um pahars

I'll save you from NickG's handywork His original request in October appears to only require Wilde to resign as Chairman of SFC Ltd, but I assume he keeps his role on that board. There is no mention of his role on the PLC Board so assume Wilde was to remain on that one. The follow up in January requests Wilde to resign as Chaiman and as a Director of SFC Ltd, but once agan no mention of resigning from the PLC Board so assume he stays on the PLC Board. Reading through the original opening gambit and the subsequent lettters, agendas and meetings there certainly was movement from both sides, but ultimately it appears that no deal could be agreed on.

But could they have accepted one of the subsequent offers/revisions?? Was there potential to negotiate a deal that was suitable to all concerned and in the best interests of the Club?? Given our predicament (and the fact we were two months away from administration) should Lowe and Wilde been more receptive?? Given our predicament should Crouch have been less bullish and demanding?? From the many articles in that piece, then unlike you I take the view that Crouch was willing to put some money in to (a) stave off administration and (b) try and avoid relegation. And given our predicament then all three of them should have done all they could to try and get a deal done and get some money in to the Club, so when judged against that they all failed to deliver this.

Feel free to provide us with the follow ups. After all you did post the following well after your opening post accepting you had only read part of the article

The only thing that seems to be confused is yourself who must find it difficult to read past the first chapter in a book:rolleyes::rolleyes: According to your interpretation of the World At War, Germany now still rule over Poland, most of Eastern Europe, France and the Low Countries. Things do move on you know LMFAO. I'm presuming you realised there were fve pages of articles in yesterdays Echo!!!!

Behave yourself. After the way you have paraphrased and summarised what was written in the Echo you should be ashamed of your sub editing skills. I think anyone would accept there are different ways to interpret the same pieces of information, but the way you have ignored pieces and glossed over others to suit your own perspectve is risible. No room for negotiating when the offers and counter offers changed throughout those months???? And no attempt to remove Wilde in a rational way, then how about the Agenda item regarding Wilde selling his shares??? Loved the way you skipped over those two!!!! If you had cared to read the Echo and if you had cared to read my posts then you would see that I believe Crouch went about this in the wrong manner, but I also think that given our predicament all three should have been doing their utmost to avoid administration. As I said from the off, people would be advised to read the Echo for themselves and make their own judgements because quite frankly I would never suggest they should rely on you to paraphrase what was in there.

Go back to what I said when Pearson was appointed and how I said I would view him and Crouch. I'll have a dig around (but the forum doesn't seem to allow you to go back that far), but I said I would judge them both on whether they managed to keep us up and out of administration. If they failed on either then they had to be deemed failures (and given the boot). Crouch is no Football Chairman genius, just like Pearson is no Football Managerial legend, but compared to what followed them they certainly could be considered a better bet (that definitely is the case with Pearson and Poortvliet). As I said I would judge Pearson and Crouch, I have always judged Lowe by his results and when he was successful I was happy to praise him (I'm sure GM can dig out those posts), but also when his time was up and he was fouind to be wanting it was only fair to be honest at that time as well.

I have no doubt that the financial constraints that Lowe & co had to work within were tight and fairly restrictive, but that doesn't translate into having to adopt the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up and a rather poor transfer strategy! The actions taken by Lowe and co last summer backfired spectacularly and we blew any chance of saving the Club. A poor manager coupled with poor purchases and ultimatley poor performances and results put paiod to any rescue bid. Too many false economies and poor decisions meant the rescue attempt floundered. We were not in the rude health you would have us believe. We still lost cash out the door that first season down, and that is after getting something like £16m in from player sales and a further £7m from the parachute payment. That's some big black hole being filled there with £23m of one off incomes!!!! Those that came after him certainly added to our woes, particularly committing to expenditure in the summer of 2007 when the parachute payments ran out, but Lowe was massively involved in our problems before he left in 2006 and then again when he returned last summer (e.g. his last act before he left in 2006 was paying £2m for Rasiak and giving him a 4 year deal and his first this time back was booting out Pearson and appointing the Dutch joker). And of course his part in relegation from the top flight which cost us £millions shouldn't be glossed over. So if you want balance then I think you have to show some yourself first.

Of course I think there was an element of that in there, but I also think there was a genuine offer by Crouch to put some money into the Club pre and post Xmas. For all his faults (and I do think he has some BTW) I do think it was an honest attempt to keep the Club afloat and although he may be chastised for the way he went about it, I don't think you can argue against the sentiment, particularly when you put it in context of where we were, and where we are now!!!! Given our precarious financial position I would have thought that all three would have somehow managed to bury any past differences to make it work, but ultimately all three failed to manage that and for that they must all take their share of repsonsibility. Given that we sacked the manager and two months later went into administration, I would have thought they all should have been able to find a way to accept any money in to the business to (a) keep the bank happy and (b) to help in the fight against relegation. I have no doubt that Crouch probably went about this like a bull in a china shop, but I also think there was potential to get a deal done. If they could all have put the Club in front of their egos then maybe something could have been achieved. And quite honestly if I was going to unilaterally put £2m in I would have wanted a pretty big say of what happened afterwards, particularly when viewed from the position that the current incumbents were making a complete pigs ear of it and continued to make such a pigs ear of it that we went into administration, were relegated and start next season on -10 (that's if we've still got a club left!!!!).

In which case I can only presume that you have problems reading or maybe taking things in, because things moved on from the openiong gambit. In the Agenda that Crouch drafted up it is clear that the conditions have changed (from £2m to an amount to be agreed) along with other changes from the first letter. Indeed by the end of it there was no requirement for Wilde or Lowe to take part. I have some issues with how the offer was communicated, how it was a part of a dck waving contest (and I'll reply to nickh on that one in a minute), but to suggest there was a refusal to change requirements or negotiate is quite simply at odds with what was in the Echo's various bits last night. How did it move from them all having to put £6m in, to only Crouch having to put it in if he refused to change his requirements? As above it did nothing of the sort and your summation / paraphrasing is wide of the mark on this one. You need to go away and read what was in The Echo as what you're putting up here is not what was in there. You are aware that the Agenda that contained movements from the original offer was drafted by Crouch. In which case go and read the Agenda drafted by Crouch where one of the Agenda items for discussion was the purchase of Wilde's shares, which I would suggest is a way of removing Wilde in a rational way.

It was his opening gambit. And if you read further into the articles it becomes very clear that there are negotiations, movement and alternatives which then move away from that opening gambit. It was not as set in stone as your summation tried to suggest and you would have done better to included all the various permutations as opposed to just putting the first one up and saying "that's what Crouch was offering, no wonder it was turned down".

Can't see how that figure stacks up with a "substantial" amount being offset in a barter agreement with a Corporate Box worth £25,000(ish) going the other way. There are certainly some arguments to be had over the finances, but IMHO arguing over redecoration costs is somewhat scraping the barrel and makes Lowe look rather bitter and petty (I said as much when he used the line in the SKY interview as it somewhat missed the target). Contracts given out to Thomas and Euell for example would have been very valid points (as would any serious expenditure after the parachute payments ended), but mentioning this is petty. Has this letter been mentioned before, as my old man mentioned it to me over the weekend and I assumed it was in Thursday or Fridays Echo (or is this another letter???)?

I presume you read the article then:rolleyes: I bet you didn't like the bit when he was calling for Poortvliet to be sacked;)

As that offer put up by NickG stands, I think you're quite right and I said as much in my initial reply on this thread as there was no way Lowe and Wilde would agree to that. But elsewhere in the various articles it became clear that there was movement from this initial offer (if you could call the initial gambit an offer that as I liken it to a fck off request LOL) with a final position of Croch offering £2m+ for them to step down. Maybe that £2m would have kept us clear of relegation and administration?????

Duncan the ITN reporter is not lost on me;) Maybe he could try and find where Justin Fashanu is these days!!!!!

Oh for a stay of execution of six months given our current predicament!!!!! It was only recently that NineflashmanteenBearBeast was saying people were wrong to champion administration and now it seems that you'd prefer it to accepting money from Crouch:) A bit of money to placate the bank, some money on short term loans and a decent manager to save us from relegation. I'd certainly choose that over relegation, administration and a points deduction.

It's just that I think the whole articles across 4 pages cover much, much more than your original summation. I would say that after reading it all there were a number of alternatives / offers on the table. 1. Crouch sticks in £2m, Wilde and Lowe Match it. Wilde steps down as SFC Ltd Chairman (but stays on PLC Board) and Crouch replaces him as Chairman. This was the opening gambit. It appears Wilde could participate, but Wilde and Lowe reject this offer. 2. Crouch sticks in £6m and gets full control with Wilde and Lowe disappearing. Never going to come off as Crouch does not have that money. 3. Crouch sticks in £2m and Wilde & Lowe agree to stick in some money (amounts to be decided). Crouch comes on to the Board as Chairman/CEO and Wilde steps down as SFC Ltd Chairman (but stays on PLC Board). It appears Wilde could participate, but Wilde and Lowe reject this offer. 3. Crouch sticks in £2m & Lowe matches it. Wilde rides off and Crouch replaces him. Appears that Lowe wouldn't cough up on this one and Wilde not in agreement. 4. Crouch sticks in £2m and Wilde & Lowe agree to stick in some money (amounts to be decided). Crouch comes on to the Board as Chairman/CEO and Wilde steps down as SFC Ltd Chairman (but stays on PLC Board). It appears Wilde could participate, but Wilde and Lowe reject this offer. 5. Crouch sticks in £2m, with further sums to come. Lowe and Wilde to step aside. Lowe and Wilde reject this as they want an injection of £6m to step aside (see 1. above) So whilst the opening gambit was always unlikely to be accepted (for a number of reasons), was there any potential on the others succeeding????? I can certainly see 4. or 5. as having potential and not as outlandish as some are suggesting on this thread (particularly when judged against the fact we went into administration just over 2 months later!!!). Reading the whole article I am certainly of the view that the offer of £2m+ from Crouch was not merely a PR stunt.

I reckon you've underestimated our monthly wage bill there!!!!!! I reckon as much as £600k a month, maybe even more!!

And that should answer all of your questions!!!!!!!!! Forgive me for being a pedant, but wouldn't you want to know just who did own your club??? That answer on its own would have had the alarm bells going mental.

That was indeed the opening gambit, which changed again by the January meeting (as per Crouch's agenda) and changed again as per Crouch's quotes of: "I made my approach to Lowe and Wilde because I thought it was up to the three major shareholdersto save the Club.........They refused to put in any money and said they would walk away if I put in £6m. I couldn't do that as I haven't got £6m. They could have walked away and I would still have put in my £2m and I would have taken over. They would not have that........ My £2m would have saved us from administration ..... I would also have put some of my own money in....." No disrepsect NickG, but I have to say you're paraphrasing here doesn't do the story justice and I can only recommend people either buy the paper or someone types out the whole piece and then people can interpret it for themselves.

See my post above as the story NickG has interpreted is not how I would have interpreted it (my earlier comments were based on NickG's rather biased paraphrasing which doesn't do the story justice), particularly the bit that states Crouch would have put his £2m in if Crouch and Wilde had walked, but they demanded £6m to walk. It appears that a £2m+ offer was there, but Lowe and Wilde turned it down. There was also an offer for them to match the investment, and it would also appear that various things were up for negotiation.

I've just got The Echo and I have to say i think the paraphrasing/summation on here doesn't do it justice. For instance it prints out Crouch's agenda for the latter January meeting which says: "The amounts and the terms on which monies may be received by the Company/SFC are to be discussed" which clearly shows Crouch was open to negotiations on the amounts put in by the main shareholders. And another point that has been missed is that Crouch states he would have put his £2m in (and further money after that) if Lowe and Wilde just walked away (i.e. there was no requirement for them to match his money if they departed), but Lowe and Wilde requested he brought in £6m before they walked. I think people should be reading the full article which contains many factual statments (such as letters & agendas) as the summation on here does give the full story.

Well if he did force JP to resign then it was about the only positive thing to come out of this offer!!!!! But sadly, that's not the case as Lowe & co. had already decided to give Poortvliet the push before Crouch strolled in that Friday. With regards the offer, with conditions like that it was never going to be be accepted and surely Crouch knew that, so would like to know why he felt it was reasonable to put it forward (does the Echo shed any light on his motivation for doing so???).