Daren W Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I was told by a respected colleague once that the overuse of exclamation marks in your writings was an indiction of how big a w4nker you were or were dealing with. That was long before the development of emoticons which have made the exclamtion mark redundant - if not the theory. You criticising grammar? Oh the bitter, bitter, irony.... What does your respected colleague/made up friend, make of numpties who cut and paste their quotes, aimed to make themselves seem more intelligent, and yet still manage to spell like a ten year old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Bill Shankley once said "Football is bigger than life". That said why do we have to watch the numpties squabble amongst themselves over petty mind numbing points of grammar, or the use of exclamation marks etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trumush Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Nineteen C : Perhaps you will ask your Uncle Rupert why after milking the club of millions in dividends, salary, expenses, and payoffs, he didn't try to rescue Saints by either organising debenture loans from the major shareholders or a rights issue. It mystifies me. And I'm sure you are in a position to ask or even reply. It mystifies me as well - any thoughts anyone ? Also why no offers of loans from Lowe/Wilde to keep us going in this hopefully short interim period ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Bill Shankley once said "Football is bigger than life". That said why do we have to watch the numpties squabble amongst themselves over petty mind numbing points of grammar, or the use of exclamation marks etc? I think he said It's Much More Important Than That Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Sorry I dont agree. So you're saying you'd rather the club go out of business than have Crouch involved? Please John, dont ever criticise the anti Lowe mob for being blinkered ever again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Daren, 19C would like nothing more than to divert a discussion about Leon personally tiding the club over into a grammatical punch-and-judy. The no-Crouch-at-any-costs tendency are looking particularly foolish on this thread - let them stick to the subject of the thread because it's pretty revealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 So you're saying you'd rather the club go out of business than have Crouch involved? Please John, dont ever criticise the anti Lowe mob for being blinkered ever again... I am not really sure what I am really saying. SFC is your club and my club and everyone else's who is a fan I just dont like the idea of someone like Loads of Money Crouch lording over us and possibly thinking how great I am saving the club. I dont want SFC to end either as I have been supporting them for nearly 50 years. But today it is difficult to believe that SFC is the club Ted Bates grew and I have supported for such a long time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I am not really sure what I am really saying. SFC is your club and my club and everyone else's who is a fan I just dont like the idea of someone like Loads of Money Crouch lording over us and possibly thinking how great I am saving the club. I dont want SFC to end either as I have been supporting them for nearly 50 years. But today it is difficult to believe that SFC is the club Ted Bates grew and I have supported for such a long time I don't like to say this to a fan of so many years, but what a w@nker for thinking this. Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I am not really sure what I am really saying. SFC is your club and my club and everyone else's who is a fan I just dont like the idea of someone like Loads of Money Crouch lording over us and possibly thinking how great I am saving the club. I dont want SFC to end either as I have been supporting them for nearly 50 years. But today it is difficult to believe that SFC is the club Ted Bates grew and I have supported for such a long time The old expression about not seeing the wood for the trees comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Daren, 19C would like nothing more than to divert a discussion about Leon personally tiding the club over into a grammatical punch-and-judy. The no-Crouch-at-any-costs tendency are looking particularly foolish on this thread - let them stick to the subject of the thread because it's pretty revealing. I would much rather have Crouch than no club - no argument same as I would have Lowe if the alternative was no club.... I think you will find that there are more who would rather have no club than Lowe than no club or Crouch..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I don't like to say this to a fan of so many years, but what a w@nker for thinking this. Unbelievable. Please could you explain what you find unbelieveable or are you bitter and twisted that you cannot accept that other people have different views to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Please could you explain what you find unbelieveable or are you bitter and twisted that you cannot accept that other people have different views to you. It is offensive that you even have to ask. Crouch has bailed us out, but you are more worried about him lording it over us than you are grateful that he has put his hand in his pocket, again, for the club. A bit more than your man Rupert has done, isn't it. I don't think I'm the bitter and twisted one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Crouch has bailed us out. Could you explain what this means - if Crouch hadn't provided that loan, what would the current position be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 This is a really tough call, and some of the more dismissive resposnes don't quite do it justice in both directions. Crouch the "Chairman & politician" is something that I have issues with and I criticised him for his public speaking when in that role and for not finding a way to remove Lowe properly when he sided with Wilde. Add to that the not insignificant point that there could be no clean break with the past failed regimes IF he stays around, then door is left open for sniping or Leonisms instead of MLT isms Crouch the "uber-fan" and saviour - I like everyone else would welcome him with open arms and would happily fly over to join a queue to shake his hand and say thankyou for helping to save our club and would join any campaign to build a statue or rename a street after him. The PROBLEM as I see it is actually more about trying to find a way to reconcile the two. Leon has stepped up to the plate and bought some time, (not sure whether Fry has USED that very well though). He MAY have to do it again IF he can So how can the owners/fans reward him for taking that risk and yet avoid the problems of keeping links to the past? That I think is more the problem and one I have no idea how to solve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 (edited) Nineteen C : Perhaps you will ask your Uncle Rupert why after milking the club of millions in dividends, salary, expenses, and payoffs, he didn't try to rescue Saints by either organising debenture loans from the major shareholders or a rights issue. It mystifies me. And I'm sure you are in a position to ask or even reply. I can't ask him as I don't know him and therefore could only provide my opinion to your questions. I can't comment on how much Rupert 'Milked' because I don't know how much he did in the same way I don't know how much someone like Lawrie McMenemy 'milked' to use your turn of phrase which btw I don't necessarily agree is the right word but if it works for Lowe it should work for all. I do think it would make interesting reading though if all the directors (exec and non exec) since the formation of the plc had their 'milk quotas' published. I think your point about a rights issue is valid but surely this could have been levelled at Hone when he first mentioned we could go bust without investment and then Crouch who seemed to not accept Hone's statement early in his tenure by advising players would not move on for financial reasons at the club. By the time of Lowe's second stint in charge perhaps he felt a rights issue would be an expensive failure given that far larger institutions than SLHplc had recently gone down that route and left them badly wounded and bereft of hope but with government bail out to fall back on. I personally don't think rights issues work when it's widely known to be nothing short of a bail out but to raise capital to help a strong business grow to the next level then they have a role to play. When he was clear to the board Wilde was not going to deliver investment then that would have been the optimum time for a right's issue and not under Lowe's watch - it wouldn't have sold. Just my opinion. Edited 20 May, 2009 by Nineteen Canteen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 This is a really tough call, and some of the more dismissive resposnes don't quite do it justice in both directions. Crouch the "Chairman & politician" is something that I have issues with and I criticised him for his public speaking when in that role and for not finding a way to remove Lowe properly when he sided with Wilde. Add to that the not insignificant point that there could be no clean break with the past failed regimes IF he stays around, then door is left open for sniping or Leonisms instead of MLT isms Crouch the "uber-fan" and saviour - I like everyone else would welcome him with open arms and would happily fly over to join a queue to shake his hand and say thankyou for helping to save our club and would join any campaign to build a statue or rename a street after him. The PROBLEM as I see it is actually more about trying to find a way to reconcile the two. Leon has stepped up to the plate and bought some time, (not sure whether Fry has USED that very well though). He MAY have to do it again IF he can So how can the owners/fans reward him for taking that risk and yet avoid the problems of keeping links to the past? That I think is more the problem and one I have no idea how to solveClub Vice President seems apt. A link without interference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Club Vice President seems apt. A link without interference. I think he would love that sort of role!! He may well be our saviour after all paying in to help wages etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Club Vice President seems apt. A link without interference. Nice idea. Wouldnt have a problem with that. Trouble is Lawrie, allegedly, used his honarary ambassadorial role as a lunch (launch?) pad to becoming 'involved'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 This is a really tough call, and some of the more dismissive resposnes don't quite do it justice in both directions. Crouch the "Chairman & politician" is something that I have issues with and I criticised him for his public speaking when in that role and for not finding a way to remove Lowe properly when he sided with Wilde. Add to that the not insignificant point that there could be no clean break with the past failed regimes IF he stays around, then door is left open for sniping or Leonisms instead of MLT isms Crouch the "uber-fan" and saviour - I like everyone else would welcome him with open arms and would happily fly over to join a queue to shake his hand and say thankyou for helping to save our club and would join any campaign to build a statue or rename a street after him. The PROBLEM as I see it is actually more about trying to find a way to reconcile the two. Leon has stepped up to the plate and bought some time, (not sure whether Fry has USED that very well though). He MAY have to do it again IF he can So how can the owners/fans reward him for taking that risk and yet avoid the problems of keeping links to the past? That I think is more the problem and one I have no idea how to solve Concur with that Phil. Leon does need to be recognised but I would certainly rather not have him in a decision making role at the club going forward. I really do want to see a clean sweep of all our failed past ! Westons suggestion further down is a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Originally Posted by John B Please could you explain what you find unbelieveable or are you bitter and twisted that you cannot accept that other people have different views to you. It is offensive that you even have to ask. Crouch has bailed us out, but you are more worried about him lording it over us than you are grateful that he has put his hand in his pocket, again, for the club. A bit more than your man Rupert has done, isn't it. I don't think I'm the bitter and twisted one. Crouch has done exactly what? Got the £2M out on the end of the fishing line again? When you make an offer such as paying this months wages on the proviso that any buyer repays you, there is absolutely NO WAY the administrator can accept such an offer, because he cannot guarantee the conditions. So just as with the £2M offer to Lowe and Wilde, impose conditions that make any offer impossible to accept and this 3 card trick is becoming all to familiar. Crouch along with several others have been been generous with donations to the club, but I can't really blame any of the others for our current financial mess, Crouch is in there up to his pikey neck. If Crouch were to do something truly altruistic, then he deserves justified congratulations, but he does not have enough in the bank to cover the damage he has helped cause. To all those who are now praising Crouch and his benevolance, would it not have been better to use that money whilst the club was still afloat? If you are not truly bitter and twisted, you would accept what ever is best for Saints irrespective of who is chairman or providing funds. You could never make that small step, others put the club first above all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 FFS, the man pays money out of his own pocket to keep this club alive (unlike your employer/lover/controller) and you can't even post a simple thank you without sniping and carping... What a throughly unpleasant piece of crap you are... Crap I maybe Daren and if this club folds regardless of Crouch's well intentioned interventions we will all be flushed down the pan together. You keep making these accusations about my non-existent relationship with Lowe but becasue of your increasingly hysterical responses I am reminded of Little Britain. For some reason I imagine you to be the junior civil servant protrayed by David Walliams who struggles to contain his unrequited love for the Prime Minister as played by Tony Head and in this instance represented by Leon Crouch . It's rather tragic than amusing if I'm honest and I wish the thought never occured to me but there we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Club Vice President seems apt. A link without interference. If it were to go that far, and personally for me I wouldn't want LC, MW, RL, PT, PT, MC, AC etc. etc. etc. anyway near the 'new' club, then I would make it an 'honorary' role only. That we he can have no influence whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Billy Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Crouch has done exactly what? Got the £2M out on the end of the fishing line again? When you make an offer such as paying this months wages on the proviso that any buyer repays you, there is absolutely NO WAY the administrator can accept such an offer, because he cannot guarantee the conditions. So just as with the £2M offer to Lowe and Wilde, impose conditions that make any offer impossible to accept and this 3 card trick is becoming all to familiar. Crouch along with several others have been been generous with donations to the club, but I can't really blame any of the others for our current financial mess, Crouch is in there up to his pikey neck. If Crouch were to do something truly altruistic, then he deserves justified congratulations, but he does not have enough in the bank to cover the damage he has helped cause. To all those who are now praising Crouch and his benevolance, would it not have been better to use that money whilst the club was still afloat? If you are not truly bitter and twisted, you would accept what ever is best for Saints irrespective of who is chairman or providing funds. You could never make that small step, others put the club first above all. Conversely, Crouch could well have no guarantees that he will ever get this money back. He could be taking a massive risk with a chance of never seeing this money again. Why don't you wait for the full facts to come out until you start slagging the guy off and labelling him a pikey. Fecking unbelievable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I am grateful to Leon Crouch if what we hear is true and I'm happy to say thank you. But I still don't want him anywhere near the place next season..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Please could you explain what you find unbelieveable or are you bitter and twisted that you cannot accept that other people have different views to you. John, you are in no position to lecture anyone about being bitter and twisted when you have just gone off on one about Leon Crouch when he's single handedly keeping the football club above water. I disagree with Lowe as any kind of choice but if it's a choice between him and no club then it's no brainer.... I see no indication of Crouch "lording it" over anyone. I see a Saints fan bailing this club out of a dire, dire situation... Glases houses, stone etc... You do the maths John... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Crap I maybe Daren and if this club folds regardless of Crouch's well intentioned interventions we will all be flushed down the pan together. You keep making these accusations about my non-existent relationship with Lowe but becasue of your increasingly hysterical responses I am reminded of Little Britain. For some reason I imagine you to be the junior civil servant protrayed by David Walliams who struggles to contain his unrequited love for the Prime Minister as played by Tony Head and in this instance represented by Leon Crouch . It's rather tragic than amusing if I'm honest and I wish the thought never occured to me but there we go. Oh the irony... You and your homosexual crush on Lowe and you accuse me of the same with Crouch. It must have been so hard being his fag mustn't it? It's quite funny as now you come to mention it, the above comparison does seem appropriate for you.. In the meantime, we'll forget the times I've criticised Crouch shall we? We'll just concentrate on made up allegations that I'm somehow an disciple of his... But then again, you never let facts get in the way of a good trolling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Club Vice President seems apt. A link without interference. To be honest I would prefer to hold judgement until the facts are known about this loan and or donations. Everyone critcised Lowe and Wilde for not matching Crouch's £2m offer prior to administration and that perhaps was understandable. However, once the facts were known with regard to the conditions Leon wanted to impose the offer IMO subsequently proved to be nothing short of a publicity stunt. We then have to take into account a few other somewhat alarming errors and wildly optimistic comments from Leon Crouch that lead me to conclude are we in danger of setting a precedent to provide a role at the club (influential or otherwise) purely based on monetary contributions. Afterall, we are not talking about the £90m Brighton have received and in football terms whilst Leon's donation keeps us going it is not much more than loose change. Personally, I would like to see other worthy individuals offered this type of role for their contributions other than their ability to provide cash loans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Could you explain what this means - if Crouch hadn't provided that loan, what would the current position be? Good to see you still don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices jonah. Not long now 'til Lowe leads the club into Europe eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Oh the irony... You and your homosexual crush on Lowe and you accuse me of the same with Crouch. It must have been so hard being his fag mustn't it? It's quite funny as now you come to mention it, the above comparison does seem appropriate for you.. In the meantime, we'll forget the times I've criticised Crouch shall we? We'll just concentrate on made up allegations that I'm somehow an disciple of his... But then again, you never let facts get in the way of a good trolling... Daren , don't throw stones if you don't want them thrown back. Oh and try and work on your originality but I'm flattered nonetheless. Oh so easy and convienient to dismiss alternative opinion as trolling but I'm learning not to bite. Prefer running a stick along the cage bars of those who like to try drown out others by shouting, ignorance and ridicule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Crouch: head might at times be up his own arse, but no denying his hearts well and truely in the right place. Fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Daren , don't throw stones if you don't want them thrown back. Oh and try and work on your originality but I'm flattered nonetheless. Oh so easy and convienient to dismiss alternative opinion as trolling but I'm learning not to bite. Prefer running a stick along the cage bars of those who like to try drown out others by shouting, ignorance and ridicule. Wow, you're neck deep in irony today aren't you troll boy? Again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good trolling.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Daren , don't throw stones if you don't want them thrown back. Oh and try and work on your originality but I'm flattered nonetheless. It's more a case of Daren throwing stones and Nineteen throwing marshmallows back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Crouch: head might at times be up his own arse' date=' but no denying his hearts well and truely in the right place. Fair?[/quote'] Depends if the head rules the heart or the heart rules the head. Either way if his head is at times where you say it is then what does that say about his heart being in the right place? He either can't see to make the right decision or he loves himself. I think we should accept his money with thanks and gratitude and hope it is not doing more damage than good. Then as the general consenus of opinion seems to be he walks away safe in the knowledge he did his bit and join the rank and file or buy a box for all his cronies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Crouch: head might at times be up his own arse' date=' but no denying his hearts well and truely in the right place. Fair?[/quote'] I think as he may have just saved the football club you love from going out of existence, the fair think would be to say thank you very much, and keep your insults to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Crouch has done exactly what? Got the £2M out on the end of the fishing line again? When you make an offer such as paying this months wages on the proviso that any buyer repays you, there is absolutely NO WAY the administrator can accept such an offer, because he cannot guarantee the conditions. So just as with the £2M offer to Lowe and Wilde, impose conditions that make any offer impossible to accept and this 3 card trick is becoming all to familiar. Crouch along with several others have been been generous with donations to the club, but I can't really blame any of the others for our current financial mess, Crouch is in there up to his pikey neck. If Crouch were to do something truly altruistic, then he deserves justified congratulations, but he does not have enough in the bank to cover the damage he has helped cause. To all those who are now praising Crouch and his benevolance, would it not have been better to use that money whilst the club was still afloat? If you are not truly bitter and twisted, you would accept what ever is best for Saints irrespective of who is chairman or providing funds. You could never make that small step, others put the club first above all. Funny how Crouch pays the wages and Rupert's bum boys come out of the woodwork and try and slag him off (up to his pikey neck!). Face it, your horse paid himself a kings ransom while he was here, virtually set up his own redundancy deal, came back on £100k per annum for a 2 day week, and took us to the brink of extinction. You are a load of w@nkers, and hardly what I would call Saints supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Crouch may have a big ego and made mistakes but he's at least doing something to help the club right now and for that I say thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I think as he may have just saved the football club you love from going out of existence, the fair think would be to say thank you very much, and keep your insults to yourself. Seconded. Dead right. The self-declared high and mighty on here really do take some beating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Depends if the head rules the heart or the heart rules the head. Either way if his head is at times where you say it is then what does that say about his heart being in the right place? He either can't see to make the right decision or he loves himself. I think we should accept his money with thanks and gratitude and hope it is not doing more damage than good. Then as the general consenus of opinion seems to be he walks away safe in the knowledge he did his bit and join the rank and file or buy a box for all his cronies. NC, As you know I have been quite critical of CRuch for his errors and misjudgements and will continue to do so, (big need for media training) - and from a personal perspective I dont like the showey stuff, the perception of teh need to be seen as the saviour etc..., but I have to be honest, becaus ione of the lines I use to try an dget folk to understand why I dont hate LOwe and defend some of his actions is that I differentiate between his character and his strategies and actions. Lowe has ego and a strong personality that often means mis judged public comments about fans etc - any different from CRouch's? albeit over different issues? So I cant use one set of rules for Lowe and another for CRouch - especially as I criticise those that seem quite happily to do so! With Lowe I have tried to hypothesise as to why certain decsions were made rather than just take the result and say hes a **** as some do, (for that the nobel and quick witted Alpine likes to suggest that I regularly receive some 'love' from mr Rupert, (it keeps Alps amused I guess) ) So its only fair to judge Crouch in the same light and look to the decision making process - I am dissapointed he did not recognise the financial danger of the over spend and increased wage contracts when FC Chairman, but if wilde managed to convince fans of the 'investors in the wings' its conceivebale he did the same with Crouch - afterall (Speculation alert) was their falling out not about the same time as Wilde failed to raise 2 mil - possibly his contribution to the fabled investment? BUt still whatever the reasons he should have been less naive here - This is the problem of 'football first' - the fans love it the bank manager hate it... does not make him evil, but I do wish he would stop the pandering. Despite what some may think there is a need IMHO for those in positions of power to keep their distance form fans to some extent - to avoid being drawn into making decsions that are based on genuine heartfelt passion for the club rather than the bastard decisions necessary. Open minded fans will at least understand what Lowe was hoping for and perhaps even some of the logic in most of the decisions he made, even if the groundswell of opinion was that it was odds on to fail, (some were a bit bizzare though come on admit it - I have had to because its just impossible to defend without looking silly) - I stand by my opinion that financially he is still the one who I would want in charge (of the three) because as many have said he would not have let wages go to 81% of revenue - but he really did need to get advice on some of te footballing decisons - not saying he should still not have had ideas because sometimes its more about crap implementation or 50% is good, rest bad = failure, but its true it did seem he did not learn... with CRouch, dont really have too mucto to say on strategy as he does not yet seem to have provided one, so maybe its best to reserve judgement? As to the loan - well sure I am suspicious of the rapidity with which its in te media - all good PR and that, but you cant deny if it heklps teh club and keeps us afloat his heart has been in the right place - if he benefits PR wise as a result, is that really that bad a thing? I would have loved it if Lowe had kept on Pearson - simply because for once he would have gained a bit of gruding support and a PR boost that may have helped keep spirits up - results is a different matter and one we could all argue over till blue in teh face, but there is no denying it was a PR diaster whatever the potential impact on the football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Seconded. Dead right. The self-declared high and mighty on here really do take some beating. + 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I think as he may have just saved the football club you love from going out of existence, the fair think would be to say thank you very much, and keep your insults to yourself. So what was your opinion on his expose of saints only setting up the PLC to avoid points deduction if we went into admin - to the nation and to the Football league - loveable gaff or major feck up? Can you imagine teh outcry and slagging had this been one of teh other two protagonists on here? What you are in effect saying is that his finance buys immunity from criticism...sorry thats just plain stupid - he do good applaud, he do bad criticise same rule for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Seconded. Dead right. The self-declared high and mighty on here really do take some beating. Cant you see the hypocracy you lot are comming out with? you change your 'selfrighteousness' and pious nature depending on who the thread is about - Crouch - how dare anyone crticise him even if he has made mistakes the one good is everything -; Lowe how dare anyone evr mention anything good hes a **** - sorry it makes a mockery of of any patronising statement like the ones above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Good to see you still don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices jonah. I think you need to get yourself a dictionary Rover boy. Meanwhile, like Wade, you haven't answered a very simple question - if Crouch hadn't made that loan, what would the current position be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Cant you see the hypocracy you lot are comming out with? you change your 'selfrighteousness' and pious nature depending on who the thread is about - Crouch - how dare anyone crticise him even if he has made mistakes the one good is everything -; Lowe how dare anyone evr mention anything good hes a **** - sorry it makes a mockery of of any patronising statement like the ones above What is hypocritical is the words from a few sad individuals (and I accept it is only a few) who are unable to judge and comment on individual decisions in differing contexts as time moves on. Whilst some are trolling, others would appear to be rather dim or indeed somewhat bitter and twisted that they fail to recognise good from whatever source. Crouch may have made mistakes in the past, but that should not preclude people from accepting that on this occasion he may well be doing quite a bit to keep our Club afloat. It is the carte blanche criticisms and risible attempts by a few to try and read negatives into everything by people (from all sides) that are hypocritical. When Lowe announced he had the support of the bank this time last year, many, including myself, congratulated him for securing that support as in the bigger picture that was certainly a benefit to our Club. Sadly, some of the more vociferous on here are unable to show such balance and what makes it worse is that some are very often the ones shouting loudest about impartiality and balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 So how can the owners/fans reward him for taking that risk and yet avoid the problems of keeping links to the past? Could we re-form the Ted Bates Trust and get them to commission a statue of Leon? I'd happily chip in a fiver. Firstly, there's no evidence there is any risk as we don't know the terms of the loan - maybe there is, maybe there isn't, personally I would guess he's secured it against something specific and there is negligible risk (since that would be a sensible thing to do). Secondly I'm not sure why there is this attitude that people must be "rewarded", it's akin to some sort of weird deification - this has been prevolent for years if not decades at Saints. Given the unbelievable series of gaffs before this loan, I don't see why Leon should receive anything more than a brief thanks (not that we know yet the exact details or pros/cons of what he's done) and then left alone to return to watching the club as a supporter... which is what he does best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamesaint Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I think you need to get yourself a dictionary Rover boy. Meanwhile, like Wade, you haven't answered a very simple question - if Crouch hadn't made that loan, what would the current position be? No idea - and I suspect that you do not know either. It is difficult to see how the staff could have been paid without it and the consequences of this happening would not be too pleasant!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I think you need to get yourself a dictionary Rover boy. Meanwhile, like Wade, you haven't answered a very simple question - if Crouch hadn't made that loan, what would the current position be? How the f*ck should I know, ask Mark Fry. The point is he has put his hand in his pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Could we re-form the Ted Bates Trust and get them to commission a statue of Leon? I'd happily chip in a fiver. Firstly, there's no evidence there is any risk as we don't know the terms of the loan - maybe there is, maybe there isn't, personally I would guess he's secured it against something specific and there is negligible risk (since that would be a sensible thing to do). Secondly I'm not sure why there is this attitude that people must be "rewarded", it's akin to some sort of weird deification - this has been prevolent for years if not decades at Saints. Given the unbelievable series of gaffs before this loan, I don't see why Leon should receive anything more than a brief thanks (not that we know yet the exact details or pros/cons of what he's done) and then left alone to return to watching the club as a supporter... which is what he does best. If Rupert did it you would most probably be sucking him off (metaphorically, of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 No idea - and I suspect that you do not know either. It is difficult to see how the staff could have been paid without it and the consequences of this happening would not be too pleasant!! As far as I was aware their wages are guaranteed by the FL, so I don't think it's made any difference to them has it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 So what was your opinion on his expose of saints only setting up the PLC to avoid points deduction if we went into admin - to the nation and to the Football league - loveable gaff or major feck up? Neither IMHO. He was simply stating the bleedin' obvious. Are you saying the Football League authorities aren't/weren't clever enough to work that one out for themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Funny how Crouch pays the wages and Rupert's bum boys come out of the woodwork and try and slag him off (up to his pikey neck!). Face it, your horse paid himself a kings ransom while he was here, virtually set up his own redundancy deal, came back on £100k per annum for a 2 day week, and took us to the brink of extinction. You are a load of w@nkers, and hardly what I would call Saints supporters. Spot on really. It is very, very, bad form to be still ragging on the man when, unlike Laurel & Hardy, he has yet again put his hand in his pocket to help the club out. What have Cannon and Ball done but take money out of this club and sent us merrily off to oblivion? At least Crouch, for all his faults, (and he has many, just for uber Lowe fag 19C) is man enough to hold his hands up and face the music unlike The Chuckle Brothers who steadfastly refuse to accept ANY of the blame?? This really is the scraping of the barrel. Slagging the man off for putting money in to try and keep the club afloat? What sort of retard would sling accusations of showboating at the man when the money he is spending keeps the club afloat? Answer? The usual retards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now