Why didn't Crouch save us from administration?

[um pahars]

log off time then ;-)

 

For him??? Of course it's time to log off and scarper.

 

Happy to post ****** up on here, but when someone challenges it's veracity, it's ignore mode, twist the situation or the old diversion tactic.

 

For someone so up for impartiality and objectivity:smt119, the stuff he posts is up there with the best of the spin and lies.

[um pahars]

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.

 

But I thought at some point (before Xmas) there was talk that Crouch had offered to inject £2m to stave off administration if Lowe and Wilde stepped down and Poortvliet was replaced. I'm sure someone even mentioned this in the form of a letter which was rejected by Lowe & Wilde.

 

Can you remember that (or am I going mad)?????

[SaintRobbie]

But I thought at some point (before Xmas) there was talk that Crouch had offered to inject £2m to stave off administration if Lowe and Wilde stepped down and Poortvliet was replaced. I'm sure someone even mentioned this in the form of a letter which was rejected by Lowe & Wilde.

 

Can you remember that (or am I going mad)?????

 

As I recall he offered £2m of his own money if the other 2 (Lowe and Wilde) matched him.

[Tamesaint]

But I thought at some point (before Xmas) there was talk that Crouch had offered to inject £2m to stave off administration if Lowe and Wilde stepped down and Poortvliet was replaced. I'm sure someone even mentioned this in the form of a letter which was rejected by Lowe & Wilde.

 

Can you remember that (or am I going mad)?????

 

I think you are correct.

 

And it was more recent than Christmas. Wasn't it about the time that the Hungarian team played us behind closed doors. Was that the weekend of the 4th round of the cup when we were otherwise without a game??

[um pahars]

As I recall he offered £2m of his own money if the other 2 (Lowe and Wilde) matched him.

 

Aware of that one (publicity stunt or genuine offer??? that one has been done to death), but I was on about a unilateral offer made prior to this.

 

Might be wrong though, but sure it was mentioned on here. Tried a search but found nothing.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

But I thought at some point (before Xmas) there was talk that Crouch had offered to inject £2m to stave off administration if Lowe and Wilde stepped down and Poortvliet was replaced. I'm sure someone even mentioned this in the form of a letter which was rejected by Lowe & Wilde.

 

Can you remember that (or am I going mad)?????

 

In January, the United game, he must have believed he knew a way as shouted how 'we'll' sack him(JP) when 'we' get back in

[SaintRobbie]

Aware of that one (publicity stunt or genuine offer??? that one has been done to death), but I was on about a unilateral offer made prior to this.

 

Might be wrong though, but sure it was mentioned on here. Tried a search but found nothing.

 

I think it was speculative U P. I dont recall Crouch offering £2m separately.

 

As for the other, possibly a publicity stunt, probably to highlight how much money Lowe has ever given himself (afterall we now know he has taken £3m) - must have been a genuine offer... what if Wilde and Lowe had taken him up on it!?

[Ruffo]

From memory, and please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the likes of Lowe make an absolute killing when Saints was listed on the stock exchange?

 

If this is correct then he should put some of the dodgy gains back into the club if he stands by his statement that he loves SFC.

[SaintRobbie]

From memory, and please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the likes of Lowe make an absolute killing when Saints was listed on the stock exchange?

 

If this is correct then he should put some of the dodgy gains back into the club if he stands by his statement that he loves SFC.

 

I think you really need to direct this question to Mr Guy Askham, who still has the audacity to turn up on match days.

[Mole]

I think you really need to direct this question to Mr Guy Askham, who still has the audacity to turn up on match days.

 

Guy Askham has made a donation. Credit where credits due. Whether that makes up for his past actions is a matter of opinion.

[SaintRobbie]

Guy Askham has made a donation. Credit where credits due. Whether that makes up for his past actions is a matter of opinion.

 

mmmmm... thats nice of him. Thanks Guy, for the donation.

 

What's that flag Stanley?

[docker-p]

Guy Askham has made a donation. Credit where credits due. Whether that makes up for his past actions is a matter of opinion.

 

Putting in a grand after you have milked a fortune....mmmmmm....

 

No:smt097

[saint1977]

Guy Askham has made a donation. Credit where credits due. Whether that makes up for his past actions is a matter of opinion.

 

£1000 out of the amount Askham made is nothing. Don't be fooled by it. He only got involved with Secure Retirement as it was good for him, Wiseman, Richards and chums and they made a packet. SFC's long-term future and the ability to be able to fund a professional club, let alone one that would build such large overheads, didn't enter his mind as he counted his ill-gained loot. Doubt if he spared George Bowyer a thought.

[SaintRobbie]

Putting in a grand after you have milked a fortune....mmmmmm....

 

No:smt097

 

£1000?!!! Is that all!!!?? Oh dear Guy. Must try harder methinks.

[corsacar saint]

How much of his own money has Askham ever spent at the club, far far less than most

fans one would probably be right to assume. The man is a total leech who is one of the

main reasons the club is in such trouble allegedly.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

But I thought at some point (before Xmas) there was talk that Crouch had offered to inject £2m to stave off administration if Lowe and Wilde stepped down and Poortvliet was replaced. I'm sure someone even mentioned this in the form of a letter which was rejected by Lowe & Wilde.

 

Can you remember that (or am I going mad)?????

 

No you are quite right Steve - I think between September and December Leon Crouch started to see the liklihood of both relegation and administration and started to be more active in his "manouvering", "agitating" - call it what you will. A letter was sent and it was rejected due to the "strings" contained therein.

 

The letter's existance remained a secret for a couple of months - hence the discrepancy in the timing.

Edited 18 April, 2009 by Fitzhugh Fella

[NickG]

Putting in a grand after you have milked a fortune....mmmmmm....

 

No:smt097

 

£1000 out of the amount Askham made is nothing. Don't be fooled by it. He only got involved with Secure Retirement as it was good for him, Wiseman, Richards and chums and they made a packet. SFC's long-term future and the ability to be able to fund a professional club, let alone one that would build such large overheads, didn't enter his mind as he counted his ill-gained loot. Doubt if he spared George Bowyer a thought.

 

£1000?!!! Is that all!!!?? Oh dear Guy. Must try harder methinks.

 

think the list is those paying at least £1000, certainly Crouch has said his was higher and the channel islands guy was 10 times that.

[OldNick]

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

 

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

If that statement was from at the time of the club going into administration itshows what nonsense they spout. Increse attendances , sell players and get investment Lol. it's so easy isnt it. Why didnt the club build a 50k stadium if it is so easy to fill the grounds. God banks really dont know the real world.When did the bank reduce our overdraft back another £1m?

As far as I can see we had brought the overdraft down to the new level of £4m and would have thought they would have been pleased with that nd so seen we were doing it correctly.To then start bouncing cheques after the club had reduced its borrowings by 2.3m is harsh and underhand IMO.

i dont think I will blame the club for not selling players in that situation.In fact if the club had wished to quickly raise an extra few hundred thousand they could have done a March madness. They obviously had been under the impression that things were ok and they still being supported.I wonder who or what put the spanner in the works?

[SaintRobbie]

If that statement was from at the time of the club going into administration itshows what nonsense they spout. Increse attendances , sell players and get investment Lol. it's so easy isnt it. Why didnt the club build a 50k stadium if it is so easy to fill the grounds. God banks really dont know the real world.When did the bank reduce our overdraft back another £1m?

As far as I can see we had brought the overdraft down to the new level of £4m and would have thought they would have been pleased with that nd so seen we were doing it correctly.To then start bouncing cheques after the club had reduced its borrowings by 2.3m is harsh and underhand IMO.

i dont think I will blame the club for not selling players in that situation.In fact if the club had wished to quickly raise an extra few hundred thousand they could have done a March madness. They obviously had been under the impression that things were ok and they still being supported.I wonder who or what put the spanner in the works?

 

As I say Nick, there is only one fact. Barclays Bank pulled the rug from under Lowe at the earliest opportunity - as soon as evidence of the plc going overdrawn was there, despite the fact as you say they did it for a comparatively small amount of money. So why did they do that?

 

Answer: Even the bank could see Lowe's financial acumen was dubious and the plc was failing, whilst the Club was heading for relegation. It is clear: Barclays removed a failure before the failure made things worse.

 

Lowe HAD failed to attract investment - indeed Mary Corbett had reported that there were investors who were staying clear whilst Lowe was in the chair.

 

Lowe HAD ACTUALLY reduced attendences by poor club playing policy and his very presence that was turning fans away (Proven by the massive increases in gate receipts since his departure).

 

Lowe HAD failed to sell players. Despite underhandedly sidelining them in order to encourage them to leave in the January transfer window.

 

It's a no-brainer. Lowe FAILED, WAS FAILING and ADMINISTRATION WAS A CERTAINTY at some point anyway. Thus Barclays humiliated Lowe and Wilde, the club now has a queue of buyers, massive gate increases, hope and a degree of optimism. We have legends like MLT taking time to go on Soccer AM, Banners all over Southampton's streets and roundabouts looking to demonstrate how much the city loves the Club.

 

Barclays Bank are certainly no fools.

 

The poetic justice of the Bank finally killing the plc and Lowe's influence forever in the Club (despite the Lowedites constant drawl about him being good financially!) is simply wonderful football irony... and I have to say I love it!

[SaintRobbie]

No you are quite right Steve - I think between September and December Leon Crouch started to see the liklihood of both relegation and administration and started to be more active in his "manouvering", "agitating" - call it what you will. A letter was sent and it was rejected due to the "strings" contained therein.

 

The letter's existance remained a secret for a couple of months - hence the discrepancy in the timing.

 

Were the 'strings' not £2m from the other 2 though?

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Were the 'strings' not £2m from the other 2 though?

There were others Robbie, that Lowe and Wilde could not accept.

[SaintRobbie]

think the list is those paying at least £1000, certainly Crouch has said his was higher and the channel islands guy was 10 times that.

 

OK... I think people will be happy to see Askham fall into obscurity now. If he were to be involved centrally again then the fans could use him as the new Lowe and stay away if results start badly next season. Simply, he's next on the hate list.

 

As long as he lays very low I'm sure he'll drift away into the bad history along with his friend Mr Lowe forever.

[OldNick]

As I say Nick, there is only one fact. Barclays Bank pulled the rug from under Lowe at the earliest opportunity - as soon as evidence of the plc going overdrawn was there, despite the fact as you say they did it for a comparatively small amount of money. So why did they do that?

 

Answer: Even the bank could see Lowe's financial acumen was dubious and the plc was failing, whilst the Club was heading for relegation. It is clear: Barclays removed a failure before the failure made things worse.

 

Lowe HAD failed to attract investment - indeed Mary Corbett had reported that there were investors who were staying clear whilst Lowe was in the chair.

 

Lowe HAD ACTUALLY reduced attendences by poor club playing policy and his very presence that was turning fans away (Proven by the massive increases in gate receipts since his departure).

 

Lowe HAD failed to sell players. Despite underhandedly sidelining them in order to encourage them to leave in the January transfer window.

 

It's a no-brainer. Lowe FAILED, WAS FAILING and ADMINISTRATION WAS A CERTAINTY at some point anyway. Thus Barclays humiliated Lowe and Wilde, the club now has a queue of buyers, massive gate increases, hope and a degree of optimism. We have legends like MLT taking time to go on Soccer AM, Banners all over Southampton's streets and roundabouts looking to demonstrate how much the city loves the Club.

 

Barclays Bank are certainly no fools.

 

The poetic justice of the Bank finally killing the plc and Lowe's influence forever in the Club (despite the Lowedites constant drawl about him being good financially!) is simply wonderful football irony... and I have to say I love it!

The banners about Saints being loved have been put up by Saints trust.I do not know if they have been paid for.I do like coming into the city and seeing them.

You say on one hand RL was trying to freeze out players so they leave and complain he didnt sell!! the people we needed gone to get our costs down were teh high wage earners not t4rainees or the younger players on low contracts who if they had been sold would have given fans reason not to go.It was a Catch 22 situation.I just worry there was some dirty business going on and that sped up our demise.

[SaintRobbie]

There were others Robbie, that Lowe and Wilde could not accept.

 

Noted. Thanks.

 

 

.... you better be writing a book about this!

[OldNick]

There were others Robbie, that Lowe and Wilde could not accept.

What were they then Duncan. Did he want to come back as chairman to lend the money?

[INFLUENCED.COM]

There were others Robbie, that Lowe and Wilde could not accept.

 

Could not or would not ?

[um pahars]

I just worry there was some dirty business going on and that sped up our demise.

 

The only dirty business that made Barclay's pull the plug was the dirty business on the pitch that impacted massively on the ££££'s flowng their way.

 

The notion that someone was telling them to pull the plug (or doing the dirty) is fantasy stuff. They did it for there own reasons, pure and simple.

[SaintRobbie]

The banners about Saints being loved have been put up by Saints trust.I do not know if they have been paid for.I do like coming into the city and seeing them.

You say on one hand RL was trying to freeze out players so they leave and complain he didnt sell!! the people we needed gone to get our costs down were teh high wage earners not t4rainees or the younger players on low contracts who if they had been sold would have given fans reason not to go.It was a Catch 22 situation.I just worry there was some dirty business going on and that sped up our demise.

 

I see where you are coming from. But what demise? I am afraid I do not see this as a demise mate. We're on our way back.

 

Barclays acted decisively. If they were tipped off to watch Lowe like a hawk last month as the cheques may bounce ... fine... but thats a conspiracy theory too far for me. Anyone with a good knowledge of the club - and lets face it the Bank should have the biggest interest in the Club than anyone! - knew it was on the way down under Lowe's plc and his leadership.

 

It's a no-brainer why they ousted him and as I say extremely satisfying for a fan like me who's watched this hairbrained plc gradually erode this club under poor leadership and disunity for too many years - all under the banner of financial prudence (LOL) - to see it finally die in such an embarrassing way for the chief architects of the demise.

Edited 18 April, 2009 by SaintRobbie
spellink

[SaintRobbie]

What were they then Duncan. Did he want to come back as chairman to lend the money?

 

Wait for the book! It'll be a bloody bestseller, hope the lawyers advise Duncan cleverly so that he can present some historical facts but keep Lowe off his back.

 

Go on Duncan... you know you want to.

Edited 18 April, 2009 by SaintRobbie

[um pahars]

What were they then Duncan. Did he want to come back as chairman to lend the money?

 

Have not seen the letter, but the line I was told from someone "neutral" was that it requested Wilde and Lowe to stand down and for Poortvliet to get the boot. Not sure what "stand down" entailed i.e. sell shares or just resign from the board.

 

Coming the ther way was to be a new manager and a CEO (not Crouch). Assumed that it meant Crouch coming back on the board, but that was just an assumption.

 

This was at least third hand I reckon, so I wouldn't be too sure about it's veracity.

[OldNick]

The only dirty business that made Barclay's pull the plug was the dirty business on the pitch that impacted massively on the ££££'s flowng their way.

 

The notion that someone was telling them to pull the plug (or doing the dirty) is fantasy stuff. They did it for there own reasons, pure and simple.

You may be right but from my position if i was the bank and had seen the club at the start of the season 6.3 overdrawn getting that down to £5m. Then cutting it again , and the club meeting that in the short time required.That was in a time when the world finances were in a mess, unemployment going up and people contacting them telling them they were not going because they didnt like the chairman.To me if a business was doing still slashing costs with all that going on would keep them supporting us little longer.It should not have been a problem, the bank knew RL's popularity when he came back and did not pull the plug, why wait until they did? The timing is really odd and i sense something pushed them to act. What i dont know, but do you not find the whole timing and bouncing cheques so the club could not make quick contingency plans alittle strange?

[OldNick]

Have not seen the letter, but the line I was told from someone "neutral" was that it requested Wilde and Lowe to stand down and for Poortvliet to get the boot. Not sure what "stand down" entailed i.e. sell shares or just resign from the board.

 

Coming the ther way was to be a new manager and a CEO (not Crouch). Assumed that it meant Crouch coming back on the board, but that was just an assumption.

 

This was at least third hand I reckon, so I wouldn't be too sure about it's veracity.

well he was right about getting rid of Jan. RL made mistakes in his time but that was a massive one, especially as I believe that Wotte has made a big difference.

I doubt he would have asked them to sell share as I doubt he cared about that, and would there be buyers?

[OldNick]

Wait for the book! It'll be a bloody bestseller, hope the lawyers advise Duncan cleverly so that he can present some historical facts but keep Lowe off his back.

 

Go on Duncan... you know you want to.

It wouldnt be a best seller as we know Duncans position.We need somebody closer to give the real story.

[um pahars]

The timing is really odd and i sense something pushed them to act. What i dont know, but do you not find the whole timing and bouncing cheques so the club could not make quick contingency plans alittle strange?

 

Barclay's agreed their new position at some point at the start of the season and communicated it to Lowe in September. They wanted their exposure limited to £4m, simple as that.

 

Everyone in the game knew that our limit was £4m overdrawn, so why it came as a surprise that Barclay's failed to honour cheques over this amount I do not know.

 

Lowe knew the new rules of the game and I can only assume he misread Barclay's intentions.

 

We must have had cashflows that showed we would breach this £4m figure so why we didn't take other actions to bring cash in would appear to be either (a) poor management and head in the sand stuff, (b) massively misreading the situation (particularly Barclay's intentions) or © a hopeless case (something I don't buy given we could have raised money even if in a firesale in the intervening 6 months).

 

So I can only assume that when we started to go north of that figure and probably looked to go even further, then the bank pulled the plug. Nothing sinsiter, just Barclay's calling it in when their exposure looked to be getting worse and they decided enough was enough.

[SaintRobbie]

It wouldnt be a best seller as we know Duncans position.We need somebody closer to give the real story.

 

I think Club Historian is as close and credible as it gets Nick. Duncan's position is arguably the right one IMHO. But, as in all wars... history is written by the victors. Lowe's inevitable autobiography will be discredited regardless... because like everything he has done at the club, he lost the war when Barclays saw sense.

 

[SaintRobbie]

Have not seen the letter, but the line I was told from someone "neutral" was that it requested Wilde and Lowe to stand down and for Poortvliet to get the boot. Not sure what "stand down" entailed i.e. sell shares or just resign from the board.

 

Coming the ther way was to be a new manager and a CEO (not Crouch). Assumed that it meant Crouch coming back on the board, but that was just an assumption.

 

This was at least third hand I reckon, so I wouldn't be too sure about it's veracity.

 

Totally plauseable and given the situation a totally spot on request from Crouch.

[SaintRobbie]

Nothing sinsiter, just Barclay's calling it in when their exposure looked to be getting worse and they decided enough was enough.

 

I agree. It was a totally logical call from Barclays.

Edited 18 April, 2009 by SaintRobbie

[OldNick]

Barclay's agreed their new position at some point at the start of the season and communicated it to Lowe in September. They wanted their exposure limited to £4m, simple as that.

 

Everyone in the game knew that our limit was £4m overdrawn, so why it came as a surprise that Barclay's failed to honour cheques over this amount I do not know.

 

Lowe knew the new rules of the game and I can only assume he misread Barclay's intentions.

 

We must have had cashflows that showed we would breach this £4m figure so why we didn't take other actions to bring cash in would appear to be either (a) poor management and head in the sand stuff, (b) massively misreading the situation (particularly Barclay's intentions) or © a hopeless case (something I don't buy given we could have raised money even if in a firesale in the intervening 6 months).

 

So I can only assume that when we started to go north of that figure and probably looked to go even further, then the bank pulled the plug. Nothing sinsiter, just Barclay's calling it in when their exposure looked to be getting worse and they decided enough was enough.

My understanding was that we were told to get the overdraft down to £5m from 6.3 and it was slashed again later than september. For all the mistakes RL made I doubt he would not understand the danger of going over the overdraft limit unlkess he had spoken to somebody for it.Forget not earlier in the season it was stated that we had a barclays man taking decisions on here and that the club was taking orders from him.Do you recall that?

[um pahars]

My understanding was that we were told to get the overdraft down to £5m from 6.3 and it was slashed again later than september.

 

The revised £4m was communicated to Lowe and others in Spetember, of that there is no doubt.

 

For all the mistakes RL made I doubt he would not understand the danger of going over the overdraft limit unlkess he had spoken to somebody for it.

 

Well he did it, and that's all that matters. We have no idea why he failed to arrest going over, but going over we did, whilst he was in charge.

 

My assumption is that he didn't think Barclay's would call in the overdraft and he certainly didn't show any real effort on raising cash in the January window, but if anyone can come up with a valid reason why we breached that limit, then I'm all ears.

 

That #4m limit was firmly in place, so why we go over it?

 

Forget not earlier in the season it was stated that we had a barclays man taking decisions on here and that the club was taking orders from him.Do you recall that?

 

Rubbished it at the time and I'll rubbish it now.

 

Barclay's will not be involved in day to day decisions on how to micro-manage the business. They will set parameters and milestones that we have to work within and meet, but they will not be running the business.

 

If we don't meet their milestones or breach their parameters, then they have to re-evaluate their position. Simple as that.

[Gingeletiss]

Well he did it, and that's all that matters. We have no idea why he failed to arrest going over, but going over we did, whilst he was in charge.

 

Stewperts revenge, I 've said for ages, that he had an agenda, maybe it was all about revenge...........running us into the ground....'That'll teach them to get rid of me'!!!!!!

 

Just an opinion folks.....not fact8-[

[Saint Fan CaM]

I'm not going to comment too much on Crouch - I think my opinion of the bloke is fairly well known - but what I will ask is why he was supposedly willing to invest £2m a couple of months ago and yet took the role of chief begging bowl passer-rounder in the corporate areas at the Charlton game, saying the club needs £500k to get through the rest of the season, when his original "available" sum would more than cover it.

 

 

I think TNF the offer was to invest £2m IF Lowe and Wilde offered the same amount of money. They did not. So why should Crouch act on his own? He clearly should not, especially when Lowe and Wilde were in power and he was not. So the big question is, why did Lowe and Wilde not match Crouch's offer in the club's hour of need??? Crouch has shown how committed he is to SFC in the past many times, but also since admin has put in £50k of his own money.

 

Now where are Lowe and Wilde? Where is their money after taking so much out? There's one major villian in the demise of SFC and its name is Lowe.