the said accounts and Lowe's statements it states when lowe left there was £3.6m in the bank, this was the last parachute payment, so basicaly after 10 years in the job, a cup final, Europe 32k sell outs, massive player sells, premiership sponsorship and the only money left in the account was the final parachute payment, yeah your right, Crouch ran the club shockingly in his 5 months!!!!! Aha, but if you read the half year accounts for the 6 months to December 2007 (execs rule OK) we were 5.8 million overdrawn but there was 6.4 million receivable in outstanding transfer fees (receivable by August 2008). So despite probably receiving at least half of that and 10000x£400 (av) ST receipts we smoked up our OD big time. Because we paid a lot of money for absolute waste of time shïte (and Richard Wright) Ian Pearce was an absolute f*ck off joke. Played 1 game, probably took us for over 100K. I suppose we received the Swans from the Scottish FA as well,what the f*ck did we do with all the money to have an overdraft of 6.62 million at the end of June 2008?. Gave it to Gorman and Dodd and Pearson no doubt.
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7856053.stm Go on Leon , let 'em have both barrels !
John B Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 (edited) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7856053.stm Go on Leon , let 'em have both barrels ! Seems slightly deluded to me where is the evidence for this I wonder Edited 28 January, 2009 by John B
Mole Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7856053.stm Go on Leon , let 'em have both barrels ! Leon tells it how it is.
Wade Garrett Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 What a load of rubbish Top six you must be joking Just listened to the interview myself. He was spot on when he said the fans don't want Lowe and Wilde at the club. He had the support of the banks and a plan to take us forward this season. It couldn't be any worse than the ridiculous plan of the present board. I think we would be a lot closer to the top six under Crouch and Pearson than we are now. I am also certain that attendances would be a lot higher as well. Rubbish? No, that's what we are getting under the clueless duo.
Window Cleaner Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 What a load of rubbish Top six you must be joking Depends what his "transfer budget" was though doesn't it. We only sold 10000 or so STs so there was no money for big transfers a priori. He might not have bought Schneiderlin for the 600K euros we've paid to date,he probably wouldn't have sold Davies either so that goes down as a minus in the ledger.Might have kept Rasiak and John so we'd be 30x20K down on the salary mass as well. Pearson probably earns more than ll the rest lumped together and we'd have had to either get an assistant or keep Dodd on, another one for the minus column.Did Crouch plan on keeping all those who left in June, wowee thats a big one in the red letter column.Yet we have no money, oh yeah another 5000 on every home gate ,5000x20x14(except there's a lot of kids and students)= about a million 4, so just what we gained on Davies really (less his pay for a non-player). Yep we'd have been f*cking fantastic, and in administration.
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Seems slightly deluded to me where is the evidence for this I wonder I think Leon might be guilty of a little hyperbole here with a top 6 claim but he can see where the club's going and he's angry - so am I and about 90% of this forum for that matter .
NickG Posted 28 January, 2009 Author Posted 28 January, 2009 this does not help the club -at all. He is a fan, we all accept that. As a fan can he not see that these continual squabbles are harming the club. I am not saying he could not do a good job or whether what he had said is true. But as a fan and shareholder -does this do any good for Saints or could it harm us? As an individual does this do any good for his ego? Any comparisons with the numerous bad things the others have done are not relevant to this. Two wrongs etc. Actions may help, continual rants without action only harm.
John B Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Just listened to the interview myself. He was spot on when he said the fans don't want Lowe and Wilde at the club. He had the support of the banks and a plan to take us forward this season. It couldn't be any worse than the ridiculous plan of the present board. I think we would be a lot closer to the top six under Crouch and Pearson than we are now. I am also certain that attendances would be a lot higher as well. Rubbish? No, that's what we are getting under the clueless duo. It is the top six quoute I think is rubbish Crouch said last season when he took over that we were heading for the play offs when in fact we were heading for the relegation zone. Surely with some type of costing the team would not be going for promotion to the Premiership. I am not saying that the present regime is doing a good job but at the moment we are not in administration if we were then of course Lowec and Wilde would have failed.
John B Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 I think Leon might be guilty of a little hyperbole here with a top 6 claim but he can see where the club's going and he's angry - so am I and about 90% of this forum for that matter . I am not happy but not angry if we have no money to pay players we are not going to be a good team I would have thought. I fairly angry last season where we wasted lots of money and nearly got relegated especially during the last day of the season where if other teams won we were down. If Crouch had got rid of Burley at Christmas perhaps things would have been better
aintforever Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Aha, but if you read the half year accounts for the 6 months to December 2007 (execs rule OK) we were 5.8 million overdrawn but there was 6.4 million receivable in outstanding transfer fees (receivable by August 2008). So despite probably receiving at least half of that and 10000x£400 (av) ST receipts we smoked up our OD big time. Because we paid a lot of money for absolute waste of time shïte (and Richard Wright) Ian Pearce was an absolute f*ck off joke. Played 1 game, probably took us for over 100K. I suppose we received the Swans from the Scottish FA as well,what the f*ck did we do with all the money to have an overdraft of 6.62 million at the end of June 2008?. Gave it to Gorman and Dodd and Pearson no doubt. As he had the backing of the bank, Norwich Union and Deloittes, I expect your assumptions and schoolboy maths are way off the mark. Top 6 is optimistic but would have been possible with a good manager.
CB Fry Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Crouch said last season when he took over that we were heading for the play offs when in fact we were heading for the relegation zone. I'd forgotten this quote but it is worth remembering when considering Crouch's level of delusion. He said this at the appointment of Dodd and Gorman that the playoffs were in reach. Meaning he can't really crow about how successful he and Pearson were when all we did was stay up because some other teams failed. If all three of Leicester, Cov and us had won on the last day we were down. I don't doubt we would be doing better under Nige now were he hear, but top six is I think pretty ga-ga.
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