Torres Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 that has no substance to it whatsoever. Other than the facts, of course. Lolism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 This was one of the......'not while Lowe is there' nickh, who's to say if by waiting, they have done the right thing, accepting that they make a bid of course!!! How do you know that? On the eve we went into administration the story doing the rounds at the club was that it was easier for a takeover to happen if we had done so, a bidder was sniffing as you may recall but couldnt get into positon even though they extended the deadline.It was nothing to do because of Lowe. Frankly i dont care who takes over in our present position as we dont have any choice now.Fans who wanted admin are now going to see exactly how nasty a rollercoater ride it will be. watford and Swansea will already be pleased as the price they were due to pay for nathan and Rasiak will be on the floor, other clubs will be circling for any other nugget they can nick.Ok the players leaving will not be for a few weeks but it will happen if none of those tyrekickers do not come up with the goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 The way the Lowe luvvies go on with their silly arguments you wonder at their sanity. FACT: Under the Leadership of Rupert Lowe the holding company of Saints has had to go into administration and we are favourites to be relegated to L1. A fish rots from the head down. Lowe as the Leader must be allocated the majority of the blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Kint Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 How much did Crouch put into the club? Zero. Even when he was chairman and in charge? Zero. He couldn't even keep the much simpler claim that he had people ready to buy Lowe's shares... Other than the facts, of course. Lolism. You sure about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 More of the same anti-crouch ****** That'll be the same Crouch who (a) never put a penny into the club, (b) brought Wilde to power, © installed D&G as managers (we thought Gray and Wigley were bad enough), and (d) left the club with a £6.5m overdraft at the beginning of the season? from the pro Lowe fans The only thing I'm "pro" is Saints. I appreciate that's probably a rather foreign concept for you, but it's the difference between normal people and some of the posters on here who would struggle to outwit a potted begonia. that has no substance to it whatsoever. Err, I think those were all facts, feel free to point out anything incorrect. And it also includes a lie. Which is what exactly? I guess you have somthing in common with Wilde. A desire to keep gobsh!te Crouch out of the boardroom? The realisation that, after all the bluff and bluster has passed, it's not actually that easy to run a PLC and RL/AC were better at it than the hired help? Yes, fair cop, you've got me there... you've got me banged to rights innit. PS. Did you notice how Crouch has now decided it will be easier to find investment with the company being private, whereas just last year (whilst chairman) he stated that it would make no difference whatsoever to investment? Clueless or just a bit confused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 How much did Crouch put into the club? Zero. Even when he was chairman and in charge? Zero. He couldn't even keep the much simpler claim that he had people ready to buy Lowe's shares... You sure about that? Chortle, you wouldn't have deliberately missed out part of that sentence would you? Like, the bit which starts talking about Wilde in terms of the claim about buying Lowe's shares: "Finding investment is not easy, as Wilde found out. He couldn't even keep the much simpler claim that he had people ready to buy Lowe's shares..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 You sure about that? Well, given that: a) you said that his post had no substance whatsoever, b) he made reference to the funding raised for the building of SMS, and c) SMS was built and I've seen it with my own eyes then, yes, I am sure. You seem to be having a difficult day. Why not take a nap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncoboy Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 How do you know that? On the eve we went into administration the story doing the rounds at the club was that it was easier for a takeover to happen if we had done so, a bidder was sniffing as you may recall but couldnt get into positon even though they extended the deadline.It was nothing to do because of Lowe. Frankly i dont care who takes over in our present position as we dont have any choice now.Fans who wanted admin are now going to see exactly how nasty a rollercoater ride it will be. watford and Swansea will already be pleased as the price they were due to pay for nathan and Rasiak will be on the floor, other clubs will be circling for any other nugget they can nick.Ok the players leaving will not be for a few weeks but it will happen if none of those tyrekickers do not come up with the goods. Dear God Nick what does it take for you to accept that we are in administration because the boards of the last ten years made monumental errors which alienated their paying customers and squanderd whatever resources we had. In your crazy world the fact that customers did not like the way the club was being run and chose to stay away makes them responsible for the clubs demise rather than the chumps that ran the company. And by the way "wanting administration" does not make you guilty of the ruining the club. The chairman behaving like an arrogant **** and making countless mistakes does. So Nick put a sock in it. You are bordering on obssessional. According to you the customers of RBS would be responsible for the financial meltdown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Kint Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 Well, given that: a) you said that his post had no substance whatsoever, b) he made reference to the funding raised for the building of SMS, and c) SMS was built and I've seen it with my own eyes then, yes, I am sure. You seem to be having a difficult day. Why not take a nap? It was clear i was referring to the comments he made about Crouch, hence the "anti-crouch" comment. Run along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Kint Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 Chortle, you wouldn't have deliberately missed out part of that sentence would you? Like, the bit which starts talking about Wilde in terms of the claim about buying Lowe's shares: "Finding investment is not easy, as Wilde found out. He couldn't even keep the much simpler claim that he had people ready to buy Lowe's shares..." Sorry Jonah, honest mistake, thought you referring to the time Crouch publicly offered to buy out Lowe's shares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Kint Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 Just to clarify Jonah, "Leon Crouch did not put a penny of his own money into the club" is not true. To blame Crouch for the overdraft is utterly ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 It was clear i was referring to the comments he made about Crouch, hence the "anti-crouch" comment. Run along And yet you quoted the entire post? Uh-huh. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Like I said, perhaps you should take a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 Sorry Jonah, honest mistake, thought you referring to the time Crouch publicly offered to buy out Lowe's shares OK, no worries. Just to clarify Jonah, "Leon Crouch did not put a penny of his own money into the club" is not true. Sure it is. Show me otherwise - there's nothing in the accounts, no claim he's ever paid a penny in as far as I'm aware. Loads of bravado about writing cheques and "I'll put in £2m if you put in £2m" after leaving us £6.5m overdrawn, but as for actual real-life non-pretend money... not a penny. Not even when he was chairman. To blame Crouch for the overdraft is utterly ridiculous. Actually I don't blame him much for the overdraft, I mainly blame Wilde and his hired mercenaries - but who was the "king maker" who brought them to power? Crouch. He didn't do any due diligence on any of them before handing them control did he? And equally he didn't do anything much to reduce the overdraft did he? I don't think Pericard and Pearce were cheap given we had massively overspent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 Dear God Nick what does it take for you to accept that we are in administration because the boards of the last ten years made monumental errors which alienated their paying customers and squanderd whatever resources we had. In your crazy world the fact that customers did not like the way the club was being run and chose to stay away makes them responsible for the clubs demise rather than the chumps that ran the company. And by the way "wanting administration" does not make you guilty of the ruining the club. The chairman behaving like an arrogant **** and making countless mistakes does. So Nick put a sock in it. You are bordering on obssessional. According to you the customers of RBS would be responsible for the financial meltdownAdministration is down to the boards of the last 5 years I would suggest.The boards for the last 20or so have let us fans down. It is funny how we are customers when the quality is not right. I myself am a fan although I do understand Im looked upon as a customer. I fully agree that we have been let down but i can see how the circumstances have unfolded.The first time i wanted Lowe gone as long as he was replaced by a vialble alternative.I didnt trust the Wilde bunch, sadlt I was proved right.Lowe returned as a last desperate act and it has failed. Iwill be more than content if a buyer appears and the sorry episode of the last 5 years is erased from our memory but as I and others have warned this scenario is brinkmanship of the highest order and the fans who in the poll voted for administration will see it is no picnic and what we had just a few weeks ago may one day be seen as the 'good old days' I want to believe that we will come from the ashes but whilst the fans who have been at the club this season we will still be there whatever, I doubt a lot of the returns will be there unless we start being successful again,I hope they prove me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 OK, no worries. Sure it is. Show me otherwise - there's nothing in the accounts, no claim he's ever paid a penny in as far as I'm aware. Loads of bravado about writing cheques and "I'll put in £2m if you put in £2m" after leaving us £6.5m overdrawn, but as for actual real-life non-pretend money... not a penny. Not even when he was chairman. Actually I don't blame him much for the overdraft, I mainly blame Wilde and his hired mercenaries - but who was the "king maker" who brought them to power? Crouch. He didn't do any due diligence on any of them before handing them control did he? And equally he didn't do anything much to reduce the overdraft did he? I don't think Pericard and Pearce were cheap given we had massively overspent. 2 things I would respond to here: 1) Hone at the Solent forum stated that Crouch did in fact write a cheque for £2m but they never cashed it due to the fact they didnt like the strings attached. 2) Crouch did reduce the wage bill by loaning out Rasiak and Skacel so you cannot say he didnt do anything much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offix Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 2 things I would respond to here: 1) Hone at the Solent forum stated that Crouch did in fact write a cheque for £2m but they never cashed it due to the fact they didnt like the strings attached. 2) Crouch did reduce the wage bill by loaning out Rasiak and Skacel so you cannot say he didnt do anything much! Don't bother responding Ron, the apologists don't want to hear it, they are too busy rewriting history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 1) Hone at the Solent forum stated that Crouch did in fact write a cheque for £2m but they never cashed it due to the fact they didnt like the strings attached. Great, I could write them a cheque too with loads of strings attached. It seems to be Crouch's forte, there's always a huge "provided" clause when it comes to stumping up the cash. Fair enough, it's his cash, but it still means he hasn't put in a penny. [And as an aside, I wouldn't believe a word Hone said anyway - this is the guy who claimed all sorts of nonsense about 60 day audit restrictions on investment, and Wilde & Crouch being unable to invest due to Takeover Panel restrictions... both complete b*ll*cks.] 2) Crouch did reduce the wage bill by loaning out Rasiak and Skacel so you cannot say he didnt do anything much! Well that's why I said nothing much as opposed to plain nothing - the fact remains, the overdraft got worse, not better. Unless you think it was over £6.5m before Crouch became chairman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 2 things I would respond to here: 1) Hone at the Solent forum stated that Crouch did in fact write a cheque for £2m but they never cashed it due to the fact they didnt like the strings attached. 2) Crouch did reduce the wage bill by loaning out Rasiak and Skacel so you cannot say he didnt do anything much! I personally asked two board members about this - it was viewed as a loan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 (edited) I personally asked two board members about this - it was viewed as a loan So he did write a cheque then.....whether it was a loan or not it was his actual money. I am amazed that Jonah thinks £250k+ is nothing.....oh well none so blind although I agree about Hone. Its very funny the way its not OK for Crouch to join with Wilde but fine for Rupert. Edited 3 April, 2009 by Give it to Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 So he did write a cheque then.....whether it was a loan or not it was his actual money. I am amazed that Jonah thinks £250k+ is nothing.....oh well none so blind.but Ron it was never cashed and so never a loan. As for the strings attached they might have been punituive.He didnt write one out for 110k to stop the bank pulling the rug.Not that he should but if it was there a while ago Id have thought it was paramount this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 (edited) - the fact remains, the overdraft got worse, not better. Unless you think it was over £6.5m before Crouch became chairman? Net cash overdraft when Crouch took over the reins as Chairman (31/12/07 Interims): £5.8m Net cash overdraft when Lowe came back (30/6/08 Annual Report) £4.4m So it actually dropped during his tenure (although of course his tenure doesn't exactly match those dates, but it's a good enough feel for what was happening) And even though Lowe spoke about the overdraft peaking at higher than this over the summer of 2008, during Crouch's period in control it doesn't appear to be the cash nightmare you are trying to claim (although of course there are a myriad of other factors in play, once again your arrogant kneejerk posting has been found wanting). Edited 3 April, 2009 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 the fact remains, the overdraft got worse, not better. I would suggest you read the annual and interim reports to see what a prize pr1ck you've made yourself look, again, with that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 3 April, 2009 Share Posted 3 April, 2009 I would debate the well publicised view. Well rumoured more like. This is a club where every single publicised word has been open to question because people simply haven't believed it. I heard a caller to Radio Hampshire tonight, and he said that the cancer has been removed, and we have our club back. And he's right. Weak and desperate it may be, but it's back, and there's still time to be positive. Unfortunately, the operation to remove the cancer will probably kill the patient. 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