Frank's cousin

sadly it would ahveto be a VERY big space to accomodate three such egos...

I believe on appeal - as usually happens theis figure was reduced to 50K which was split amongst teh Saints in teh community charities... but Naturally the truth must be that it was used for an exec party in St Lucia...;-) (Unfounded and completely made up specultaion as a satirical comment)

Agreed - its why all those 'back pocket'comments are misleading and unhelpful - eg many have asked 'where has the money gone - its been mentioned so many times its become a mantra that even media commentators have asked the question - without checking the facts and it does influence fans attitudes - the simple answer being the audited accounts will give a clear picture - and auditors tend to spot ;missing millions; ;-) Also agreed that whether we believe he was worth the 400K package he was on when in the prem is a completely acceptable debate but also a seperate one.

I would like to think that when the 3 of them are together i a room they behave like professional adults.... but maybe thats expecting too much?

This is the problem afc - there are simply not enough wealthy folk out there who a CAN or WILL put in the money. Its just too risky in this current climate and we tend to look at this through the rose tinted specs of fans, Its a lot bigger decison when its actually your money at risk. I am sure Leon WOULD do this, afterall he has clearly stated this now quite publically (although the ECHO piece does not actually state his actual offer online) - and I acknowledge that even if Lowe and Wilde DID have this as liquid assets there is no guarrantee that they would not see this as too risky an investment and would od the same. But I simply dont get the likes of Alpine who seem almost zealot pillow biters of Crouch that they raise their ugly heads the moment anyone dares ask a question - no different when some of us were asking the same questions of Wildes 'investors in teh wings' - something they conveniently forget. Lowe might well be the tightest meanest greedy bastard in at the club, determined only to look after himself - but he has never PROMISED to invest his own cash or promised investors in statements to fans that have then not materialised. There is a difference which Alpine seems unable to grasp. Leon, to be fair has had some stick from me on here, not that he probably cares less about the ramblings of a few nutters on here, soem of it probably a bit churlish fair enough, but I do stand by the point that he must know what is possible and what is not - and throwing down these sorts of guantlets is on the side of grandstanding and the fan friendly stuff wilde was doing with the investment in the wings?

Alpine FFS .... only you can keep turning a fair discussion into a childish rant....

Think the issue here is obvious - Crouch is fortunate enough to have his 2 mil ready to put in.... unfortunately, I would guess that both Wilde and Lowe do NOT have those kind of liquid assets to hand - If the injection of 6 mil was going to save the club and allow it to survive - prop up the shareprice etc, and save their sahre investment then I have no doubt Wilde and Lowe would do their bit IF they had the cash available -if only to SAVE their investment - but I seriously do not think they do. The question then is, does Crouch know this, because if so, is it not really a hollow offer no matter how generous, because he wont do this without the others who he knows cant? Duncan (FF) reckons this is a cheap shot at Crouch who is obviously a fan prpared to put his money where his mouth is - which is fair enough, but I disagree, I would ask that questions direct to Leon: Leon, I appreciate that this is a genuine offer and a very generous one at that considering the high risk involved that could in effect wipe out this loan to the club, but do you believe both Wilde and Lowe actually have this amount in liquid assets or are they simply refusing to be as generous.... because of the risk. I know if I had exactly 2mil my net wortyh so to speak, would I risk it all on saints? No

Sorry but I believe it was only said a couple of times in response to those fans wishing he would a) spend some money and b) bugger off. Everyone knew he owned 6% as it was listed in the shareholder register - its also not a statement that would put anyone off who was serious about investing in the club - no serious investor will listen to such statemnets that are so obviously aimed at fans - they do their homework and assess the costs of purchasing a controlling interest. At the end of teh day - if the majority shareholders want him as chairman, that is part of the process irrespective of the shareholding he ghas - we might not think its fair, but thats the way it is. Ultimately, if teh majority of shareholders do not think he is doing the job to the level they require its actually a good thing that his shareholding is so low as it makes it easier for shareholders to remove him. Seriously, and It sums up a lot of things, if those protesting next week really want L0we out, they would be far better in lobbying all the shareholders, inparticular those potential waiverers. The protest on a match day detracts from the importance of the game on which we should all be focussed.

Come on Duncan, thats a bit disingenuous - this started because it was alledged Lowe did not contribute to the Box, with no evidence - all Ron did was state well how do you know he did not - to which you reply show us your evidence.... and you think Ron is biassed????? This is like no evidence needed to make an accusation, but loads needed to deny it? Logic? fair?

TB Fair Wes, that quote is always taken out of context - he was not saying - give me personally 25 mill for my shares and you can take over - he was saying he would ahppily step down as chairman if there was someone out their willing to put money into the club (eg Sugar daddy role) which would be used to supplement the playing side - not share purchase.

I have not pointed out failings because as you the only one really was supporting Wilde without first checking the validity of his claims, (something that any fans are equally guilt of) and perhaps allowing too free a role of the purse strings when Wilde then Crouch was in charge - although its fair to question whether she may have had any influence over the PLC board, which is unlikely anyway. But its the principle that I am advocating. Just because in the grand scheme of things a like for like comparison between any of the protagonists clearly shows lowes errors to far outway the others, does not mean the others have the answers either - as the previous reginme showed. Now I would be more than happy for anyone in this sgae to come forward and viable soltion - like I ahev said I WILL support any of them that do/can whatever their past mistakes (afterall we all make them) and I have no bias as to who I would prefer - just the one with the best plan - but we need to stop assuming that its likely to come from Aor B simplye because they are NOT C.

Which was defensive coach when we were shipping goals? Dodd was a great servant a decent man aof integrity and graft - but a crap coach - you guys want it both ways - if Lowe appoints or sacks a decent bloke with history at the club - hes a budgie, if Crouch does it, its becauise he 'understands' as hes somehow in touch with the fans...?

This is the problem - WHATEVER each of us think about the personalities inviolved in this mess, whoever we balme, and yes there are some very diverse views, one thing we should ALL have in common is the desperation and determination to support th lads on the pitch and try from a footballing perspective to support as best we can to avoid relegation. We CAN do it, we can be that fanbase we all love to believe we are - forget Cardiff and think of the Norwich game in the relegation season... that was the TRUE spirit of Saints fans when we roared them on to a 4-3 win....

True I dont think MC had anything to do with the financial aspects of the club... that was Leon. BUt if MC is going to take part in the debate its surely right that her input/or stand is questioned or open to question. It seems to me that its fine for everyone to criticuise Lowe... and the history of his mistakes has been documented many times, but as soon as anyone attempts to point out failings in the others its suddenly open season on insults and 'luvvie' rhetoric. We are falling into the same trap as we did last time - the overwhelming feeling is that Lowe should go - fair enough, but last time no one questioned how the PROBLEMS would be solved when replaced by Wilde and Crouch and LM and MC were brought back in a very populist move - sure it was great PR and no one questions these folks history with Saints but it was ineffective in solving the PROBLEMS that are so engrained - the fact remains that simply ousting Lowe from the boardroom did not solve anything - and we are now in a worse state because Wilde and CRouch in their desire to do good by the fans messed up financially - the reason was sound from a footballing perspective, but naive from a long term future of the club perspective. That is all some of us are after - a recognistion that just because someone is NOT Lowe, does not mean those most likely to regain control or with a history at the club have the answers - no one has yet come forward and presented a solution let alone one that is viable - its all been about personalities, manager choice and public dirty washing airing.

Do you? Ever see anything positive in anything? FFS Alpine, do you want to score it? Number of negative posts and criticisms of the current regime v number that are urging understanding, even if agreeing with the need for change? Work it out.

In mitigation, I would not call it hypoccracy, more that all the chaaraters in this soap opera seem to change sides, mind do so good some bad, you feel like you should criticise one minute then not and end up in a confuse mess, because there is also teh huge pressure on here to conform to the so called 'greater good' - cyberbullying tactics from both sides etc...

Managed to get Wade, pillow biter, ankles round trousers and chickens in the same post I believe - OK maybe in two, but they deserved to be in one....

Round i circles again - will we ever get anywhere? What is anyone hoping to achieve with all this. I am known for having been supportive and defensive of some of Lowes' strategies, but I will also acknowledge he has made huge mistakes that have contributed to our plight. To me that seems a fair reflection. If you are expecting Lowe to be criticised for teh mistakes he has made, is there anything wrong with asking questions of others in the mix? NO one is questioning Mary's support for Saints, I would also argue that of the big 3 Crouch is probably the biggest fan (and he leaves no opportunity unused to show this) - but does this mean they cant be questions aor criticised re their plans or actions... We can have unity quite easily, when we finally recognise that no one here has deliberately fecked things up, and finanlly agree that all characters in this charade should be criticised for what they HAVE done wrong, given credit for what they HAVE done right, encouraged to answer questions and we as fans be prepared to ask questions - what is wrong with that? Its common sense, simple as that, free of prejudices from both sides, free of ignorance - we do that and we have unity irresepctive of who we prefer in the boardroom.

They bore the socks off me FFS, and I write them - wafling on about the same old sh!te for 200 lines...WHY? Frustration at several things: 1. I am not a lowe fan - although would probably be easier if I was 2. I am not a wilde fan as anyone will recall 3. I am not a crouch fan - that should be obvious BUT I would support any of the above with a concrete plan for positive change - simaple as. Oh and the other bullS***. I could write drivel all day long and actaully have Wadey boy biting the pillow if I was saying waht a co*k Lowe was and how Crouch was my hero - this site is so full of it....

In the interests of balance, I dont think anyone should or could deny that Lowes actions have contibuted to where we are now. That the whole point in all this crap though and the reason why there is no unity - becauis the vast majority see this as black and white - all or nothing hate him or love him ******. Lowe did good, and did bad - alot of bad which contributed to where we are now. Wilde did good and bad, Crouch did good and bad - mistakes made in either ignorance, naiviety or just in the simple belief that they thought they were doing the right thing.... but because it was wrong, and because the fans did not agree they must all be self serving ****s deliberately doing it to feck teh club - or the logic of it all. The only reason why I have risked teh abuse on here and the accusations of being a luvie is because I am sick of this ignotance, the one that makes one guy our thye devil and the others holier than thou - its all total rubbish - its folk who are strong willed and believe that what they are doing is the right way to go for whatever reason but because of the mistakes made everyone jumps on the bandwagon of ignorance to stick the boot in forgetting that this is actually about football. Sure I have laid it on thick, perhaps over indulged in praise for logic and ideas, but feck me, the way some go on here, its like Lowe was caught in your chicken coop, trousers round his ankles, causing a restless clucking FFS and then we get the virgin mary corbett simply adding fuel to the fire and stoking it up good and proper. What the feck good will that do when we have 18 games to save our status and a new bloke, good, bad or useless at the helm and a young squad?

Weston, you gone an gave the game away now ...;-)

- Its great being on the ignore list Wade, I can write what I like about you being perhaps over sensitive - unfortunately, I dont have one, you see, for a couple of reasons: 1) if you want respect for your opinions, you need to respect others, even when you dont agree, and 2) it hilarious watching you make an arse of yourself in your ignorance, maybe frustrating that you never get the point, but hilarious nonetheless.

What FF and the others seem to misunderstand is that I would welcome anyone INCLUDING CRouch who has concrete plans -but to date all we have seen is more of the same - nothng concrete - which just builds up bickering in the background once again potentially from the current incumbants - - we saw it last time and we see it now, it certainly does not help having public slangings...

Where have I denied that? or argued against it - go back a page and read the thread 'Wotte de feck' - but you see because i have defended 'ideas' you get branded one oer the other ion this site awith no room in between which is pretty pathetic really...

Its almost laughable and merely highlights the extent of your ignorance.