Why didn't Crouch save us from administration?

[NickG]

You see it's hard to even start to take you seriously when you have to say things like that. It's like S4E all over again.

 

 

 

Quite right - I don't remember any b*ll*cks about "we got our club back" or hollow promises of putting in cash, just a statement that he would try his best to get the club out of the mess it was in. But of course you're trying to steer a conversation about Crouch round to one about Lowe, anyone would think people were obsessive about the bloke...

 

 

 

Personally I think he's pushing Wilde in terms of unsuitability:

 

* Burst onto the scene by claiming he would make "significant financial investment" in Saints in January 2006

* Paid 20% over market price and quickly showed he didn't really know what was going on at the club

* Promised to proxy 100,000 shares to the Saints Trust but never did

* Having bought the right to choose the future of the club's direction, failed to do any due dilligence on Wilde and fell for the most blatant lies about investment in the history of football (well nearly :-))

* Having brought Wilde to power, started to make hollow promises of £2m cash (since 2007 or so?)

* Together with Wilde hid behind the Takeover Panel as an excuse for not being able to invest in the club

* Having then become chairman, still wouldn't put any money into the club despite being in charge - if you won't do it then Leon, when will you?

* Having stated in the program notes that we were "financially secure and don't need to release players", he errr, released players - Skacel and Rasiak out on loan (though as chairman he obviously left it to Hoos to tell us that)

* Naive claims we were heading for the playoffs

* Appointed Dodd & Gorman as the best management team to take us forward despite previously criticising the appointments of Gray and Wigley

* Backtracked on that pretty quickly and plucked someone from obscurity to lead our fight for the playoffs, sorry I mean relegation

* Lo and behold that "obscurity" was actually on the books of McMenemy & Co Agency

* Crowed about his appointment of Pearson when we scraped survival in the last 20 minutes of the season thanks to other teams' failure to win - quite some result that given we were heading for the playoffs when he appointed D&G 3 months earlier

* Continually told fans we were getting investment in 3 months. Or was it 6 months. Sometimes it was 9 months. He even stated "it's Paul Allen" as a fact

* Ranted and raved at the company's AGM, behaviour so impetuous and childish that the AGM itself was nearly stopped, culminating in a grown man stomping to the front of the room and demanding that others (sheep) in the room walk out of a formal company meeting with him. Ah yes, the club's best interests at heart there again Leon

* Continually claims to have £2m cash available to invest in the club, but still fails to save the club and lets it fall into administration

 

So given so much nonsense in such a short period of time, it's hard to know what makes him so unsuitable - the poor PR, the lack of integrity, the poor decisions, or just generally opening his gob and having an opinion without thinking it through. No doubt some people are going to evangelise the bloke now, and others will somehow think addressing Crouch's flaws relates to Lowe (obsessives). I think these facts speak for themselves though.... I don't want Crouch anywhere near the club other than in an expensive box as a fan.

 

interesting summary -interested to see the staunch Crouch's fans take?

[alpine_saint]

You see it's hard to even start to take you seriously when you have to say things like that. It's like S4E all over again.

 

 

 

Quite right - I don't remember any b*ll*cks about "we got our club back" or hollow promises of putting in cash, just a statement that he would try his best to get the club out of the mess it was in. But of course you're trying to steer a conversation about Crouch round to one about Lowe, anyone would think people were obsessive about the bloke...

 

 

 

Personally I think he's pushing Wilde in terms of unsuitability:

 

* Burst onto the scene by claiming he would make "significant financial investment" in Saints in January 2006

* Paid 20% over market price and quickly showed he didn't really know what was going on at the club

* Promised to proxy 100,000 shares to the Saints Trust but never did

* Having bought the right to choose the future of the club's direction, failed to do any due dilligence on Wilde and fell for the most blatant lies about investment in the history of football (well nearly :-))

* Having brought Wilde to power, started to make hollow promises of £2m cash (since 2007 or so?)

* Together with Wilde hid behind the Takeover Panel as an excuse for not being able to invest in the club

* Having then become chairman, still wouldn't put any money into the club despite being in charge - if you won't do it then Leon, when will you?

* Having stated in the program notes that we were "financially secure and don't need to release players", he errr, released players - Skacel and Rasiak out on loan (though as chairman he obviously left it to Hoos to tell us that)

* Naive claims we were heading for the playoffs

* Appointed Dodd & Gorman as the best management team to take us forward despite previously criticising the appointments of Gray and Wigley

* Backtracked on that pretty quickly and plucked someone from obscurity to lead our fight for the playoffs, sorry I mean relegation

* Lo and behold that "obscurity" was actually on the books of McMenemy & Co Agency

* Crowed about his appointment of Pearson when we scraped survival in the last 20 minutes of the season thanks to other teams' failure to win - quite some result that given we were heading for the playoffs when he appointed D&G 3 months earlier

* Continually told fans we were getting investment in 3 months. Or was it 6 months. Sometimes it was 9 months. He even stated "it's Paul Allen" as a fact

* Ranted and raved at the company's AGM, behaviour so impetuous and childish that the AGM itself was nearly stopped, culminating in a grown man stomping to the front of the room and demanding that others (sheep) in the room walk out of a formal company meeting with him. Ah yes, the club's best interests at heart there again Leon

* Continually claims to have £2m cash available to invest in the club, but still fails to save the club and lets it fall into administration

 

So given so much nonsense in such a short period of time, it's hard to know what makes him so unsuitable - the poor PR, the lack of integrity, the poor decisions, or just generally opening his gob and having an opinion without thinking it through. No doubt some people are going to evangelise the bloke now, and others will somehow think addressing Crouch's flaws relates to Lowe (obsessives). I think these facts speak for themselves though.... I don't want Crouch anywhere near the club other than in an expensive box as a fan.

 

Anyone remember jonah having done such a detailled analysis of Lowe's time at SFC ???

[Gordon Mockles]

It was well documented prior to administration that Crouch offered to invest £2m into the club under the condition that Lowe and Wilde match his contribution. It is reasonable to assume Lowe or Wilde did not have that amount of cash available and it was well known right up till the last minute Lowe was franticly searching for investment to satisfy Barclays and save the club.

 

Assuming I am correct in my understanding I find it inconceivable Lowe would not have approached Crouch and asked him to at a minimum loan the club £2m in order that we could get back within our operating limits imposed by the bank.

 

Do you think Lowe contacted Crouch?

Did Crouch refuse his request and if so was he aware that his refusal to invest unconditionally would be put the club into or on the brink of administration? Do you think he MUST have known it?

 

Finally as we know Crouch and McMenemy travel to games together can we still believe McMenemy's comment on the OS that he was unaware of the perilous state the club was in?

 

Are those who are held in such high regard by many fans acting as we would expect them to in accordance with that position of respect they are afforded?

 

I don't know but I would like these questions clarified.

 

Unlike you to post an overtly contentious question or paradigms old fella?! Had the hornets been a bit quiet in their proverbial nest?! You like your bones of contention eh?! Well, I suppose, if you give a dog a bone....

 

Can't we just forget the old board. It's boring. You with your antagonistic, Lowe ridden agenda, Others (maybe me included in the past) with their vehement, anti-Lowe stance (although, judging by our predicament, you can understand the sheer bitter hatred aimed at the 2 chief perpetrators - Lowe and Wilde!)

 

We're in the sh*t, we may go out of existence thanks to a collective bunch of egotistical, middle aged idiots intent on having fun at a football club without a care or modicum of sense and competency in running a football business. Look where we are?!

 

Why didn't anyone save us from the administrators? Well, maybe certain parties would have helped if certain parties had not clutched the club by the balls and squeezed every last ounce of life from our now forlorn club. Maybe they would have prevaricated, making out they would have helped, criticising others, yet kicked tyres and done nothing. Who knows? The fact is, we're on life support and all these hollow words from anyone linked to Saints means nothing. As Mike Skinner often retorted - Actions speak louder than words! Wonder if we'll see any life in the next few weeks?!

 

On the whole, from all the meaningless press statements, I am in agreement with Mick Channon. He always cuts through the b*llsh*t and doesn't engage the pointless. IMHO, a pretty fair and direct chap and I do believe the share holders should have been given some feedback from Mr Fry. Maybe news is forthcoming, I hope so.

[NickG]

Anyone remember jonah having done such a detailled analysis of Lowe's time at SFC ???

 

can't say I do, do you agree with the points he makes?

[Toadhall Saint]

The only one of the old guard I want near this club is Ted Bates but unfortuntley that will never happen (god rest his soul).

 

Anyone noticed that since Ted went to the great dressing room in the sky that SFC's tails of woe have got bigger?

[SaintRobbie]

Why didnt Lowe save us from Administration?

 

Answers below...

 

Mine? Because he wasn't even any good with finances either. So Barclays administered the coup de grace. Nice one I say!

[lenwilkins]

You see it's hard to even start to take you seriously when you have to say things like that. It's like S4E all over again.

 

 

 

Quite right - I don't remember any b*ll*cks about "we got our club back" or hollow promises of putting in cash, just a statement that he would try his best to get the club out of the mess it was in. But of course you're trying to steer a conversation about Crouch round to one about Lowe, anyone would think people were obsessive about the bloke...

 

 

 

Personally I think he's pushing Wilde in terms of unsuitability:

 

* Burst onto the scene by claiming he would make "significant financial investment" in Saints in January 2006

* Paid 20% over market price and quickly showed he didn't really know what was going on at the club

* Promised to proxy 100,000 shares to the Saints Trust but never did

* Having bought the right to choose the future of the club's direction, failed to do any due dilligence on Wilde and fell for the most blatant lies about investment in the history of football (well nearly :-))

* Having brought Wilde to power, started to make hollow promises of £2m cash (since 2007 or so?)

* Together with Wilde hid behind the Takeover Panel as an excuse for not being able to invest in the club

* Having then become chairman, still wouldn't put any money into the club despite being in charge - if you won't do it then Leon, when will you?

* Having stated in the program notes that we were "financially secure and don't need to release players", he errr, released players - Skacel and Rasiak out on loan (though as chairman he obviously left it to Hoos to tell us that)

* Naive claims we were heading for the playoffs

* Appointed Dodd & Gorman as the best management team to take us forward despite previously criticising the appointments of Gray and Wigley

* Backtracked on that pretty quickly and plucked someone from obscurity to lead our fight for the playoffs, sorry I mean relegation

* Lo and behold that "obscurity" was actually on the books of McMenemy & Co Agency

* Crowed about his appointment of Pearson when we scraped survival in the last 20 minutes of the season thanks to other teams' failure to win - quite some result that given we were heading for the playoffs when he appointed D&G 3 months earlier

* Continually told fans we were getting investment in 3 months. Or was it 6 months. Sometimes it was 9 months. He even stated "it's Paul Allen" as a fact

* Ranted and raved at the company's AGM, behaviour so impetuous and childish that the AGM itself was nearly stopped, culminating in a grown man stomping to the front of the room and demanding that others (sheep) in the room walk out of a formal company meeting with him. Ah yes, the club's best interests at heart there again Leon

* Continually claims to have £2m cash available to invest in the club, but still fails to save the club and lets it fall into administration

 

So given so much nonsense in such a short period of time, it's hard to know what makes him so unsuitable - the poor PR, the lack of integrity, the poor decisions, or just generally opening his gob and having an opinion without thinking it through. No doubt some people are going to evangelise the bloke now, and others will somehow think addressing Crouch's flaws relates to Lowe (obsessives). I think these facts speak for themselves though.... I don't want Crouch anywhere near the club other than in an expensive box as a fan.

 

I must say although I nothing about you, if you're not a Lowe supporter I'd be very surprised.

 

I should imagine Rupert at his obsessive best would be hard-pressed to line up a better case for blaming someone else which seems to be his latest pastime. You should send him a copy.

[OldNick]

I must say although I nothing about you, if you're not a Lowe supporter I'd be very surprised.

 

I should imagine Rupert at his obsessive best would be hard-pressed to line up a better case for blaming someone else which seems to be his latest pastime. You should send him a copy.

to be faqir much of it is correct. Im sick of them all and Askham yet again is not talked about but just the same old 3. He must be more Teflon coated than Blair and Clinton combined

[jonah]

others will somehow think addressing Crouch's flaws relates to Lowe (obsessives).

 

Anyone remember jonah having done such a detailled analysis of Lowe's time at SFC ???

 

Oh dear so alpine_obsessive is first out of the blocks, I wonder who will be next? Crayon Boy? SaintRobbie?

 

So back to the thread subject - Crouch. Apart from the lack of integrity, PR, common sense and financial ability, he's a bit of a catch then is he?

[Mole]

I must say although I nothing about you, if you're not a Lowe supporter I'd be very surprised.

 

I should imagine Rupert at his obsessive best would be hard-pressed to line up a better case for blaming someone else which seems to be his latest pastime. You should send him a copy.

 

Just before the club went into admin Jonah was saying the nosediving share price was inconsequencial.

 

He certainly knows his stuff.

[um pahars]

Apart from the lack of integrity, PR, common sense and financial ability, he's a bit of a catch then is he?

 

He oversaw a drop in the overdraft;)

 

Cue the silence.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Are you attempting to excuse your questions on the grounds that they are childish? Hehehe You walked right into that one, Nineteen

 

Ridicule away Wes but answer my first question if you would please. Would a loan of £2m saved the club on the 31st March 2009 and would it be unreasonable to assume the upshot would have been an offer of all 3 having a senior role on the board as we infact agreed not so long ago as the best way to move forward.

 

I'm stupid and don't need you to remind me but surely this seems a very simple and sensible assumption to make, assuming Crouch still had his share of £6m to invest? If he chose not to after he was contacted by Lowe then is it not reasonable to ask why?

 

The point of contention is perhaps would Lowe have contacted Crouch to discuss a possible loan? IMO I think it is inconceivable he wouldn't have done as I am sure he must have been working hard to try and secure the club's future and even if for personal reasons Crouch was a last resort it's no different than Barclays going to their lender of last resort, the BoE, just on a grander scale. Its unpalatable but sometimes you have no choice. Crouch would have loved it IMO had he been contacted by Lowe, imagine the power, the kudos. So what happened? Things don't stack up at the moment.

[SaintRobbie]

Ridicule away Wes but answer my first question if you would please. Would a loan of £2m saved the club on the 31st March 2009 and would it be unreasonable to assume the upshot would have been an offer of all 3 having a senior role on the board as we infact agreed not so long ago as the best way to move forward.

 

I'm stupid and don't need you to remind me but surely this seems a very simple and sensible assumption to make, assuming Crouch still had his share of £6m to invest? If he chose not to after he was contacted by Lowe then is it not reasonable to ask why?

 

The point of contention is perhaps would Lowe have contacted Crouch to discuss a possible loan? IMO I think it is inconceivable he wouldn't have done as I am sure he must have been working hard to try and secure the club's future and even if for personal reasons Crouch was a last resort it's no different than Barclays going to their lender of last resort, the BoE, just on a grander scale. Its unpalatable but sometimes you have no choice. Crouch would have loved it IMO had he been contacted by Lowe, imagine the power, the kudos. So what happened? Things don't stack up at the moment.

 

 

Of course they stack up. Which would you want if you were a fan like Crouch? More of Lowe's mismanagement of a failed plc by throwing away £2m of your own money or the chance of selling the club and removing Lowe and Wilde forever?

 

Adds up completely IMHO. Crouch did exactly the right thing.

[jonah]

I must say although I nothing about you, if you're not a Lowe supporter I'd be very surprised.

 

I should imagine Rupert at his obsessive best would be hard-pressed to line up a better case for blaming someone else which seems to be his latest pastime. You should send him a copy.

 

2nd place goes to Mr Len Wilkins! Congratulations Len, come up here and join alpine on the losers rostrum. You both win employment contracts with Crouch's local firms. On no, wait, he's made you redundant... but never mind, because he's boasting about having £2m cash to waste in the local papers so it's not all bad news is it?

 

Meanwhile, why not comment on the calamitous series of cokcups and faux pas he made in his brief spell at the club - after all, the thread is about Crouch not Lowe.

[Nineteen Canteen]

I could live with Leon being involvd again but he would have to preferably remove himself from Lawries backside first and drop all the fan friendly rhetoric in favour of ofa bit of serious managemnet decisions.

 

Lol, With respect Frank if it happens you may not have long to live.

[jonah]

Just before the club went into admin Jonah was saying the nosediving share price was inconsequencial.

 

He certainly knows his stuff.

 

Oh yes, the day that someone sold an incredible, whopping £450 worth of shares and the price dropped 10% - so whilst I stupidly suggested that was completely irrelevant and unrelated to our plight, what are you suggesting? That someone at the club had tipped off a punter in Basingstoke about pending administration when Barclays had yet to bounce the cheques or cancel the overdraft? I can certainly see your point, the chance to make £450 through insider trading must have been very tempting...

[um pahars]

Meanwhile, why not comment on the calamitous series of cokcups and faux pas he made in his brief spell at the club - after all, the thread is about Crouch not Lowe.

 

What like making incorrect assertions about the overdraft during his tenure on here last week;)?? (still no response BTW:D)

 

If we're going to judge him, let's at least keep out of the fiction aisles and put some decent stuff in front of him as I'm sure there's plenty out there (and then judge it by the same standards, discretion and impartiality that you claim to judge others by).

[Nineteen Canteen]

I think Crouch knew we'd see the back of Lowe and Wilde forever only through Administration. The man's a genius and a true fan... no further discussion necessary.

 

Bring on the new owners and onwards and upwards!

 

Robbie can I refer you to Jonah's post no. 136. Once you've digested what Jonah has listed please can you try and correlate your opinion of Crouch with some examples of his recent historical involvement with the Saints.

[Legod Third Coming]

Can I just get this straight Mr Lowe/Sundance/19C* (delete as appropriate):

 

Did Lowe/you contact Crouch and put the offer of matching investment? Yes/No

 

Did he refuse? Yes/No

 

Keep it simple though eh. Just the answers above.

[Gingeletiss]

19Beastatthechargeflashman..........You keep asking posters to answer your questions, but rarely answer the ones put to you. Your mate Stewpert, came back at the worst possible time last season, and not only cr*pped all over the club, the manager, the workforce, but also the person he hated most.....Leon.

 

So now your saying, that Leon is to blame, because he wouldn't come up with the money, to save Stewpert's skin.

 

This may come as a shock to you, my little man, but it appears that 100% of all Saints fans, wouldn't come up with the dosh either. Your petty agenda against Leon, is a pathetic attempt by your master, to save face....Lol, you really are a troll.

 

ps.........Stanley, welcome back my very badly treated friend;)..beware the thought police on here8-[

[Tamesaint]

Lol, With respect Frank if it happens you may not have long to live.

 

YOu can always give siome advice can't you 19.

 

After all you are quite happily living up Lowe's rectum.

[SaintRobbie]

Robbie can I refer you to Jonah's post no. 136. Once you've digested what Jonah has listed please can you try and correlate your opinion of Crouch with some examples of his recent historical involvement with the Saints.

 

Read it and disagree wholeheartedly.

 

Crouch is not blameless for the demise of the plc under his period in charge I grant you, and I do not want Crouch in a leadership role. But as a boardmember as a passionate fan I am happy.

 

Sorry but I look at alot of post 136 and will have to be an 'obsessive' according to Jonah. He is typing a lot of rubbish with regards to much of Crouch's influence in that post, the simple fact is that Lowe has destroyed the plc Lowe cared so much for... not Crouch per se.

 

Sorry but Jonah's post is OK but not a spot on the reality of the big picture situation this Club has found itself in. One man divided it through incompetence and arrogance, one man who has gone forever.

 

Thats something to celebrate. That man was not Crouch I'm afraid.

 

I think people are jumping the gun if they think the new owners will want Crouch on a board, they certainly will value his passion for the club and the support his gains from the older members of the club like Mary Corbett and Lawrie Mac. So, given that alone, they may want him on the board. Certainly they will not want Lowe anywhere near the place... or his cronies.

 

I fail to see the point of this thread frankly. Are you trying to warn a new owner not to take Crouch on as he was 33% of the problem? LOL if so! I'm afraid Crouch is a gob****e, but a genuine fan who has given more of his personal finances to this Club than most (actually less Wilde perhaps ALL) in the boardroom over the last 14 years. So your campaign to have him removed before hes even appointed seems nothing short of Lowe-vindictiveness.

 

Sorry - but of all the incompetents in our boardroom, Crouch is by far the best man to retain in a new boardroom - he buys statues, loves this Club and brings friends and legends with him from old, pre-Lowe days.

 

Crouch on a new board (if the new owner desired it) would get my vote. If the new owners felt they didnt need him I am not fussed either... but shame to lose the biggest fan benefactor to the club in recent times dont you think?

[madsent]

Why didnt Lowe save us from Administration?

 

Answers below...

 

Mine? Because he wasn't even any good with finances either. So Barclays administered the coup de grace. Nice one I say!

 

Why would Barclays wait until a week after the Football League's arbitrary deadline before calling in the administrators ? If they had a problem with the way SLH was being run, surely they should have called the overdraft facility when we didn't sell players (or loan out those with the highest salaries) in January. As far as I can tell, the SLH board was given assurances that the company could continue to operate and they still pulled the rug out from under the board at the least opportune time. I've tolerated but never liked Rupert Lowe and I think he should have left for good when we were relegated. I don't think he can be blamed for believing that the short-term future of the PLC was secure when it wasn't.

[SaintRobbie]

Why would Barclays wait until a week after the Football League's arbitrary deadline before calling in the administrators ? .

 

Because they are not concerned with the 10 point deduction. Either they realised there was a loop hole (which there obviously is as Derby appear to have gotten away with the same crime) or they felt that it would come later. The fact is that (and it is FACT) they pulled the rug from Lowe as soon as he failed to pay the bills, for what some would say was peanuts in football terms. Barclays therefore removed Lowe as soon as they possibly could once there was undeniable evidence that Lowe had failed to financially run the club effectively. That is a fact.

 

Whether you agree or not, it is unusual for a Bank to pull the plug so rapidly unless there was no faith in Lowe's leadership to right the wrongs... and frankly after watching his incompetent decision making with regards to Club youth policy whilst paying men to sit on the bench, bringing in **** Dutch managers and looking at the inevitable team quality ( now League 2 minus) and legue position it is pretty obvious that Lowe had failed.

 

Whats more as Barclays have said - Lowe FAILED to attract investment, sell players (and another criteria that I cant recall!). As Lowe FAILED the criteria the bank set down they killed him. Simple really.

 

Adds up completely... and to add insult to injury to Lowe Barclays have said as much by telling us why they called in the administrators at the earliest opportunity.

[OldNick]

Whats more as Barclays have said - Lowe FAILED to attract investment, sell players (and another criteria that I cant recall!). As Lowe FAILED the criteria the bank set down they killed him. Simple really.

 

Adds up completely... and to add insult to injury to Lowe Barclays have said as much by telling us why they called in the administrators at the earliest opportunity.

 

Robbie please show me those quotes, I have not seen anything that says that

[Frank's cousin]

Lol, With respect Frank if it happens you may not have long to live.

 

Hey? Would the 'bigman' be after me for removing his 'toy' or Mr Crouch for the insult? I'm worried now?

[Daren W]

Read it and disagree wholeheartedly.

 

Crouch is not blameless for the demise of the plc under his period in charge I grant you, and I do not want Crouch in a leadership role. But as a boardmember as a passionate fan I am happy.

 

Sorry but I look at alot of post 136 and will have to be an 'obsessive' according to Jonah. He is typing a lot of rubbish with regards to much of Crouch's influence in that post, the simple fact is that Lowe has destroyed the plc Lowe cared so much for... not Crouch per se.

 

Sorry but Jonah's post is OK but not a spot on the reality of the big picture situation this Club has found itself in. One man divided it through incompetence and arrogance, one man who has gone forever.

 

Thats something to celebrate. That man was not Crouch I'm afraid.

 

I think people are jumping the gun if they think the new owners will want Crouch on a board, they certainly will value his passion for the club and the support his gains from the older members of the club like Mary Corbett and Lawrie Mac. So, given that alone, they may want him on the board. Certainly they will not want Lowe anywhere near the place... or his cronies.

 

I fail to see the point of this thread frankly. Are you trying to warn a new owner not to take Crouch on as he was 33% of the problem? LOL if so! I'm afraid Crouch is a gob****e, but a genuine fan who has given more of his personal finances to this Club than most (actually less Wilde perhaps ALL) in the boardroom over the last 14 years. So your campaign to have him removed before hes even appointed seems nothing short of Lowe-vindictiveness.

 

Sorry - but of all the incompetents in our boardroom, Crouch is by far the best man to retain in a new boardroom - he buys statues, loves this Club and brings friends and legends with him from old, pre-Lowe days.

Crouch on a new board (if the new owner desired it) would get my vote. If the new owners felt they didnt need him I am not fussed either... but shame to lose the biggest fan benefactor to the club in recent times dont you think?

 

Sorry to butt in on your post Robbie, but you just know the rabidly pro Lowe brigade will ignore all of the rest of your post and just pick away at the highlighted piece.

"He buys statues" ... I'll put money on the usual accountants with season tickets being all over that like a rash...

Sorry mate...

[Frank's cousin]

I must say although I nothing about you, if you're not a Lowe supporter I'd be very surprised.

 

I should imagine Rupert at his obsessive best would be hard-pressed to line up a better case for blaming someone else which seems to be his latest pastime. You should send him a copy.

 

To be honest its all quite reasonable - but lacking the positives Crouch also had - you could then draw up tables for Lowe in a similar vein pros and cons - everybody has them... naturally as individual fans we all place varying degrees of emphasis on different criteria eg some of us are risk averse, some more gung ho in spirit - all fans just different perspectives but it will mean depending on what we believe to be more important criteria that we have differeing opinions on who amongst these IMPERFECT choices we felt was better to have at the helm - simple really ;-)

[Frank's cousin]

Sorry to butt in on your post Robbie, but you just know the rabidly pro Lowe brigade will ignore all of the rest of your post and just pick away at the highlighted piece.

"He buys statues" ... I'll put money on the usual accountants with season tickets being all over that like a rash...

Sorry mate...

 

Quality - especially the first one! ;-) someone please post that again we could do with a laugh!

[SaintRobbie]

Robbie please show me those quotes, I have not seen anything that says that

 

Its in one of the threads from early last week I think - havent got time to go back and look through at the moment. It outlines a statement from Barclays stating 3 reasons why they insisted on admin - failure to attract investment, failure to sell players and reduce costs and one other which I cant recall.

[SaintRobbie]

sorry to butt in on your post robbie, but you just know the rabidly pro lowe brigade will ignore all of the rest of your post and just pick away at the highlighted piece.

"he buys statues" ... I'll put money on the usual accountants with season tickets being all over that like a rash...

Sorry mate...

 

lol!

[Mole]

Oh yes, the day that someone sold an incredible, whopping £450 worth of shares and the price dropped 10% - so whilst I stupidly suggested that was completely irrelevant and unrelated to our plight, what are you suggesting? That someone at the club had tipped off a punter in Basingstoke about pending administration when Barclays had yet to bounce the cheques or cancel the overdraft? I can certainly see your point, the chance to make £450 through insider trading must have been very tempting...

 

Sometimes it is best to just hold your hands up and say "i got it wrong" instead of digging yourself into a bigger hole. You were denying Saints shares were doing badly in comparison to other shares. The facts didn't back up your lack of an argument. I told you that the tumbling share price pointed to the club going under very soon. You argued i was wrong. We both have a limited amateurish grasp on the stock markets and even with that said your grasp IS superior to mine, but in that single argument you showed you don't know as much as you'd like us to believe.

 

We are now at the point where past differences and batting for sides (you batting for Lowe - me dead against him) are old news and frankly irrelevent. If you could put your efforts into giving a balanced, and truthful, picture of the financial intricasies of SFC i'm sure all would agree it would be better.

Edited 17 April, 2009 by Mole

[SaintRobbie]

Robbie please show me those quotes, I have not seen anything that says that

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=11969

 

Follow the links - investment, players and increase attendences were Barclay's criteria.

[ottery st mary]

Sometimes it is best to just hold your hands up and say "i got it wrong" instead of digging yourself into a bigger hole. You were denying Saints shares were doing badly in comparison to other shares. The facts didn't back up your lack of an argument. I told you that the tumbling share price pointed to the club going under very soon. You argued i was wrong. I don't deny you probably have a limited amateurish grasp on the stock markets superior to mine, but in that single argument you showed you don't know as much as you'd like us to believe.

 

We are now at the point where past differences and batting for sides (you batting for Lowe - me dead against him) are old news and frankly irrelevent. If you could put your efforts into giving a balanced, and truthful, picture of the financial intricasies of SFC i'm sure all would agree it would be better.

 

 

Sadly jonah is a computer mechanic trainee who carries with him, an out of date copy of The Financial Times and a picture of Rupert..

 

jonah and financial intelligence do not go together.

[jonah]

Stanley, you can argue the point til you're blue in the face but the fact remains that one bloke selling £450 of shares was enough to drop the share price 10% - it's an illiquid AIM stock in the middle of the worst recession since 1931 or earlier. Sh!t happens, it doesn't mean anything in the context of us going into administration.

 

If you could put your efforts into giving a balanced, and truthful, picture of the financial intricasies of SFC i'm sure all would agree it would be better.

 

Well we tried that when Wilde came on the scene but everyone then thought wasting £1m on an EGM to remove Lowe was money well spent. It doesn't matter what facts are presented because people will spin and lie to suit their own agendas - hence why people are desperately trying to think up reasons to back Crouch despite him actually having very similar traits to Lowe. There is no ability to think about it logically still, it remains a popularity contest.

[Mole]

people are desperately trying to think up reasons to back Crouch despite him actually having very similar traits to Lowe. There is no ability to think about it logically still, it remains a popularity contest.

 

How can you say Crouch is like Lowe. Crouch cares about what he can do for Saints. Lowe only ever cared about what Saints could do for him.

[trousers]

Stanley, you can argue the point til you're blue in the face but the fact remains that one bloke selling £450 of shares was enough to drop the share price 10%

 

Wasn't it the ongoing decline into single fingers that Stanley (and others) were referring to, plus highlighting the fact that the plc's market cap value had seeped below the overdraft threshold, rather than just highlighting one £450 transaction?

[Mole]

Wasn't it the ongoing decline into single fingers that Stanley (and others) were referring to?

 

Of course this is what i was refering to. I was commenting on the constant downward trend. It was a clear indication that SLH was heading for the rocks. Quite why Jonah couldn't see this i'll never know.

[Frank's cousin]

Wasn't it the ongoing decline into single fingers that Stanley (and others) were referring to, plus highlighting the fact that the plc's market cap value had seeped below the overdraft threshold, rather than just highlighting one £450 transaction?

 

fingers? is that some kind of mob based trading? or symbolic. two fingers or middle finger to the bastards?

[Lord Duckhunter]

This talk of Crouch investing £2mil to save us from admin is nonsense. Once Barclays bounced Cheques they were making a statement. "The game was up". Put it like this, we have Season Ticket renewals coming up(which is gate money up front), we have a transfer window coming up (we could sell, sell, sell). We had contracts coming to an end. Why would the bank put us into admin at this stage of the season, over a small amount? The answer clearly is, they lost faith in Lowe.

 

Instead of asking why Crouch didn't invest his £2mil, questions should be asked as to why offers for Lallana and Surman were turned down in Jan. barclays statement clearly states they asked for player's to be sold. WHY WERE'NT THEY.

[spain saint]

Ridicule away Wes but answer my first question if you would please. Would a loan of £2m saved the club on the 31st March 2009 and would it be unreasonable to assume the upshot would have been an offer of all 3 having a senior role on the board as we infact agreed not so long ago as the best way to move forward.

 

Yes it probably would have and no it would not of been an unreasonable assumption......However......

 

I'm stupid and don't need you to remind me but surely this seems a very simple and sensible assumption to make, assuming Crouch still had his share of £6m to invest? If he chose not to after he was contacted by Lowe then is it not reasonable to ask why?

 

Find me proof that Mr Lowe contacted or even meant to contact, (maybe he forgot!) LC and I will believe you, until then I believe you are talking out of your arse!

The point of contention is perhaps would Lowe have contacted Crouch to discuss a possible loan? IMO I think it is inconceivable he wouldn't have done as I am sure he must have been working hard to try and secure the club's future and even if for personal reasons Crouch was a last resort it's no different than Barclays going to their lender of last resort, the BoE, just on a grander scale. Its unpalatable but sometimes you have no choice. Crouch would have loved it IMO had he been contacted by Lowe, imagine the power, the kudos. So what happened? Things don't stack up at the moment.

 

Perhaps!! Perhaps the point of contention!!!! You sir must be the only one that believes this! Lets think about it for a minute..... Show me one instance where by Mr Lowe has ever backed down on a ****ty decision, held his hands up and said " I got it wrong ", once again until you can find that one instance, Jog on!!!

[spain saint]

To be honest its all quite reasonable - but lacking the positives Crouch also had - you could then draw up tables for Lowe in a similar vein pros and cons - everybody has them... naturally as individual fans we all place varying degrees of emphasis on different criteria eg some of us are risk averse' date=' some more gung ho in spirit - all fans just different perspectives but it will mean depending on what we believe to be more important criteria that we have differeing opinions on who amongst these IMPERFECT choices we felt was better to have at the helm - simple really ;-)[/quote']

 

DO you really think that Jonah would take the time to write up a list in the same vain as that against Lowe!

 

As for the highlighted bit, I don't have any such table!

[alpine_saint]

can't say I do, do you agree with the points he makes?

 

To take a leaf out of a beloved-fence-sitter-who-visits-here's book, I aint going to consider anything that isnt a "balanced" analysis...

[Frank's cousin]

To take a leaf out of a beloved-fence-sitter-who-visits-here's book, I aint going to consider anything that isnt a "balanced" analysis...

 

Keep em comming... ;-) REvenge will be sweet hahhahhaha (evil sort of Hammar horror laugh)

[Wes Tender]

Jonah:

Meanwhile, why not comment on the calamitous series of cokcups and faux pas he made in his brief spell at the club - after all, the thread is about Crouch not Lowe.

 

I don't agree. Kindly go back to the original post by Nineteen and see how many times he refers to Lowe, (and to a lesser extent Wilde) either by name or by saying "he" in the first few paragraphs. Granted that the thread title is about Crouch, but it is obvious from what Nineteen says in that first post that it is not just about Crouch.

 

I don't disagree with much you say in your summary about Crouch's record, but let's have one too from you about Lowe's tenure, in the interests of balance. If you feel unable to manage it, let me know and I'll write it for you, apologising in advance that it will be much longer than yours on Crouch, as Lowe has been here much longer and made many more mistakes.

 

Responding to Nineteen's request for a reply to his question, I think that it has been covered admirably by these three posts highlighted earlier.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemmel

Crouch said.... "He was informed as a major shareholder the night before the shares were being suspended". Now Crouch could always be telling porkies, but if Lowe had asked Crouch for a bail out and he had declined, i'm sure lowe would have told us about it during his media rounds

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SP Saint

Why the hell should Crouch throw yet more money in to prop up the idiots who have kicked him in the teeth time and time again. If Leon has £2 million more that he wants to spend on Saints, he would be far better spending it via a purchase of Southampton Football Club Ltd from the Administrators, possibly as a part of a consortium.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Smith

I don;t think for one single minute that Lowe would've gone on a begging mission in the eleventh hour, with cap in hand, to the man he despises, and chopped from the board. And in taking that money, would relinquish ANY power whatsoever in SLH.

[um pahars]

It doesn't matter what facts are presented because people will spin and lie to suit their own agendas

 

Do you mean like putting misleading and incorrect information up on here about the overdraft under Crouch in order to suit your agenda, only to slope off and neverr mention it again (or respond) when it has been shown up to be lies and spin????

 

Cue the silence

[Frank's cousin]

 

Cue the silence

 

log off time then ;-)

[derry]

Simply because he felt it was in HIS interests to let it go.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

So who did LC think would deliver the investment FF?

Surely not Salz etc as they appear to have given up from what you posted the other week. If they do not have the funds now then how were they going to

do it then.

Christ that reads aggressive......not meant that way just a question

 

Last September Leon Crouch was pretty sure there was no investors on the scene. His message to me was we have just got to grin and bare it, hope we don't go down sort of thing. Of course he very much wanted Wilde and Lowe out but was not sure how he could make it happen.

[SaintRobbie]

Last September Leon Crouch was pretty sure there was no investors on the scene. His message to me was we have just got to grin and bare it, hope we don't go down sort of thing. Of course he very much wanted Wilde and Lowe out but was not sure how he could make it happen.

 

I buy that. Again, a mighty Thank you to Barclays Bank!