um pahars

Did you read The Echo piece Ponty, as from the spread that I saw it would appear that all sides took the negotiations quite seriously, not least because they rumbled on for three months. Of course ultimately none of them could agree on anything, but I don't think Seymour Pierce and Shoosmiths getting involved would suggest they were merely cursory. And I would have thought that given the current predicament we found ourselves in, then a potential £2m injection to stave off administration and avoid relegation should have been given more than a cursory look. In fact, I would say that anyone in charge of a company going down the swanny would be rather negligent if they didn't give any offer (no matter how unpalatable) more than a cursory glance.

Not in October/November it wasn't, and this was when the first offer was made (you know the very first offer that you are so keen we only concentrate on;)). And of course this is the offer you are suggesting was purely a PR exercise, so Crouch must be very poor at getting his PR machine working if he didn't get in in the press back then.

LOL, so it's fair to say you can't find any press relating to the "first chapter" and realise that the second offer did not expect Wilde to contribute. Glad we cleared that up, now you just need to run along and sharpen up your sub editing skills for your next exclusive LOL.

Feel free to post anything up here from October/November regarding this.

Your reply was to St Marco who was clearly outlining the second offer which was for Wilde to step down without investing any monies. HTH

Get past the first chapter and you will see that Wilde did not have to stump up any money. The revised offer/initiative that followed various correspondence and meetings was for Wilde to simply stand down.

I quite agree in that Crouch's initial approach was somewhat akin to a bull in a china shop. Personally, I think he should have been more amenable and concillatory, so you won't find me condoning his opening gambit. That's strange as I don't remember there being much press about this initial offer back in October, but feel free to post some of the associated press from back then up on here (otherwise you're just hot air - again LOL). One can only assume that you didn't read the article, nor know anything about the story here, as correspondence and meetings followed for around three months following the initial approach. Methinks it would probably be best for you to keep quiet on this one and instead praise the merits of Poortvliet's stunning footballing nous

Indeed it was. Whilst factually correct, it only reflected the very first letter in the episode and did not reflect any of the subsequent amendments, negotiations or revisions that took plave over a period of three months!!!!!!! The opening post up here in no way reflects the whole article, and has omitted many of the relevant factual parts of the episode as it panned out. Most of the subsequent comment comes from Crouch, so that has to be judged against the premise that that is only his opinion (and therefore may well be biased), but there are still some important parts that NickG never even read before he posted the opening piece up here. As I said in my first posts on this thread, people would do well to read the whole piece for themselves and make their own minds up as NickG's paraphrasing does not do it justice. In effect NickG has managed to paraphrase only the very first column in a five page spread!!!!!!!

Paul Philps and T J Robinson???????

Lifted from The Echo of 22nd May 2008 Lowe and Wilde wanted him to continue in his contracted ambassadorial role ...............Football board chairman Wilde confirmed the club's position and said they will now look for a figurehead to take over from McMenemy. "We were happy to have Lawrie for the other season on his contract and not only potentially just that but if it went well to renew it as well," he said.

But surely "demanding more than was ever going to be accepted" has to be judged against the context that two months later it all went to rat sht. As we are finding now, when you're really up against it then beggars can't really be choosers. But at the same time I fully accept that perhaps Crouch needed to wind in his demands and compromise if there was ever going to be a chance of it succeeded. And I'm not sure your interpretation that he stopped negotiations is fair as there is a piece in there about when informed of impending administration he was in contact with Cowen to see if a cash injection could avert it.

Although there is a line in there in a letter from Seymour Pierce to Crouch that says: "Michael Wilde is able to participate" and I interpreted this as saying Wilde could participate in injecting funds!!!!

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".