Rupert Lowe on TalkSport radio...

[70's Mike]

praised mark wotte but no reference to JP, BASICALLY he gave his normal speech , everyone else ****ed up but him.

[Micky]

For those of you that missed it and just can't resist, its all here:

 

http://new.talksport.net/index.asp?id=106290&c=&t=#media

 

Enjoy

[Junior Mullet]

He blames Crouch and the others who ousted him and their management of the club in the 2 years he was away.

 

I thank Crouch and the others who ousted him for their mismanagement of the club in the 2 years he was away.

 

History will show in years to come that the administration with the expected winding up of the plc was one of the club's best moments. I couldn't care less whether Lowe and others lose money as a result.

[Alanh]

It's Mr Lowe's Orwellian-1984 style of writing history that baffles me. In his interview this morning, nothing happened before 2006. For Mr Lowe history began the moment he left the Club that year. Viewed this way, he is correct - as yorkiesaint says, he didn't run up the overdraft.

 

But the problem began way before then. In 2004 we finished 12th in the Premiership with what then appeared to be a perfectly acceptable, young, up-and-coming manager, appointed by Mr Lowe, in charge.

 

Mr Lowe - you were in charge from then until 2006 during which time we were relegated and then made no attempt at a promotion push. You need to explain these disastrous 2 years to us as well as the 2006-2008 period when you weren't around.

 

2006 is important because of the way we could plan for the impending end of the parachute payments and start to make decisions on cutting the wage bill. In the summer of 2006 we could effectively plan to spend the last of the parachute payments for the coming season. In the summer of 2007 we should have been cutting the wage bill but instead Wilde's board spent specifically on John and Euell on Prem type wages thereby increasing our wage bill massively because they believed that a bid was about to come in which would cover the costs. The bid never came and we were left with the overdraft that has been called in. Crouch knew it was a problem and that's why Rasiak and Skacel were loaned out in January 08.

 

As said above Lowe is culpable for multiple poor managerial appointments, poor communications with the fans and some poor player acquisitions, but at the end of the day it's our overdraft that has got us in this situation and despite efforts to reduce it - loaning out players - the bank have finally got cold feet and called it in.

[um pahars]

There is most definitely some truth in the claim that others must share their share of the blame, but that certainly doesn't mean that Lowe can conveniently blame it all on everyone else. It's this lack of humility and arguably a lack of realism that paints him in such bad light.I honestly have to wonder about his grasp on reality with the claim that it is always someone elses fault.

 

I was certainly a critic of Hone's faling to implement Plan B last summer and we certainly should have cut our costs when the parachute payment ran out, so he and his board have to accept their share of the blame.

 

But the idea that all of our problems stemmed from the two years he was away is simply rewriting history.

 

For instance in his last year with us, we brought in £16,000,000 of income from player sales and yet we still lost cash out the door in that period and debt went up.

 

And as Hone mentioned in his version of the "truth" that is the Annual Report, relegation shaped and continued to exert an overwhelming influence on the club.

 

And then of course there is this year, where rather than rescue the Club he has driven it deeper down into the mire through an appalling managerial decision which has hit us on and off the pitch.

 

If the Bank cut the overdraft 6 months or so again, then you also have to ask why we didn't take steps to make sure we could live with the £1million reduction (we had a transfer window to bring in money and we could also have undertaken other initiatives).

 

Also when Irani mentioned the managerial merry go round he countered by saying Hoddle, starchan and Jones left for other reasoons and it's not as bad as people make out, conveniently forgetting Gray, Wigley, Sturrock, Poortvliet, Redknapp.

 

Lowe isn't to blame for everything and there are indeed a number of people who will have to step up to the plate to take their fair share, but Lowe's claim that he is blameless is actually as ridiculous as those who do indeed blame him for everything.

[OldNick]

Its mathematically possible I will win the Euro Lottery and buy SFC myself too.

If Barclays had not called the overdraft in we may have got a loan that could make the difference.Just 1 goal scored or goal stopped might make the difference.You have had us relegated rfor months and will come bakc with the told you so quotes.It is far from over and whilst it is now close to being the truth we still have fight unlike some fans.

[trousers]

"Richard Fry, a Saints Fan, was our Account Manager at Barclays"

 

Fat lot of good that did us then....

[trousers]

I know he's a smooth talker but listening to that TalkSport interview, and if you cut through the smug veneer, I sympathize with some of what Lowe says, especially about the Bank pulling the rug.

[Colinjb]

Have to say he does come across very well. His points are all well made and I can only sympathise with the situation with Barclays, however, the lack of discussion about the contribution he made in plunging us into the championship in the first place is concerning.

 

All the more reason to have a clean sweep of board personnel and to start afresh.

[OldNick]

 

If the Bank cut the overdraft 6 months or so again, then you also have to ask why we didn't take steps to make sure we could live with the £1million reduction (we had a transfer window to bring in money and we could also have undertaken other initiatives).

Um we were already desperately looking to cut the xpenditure where we could, how then would you say we could easily get money?

All of a sudden selling our young players has become ok has it? You rightly in the past have said that as we had such a poor quality team fans do not turn up due to that. How would you defend the decision to have sold another raft of players in the jan window? Again we would not have been told the sensitive information why the club had done so and we would be on meltdown.The crowds would have dropped further.

I was disappointed that Lowe did not mention the relegation being part of the problem and grudgingly said that all the boards had a little blame.

When fans eventually meet in the middle ground and fully accept that ALL the past incumbents have let us fans down and it was not all down to Lowes tenure Im sure we will all get on building the club again.

All gone is the only way.

[Jeff Le Taxi]

Nothing to do with not investing after the 2003 cup final then Rupes! and im sure Gordon Strachan is NOT your great mate you pompous twit!

[70's Mike]

he also appears to have forgotten Wigley, Gray and even stranger JP

[um pahars]

I know he's a smooth talker but listening to that TalkSport interview, and if you cut through the smug veneer, I sympathize with some of what Lowe says, especially about the Bank pulling the rug.

 

Indeed, when he gets on to the Barclay's bit, then it would be hard not to agree with his sentiments. I think what they did to us mirrors the bank's overall contribution to the wider world in recent years and they have a alot to answer for.

 

There is also some turth regarding some of the decisions made during his absence (mainly when the parachute payment ran out), but then he just proves how out of touch he is by blaming everything on that 2 year period, conveniently forgetting what happened in his tneure before he left in 2006 and what has happened since he returned.

[um pahars]

Um we were already desperately looking to cut the xpenditure where we could, how then would you say we could easily get money?

All of a sudden selling our young players has become ok has it?

 

For example we should have accepted whatever was on offer for Dyer. On top of that I would have thought we could have raised a small sum to manage the overdraft. If we thought we could make £5m, then a £1millin reduction should have been possible.

 

I'm never one for selling our talent, but I also accept our position in football and the fact that we will always lose our best players. If it's becuase they want to move on and are tempted by salaries we can't compete with then fine, or if it's also because the Club as a whole will benefit, then I'm also fine with that.

 

If someone said we ahd to lose Dyer and Lallana to keep afloat, I would have accepted that.

[trousers]

IMO, we can't lay the lion's share of the blame at Lowe for what has transpired THIS year. It sounds like he was effectively under Barclay's orders to strip costs to the bone, which he did only for the Bank to move the goalposts again. As for PREVIOUS years, well that's another matter....

[trousers]

If someone said we ahd to lose Dyer and Lallana to keep afloat, I would have accepted that.

 

Exactly. More transparancy would have let to (a little) more respect IMO. It's being kept in the dark (up until now) that has caused much of the angst and resentment.

[Give it to Ron]

I'm never one for selling our talent, but I also accept our position in football and the fact that we will always lose our best players. If it's becuase they want to move on and are tempted by salaries we can't compete with then fine, or if it's also because the Club as a whole will benefit, then I'm also fine with that.

 

If someone said we ahd to lose Dyer and Lallana to keep afloat, I would have accepted that.

 

That is something I totally agree with and born out by a few comments last night during the Man U v Porto game (during switching to SSN every couple of minutes). The commentator stated that Porto were now known as a selling club as they had recently sold loads of good players Deco, Carvalho, Costinha, Maniche, P. Ferreira, Nuno Valente, Jorge Costa, V. Baia and Carlos Alberto.

If its good enough for a massive club like Porto then its good enough for me to be know as a selling club.

[Master Bates]

 

http://www.offthepost.info/2009/04/rupert-lowe-blames-internet-forums-for-the-breakdown-of-his-relationship-with-southampton-fans/

[70's Mike]

That is something I totally agree with and born out by a few comments last night during the Man U v Porto game (during switching to SSN every couple of minutes). The commentator stated that Porto were now known as a selling club as they had recently sold loads of good players Deco, Carvalho, Costinha, Maniche, P. Ferreira, Nuno Valente, Jorge Costa, V. Baia and Carlos Alberto.

If its good enough for a massive club like Porto then its good enough for me to be know as a selling club.

 

 

We always have been in reality Ron, i cried my eyes out when we sold Martin Chivers only difference in those days we had better players coming through even though we did not have an academy

[Chez]

everything Lowe said on that interview (which focused purely on going into administration) was correct and he is right, it is not his fault that we went into administration. The `big gamble' and overspending by Wilde, Hone, Burley et al is the reason we have gone belly up. Obviously relegated from the Premiership created the path to our problems but financial oblivion could have been avoided if not our Premiership status.

 

What Lowe failed to mention was the fact that him coming back in the first place and some of the decisions he has made on his return have not helped the club avoid administration. He obviously didn't mention the relegation season either, although seeing as we had money in the bank he is right that administration was not inevitably at that point.

 

He also failed to acknoweldge that he had made a single mistake during his two tenures. I think his lack of humility and not being able to hold his hands up to even the smallest mistake - like Wigley or Portviet - is the reason he is so disliked. Why not just say " have made mistakes"?

Edited 8 April, 2009 by Chez

[um pahars]

IMO, we can't lay the lion's share of the blame at Lowe for what has transpired THIS year. It sounds like he was effectively under Barclay's orders to strip costs to the bone, which he did only for the Bank to move the goalposts again. As for PREVIOUS years, well that's another matter....

 

I'm sorry, but IMHO there was no financial reason why we had to kick Pearson out and get Poortvliet in.

 

That was purely a footballing decision which spectacularly backfired costing us points on the pitch, bums on seats and £££££'s in the bank.

[Give it to Ron]

We always have been in reality Ron' date=' i cried my eyes out when we sold Martin Chivers only difference in those days we had better players coming through even though we did not have an academy[/quote']

 

But we did get Frank Saul ;-)

[trousers]

I'm sorry, but IMHO there was no financial reason why we had to kick Pearson out and get Poortvliet in.

 

That was purely a footballing decision which spectacularly backfired costing us points on the pitch, bums on seats and £££££'s in the bank.

 

Fair point.....although I wonder if Barclays had ANY say in that side of things at the time, even at a rubber stamping level?

 

On second thoughts, I doubt it as I'm sure Lowe would have mentioned it at the first opportunity after going into Admin....as in: "I wanted to retain Pearson but the Bank had a better plan to leverage our academy resources which I reluctantly went along with"

[OldNick]

For example we should have accepted whatever was on offer for Dyer. On top of that I would have thought we could have raised a small sum to manage the overdraft. If we thought we could make £5m, then a £1millin reduction should have been possible.

 

I'm never one for selling our talent, but I also accept our position in football and the fact that we will always lose our best players. If it's becuase they want to move on and are tempted by salaries we can't compete with then fine, or if it's also because the Club as a whole will benefit, then I'm also fine with that.

 

If someone said we ahd to lose Dyer and Lallana to keep afloat, I would have accepted that.

Ump I will accept that, but as you know not all are as understanding. If the club sold those 2 and not able to say why as other decisions then the fans would be in uproar.

[Chez]

I'm sorry, but IMHO there was no financial reason why we had to kick Pearson out and get Poortvliet in.

 

That was purely a footballing decision which spectacularly backfired costing us points on the pitch, bums on seats and £££££'s in the bank.

 

So Pearson's wage was the same as JP's then? I'd like to see evidence of that.

 

I wanted Pearson to stay as much as anyone, but if his wage was say £300,000 and JP's was perhaps £100,000 then you are wrong - it was a financial decision. It may have been a short sighted one, but a saving of £200,000 is quite considerable.

 

It matters not, it was the wrong decision even if it was made for the right reasons (which as we can see is still debatable). Shame Lowe couldn't hold his hands up to that one. I'd have respected him a lot more if he had said:

 

"With hindsight perhaps we should have spent a bit more and retained Pearson. It was a false economy going for JP, but we had to cut every penny we could to save the club but in this case it backfired."

[um pahars]

Fair point.....although I wonder if Barclays had ANY say in that side of things at the time, even at a rubber stamping level?

 

None whatsoever. They quite rightly would not have got involved in that level of decision.

 

Poortviet for Pearson was purely a footballing decision. A decision which backfired spectacularly which cost us £££'s this season. Rather than save us, that decision probably took us over the edge.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Ump I will accept that, but as you know not all are as understanding. If the club sold those 2 and not able to say why as other decisions then the fans would be in uproar.

 

So what if they had been in "uproar".? the board could not have care less.

 

When did Lowe and the board suddenly give a toss about our opinion? err um...

 

Truth is they didn`t, they were just unable to sell them,if they had had a

serious money on the table offer they would have sold them without a blink.

[um pahars]

So Pearson's wage was the same as JP's then? I'd like to see evidence of that.

 

I wanted Pearson to stay as much as anyone, but if his wage was say £300,000 and JP's was perhaps £100,000 then you are wrong - it was a financial decision. It may have been a short sighted one, but a saving of £200,000 is quite considerable.

 

It matters not, it was the wrong decision even if it was made for the right reasons (which as we can see is still debatable). Shame Lowe couldn't hold his hands up to that one. I'd have respected him a lot more if he had said:

 

"With hindsight perhaps we should have spent a bit more and retained Pearson. It was a false economy going for JP, but we had to cut every penny we could to save the club but in this case it backfired."

 

I never suggested Pearson was on the same as Poortvliet, but as you allude to later on, it was a false economy even if finances were the driving factor behind Pearson going (which IMHO they were not). You have to add in all the costs of such decisions!!!

 

But it wasn't a financial decision. It was a footballing decision and the main driver for Pearson going was to bring in the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. The fcat that we saved some money (although I'm not sure once you throw in Wotte, the Helmond fee and some severance monies for Jan) was a mere bonus.

[um pahars]

Ump I will accept that, but as you know not all are as understanding. If the club sold those 2 and not able to say why as other decisions then the fans would be in uproar.

 

That's when decnet communication, honesty and empathy with the fans comes in to play. The very fact they haven't got that is also a problem in having them run the Club.

[Redondo Saint]

There is most definitely some truth in the claim that others must share their share of the blame, but that certainly doesn't mean that Lowe can conveniently blame it all on everyone else. It's this lack of humility and arguably a lack of realism that paints him in such bad light.I honestly have to wonder about his grasp on reality with the claim that it is always someone elses fault.

 

I was certainly a critic of Hone's faling to implement Plan B last summer and we certainly should have cut our costs when the parachute payment ran out, so he and his board have to accept their share of the blame.

 

But the idea that all of our problems stemmed from the two years he was away is simply rewriting history.

 

For instance in his last year with us, we brought in £16,000,000 of income from player sales and yet we still lost cash out the door in that period and debt went up.

 

And as Hone mentioned in his version of the "truth" that is the Annual Report, relegation shaped and continued to exert an overwhelming influence on the club.

 

And then of course there is this year, where rather than rescue the Club he has driven it deeper down into the mire through an appalling managerial decision which has hit us on and off the pitch.

 

If the Bank cut the overdraft 6 months or so again, then you also have to ask why we didn't take steps to make sure we could live with the £1million reduction (we had a transfer window to bring in money and we could also have undertaken other initiatives).

 

Also when Irani mentioned the managerial merry go round he countered by saying Hoddle, starchan and Jones left for other reasoons and it's not as bad as people make out, conveniently forgetting Gray, Wigley, Sturrock, Poortvliet, Redknapp.

 

Lowe isn't to blame for everything and there are indeed a number of people who will have to step up to the plate to take their fair share, but Lowe's claim that he is blameless is actually as ridiculous as those who do indeed blame him for everything.

 

Well said.

 

It should also not be forgotten that the fall in attendances over the past year has significantly reduced income and therefore contributed to administration.

Well done those fans that boycotted home games?

[trousers]

Well done those fans that boycotted home games?

 

Or....well done to the many root causes that made those fans feel they couldn't/wouldn't go?

 

i.e. credit crunch, poor value for money (aka bad results), a chairman they disliked (rightly or wrongly)....

[ottery st mary]

Well said.

 

It should also not be forgotten that the fall in attendances over the past year has significantly reduced income and therefore contributed to administration.

Well done those fans that boycotted home games?

 

 

Like you a lot of us couldn't be bothered to make the long journey anymore.

[ponto1963]

For once Lowe does need defending. he may have made multiple dubious managerial appointments, pssed of the decent appointments he made, failed to invest in the team, got us relegated and signed a load of donkeys as a self-appointed director of football, but he didn't run up the overdraft which is what has put us into admin.

 

Yes but he also didn't do a share rights issue, which might of brought more money into the club!!! Crouch wanted to invest another £2 million if Wilde and Lowe had agreed to do the same. Might of saved the PLC etc.

[Greenridge]

So Pearson's wage was the same as JP's then? I'd like to see evidence of that.

 

I wanted Pearson to stay as much as anyone, but if his wage was say £300,000 and JP's was perhaps £100,000 then you are wrong - it was a financial decision. It may have been a short sighted one, but a saving of £200,000 is quite considerable.

 

It matters not, it was the wrong decision even if it was made for the right reasons (which as we can see is still debatable). Shame Lowe couldn't hold his hands up to that one. I'd have respected him a lot more if he had said:

 

"With hindsight perhaps we should have spent a bit more and retained Pearson. It was a false economy going for JP, but we had to cut every penny we could to save the club but in this case it backfired."

 

As you rightly point out Chez it was potentially a completey false economy and if (we will never know of course) it is the difference between CCC status and Lge 1 then it really was a myopic strategy. They could quite easily of found the £200K (if it really needed to be found) somewhere in amongst Pekhart, Pulis, Forecast et al

[ottery st mary]

Lowe's a tit no doubt about that, and he's made many mistakes. But the reason I hate the bitter obsession with him on here, besides the fact it's always been over the top IMO, is the people it completely lets off the hook. Lowe isn't, and never was solely to blame, just as he isn't, and never was solely responsible for positive things like the stadium, good finishes and europe.

 

Askham, Wiseman, Wilde, Crouch, Redknapp, Burley and many others, including some fans; you've all contributed to the crap position we find ourselves in now. Thanks for that.

 

adrian...I really feel your heartbreak....You definitely are a top fan....Find out who these fans are that let us down and I will help you get them.....Let us get..Lowe, Askham, Wilde.. FIRST...The Buuuggggers.

[Give it to Ron]

As you rightly point out Chez it was potentially a completey false economy and if (we will never know of course) it is the difference between CCC status and Lge 1 then it really was a myopic strategy. They could quite easily of found the £200K (if it really needed to be found) somewhere in amongst Pekhart, Pulis, Forecast et al

 

Or kept back the Burley compensation to pay for Pearson? That was a massive bonus on something that just came out of the blue.

Trouble was the JP for Pearson arguement was never about money but one mans fantasy to have 99% of the squad from his academy set up regardless of whether they were ready or not.

[Frank's cousin]

He did indeed commit the first 2million (and a 4 year deal) on Rasiak that summer.

Additionally, he raised the expectations of Burley (and others) but stating that that wouldn't be the last of the monies spent that summer, and that there was a warchest to be spent on further transfers (which was mentioned after we had already signed Rasiak) in that summer.

Like you, I don't blame him for all of ours (or the worlds!!) ills, but conversely his line of "everyone but me" is simply as awful as those who think he is to blame for everything.

Also loved his 4th reason for us being in this mess is due to the redecoration of the stadium in the two years he was away. There's nothing like keeping focussed, seeing the bigger picture and discussing things in a sensble & rational manner is there:rolleyes:????

 

That is the biggest problem with him and why he never will have any popular appeal of any note - the simple fact that he never accepts his part in all this. I do not as you will know, believe he is to blame for everything, nor do I believe his errors of judgement and mistakes have been made in anything other than good faith and in many respects out of his own belief that they would work out for the benefit of the club.... but some of these decisions have been naive at best and as many have pointed out when things do fail and teh consequences are diasterous it tends to be quickly called incompetence. I dont actually think Lowes biggest failings have been this year - because I still dont know how much impact the finances TRUELY had in making him take those decsions - his biggest error was believing wigley and the squad would ahve enough to keep us in the prem and realising too late that change was urgently needed. But thats all history.

 

I believe the truth is that what started under lowe (not with any malaice) was componded by Wilde (Not with any malice) and ignored by Crouch (letting heart rule head) in that he could have prevented Wildes slightly cavalier approach to the spending when chair of the football board....by the time Lowe came back, it was probably, looking at this now, too late - getting high earners off the books was only going to really work if they were sold off permanently - the loans were really only delaying the onset of the increasing overdraft.... how would we have reacted last summer had Lowe actually sold these players? Not well I guess and that's fair enough.

 

I know you believe at the very least we mmight have been better placed in the league had Crouch and Pearson stayed... Seriously unless you are a fortune teller this is impossible to predict because we simply dont know what squad he would have had left to pick from, or had Crouch kept the squad more compact but with teh experience how quickly we would have been in the same boat due to servicing those contracts - without access to such detail its simply impossible to determine the answers to this... and it would naive to think any direct communication on this would not have been tainted with a hint of bias....

 

Lowe in interviews will never back down and do the very things that have appeal to fans, humilty, acknowledgment of failings and importantly seek advice and help from greater footballing minds - ego is to big - and althiough thats not in itself a crime, if it prevents seeking appropriate advice it becomes a big problem - that would have been what I would have said to him - |I cant hate someone I dont know, and certainly not over football, es[pecially when the intent was not failure, just the result - he was certainly coming over as dissapointed and with some bitterness, which is at least an emotional response - anyone who truely never gave a flying feck about us would have just thought 'feck um'.

 

BUt to be honest its what awaits us in the future that now intrigues - Not sure if Mr Crouch will return in some guise, but the only thing i would say on that front is - get some bastard in with you who is prepared to take teh flak for the unpopular decisons that will be necessary for some time to come - and make sure hes disposable!

[jonah]

Yes but he also didn't do a share rights issue, which might of brought more money into the club!!! Crouch wanted to invest another £2 million if Wilde and Lowe had agreed to do the same. Might of saved the PLC etc.

 

Who says he didn't want to do a rights issue? Rights Issues are very expensive compared to Open Offers which in turn are expensive compared to placings or convertible bonds. With the market cap lowered in line with all other AIM stocks, both a rights issue and open offer (and placings to a degree) were almost non-starters as we couldn't have raised enough cash to make it worthwhile. What could have been done was a convertible bond, whereby Leon "Hollow Words" Crouch could have put in his £2m as a loan to the club which would convert to shares if the loan wasn't repaid - ie. he gained an increased shareholding if his money wasn't repaid. Now *that* might have saved the PLC.... I wonder why Crouch still wouldn't do it and why he seemed obsessed by paying off the full overdraft in one fell swoop and not just putting in his own £2m to help?

[Gingeletiss]

Um we were already desperately looking to cut the xpenditure where we could, how then would you say we could easily get money?

 

You posted, a few posts before this, that we could of got a loan.......your logic beggers belief!!!

 

all of a sudden selling our young players has become ok has it? You rightly in the past have said that as we had such a poor quality team fans do not turn up due to that. How would you defend the decision to have sold another raft of players in the jan window? Again we would not have been told the sensitive information why the club had done so and we would be on meltdown.The crowds would have dropped further.

I was disappointed that Lowe did not mention the relegation being part of the problem and grudgingly said that all the boards had a little blame.

When fans eventually meet in the middle ground and fully accept that ALL the past incumbents have let us fans down and it was not all down to Lowes tenure Im sure we will all get on building the club again.

All gone is the only way.

 

At 8,19? post nick..I'd suggest that you post, for postings sake, because you do tend to ramble my old son.

[benjii]

Fair point.....although I wonder if Barclays had ANY say in that side of things at the time, even at a rubber stamping level?

 

On second thoughts, I doubt it as I'm sure Lowe would have mentioned it at the first opportunity after going into Admin....as in: "I wanted to retain Pearson but the Bank had a better plan to leverage our academy resources which I reluctantly went along with"

 

The bank would have absolutely no say whatsoever in day to day operational decisions.

[Give it to Ron]

Who says he didn't want to do a rights issue? Rights Issues are very expensive compared to Open Offers which in turn are expensive compared to placings or convertible bonds. With the market cap lowered in line with all other AIM stocks, both a rights issue and open offer (and placings to a degree) were almost non-starters as we couldn't have raised enough cash to make it worthwhile. What could have been done was a convertible bond, whereby Leon "Hollow Words" Crouch could have put in his £2m as a loan to the club which would convert to shares if the loan wasn't repaid - ie. he gained an increased shareholding if his money wasn't repaid. Now *that* might have saved the PLC.... I wonder why Crouch still wouldn't do it and why he seemed obsessed by paying off the full overdraft in one fell swoop and not just putting in his own £2m to help?

 

Would you of trusted Wilde with 2m of your money given what had gone on previously?

[benjii]

Who says he didn't want to do a rights issue? Rights Issues are very expensive compared to Open Offers which in turn are expensive compared to placings or convertible bonds. With the market cap lowered in line with all other AIM stocks, both a rights issue and open offer (and placings to a degree) were almost non-starters as we couldn't have raised enough cash to make it worthwhile. What could have been done was a convertible bond, whereby Leon "Hollow Words" Crouch could have put in his £2m as a loan to the club which would convert to shares if the loan wasn't repaid - ie. he gained an increased shareholding if his money wasn't repaid. Now *that* might have saved the PLC.... I wonder why Crouch still wouldn't do it and why he seemed obsessed by paying off the full overdraft in one fell swoop and not just putting in his own £2m to help?

 

Doubt that would have appealed to Lowe, Wilde and the Meals on Wheels brigade.

[St. Jason]

IMO, we can't lay the lion's share of the blame at Lowe for what has transpired THIS year. It sounds like he was effectively under Barclay's orders to strip costs to the bone, which he did only for the Bank to move the goalposts again. As for PREVIOUS years, well that's another matter....

 

Surely we can blame Lowe for letting Pearson go? Surely we can blame Lowe for appointing Jan? Surely we can blame Lowe for sticking with Jan for to long? Surely we can blame Lowe for signing Forecast, Molyneaux, Gasmi, Schneriden, Pulis, Wotton, Smith, Pekhart, Robertson and barely reaching double appearance figures between them?? Surely we can blame for letting the first team stay in hotels for the reading and palace games?? Surely we can blame Lowe for letting coaches go on gardening leave whilst employing even more Dutch???

 

Surely we can??

[Frank's cousin]

Surely we can blame Lowe for letting Pearson go? Surely we can blame Lowe for appointing Jan? Surely we can blame Lowe for sticking with Jan for to long? Surely we can blame Lowe for signing Forecast, Molyneaux, Gasmi, Schneriden, Pulis, Wotton, Smith, Pekhart, Robertson and barely reaching double appearance figures between them?? Surely we can blame for letting the first team stay in hotels for the reading and palace games?? Surely we can blame Lowe for letting coaches go on gardening leave whilst employing even more Dutch???

 

Surely we can??

 

Sure we can say he got footballing decisions wrong - irrespective of whether you believe Perason would have done any better, we simply dont know the impact teh finances had on these decisons, and what Pearson and Crouch would have had to work with had they stayed on - unless we have details of the player contracts and the accounts, we dont know for sure, and can only speculate...

[jonah]

Would you of trusted Wilde with 2m of your money given what had gone on previously?

 

Not Wilde especially, but if he and Lowe buggered it up then Crouch would have gained the shareholding and had more control on the future - he's a winner.

 

Doubt that would have appealed to Lowe, Wilde and the Meals on Wheels brigade.

 

They get the short-term cashflow they needed, and provided they repaid the loan Crouch didn't gain any shareholding - they're winners.

 

Summary - everyone was a winner in their own eyes.

[ottery st mary]

For me Mr Lowe made FAR too many mistakes AND kept making them over AND OVER AGAIN....ME. ME. ME.ME.......Regardless of what jonah states.....I am not convinced that Rupert is the businessman we are led to believe....Football..Rupert.. nada...not a clue.

 

opinion based on the facts before me.

[Give it to Ron]

Not Wilde especially, but if he and Lowe buggered it up then Crouch would have gained the shareholding and had more control on the future - he's a winner.

 

 

 

They get the short-term cashflow they needed, and provided they repaid the loan Crouch didn't gain any shareholding - they're winners.

 

Summary - everyone was a winner in their own eyes.

 

But that to me was why he never did as it was a question of when they buggered it up not if.

There was plenty of evidence to say they would of on past history and now proved even further given all the money we have wasted this year.

Coaches on gardening leave, mysterious Dutch agent/advisors, some absolutely appaling loans and signings.

I know you dont get down to the reserves much but honestly it would take you 10 minutes to see Gasmi, Molyneux, Forecast, Pulis(yep I have seen him play for us) and to some extent Boyle are not up to the CCC.

Boyle may prove otherwise long term as he looked Ok when I saw him but he is far too small and lightweight - a bit like Smith.

[St. Jason]

Sure we can say he got footballing decisions wrong - irrespective of whether you believe Perason would have done any better' date=' we simply dont know the impact teh finances had on these decisons, and what Pearson and Crouch would have had to work with had they stayed on - unless we have details of the player contracts and the accounts, we dont know for sure, and can only speculate...[/quote']

 

 

The impact on finances is quite easy to sort, Pearson has openly stated he'd of taken a 'vastly reduced wage with a position based bonus', be very, very surprised if he was on more than Jan, Wotte, Gore and Killer put together anyway!

 

Same with the players, Lowe doing his normal transfer policy, quantity not quality. Could of kept Cork and John and not signed, Forecast, Gasmi etc!

[St. Jason]

Not Wilde especially, but if he and Lowe buggered it up then Crouch would have gained the shareholding and had more control on the future - he's a winner.

 

 

 

They get the short-term cashflow they needed, and provided they repaid the loan Crouch didn't gain any shareholding - they're winners.

 

Summary - everyone was a winner in their own eyes.

 

Or Crouch loans them £2m, they still take us into admin and Crouck looses best part of £4m!

 

One massive looser!

[up and away]

Originally Posted by um pahars

For example we should have accepted whatever was on offer for Dyer. On top of that I would have thought we could have raised a small sum to manage the overdraft. If we thought we could make £5m, then a £1millin reduction should have been possible.

 

I'm never one for selling our talent, but I also accept our position in football and the fact that we will always lose our best players. If it's becuase they want to move on and are tempted by salaries we can't compete with then fine, or if it's also because the Club as a whole will benefit, then I'm also fine with that.

 

If someone said we ahd to lose Dyer and Lallana to keep afloat, I would have accepted that.

Ump I will accept that, but as you know not all are as understanding. If the club sold those 2 and not able to say why as other decisions then the fans would be in uproar.

 

I have said this from the point we could not sell of our high earners and were still stuck with the wages. This was no longer possible with a short fix, it had to be a long term solution with the youth products keeping us afloat. If you could not get any value for our younger players it was coming anyway. I would not mind if the muppets showed any consistency over the views, just rearranged to suit what ever situation that was at hand.

 

Obviously Lowe thought the bank would not fold, but did exactly that directly after the loan window ended. We needed to get value for those young players otherwise it was all over anyway.