From 'On the Cross'

[SaintBobby]

You could pen a few best sellers for Mills & Boom with toss like that.

What a prat.

 

You think Saints are a good romance novel?

 

Geeeessss........

[SaintBobby]

Quite a nice read, but it does read like a CB Fry tribute act.

 

I came up with a line about selling kidneys to pay BWP's wages on here about two weeks ago.

 

But who's counting?

 

Anyway, Crouch is almost certainly not part of the long term solution, his cringworthy buffoonery on Five Live the other day confirming this.

 

Just a clean sweep of the lot of them would be fine, thanks.

 

Interesting point. I thought you'd said a kidney might pay Skacel's wages??? But I did shamelessly nick it...sorry!

[Saint Fan CaM]

Having been a Saints supporter for some 60 years I think this posting by "Sid" is the biggest load of Ballacks I have read on this site for many a long a day. Whilst I think that new owners with none of the previous board room chumps is preferable, to slag off Crouch like this is totally out of order.

 

Crouch may not be everyones cuppa, but there is no denying his love and enthusiasm for all things Southampton FC. Crouch was only chairman for a few very difficult months and whilst I will agree mistakes were made he still achieved the correct end to the season by us staying up on the final day.

 

Whilst you are launching this attack on Crouch you seem to have forgotten it was the Lowe/Wilde combination that forcefully removed a blossoming partnership of Crouch and Pearson and sent us spiraling to the position we find ourselves in today. Personally I am 110% sure that had Crouch been left at the club with Pearson in the managers chair WE WOULD NOT NOW BE A DIVISION ONE CLUB.

 

Excellent post Sir. Anyone who has even half a brain should be able to tell the difference between a guy who had a few months in the Chair and hired one of the best English managerial prospects this club has seen since Lawrie and Lowe - a complete joke who managed to relegate the club twice thereby putting it into administration. I think someone must be on a wind-up.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

Those the ones that we were not going to sell a week earlier? So you put out players on loan with one hand, then take on players on loan in another? One being the highest salary at St Mary's

 

The simple fact is that salaries were at their highest of 81% of revenue, how exactly do you square that?!

 

How do I square that ? - quite easily really .

 

As UP has so succinctly pointed out the wage bill grew to such unsustainable proportions while SFC was under the control of previous regime(s) not while Crouch was Chairman . I find it disappointing when the basic facts of the matter are so blatantly ignored .

 

The latter stages of the 07/08 season saw us in serious danger of relegation and our new manager (Nigel Pearson) quite reasonably asked for temporary replacements for injured squad members , are you seriously telling me you didn't approve of the loan transfers of Richard Wright when we had all our keepers simultaneously out injured or Chris Lucketti when we lost Andrew Davis ? :confused:

 

Fair minded Saints fans will agree players such as Wright , Lucketti and Perry were instrumental in keeping us up last season so in my view any temporary adverse impact on the wage bill can be easily justified as cost effective . Perhaps you would have preferred we'd been relegated 12 months ago in order to save a relatively small amount of money - if so I'm prepared to bet you'd be in a minority of one on here if you do .

 

If you don't like Leon Crouch for some reason then I've no problem with any reasoned and fair criticism based on his actual record , bias on the other hand I just find egregious .

 

 

So let me get this muppet speak straight. Because we already had an unsustainable wage bill, there was no harm in adding to it? We off loaded Skacel and Rasiak, but permanently signed a higher wage earner in Davies! We then added to that in the loans of O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard.

 

You are no longer even bothering to argue the case on reducing costs, going with a different track that they were needed to stay up. Well all you are doing there is passing the problem on to who ever tries to clear the financial mess up. You are in no way solving the problem but making it worse.

 

So without all these loan players which were now vital for our survival of Hammill, Bennet, O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard. And not being able to afford Davis, Davies, John, Rasiak, Skacel, Saga, Safri, Viafara, Jesus, Licka, Wright. You then feel we have any chance of staying up the following season, where a team that had these players available to them escaped relegation on the last day of the season?

 

All that did was store the problems up for the future and your pathetic attempts to claim reasoned and fair criticism, what a muppet. If at any time a combination of any two from Crouch, Wilde or Lowe went to the executives and told them to reign the expenditure in, it would have been done. They had to get the approval from two of these to continue when Thompson was mooted for chairman, so it could easily have been done if either Crouch or Wilde sided with Lowe over expenditure. No one was thinking about Saints, just their own petty squabbles.

[Window Cleaner]

So let me get this muppet speak straight. Because we already had an unsustainable wage bill, there was no harm in adding to it? We off loaded Skacel and Rasiak, but permanently signed a higher wage earner in Davies! We then added to that in the loans of O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard.

 

You are no longer even bothering to argue the case on reducing costs, going with a different track that they were needed to stay up. Well all you are doing there is passing the problem on to who ever tries to clear the financial mess up. You are in no way solving the problem but making it worse.

 

So without all these loan players which were now vital for our survival of Hammill, Bennet, O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard. And not being able to afford Davis, Davies, John, Rasiak, Skacel, Saga, Safri, Viafara, Jesus, Licka, Wright. You then feel we have any chance of staying up the following season, where a team that had these players available to them escaped relegation on the last day of the season?

 

All that did was store the problems up for the future and your pathetic attempts to claim reasoned and fair criticism, what a muppet. If at any time a combination of any two from Crouch, Wilde or Lowe went to the executives and told them to reign the expenditure in, it would have been done. They had to get the approval from two of these to continue when Thompson was mooted for chairman, so it could easily have been done if either Crouch or Wilde sided with Lowe over expenditure. No one was thinking about Saints, just their own petty squabbles.

 

 

 

You forgot Vignal, he was on a lot of money for the number of matches he played. 10K£ left backs must be rare in the CCC.

[sidthesquid]

Excellent post Sir. Anyone who has even half a brain should be able to tell the difference between a guy who had a few months in the Chair and hired one of the best English managerial prospects this club has seen since Lawrie and Lowe - a complete joke who managed to relegate the club twice thereby putting it into administration. I think someone must be on a wind-up.

 

Why can none of you grasp that being against Crouch having any future involvement & believing his is/was part of the problem makes you pro-Lowe. I think they are all to blame & should all go away

[Wes Tender]

Why can none of you grasp that being against Crouch having any future involvement & believing his is/was part of the problem makes you pro-Lowe. I think they are all to blame & should all go away

 

And unless you can get some perspective on this and apply as much or more energy to placing the blame proportionately onto the shoulders of those who were most culpable for our current parlous situation, why don't you go away?

[Frank's cousin]

So let me get this muppet speak straight. Because we already had an unsustainable wage bill, there was no harm in adding to it? We off loaded Skacel and Rasiak, but permanently signed a higher wage earner in Davies! We then added to that in the loans of O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard.

 

You are no longer even bothering to argue the case on reducing costs, going with a different track that they were needed to stay up. Well all you are doing there is passing the problem on to who ever tries to clear the financial mess up. You are in no way solving the problem but making it worse.

 

So without all these loan players which were now vital for our survival of Hammill, Bennet, O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard. And not being able to afford Davis, Davies, John, Rasiak, Skacel, Saga, Safri, Viafara, Jesus, Licka, Wright. You then feel we have any chance of staying up the following season, where a team that had these players available to them escaped relegation on the last day of the season?

 

All that did was store the problems up for the future and your pathetic attempts to claim reasoned and fair criticism, what a muppet. If at any time a combination of any two from Crouch, Wilde or Lowe went to the executives and told them to reign the expenditure in, it would have been done. They had to get the approval from two of these to continue when Thompson was mooted for chairman, so it could easily have been done if either Crouch or Wilde sided with Lowe over expenditure. No one was thinking about Saints, just their own petty squabbles.

 

Good post - fair and well reasoned. I would add though that yes its likely that Had Pearson stayed we may well have done better, but we can only judge based on speculation given that 90% of teh squad that JUST avoided relegatina last seaosn would not eb available to Pearson this season because of the finacial restrictions - the level of these has become evident - had we played at least better and averages at least 5000 a game more, we might have just survived administration to date as this would eb in effect 2 mil extra over the season, but that assumes that this would not have been spent on 5 or 6 more experienced players wages staying on rather than being loaned out.... We simply do NOT know what Crouch would have done over the summer=- would he have made the difficult decisons and released the bigger wage earners or stuck with what we had and risked a quicker incraese in the Overdraft - we dont know and anything he says about this right now is irrelevent...

[Big Bad Bob]

And unless you can get some perspective on this and apply as much or more energy to placing the blame proportionately onto the shoulders of those who were most culpable for our current parlous situation, why don't you go away?

 

Why Wes, why can we not just point out LC's faults without having to drag RL's name back into it.

 

I think 99.99999% of the people on here know and recognise RL's faults without having to repeat them, signature style, in every single ****ing post.

 

As far as I can see STS has a problem with Crouch and the Robin Hoodesque legend that has been built around him so why can't he put it over without having to add 'BUT RL WAS WORSE, FACT'

[Wes Tender]

Why Wes, why can we not just point out LC's faults without having to drag RL's name back into it.

 

I think 99.99999% of the people on here know and recognise RL's faults without having to repeat them, signature style, in every single ****ing post.

 

As far as I can see STS has a problem with Crouch and the Robin Hoodesque legend that has been built around him so why can't he put it over without having to add 'BUT RL WAS WORSE, FACT'

 

Yes, I agree that STS has a problem with Crouch, as does Nineteen Canteen. I'd be quite happy for them both to show a bit more balance, but when you state that nearly 100% of posters on here know and recognise Lowe's faults, then those two are a couple of the few that don't readily admit that he has any faults. Or else they have an agenda of excusing Lowe's shortcomings by implicating Crouch as the reason that we are relegated and in administration, whereas it has been the madcap policies of this season that has been the main cause of our demise.

 

Spouting rubbish like this, requires a response:-

 

This is not about bucket collections (you'd need to fill about 5,000 buckets with tenners just to pay off the obscene financial mismanagement of Crouch's chairmanship).

 

If STS wants to debunk the Robin Hoodesque attributes of Crouch, please don't let him attempt to whitewash the actions Sheriff of Nottingham Lowe or his sidekick Sir Guy of Gisbourne Wilde.

[sidthesquid]

And unless you can get some perspective on this and apply as much or more energy to placing the blame proportionately onto the shoulders of those who were most culpable for our current parlous situation, why don't you go away?

 

I was going to start apportioning blame, but then I thought some t0ssp0t would start arguing over that, too. Who cares anymore (apart from the Crouch potatoes trying to defend their master)? They are all guilty and all need to leave the club in peace

[NickG]

time to get behind Quentin and move on!

[krissyboy31]

time to get behind Quentin and move on!

 

And Ben Le Flightbag!

[sidthesquid]

Yes, I agree that STS has a problem with Crouch, as does Nineteen Canteen. I'd be quite happy for them both to show a bit more balance, but when you state that nearly 100% of posters on here know and recognise Lowe's faults, then those two are a couple of the few that don't readily admit that he has any faults. Or else they have an agenda of excusing Lowe's shortcomings by implicating Crouch as the reason that we are relegated and in administration, whereas it has been the madcap policies of this season that has been the main cause of our demise.

 

Spouting rubbish like this, requires a response:-

 

This is not about bucket collections (you'd need to fill about 5,000 buckets with tenners just to pay off the obscene financial mismanagement of Crouch's chairmanship).

 

If STS wants to debunk the Robin Hoodesque attributes of Crouch, please don't let him attempt to whitewash the actions Sheriff of Nottingham Lowe or his sidekick Sir Guy of Gisbourne Wilde.

 

For the record:

I am not a Lowe supporter, but I admit that I am less rabidly anti than some.

I totally agree that he is a major contributor to our current mess

I totally agree that he should never darken our doors again

I hope that is plain enough for.

But I do have a major problem with Crouch

He is implicated in the mess whether he likes it or not & being a dedicated fan does not excuse him from some of the crass things he has done or make him a fit person to run the club

And I admit that the way he is talked about on here is Robin Hoodesque at times which annoys me, as does his own desire to play to the crowd, and I feel compelled to react. Just as I do when some of the more extreme nonsense is written about Lowe, or other things like the stick our younger players have taken.

But none of that makes me an apologist for Lowe & it's not an either/or - I can feel contempt for both of them & wish they would both depart.

I hope that makes my position clear

[up and away]

Good post - fair and well reasoned. I would add though that yes its likely that Had Pearson stayed we may well have done better' date=' but we can only judge based on speculation given that 90% of teh squad that JUST avoided relegatina last seaosn would not eb available to Pearson this season because of the finacial restrictions - the level of these has become evident - had we played at least better and averages at least 5000 a game more, we might have just survived administration to date as this would eb in effect 2 mil extra over the season, but that assumes that this would not have been spent on 5 or 6 more experienced players wages staying on rather than being loaned out.... We simply do NOT know what Crouch would have done over the summer=- would he have made the difficult decisons and released the bigger wage earners or stuck with what we had and risked a quicker incraese in the Overdraft - we dont know and anything he says about this right now is irrelevent...[/quote']

 

I don't know the answer to the Pearson question, although I have always maintained he would have been my choice, even though I stated at the time we were more likely to get relegated with him. Looking back at what he did with all the assets he had available, then trying to extrapolate what he would do without those is difficult, but common sense would tell you we were odds on for relegation. It's ok saying we would just pick up some decent old pro's, but we were competing with League one clubs for the players we could afford and were lucky to have Perry, Size and not a whole load of Wottons. Then you have to factor in all the uncertainty Pearson would have to deal with, trying to force players to find other clubs or cancel their contracts, not being able to play players if they insisted upon receiving their contractual bonuses? Then remembering the words of Dave Basset if such questions were asked during the interview "I would have just agreed, then done my own thing once I had the job". Then the other important point of the synergy of the new coach with the approach the youngsters were familiar with.

 

Taking into account the 10 point deduction, things look inevitable which ever way you look at it. Once we failed to get rid of the high earners or rid the high salaries we were in for it this season or next. Our only option to get out of this mess long term was for revenues to come from fees for the younger players. Our goose was cooked the moment Barclay's decided they had enough, I don't blame Wilde and Lowe for the decisions they made at the beginning of this season, because they were left with very limited options due to the finances, where they are guilty is prior to this point, of which Crouch must shoulder his fair share and incredibly stupid to boot.

[ottery st mary]

I don't know the answer to the Pearson question, although I have always maintained he would have been my choice, even though I stated at the time we were more likely to get relegated with him. Looking back at what he did with all the assets he had available, then trying to extrapolate what he would do without those is difficult, but common sense would tell you we were odds on for relegation. It's ok saying we would just pick up some decent old pro's, but we were competing with League one clubs for the players we could afford and were lucky to have Perry, Size and not a whole load of Wottons. Then you have to factor in all the uncertainty Pearson would have to deal with, trying to force players to find other clubs or cancel their contracts, not being able to play players if they insisted upon receiving their contractual bonuses? Then remembering the words of Dave Basset if such questions were asked during the interview "I would have just agreed, then done my own thing once I had the job". Then the other important point of the synergy of the new coach with the approach the youngsters were familiar with.

 

Taking into account the 10 point deduction, things look inevitable which ever way you look at it. Once we failed to get rid of the high earners or rid the high salaries we were in for it this season or next. Our only option to get out of this mess long term was for revenues to come from fees for the younger players. Our goose was cooked the moment Barclay's decided they had enough, I don't blame Wilde and Lowe for the decisions they made at the beginning of this season, because they were left with very limited options due to the finances, where they are guilty is prior to this point, of which Crouch must shoulder his fair share and incredibly stupid to boot.

 

 

Anybody but Rupert argument....Lowey on the damage limitation again..You never give up:smt117

[ottery st mary]

I was going to start apportioning blame, but then I thought some t0ssp0t would start arguing over that, too. Who cares anymore (apart from the Crouch potatoes trying to defend their master)? They are all guilty and all need to leave the club in peace

 

You and your little team do go on. You are not debating anything at all.

Some of your group have moved on but some of you will not give up on the pro Rupert anti Leon rubbish...Onwards and upwards...Don't keep bringing it up as you will end up with extreme stress.

[sidthesquid]

You and your little team do go on. You are not debating anything at all.

Some of your group have moved on but some of you will not give up on the pro Rupert anti Leon rubbish...Onwards and upwards...Don't keep bringing it up as you will end up with extreme stress.

 

Could I refer you to my previous post & to the very simple point that you and others cannot seem to grasp - being anti-Crouch does NOT make you pro-Lowe. I can happily despise them both

[ottery st mary]

Could I refer you to my previous post & to the very simple point that you and others cannot seem to grasp - being anti-Crouch does NOT make you pro-Lowe. I can happily despise them both

 

Let us be fair to Rupert..He was not totally to blame..Michael Wilde has to bear some of this disaster.

 

But we must not forget Guy Askham:rolleyes:

 

You can follow this I presume..sid? Looks clear to me after all:p

 

There were three to blame:cool:

[Frank's cousin]

Let us be fair to Rupert..He was not totally to blame..Michael Wilde has to bear some of this disaster.

 

But we must not forget Guy Askham:rolleyes:

 

You can follow this I presume..sid? Looks clear to me after all:p

 

There were three to blame:cool:

 

See I would say at least 4 as you ahev to include Leon as much as it pains you to do so.... because he COULD have prevented/vetoed the overspend under Burley as Football club chairman - but he chose not to believing Mr Wilde and his mysterious investors - naivity at best - failure to or refusal to be seen as the one making the 'anti-football' decisions take your pick -

[ottery st mary]

See I would say at least 4 as you ahev to include Leon as much as it pains you to do so.... because he COULD have prevented/vetoed the overspend under Burley as Football club chairman - but he chose not to believing Mr Wilde and his mysterious investors - naivity at best - failure to or refusal to be seen as the one making the 'anti-football' decisions take your pick -

 

Oh! NO, not good old Uncle Leon...He is the best[-X

[sidthesquid]

Let us be fair to Rupert..He was not totally to blame..Michael Wilde has to bear some of this disaster.

 

But we must not forget Guy Askham:rolleyes:

 

You can follow this I presume..sid? Looks clear to me after all:p

 

There were three to blame:cool:

 

Do you genuinely not believe Crouch has to bear any of the blame?

There is a long list, I agree, including Arry Redflaps, Burley, Askham, the other directors, the execs, etc, etc, but Lowe, Wilde & Crouch were the main shareholders/controllers & their inability to work together is what ultimately brought us down, as far as I'm concerned

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So let me get this muppet speak straight. Because we already had an unsustainable wage bill, there was no harm in adding to it? We off loaded Skacel and Rasiak, but permanently signed a higher wage earner in Davies! We then added to that in the loans of O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard. You don't seem to understand a very simple argument so I'll repeat it one last time :

1- Authorising these loans saved the club from relegation 12 months ago .

2- Relegation costs more than a few cheap loan deals . (Google 'cost effective') QED

 

You are no longer even bothering to argue the case on reducing costs, going with a different track that they were needed to stay up. Well all you are doing there is passing the problem on to who ever tries to clear the financial mess up. You are in no way solving the problem but making it worse . The worst outcome possible last season would have been relegation , as we avoided that fate LC's actions were justified by events . Long term planning is admirable but football clubs have to survive each season , Lowe never understood that neither do you obviously , or are you arguing we should get relegated every season until we find a non league level where we can pay players £250 p/week ?

 

So without all these loan players which were now vital for our survival of Hammill, Bennet, O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard. And not being able to afford Davis, Davies, John, Rasiak, Skacel, Saga, Safri, Viafara, Jesus, Licka, Wright. You then feel we have any chance of staying up the following season, where a team that had these players available to them escaped relegation on the last day of the season? A poorly constructed almost incomprehensible statement of no discernable sense - hence rather difficult to respond to .

 

All that did was store the problems up for the future and your pathetic attempts to claim reasoned and fair criticism, what a muppet. If at any time a combination of any two from Crouch, Wilde or Lowe went to the executives and told them to reign the expenditure in, it would have been done. They had to get the approval from two of these to continue when Thompson was mooted for chairman, so it could easily have been done if either Crouch or Wilde sided with Lowe over expenditure. No one was thinking about Saints, just their own petty squabbles There's plenty of blame to go round for sure and a smallish part of it sticks to Leon Crouch . My only intent was to point out the absurdity of some of the more personal and unfounded of the attacks directed at him on here . I invite other forum users to make their own judgements as to whose arguments they find the most convincing - yours or mine .

 

Additional .

The one thing you can rest assured of in any debate is that when one party resorts to crude insults ("muppet" should be spelt with a capital M by the way) they are most certainly losing the argument . You Sir can bandy insults from the safety of a anonymous Internet connection if you choose , I on the other hand seldom descend to that level . [-X

[um pahars]

So let me get this muppet speak straight. Because we already had an unsustainable wage bill, there was no harm in adding to it? We off loaded Skacel and Rasiak, but permanently signed a higher wage earner in Davies! We then added to that in the loans of O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard.

 

If only life was so easy so straightforward, or alternatively if you weren't so naive and blinkered in your views.

 

Of course the long term view would be to get the Club back on the straight and narrow (on and off the pitch), but if faced with the immediate crisis of having no suitable goalkeeper, injuries to key players or a squad needing beefing up, then I think most would argue that it would footballing and economic sense to temporarily relax the financial restraints.

 

If the alternative was relegation (and probably administration) then it there is a very rational argument to be made that it would have been one hell of a false economy not to get Wright and some of the others in.

 

As it turned out, we stayed up, we stayed out of administration and we had the support of the Bank and other creditors to continue trading.

 

On top of that, Crouch came in mid season which is probably not the best time to start restructuring a Club. A much better opportunity would be the summer with contracts expiring, a longer transfer window and the pre season to bed in a new team if many had to be offloaded.

 

And of course the best time would have been the summer of 2007 when Plan B should have been adopted, but was instead ignored by those who then held the balance of power i.e. Hone & the Executives (the same Executives who you believe played it all with a "straight bat")

 

You are no longer even bothering to argue the case on reducing costs, going with a different track that they were needed to stay up. Well all you are doing there is passing the problem on to who ever tries to clear the financial mess up. You are in no way solving the problem but making it worse.

 

Crouch inherited a £6m overdraft, and during a very stormy period he maintained both our Championship status and the support of our major creditors.

 

Pearson as well as Crouch were aware of the longer term issues relating to reducing costs, but they were also not blind to the more immediate crisis of staying in the Championship. If you thought all of our problems could be solved in six months, then I'm sure that not even SuperCrouch [sic] could have managed that.

 

Relegation would have most certainly meant administration, so when judged against the bigger picture, Crouch and Pearson delivered.

 

Just what would have been the point of bringing down costs drastically in that 5 month period only to have the Club relegated and then go into administration? You have to fight one battle at a time and ensure you win the most important ones.

 

We will never know whether Crouch and Pearson could have delivered in the longer term (on and off the pitch), but we certainly do know that Lowe, Wilde and the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up failed.

 

So without all these loan players which were now vital for our survival of Hammill, Bennet, O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard. And not being able to afford Davis, Davies, John, Rasiak, Skacel, Saga, Safri, Viafara, Jesus, Licka, Wright. You then feel we have any chance of staying up the following season, where a team that had these players available to them escaped relegation on the last day of the season?

 

Pearson inherited a demoralised and underperforming squad, still suffering from the after shock of having a manger who was demotivated and knew he was on his way out, and some caretakers who obviously didn't inspire them (the dilly dallying after Burley was something where I think criticism of Crouch is fair).

 

Even given the raw material available to Poortvliet, I don't think it is too much to assume Pearson would have the squad performing better than the 0.9 points per game Poortvliet achieved.

 

Additionally, we were not the lost cause you are now trying to make out.

 

I ceratinly don't remember Lowe, Wilde or the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up mention anything about failing, and I certainly don't think Lowe & Wilde returned to preside over relegation and administration. They came back thinking they could arrest the decline and turn things around.

Edited 30 April, 2009 by um pahars

[VectisSaint]

Having been a Saints supporter for some 60 years I think this posting by "Sid" is the biggest load of Ballacks I have read on this site for many a long a day. Whilst I think that new owners with none of the previous board room chumps is preferable, to slag off Crouch like this is totally out of order.

 

Crouch may not be everyones cuppa, but there is no denying his love and enthusiasm for all things Southampton FC. Crouch was only chairman for a few very difficult months and whilst I will agree mistakes were made he still achieved the correct end to the season by us staying up on the final day.

 

Whilst you are launching this attack on Crouch you seem to have forgotten it was the Lowe/Wilde combination that forcefully removed a blossoming partnership of Crouch and Pearson and sent us spiraling to the position we find ourselves in today. Personally I am 110% sure that had Crouch been left at the club with Pearson in the managers chair WE WOULD NOT NOW BE A DIVISION ONE CLUB.

+1

What I read in Sid's post was one of the most ridiculous posts ever, absolute ******** from start to finish.

 

I never really took to Crouch, still don't, but to blame him for the financial mess is about as stupid as a very stupid thing. Crouch has put more money directly into this Club than any of the other idiots that have been associated recently. He even continued to provide a small amount of sponsorship even with Lowe and Poodle in charge. Some people seem to be blind of facts - Crouch was only chairman from late December 2007 to early May 2008, prior to that it was Wilde's gang, aka Lowe's poodle. During his bried reign as chairman, Crouch loaned out 2 big earners, started the business of closing the corners and stopping the subsidised bus scheme to cut costs. He also appointed a very experienced manager/assistant manager in John Gorman, and when it became clear quite quickly that JG was still suffering from the effects of the loss of his wife acted swiftly to replace him, and in so doing ensured that we avoided the disaster that was relegation (and as Mandick has now found, perhaps unwittingly unearthed a rough diamond of a manager).

 

LC may not be the most erudite bloke around, but his heart is in the right place, and with moderate means he has done what he can to support the club financially. Unlike any of the other tossers that get mentioned here.

 

Clean sweep by all means, but LC is not the devil incarnate, whereas Wilde, Lowe and Askham come pretty close to being so.

[Greenridge]

+1

What I read in Sid's post was one of the most ridiculous posts ever, absolute ******** from start to finish.

 

I never really took to Crouch, still don't, but to blame him for the financial mess is about as stupid as a very stupid thing. Crouch has put more money directly into this Club than any of the other idiots that have been associated recently. He even continued to provide a small amount of sponsorship even with Lowe and Poodle in charge. Some people seem to be blind of facts - Crouch was only chairman from late December 2007 to early May 2008, prior to that it was Wilde's gang, aka Lowe's poodle. During his bried reign as chairman, Crouch loaned out 2 big earners, started the business of closing the corners and stopping the subsidised bus scheme to cut costs. He also appointed a very experienced manager/assistant manager in John Gorman, and when it became clear quite quickly that JG was still suffering from the effects of the loss of his wife acted swiftly to replace him, and in so doing ensured that we avoided the disaster that was relegation (and as Mandick has now found, perhaps unwittingly unearthed a rough diamond of a manager).

 

LC may not be the most erudite bloke around, but his heart is in the right place, and with moderate means he has done what he can to support the club financially. Unlike any of the other tossers that get mentioned here.

 

Clean sweep by all means, but LC is not the devil incarnate, whereas Wilde, Lowe and Askham come pretty close to being so.

 

Totally agree with the sentiments of this post as do many I imagine who can look at the facts of the matter and not attempt to massage the facts before them. Good post IMO.

[Foxstone]

His biggest mistake was not learning from Rupert's biggest mistake by promoting a caretaker manager from within and "far too quickly" annointing them with full managerial status only to quickly realise that he was no up to it - Despite a great many people knowing that in the first place.

 

He is part of the problem as he has been part of the club for the past two years in greater or lesser degrees and he had his chance to put it right when he had his 6 months in charge - he failed !

 

I commend him for his financial input and his clear passion for the cause. but he is in no way suitable to lead this club back from the wilderness.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

So Crouch opposed the Euell signing? Then 3 months later goes and approves greater expenditure in salary for Andrew Davies. Don't you see a little problem here? If Crouch was that worried about the salaries, how on earth can he of approved signing Davies permanently? The truth would be closer that he did not rate Euell, which is fair enough. But there is absolutely no sign that Crouch was serious about getting any costs under control.

 

 

Your recall seems curiously selective , was it not Leon Crouch who authorised the loan transfers of Skacel & Rasiak in January 08 ?

 

 

This has to be the best yet, We were discussing Crouch having any serious intentions of getting costs under control. Having lost that argument you now throw all this under "we had to do it to stay up". Crouch has made it clear to several that he was gainst Euell, but you don't then go signing Davies on a far higher salary and try and play the cost cutter. Absolutely no mention of signing Saga either? strangely selective here on wanting to cut costs.

 

 

Originally Posted by up and away So let me get this muppet speak straight. Because we already had an unsustainable wage bill, there was no harm in adding to it? We off loaded Skacel and Rasiak, but permanently signed a higher wage earner in Davies! We then added to that in the loans of O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard. You don't seem to understand a very simple argument so I'll repeat it one last time :

1- Authorising these loans saved the club from relegation 12 months ago .

2- Relegation costs more than a few cheap loan deals . (Google 'cost effective') QED

 

This is very simple, there are no indications that Crouch showed any serious attempt to get costs under control. Just the act of signing Davies permanently and the loan of Pearce was enough to offset any savings. You can try and squirm this round to some other avenue more to your liking, but the original statement that "there is absolutely no sign that Crouch was serious about getting any costs under control." is irrefutable.

[CB Fry]

His biggest mistake was not learning from Rupert's biggest mistake by promoting a caretaker manager from within and "far too quickly" annointing them with full managerial status only to quickly realise that he was no up to it - Despite a great many people knowing that in the first place.

 

He is part of the problem as he has been part of the club for the past two years in greater or lesser degrees and he had his chance to put it right when he had his 6 months in charge - he failed !

 

I commend him for his financial input and his clear passion for the cause. but he is in no way suitable to lead this club back from the wilderness.

 

 

Correct. Leon&Lawrie appointed Godd and Dorman because "the ship was steady".

 

All of several weeks later L&L appointed Pearson to "steady the ship".

 

These are genuine quotes from the two press conferences at the time and illustrate perfectly why Leon not being anywhere near the red buttons in the future can only be a good thing.

 

I won't go into the "we can make the play-offs" routine on the appointment of D&G as well.

 

That and the Radio Five Live thing the other which has been mentioned before I believe.

[um pahars]

Correct. Leon&Lawrie appointed Godd and Dorman because "the ship was steady".

 

All of several weeks later L&L appointed Pearson to "steady the ship".

 

These are genuine quotes from the two press conferences at the time and illustrate perfectly why Leon not being anywhere near the red buttons in the future can only be a good thing.

 

I won't go into the "we can make the play-offs" routine on the appointment of D&G as well.

 

That and the Radio Five Live thing the other which has been mentioned before I believe.

 

It was a tad over three weeks!!!!

 

I personally think we dillied and dallied over replacing Burley and knowing he was on the Scottish FA's shortlist, then I think we should have drafted a shortlist of our own and got on and replaced him immediately.

 

But I also have to say the claims that D & G were appointed permanently (as Foxstone insinuates) are somewhat wide of the mark.

 

(even at the time of D&G remaining in charge for the "foreseeable future" comments they were accompanied by the following quotes:

 

"we will not be rushed into an appointment",

 

"It allows the Club more time over the hunt for a replacement",

 

"We always said we would take our time to make sure we appoint the right person"

 

"It allows the Club to take their time over the hunt for a replacement for George Burley.".)

[CB Fry]

It was a tad over three weeks!!!!

 

 

Christ. Just felt longer then!

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

This is very simple, there are no indications that Crouch showed any serious attempt to get costs under control. Just the act of signing Davies permanently and the loan of Pearce was enough to offset any savings. You can try and squirm this round to some other avenue more to your liking, but the original statement that "there is absolutely no sign that Crouch was serious about getting any costs under control." is irrefutable.

 

10/10 for persistence - 0/10 for everything else .

 

Lets get a timeline established here as I feel that may throw a little light on the situation and clarify where the majority of the responsibility really lies .

 

July 07- Leon Crouch is removed from the Boardroom by the 'execs' .

Dec 07- Crouch ousts the 'execs' & returns to SLH as Chairman . LC now effectively controlling SLH for the first time .

May 08- Wilde & Lowe unite and overthrow Crouch .

 

 

The striking fact the above timeline illustrates is that LC was in full control for less than 6 months - just to make sure lets repeat that for the hard of thinking - less than 6 months . Your "there is absolutely no sign that Crouch was serious about getting any costs under control" is so far from the profound irrefutable insight you seem to consider it to be I'd say it's about as relevant as writing "the suicidal man failed to read the complete works of Shakespeare as he fell from the bridge".

 

The man had 6 months & only one transfer window to make his mark on the business , during that period he lost his manager , suffered a freaky run of injuries and had to fight a relegation battle and yet despite all these problems LC kept us up and kept us in business . Had sanity pervailed and LC stayed in charge I'm entirely confident he would have addressed the wage bill issue just as Lowe had to - the only difference being having a superior grasp of the fundamentals of the game he'd probably have made a better job of it .

 

You keep harping on about Andrew Davies (good value transfer) as if signing him was some kind of irresponsible Crouch mistake . The record shows this transfer (loan then permament) was arranged in Oct 07 - during a period that Crouch was entirly absent from the running of the club man! In any case Football clubs do actually need to employ football players you know - PLEASE TELL ME YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT - he was our player of the season for pity's sake .

 

Let's take another example , you use Ian Pearce's loan as a stick to beat Crouch with . Had you done any proper research before you post this tripe you'd know that Pearce was here for only 30 days and for all I (or you) know Fulham payed most of his wages during this brief period anyway . If he ended up costing us £30K in wages (which I doubt) what difference can that make when we owe £30m .

 

I think I'm going to end this here as you are starting to bore me and I've better uses of my precious time , I'll just let Um Pahars swat you in future as he's got more patience for this kind of nonsense than me .

Edited 1 May, 2009 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[um pahars]

Christ. Just felt longer then!

 

It did seem to rumble on that's for sure, but there were some midweek games in there (and a couple of Cup matches). I think it was only 4 League games.

 

That said, Burley was on the SFA shortlist for a while so that probably added to the length of the saga and even though he was not favourite, I would liked to have seen some contingency planning (but that stull doesn't excuse the claims D & G were permanent and the other dodgy claims on here).

[Wes Tender]

10/10 for persistence - 0/10 for everything else .

 

Lets get a timeline established here as I feel that may throw a little light on the situation and clarify where the majority of the responsibility really lies .

 

July 07- Leon Crouch is removed from the Boardroom by the 'execs' .

Dec 07- Crouch ousts the 'execs' & returns to SLH as Chairman . LC now effectively controlling SLH for the first time .

May 08- Wilde & Lowe unite and overthrow Crouch .

 

 

The striking fact the above timeline illustrates is that LC was in full control for less than 6 months - just to make sure lets repeat that for the hard of thinking - less than 6 months . Your "there is absolutely no sign that Crouch was serious about getting any costs under control" is so far from the profound irrefutable insight you seem to consider it to be I'd say it's about as relevant as writing "the suicidal man failed to read the complete works of Shakespeare as he fell from the bridge".

 

The man had 6 months & only one transfer window to make his mark on the squad , during that period he lost his manager , suffered a freaky run of injuries and had to fight a relegation battle and yet despite all these problems LC kept us up and kept us in business . Had sanity pervailed and LC stayed in charge I'm entirely confident he would have addressed the wage bill issue just as Lowe had to - the only difference being having a superior grasp of the fundamentals of the game he'd probably have made a better job of it .

 

You keep harping on about Andrew Davies (good value transfer) as if signing him was some kind of irresponsible Crouch mistake . The record shows his transfer was arranged in Oct 07 - during a period that Crouch was entirly absent from the running of the club man ! In any case Football clubs do actually need to employ football players you know - PLEASE TELL ME YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT - he was our player of the season for pity's sake .

 

Let's take another example , you use Ian Pearce's loan as a stick to beat Crouch with . Had you done any proper research before you post this tripe you'd know that Pearce was here for only 30 days and for all I (or you) know Fulham payed most of his wages during this brief period anyway . If he ended up costing us £30K in wages (which I doubt) what difference can that make when we owe £30m .

 

I think I'm going to end this here as you are starting to bore me and I've better uses of my precious time , I'll just let Um Pahars swat you in future as he's got more patience for this kind of nonsense than me .

 

That's what I call a comprehensive demolition job of up and away's post.

[Foxstone]

It did seem to rumble on that's for sure, but there were some midweek games in there (and a couple of Cup matches). I think it was only 4 League games.

 

That said, Burley was on the SFA shortlist for a while so that probably added to the length of the saga and even though he was not favourite, I would liked to have seen some contingency planning (but that stull doesn't excuse the claims D & G were permanent and the other dodgy claims on here).

 

Well the implication was certainly that they were permanently appointed." For the forseeable future" certainly gave no impression that we were looking at other options at that time. Things only seemed to hot up after that embarrassing televised beating from "The Gas" of Bristol Rovers.

 

During that entire 6 month stretch of Leons stewardship, he never gave the impression that he was in control of events - He would probably be a very vocal and effective leader of the oppostion but a very bad leader.

[Frank's cousin]

If only life was so easy so straightforward, or alternatively if you weren't so naive and blinkered in your views.

 

Of course the long term view would be to get the Club back on the straight and narrow (on and off the pitch), but if faced with the immediate crisis of having no suitable goalkeeper, injuries to key players or a squad needing beefing up, then I think most would argue that it would footballing and economic sense to temporarily relax the financial restraints.

 

If the alternative was relegation (and probably administration) then it there is a very rational argument to be made that it would have been one hell of a false economy not to get Wright and some of the others in.

 

As it turned out, we stayed up, we stayed out of administration and we had the support of the Bank and other creditors to continue trading.

 

On top of that, Crouch came in mid season which is probably not the best time to start restructuring a Club. A much better opportunity would be the summer with contracts expiring, a longer transfer window and the pre season to bed in a new team if many had to be offloaded.

 

And of course the best time would have been the summer of 2007 when Plan B should have been adopted, but was instead ignored by those who then held the balance of power i.e. Hone & the Executives (the same Executives who you believe played it all with a "straight bat")

 

 

 

Crouch inherited a £6m overdraft, and during a very stormy period he maintained both our Championship status and the support of our major creditors.

 

Pearson as well as Crouch were aware of the longer term issues relating to reducing costs, but they were also not blind to the more immediate crisis of staying in the Championship. If you thought all of our problems could be solved in six months, then I'm sure that not even SuperCrouch [sic] could have managed that.

 

Relegation would have most certainly meant administration, so when judged against the bigger picture, Crouch and Pearson delivered.

 

Just what would have been the point of bringing down costs drastically in that 5 month period only to have the Club relegated and then go into administration? You have to fight one battle at a time and ensure you win the most important ones.

 

We will never know whether Crouch and Pearson could have delivered in the longer term (on and off the pitch), but we certainly do know that Lowe, Wilde and the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up failed.

 

 

 

Pearson inherited a demoralised and underperforming squad, still suffering from the after shock of having a manger who was demotivated and knew he was on his way out, and some caretakers who obviously didn't inspire them (the dilly dallying after Burley was something where I think criticism of Crouch is fair).

 

Even given the raw material available to Poortvliet, I don't think it is too much to assume Pearson would have the squad performing better than the 0.9 points per game Poortvliet achieved.

 

Additionally, we were not the lost cause you are now trying to make out.

 

I ceratinly don't remember Lowe, Wilde or the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up mention anything about failing, and I certainly don't think Lowe & Wilde returned to preside over relegation and administration. They came back thinking they could arrest the decline and turn things around.

 

Would you agree that when Crouch was Football club chairman before Wildes departure from the PLC board, he should have checked a bit harder to see if Wilde was good for the promised investment before the FACT rather than just ousting wilde later when the money was spent and no investment was likely?

 

What of the investment that Crouch said was iminent, firstly 3 months, then 6 then 9? - everyone is very quick to point out the failings of Lowe and Wilde and fair enough you cant argue against many of them, but same as Crouch, these were done the above in good faith, but he is not granted any absolution for that?

[Foxstone]

My sentiments too Frank !

 

Added to that the fact I am getting increasingly sick and tired of the sheer division and "internal politics" of this club being played out so openly and repeatedly in the media.

 

And Leon is up to his neck in that just as much as Lowe is...

[Frank's cousin]

My sentiments too Frank !

 

Added to that the fact I am getting increasingly sick and tired of the sheer division and "internal politics" of this club being played out so openly and repeatedly in the media.

 

And Leon is up to his neck in that just as much as Lowe is...

 

Thing is I am only pointing this out to present the other perspective - and to try and highlight that its easy playing the blame game, but if you wnat to play by those rules Leon has to accept his 'contribution' and so should his supporters.

 

I dont hate crouch, or even dislike him, never met him so cant judge anyway and apart form the media gaffs, i am sure even those are driven by the heart being on his sleave - something that fans relate to easier than Lowe whose heart was only on dispaly when the 'NOrth LOndon yobbos' came poaching players and managers. Lowe only ahs himself to blame for his inabilty to relate to fans - he should ahve taken more care and heeded advice of those more experienced in dealing with such an emotive customer base. But To thos ethat compare LOwes 12 years to CRouchs time and use the number of mistakes made as a differentiator, if you want to do this, then you ahve to divide the number of mistakes by the time to get a truer picture - this would put them on a par, although you would like to think LOwe would jhave learned a bit quicker from the previous ones. I think the problem is he woudl probably still argue that appointing gray and Wigley, were not mistakes, but like ordinary employment - sometimes the candidates given the job dont fulfil their potential shown when interviewed - thus they are replaced - What I find disspointing is that Lowe did not appreciate the impact on the whole business that getting these decisions wrong can have. The difference between me and many is that just because of this I dont think he is evil, just sadly naive - naviety that has cost the club and business greatly - but some of our fellow posters cant see this. its all unless you hate him you must support him... thats the naive perspective if you ask me.

[um pahars]

Well the implication was certainly that they were permanently appointed."

 

Which of the following are you struggling with (as these accompanied the "foreseeable future" comment/statement of around the 7th/8th Feb)????

 

"we will not be rushed into an appointment",

 

"It allows the Club more time over the hunt for a replacement",

 

"We always said we would take our time to make sure we appoint the right person"

 

It allows the Club to take their time over the hunt for a replacement for George Burley.

[um pahars]

Would you agree that when Crouch was Football club chairman before Wildes departure from the PLC board' date=' he should have checked a bit harder to see if Wilde was good for the promised investment before the FACT rather than just ousting wilde later when the money was spent and no investment was likely?[/quote']

 

Crouch himself has admitted that he should have questioned/looked deeper into Wilde.

 

What of the investment that Crouch said was iminent' date=' firstly 3 months, then 6 then 9? - everyone is very quick to point out the failings of Lowe and Wilde and fair enough you cant argue against many of them, but same as Crouch, these were done the above in good faith, but he is not granted any absolution for that? [/quote']

 

I would be interested to see these imminent quotes, because the only ones I can remember were prefixed by "hopefully" etc and a belief that he could get it in.

 

He was always positive (which is no bad trait), but it was never imminent and it was never promised. If you thought he was inferring any investment was imminent then I have to say you were probably even more optimistic than Crouch himself!!

 

 

 

Jan 2008

 

"I am a very positive person,"

 

"I am convinced the right investment deal can be found for this club within the next three to six months.

 

March 2008

 

"We are trying to get investment. It's not easy but I believe we will get the investment the club needs.

 

"I can't guarantee when, but hopefully with-in six to nine months - in time for us to mount a serious challenge next season to get back to where we belong, in the Premiership."

 

May 2008

 

"We've been talking to various investors for several months now and hope that one of them will come forward and buy the club.

 

"I hope there is a buyer but there is no guarantee."

[Nineteen Canteen]

Correct. Leon&Lawrie appointed Godd and Dorman because "the ship was steady".

 

All of several weeks later L&L appointed Pearson to "steady the ship".

 

These are genuine quotes from the two press conferences at the time and illustrate perfectly why Leon not being anywhere near the red buttons in the future can only be a good thing.

 

I won't go into the "we can make the play-offs" routine on the appointment of D&G as well.

 

That and the Radio Five Live thing the other which has been mentioned before I believe.

 

I think the many little nuggets from Crouch contained in this piece regarding the appointment of D&G sums up the difference between being positive and having a grip on the reality of a situation. Do you think he wrote Lowe's welcome speech for the dutch duo? In any event IMO it has to be a concern that L&L have not got kept a respectable distance.

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=9707

[up and away]

10/10 for persistence - 0/10 for everything else .

 

Lets get a timeline established here as I feel that may throw a little light on the situation and clarify where the majority of the responsibility really lies .

 

July 07- Leon Crouch is removed from the Boardroom by the 'execs' .

Dec 07- Crouch ousts the 'execs' & returns to SLH as Chairman . LC now effectively controlling SLH for the first time .

May 08- Wilde & Lowe unite and overthrow Crouch .

 

The striking fact the above timeline illustrates is that LC was in full control for less than 6 months - just to make sure lets repeat that for the hard of thinking - less than 6 months . Your "there is absolutely no sign that Crouch was serious about getting any costs under control" is so far from the profound irrefutable insight you seem to consider it to be I'd say it's about as relevant as writing "the suicidal man failed to read the complete works of Shakespeare as he fell from the bridge".

 

But there was only one idiot who tried to infer he started to read the complete works of Shakespeare. If you are going to try and say Crouch was serious about making cutbacks, you do not quote two examples in Rasiak and Skacel, then forget about all the other actions which nullify that and ends up adding to the wage bill.

 

The man had 6 months & only one transfer window to make his mark on the business , during that period he lost his manager , suffered a freaky run of injuries and had to fight a relegation battle and yet despite all these problems LC kept us up and kept us in business . Had sanity pervailed and LC stayed in charge I'm entirely confident he would have addressed the wage bill issue just as Lowe had to - the only difference being having a superior grasp of the fundamentals of the game he'd probably have made a better job of it .

 

In case you had not noticed, but we went into administration because we spent money we did not have. Crouch was part of that problem and there is nothing you can show that he did not add to it.

 

You keep harping on about Andrew Davies (good value transfer) as if signing him was some kind of irresponsible Crouch mistake . The record shows this transfer (loan then permament) was arranged in Oct 07 - during a period that Crouch was entirly absent from the running of the club man! In any case Football clubs do actually need to employ football players you know - PLEASE TELL ME YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT - he was our player of the season for pity's sake .

 

When you consider that Davies has not played a full game for Stoke, it is still unbelievable that we managed to get rid of him. It would come as no surprise to many if we were not still stuck with his salary even today. That was a monumental piece of luck being able to move on Davies. We had an OPTION to sign Davies permanently, we did not have to sign Davies permanently in January under Crouch or pay him a greater salary than Skacel!

 

Let's take another example , you use Ian Pearce's loan as a stick to beat Crouch with . Had you done any proper research before you post this tripe you'd know that Pearce was here for only 30 days and for all I (or you) know Fulham payed most of his wages during this brief period anyway . If he ended up costing us £30K in wages (which I doubt) what difference can that make when we owe £30m .

 

So by your supreme logic, no attempt at cutting costs, just adding to it because everything looks bad. Just try and remind yourself what the point you are actually trying to argue? It can only be that Crouch just added to the wage bill because we were in debt already, absolutely brilliant

 

I think I'm going to end this here as you are starting to bore me and I've better uses of my precious time , I'll just let Um Pahars swat you in future as he's got more patience for this kind of nonsense than me .

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Originally Posted by up and away

So Crouch opposed the Euell signing? Then 3 months later goes and approves greater expenditure in salary for Andrew Davies. Don't you see a little problem here? If Crouch was that worried about the salaries, how on earth can he of approved signing Davies permanently? The truth would be closer that he did not rate Euell, which is fair enough. But there is absolutely no sign that Crouch was serious about getting any costs under control.

Your recall seems curiously selective , was it not Leon Crouch who authorised the loan transfers of Skacel & Rasiak in January 08 ?

 

So just who's point was curiously selective?