OldNick Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 It's a generous and praiseworthy gesture in either event I'd say . In all probability if the administrator liquidates the company (as has been suggested) Leon would have to take his place with all the other creditors and he may well lose the lot . Im not sure if that is 100% correct.I supplied goods to a company in receivership and had a written guarentee that the monies would be safe.Any goods sold would be paid in full and unsold returned.Therefore it may be possible that something may be arranged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Sums it up for me whether you like Crouch or not is irrelevant he is still trying to help whereas others are showing their true colours, including people like Wiseman and Thompson who made a lot of money selling their shares. the board members who set us down the great shareholding democracy in 1997 must be very proud of their achievements Were there others who sold their shares and made some money? Let's name them all and tar them with same brush. I would like to know what conditions if any came with the loan from Crouch. The £2m loan without such ridciulous conditions could have avoided administration so now he is helping to close the stable door after the pre-administration horse has bolted I personally find it difficult to comprehend his thiinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 In case it may have passed you by, we are on the cusp of going under, no one has yet to step up to the plate, we're not selling season tickets because there is no guarantee that they will be honoured etc etc etc so I think it is fair to say there is a degree of risk lending/giving money to the Club given its current predicament.Read my reply to Chapel end charlie. I assume goods arec still be supplied to the club under guarentees to Fry or the electricity etc would be turned off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Im not sure if that is 100% correct.I supplied goods to a company in receivership and had a written guarentee that the monies would be safe.Any goods sold would be paid in full and unsold returned.Therefore it may be possible that something may be arranged. I much preferred you and others kicking Crouch, as your twisting, turning and squirming is no where near as good. The money Crouch has put in will soon be in Rasiak's, Euell's, Skacel's and many others back pockets. If he wants it back then he will have to pop round their houses if we're not sold. Anything of any value will already have a charge on it and Barclay's in particular will not be amenable to allowing Crouch to suddenly jump ahead of them in the queue of preferred creditors. There is a massive risk attached to this loan. I expected it of some of the usual dinlo's on this thread, but have to say I'm slightly surprised at how quick you jumped in here nickh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Read my reply to Chapel end charlie. I assume goods arec still be supplied to the club under guarentees to Fry or the electricity etc would be turned off He's not supplying goods, he's pumped in cash that will be paid out the back door as soon as he arrives at the front door with the money bags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Nick he has a point. You might not like Crouch but trying to find an angle to have a pop at him here only put's you in the same league as Trolls like 19C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I much preferred you and others kicking Crouch, as your twisting, turning and squirming is no where near as good. The money Crouch has put in will soon be in Rasiak's, Euell's, Skacel's and many others back pockets. If he wants it back then he will have to pop round their houses if we're not sold. Anything of any value will already have a charge on it and Barclay's in particular will not be amenable to allowing Crouch to suddenly jump ahead of them in the queue of preferred creditors. There is a massive risk attached to this loan. I expected it of some of the usual dinlo's on this thread, but have to say I'm slightly surprised at how quick you jumped in here nickh. I was stating my own experiences.If it happened with liddle ol me then it could happen in other circumstances.There is no right or wrong without the facts. The only thing that makes me wonder if LC has done it without guarentees would be the statue and that was a great thing he did. Many people are doing things behind the scenes for nothing that may add up to the same amount but are not courting publicity. LC actions are well above any of RL, MW Askham LM etc who all earnt plenty from our club as far as i can see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Im not sure if that is 100% correct.I supplied goods to a company in receivership and had a written guarentee that the monies would be safe.Any goods sold would be paid in full and unsold returned.Therefore it may be possible that something may be arranged. Well I don't suppose anyone on here knows the all the details to be honest (I certainly claim no inside knowledge) but there is a fundamental difference between easily returnable goods (title of which may still be retained by the supplier) and cash on a balance sheet . It's my understanding that HMRC are very much 'first among equals' when it comes to getting paid in this type of situation and LC would have done very well indeed to obtain an absolutely watertight repayment agreement from the Administrator . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 He's not supplying goods, he's pumped in cash that will be paid out the back door as soon as he arrives at the front door with the money bags.That maybe the case, but also there maybe guarentees from the administrator.Clapham may put a different slant on it as being a supplier compared to loaning.i dont know but it is fair to ask the question.Had RL done the same (laughable i know) it would be fair to ask the same of him.I would suggest that LC would not worry that the question is asked, he at least did it even if the money was safe.If it isnt then he sure is a great fan.i just am too cynical of the past incumbents of our club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Well I don't suppose anyone on here knows the all the details to be honest (I certainly claim no inside knowledge) but there is a fundamental difference between easily returnable goods (title of which may still be retained by the supplier) and cash on a balance sheet . It's my understanding that HMRC are very much 'first among equals' when it comes to getting paid in this type of situation and LC would have done very well indeed to obtain an absolutely watertight repayment agreement from the Administrator .I think you will find HMRC have no extra claim than anyone else nowadays. Once my goods were sold and paid for they would be the same as cash and so i dont see the difference.Thee again a loan may be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Nick he has a point. You might not like Crouch but trying to find an angle to have a pop at him here only put's you in the same league as Trolls like 19C. Its terrible, if you dare criticise or look to ask a question it seems you have a dislike. I have only 1 experience of LC and as I have stated before was when i was a guest at Bournemouth and he did not come across to them too well and seemed slightly disrespectful considering he was our chairman.Generally i would think he'd be far more entertaining than any of the rest of the crew who have been in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 (edited) Even if it was a loan no ****er else offered yet a few so called fans slag off Crouch for making this gesture. It's pathetic. What Crouch has done is kept the wolf from the door and it's probably the difference between us starting on minus 10 and minus 27 OR WORSE. I despair at the attitude of some on here. It's ****ing disgusting. Edited 20 May, 2009 by Mole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Had RL done the same (laughable i know) it would be fair to ask the same of him. And had Lowe done the same and lent the Club some money in it's hour of need, then I would have said fair play to him and defended him from any wakners who would so spectacularly be missing the bigger picture and putting their own petty spite and bitternes before the good of the Club. This thread has been rather enlightening on that front, as it has really highlighted those with bitter engrained prejudices who fail to see the bigger picture. And of course Lowe hasn't yet managed to help out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Its terrible, if you dare criticise or look to ask a question it seems you have a dislike. I have only 1 experience of LC and as I have stated before was when i was a guest at Bournemouth and he did not come across to them too well and seemed slightly disrespectful considering he was our chairman.Generally i would think he'd be far more entertaining than any of the rest of the crew who have been in charge. See my post above. I'm making no more comments on this subject. I give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I agree, this is not a stick to beat the man with, regardless of any conditions that may or may not be attached. That part is pure speculation anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Even if it was a loan no ****er else offered yet a few so called fans slag off Crouch for making this gesture. It's pathetic. What Crouch has done is kept the wolf from the door and it's probably the difference between us starting on minus 10 and minus 27 OR WORSE. I despair at the attitude of some on here. It's ****ing disgusting.Slagging LC off for doing it is wrong and as you say if it stops us getting extra minus points then all power to him.I to be fair argued against administration and thought it would not be a catwalk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 And had Lowe done the same and lent the Club some money in it's hour of need, then I would have said fair play to him and defended him from any wakners who would so spectacularly be missing the bigger picture and putting their own petty spite and bitternes before the good of the Club. This thread has been rather enlightening on that front, as it has really highlighted those with bitter engrained prejudices who fail to see the bigger picture. And of course Lowe hasn't yet managed to help out. I do wonder why all the people in the directors box who had over the years more out of the club than LC have stood back and pushed LC forward.It just underlines to me that we are best off without them all and as Phil and weston have suggested that LC gets a role that rewards him in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Slagging LC off for doing it is wrong and as you say if it stops us getting extra minus points then all power to him.I to be fair argued against administration and thought it would not be a catwalk. I argued admin was inivitable as soon as Wilde brought captain calamity back. I was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I argued admin was inivitable as soon as Wilde brought captain calamity back. I was right.I dont recall that , but with a 6,3m overdraft it was always likely.It just appals me why Barclays pulled the plug when they did, as I have stated on many occasions why then? considering we had in less than a year dropped the overdraft by over 2m.A little unfair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I dont recall that , but with a 6,3m overdraft it was always likely.It just appals me why Barclays pulled the plug when they did, as I have stated on many occasions why then? considering we had in less than a year dropped the overdraft by over 2m.A little unfair? Barclays made their decision based on the way Lowe was running the club. They recognised he was an unmitigated disaster and that the situation was irretrieveable. They chose not to throw good money after bad - the right decision for them imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Barclays made their decision based on the way Lowe was running the club. They recognised he was an unmitigated disaster and that the situation was irretrieveable. They chose not to throw good money after bad - the right decision for them imo. That remains to be seen. The overdraft was undeniably reducing, so if they don't retrieve all of the £4.1m during this administration procedure it's wholly arguable that they are not better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Barclays make such decisions based on advice. It would have been a last resort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I still think it could prove to be a bad decision, in fact I hope it is proved thus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Barclays make such decisions based on advice. It would have been a last resort. whose advice I wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobM Posted 20 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 May, 2009 I only wanted to say thanks for giving up some cash to help SFC.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 That remains to be seen. The overdraft was undeniably reducing, so if they don't retrieve all of the £4.1m during this administration procedure it's wholly arguable that they are not better off. The timing is what beats me. ST's would normally have been up for sale by now and that money would have kept us going surely. Add to that the sale of two or three players and I have to ask why then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 On the Leon Crouch thing. I have been one of his fiercest critics. But if he has bought us soem time, I will actually write him a letter of thanks. Top job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 In a way, a very enlightening thread which has shown how some have struggled to put their prejudices aside and instead have been happy to hang them out rather than being able to see what is for the greater good of the Club. The irony in that statement should not be lost considering it applies to ALL opinions not just your targets of that post in your typical style.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Lowe, Wilde and Crouch ALL made mistakes the past 5 years. ALL of them say they are passionate Saints fans. ONE of them has stepped up to the plate post Admin, whilst the other 2 have done nothing. Yet he is the one getting stick from some fans, am I the only one who finds that a bit strange? He is NOT the only one getting stick from fans or have you not seen/read this forum these last few weeks? Ther has been a reaction from those that dont believe in instant canonsization of CRouch because he has CONTRIBUTED (as the Echo understands) to our survival fro a couple of extra weeks. Yes he should be applauded for his contribution, but this application of 'legend status' and untouchable figure that some are waxing lyrical seems disproportionate... that is why there ahs been a reaction.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 And had Lowe done the same and lent the Club some money in it's hour of need, then I would have said fair play to him and defended him from any wakners who would so spectacularly be missing the bigger picture and putting their own petty spite and bitternes before the good of the Club. This thread has been rather enlightening on that front, as it has really highlighted those with bitter engrained prejudices who fail to see the bigger picture. And of course Lowe hasn't yet managed to help out. There are very very few that I can see who have these "prejudices" as you put them - But a great many who are very happy to recognise and thank him for his generous financial lifeline and are more than capable of seeing the bigger picture - As long as the bigger picture does not include him being placed in a position of power at the club going forward. And that is a valid concern for the many who want to see a complete break from past failures and start afresh with brand new professional and capable people at the helm. 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