Nineteen Canteen

Strachan's view is not fact, its an opinion. Hanging on to Saints past the deadline? Where is the facts? How do you know Barclays did not give him reason that we were ok? Do you think Barclays cared about a football club's league deadlines? Did he fois t Woodward onto Redknapp? Do you think he consulted Redknapp before, do you know even? The bizarre belief the academy sustain us in the CCC is a belief, a decision borne out of necessity and nothing to do with being pig headed. Ergo Pearson. He got rid based on your opinion of no good reason Lowe made a decision based on how the fluck he could get by with no resources and save the club at the same time. You consider that a wrong decision but not pig headed. Rationally, I understood his thinking. For the sake of what Crouch has donated alone Lowe was tantalisingly close to turning us around and even with relegation going down solvent would have been a tad better. The pigheadnesses of our supporters and unrealistic expectations as usual screwed us.

Exactly. All the evidence suggests that Lowe had major costs effeciences and reduced the operating debt with Barclays but was hit by a temporary blip in liquidity. For want of a cash loan or a delay to the start of the credit crunch and ensuing media and government attention then IMo we would be still on way back and selling ST's for next season. It was the pig headedness of some fans (about 5,000) who chose to stay away and not Lowe's that bought this club down and there is evidence to support this. Oh and Crouch could have helped the short term liquidity problem unconditionally as he is doing now. 25% of his £2m would have been enough and he would IMO been offered a place in the board for his support and foresight whereas now? Well IMO it look more like an efforts to tray and save face. Lowe in charge, Crouch on board, League 1 probably, but no points deduction and ST's being sold. I would settle for that today thank you. Pig-Headedness yes but I think that can be blamed on some uber -fans/customer types and some game play from ex-directors, a game that they lost along with the rest of us. Again just an opinion.

Ok please post the evidence and not your opinion. If Lowe was 'pig headed' it would have been IMO because he rightly viewed this as a temporary liquidity crisis having in adverse and unprecenented conditions reduced the operating OD with the bank and significnatly reduced costs of the company. Before any of us had heard of the credit crunch if this scenario had played out then, IMO Barclays would have offered a temporary limit increase as they allowed the limit to ramp up in the Wilde, Hone and Crouch era. Having almost turned the mistakes of the previous two seasons around it must have been diffciult for Lowe to walk away having got so close to reaching his goal only for Barclays to withdraw their help as probably any bank would do in the current climate because of the media and shareholder and treasury attention. Difficult to walk away is not the same as 'pig headedly' refusing to accept an offer to cut your losses in preference to seeing the club fail and receiving nothing in the process. This is just my opinion based on my own observations. looking forward to your evidence. (Supporting documentation that isn't media related would be good)

I agree, it is a very interesting question and comes back to the fact the vultures may have sat in the trees to long waiitng for this to play out. Alternatively, if Fry doesn't set the price high enough he is left with little wiggle room. My guess is that you have a far more interesting take on this and I look forward to reading it later on.

So a handicap is a barrier to success, I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies and that that man is not paralysed, deaf, dumb or blind. MJ is a dyslexic but frankly you are not bothered. Nice! That is very magnamious of you. Regardless of anyone's thoughts on Marc Jackson we can least write you off as a bigoted moron. I would throw a few sarcastic remarks your way but like a small minority of others have proven on here, it's clear you wouldn't understand them.

IMO I think he was over-played and over paid and not deserving of a testimonial let alone 'legend' status. If Claus is a legend what does that make those who are widely acknowledged as legends? Before you know it you run out of superlatives. He was a solid and loyal centreback and thanks to killer made to look a lot better than he was in reality. The cashier in my local building society is very loyal, hard working and great with customers and been in the job for 35 years but I don't waltz in and say' Hello, you are legend'. Only in football, I suppose the phrase he is a 'true sporting legend' will be wheeled out soon. Complete legend? More bellend IMO.

LOL. Do you think McMenemy + Osman may start to organise a Q & A evening? If so i wonder whose head they'll put in the noose this time - just for a laugh mind you.

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.

To be frank Phil I believe Weston or yourself would be better ambassadors in the role. Donations, loans or otherwise should not endow the donator / lender with a role at the club, honoray or otherwise. If so they'd better increase the capacity in the boardrooms because a lot of people have made worthy donations and played no part in the downfall.

Thank you Trousers. Daren please stop tripping over your IQ

Wes that's a lot of words that in the in conclusion is just an insult. Really you shouldn't let your mind wander like that it's to small to be let out on it's own.

Hopefully, one of us will be proved wrong;)

No I didn't Mike I have a couple of ST's for games at SMS and I don't subscribe to Sky to fatten the cats. To be fair if you got to watch Saints last season they played some nice stuff as well.

+ 1

Or like Crouch he is just a decent bloke trying to do the right thing and make a good impression.

Interesting what he said about the simplistic style of football in league 1. Hoof it and chase, not to mention the physical aspects. Not much finesse or tactics will be required so perhaps no surprise Leicester did well with their RSM at the helm for a season. The knuckles may have to come a little higher off the floor for Leicester next season.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Interesting that many lambasted others for speaking out that the man did not deserve a testimonial given his wages whilst at the club and that the term legend was perhaps inappropriate given other widely acknowledged Saints legends. True to form those same people who supported Claus so vociferously are equally quick to condem him and only goes to show that a legend can quickly fade if they do not remain responsible for upholding their respected status. Only this week I was questioned when I challenged the opinion of one poster that he could forgive MLT anything because of his past role at the club. I think this proves that sweeping statements like that don't hold true. For the record I don't include Weston Saint in my analysis as sadly he has justifiably different reasons to find Claus's actions abhorrent. It is right he should be prosecuted and punished accordingly and that those who questioned his motives for a Testimonial as an 'opportunity to say goodbye' seem to have their questions answered by a man who believes it is morally acceptable today to drive under the influence of drink or drugs. The morning after scenario does not partly excuse the crime in any way whatsoever.

Um you seem to be developing an unhealthy obsession you can't seem to let just one of my posts go without showing yourself up in increasing measure. I use to be flattered and now quite frankly its a bit weird and a tad scary. HELP!