We beat Reading - and loa and behold, out come the belated financial results...

[solentstars]

hmmmm...not to sure what to think

 

lowe left us with nearly 4m in the bank (granted parachute payments) he returns and the club is spending 81% of its turnover on wages...and 6m in the red

 

what the hell happened...?????

that is the bit i found interesting in the report

[up and away]

Originally Posted by alpine_saint

...preparing us for the sale of our final decent established or fast-improving players in January.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/sai...___4_9m_loss_/

 

Isnt it nice that the club is run in an honest and utterly non-cynical manner ??

I posted on Friday afternoon that the results had been signed off by the auditors and were likely to be released this morning.

 

Last time I checked, Friday came before Saturday, and therefore before the Reading game.

 

This just does not sink in with the muppet / anti saint crossbreds. It was obvious to Lowe that Reading were a push over and he would be able to produce these results in the glow of the Reading result.

[Ewell]

Not surprised by the content of the financial report and although I can't stand a lot that Lowe stands for I am so glad he returned. The previous board including 'super fan' Leon Crouch gambled with our future. Oh and to think people are suggesting he come back to replace Wilde and Lowe on the viable alternatives thread. Oh my god please NO!!! Had Crouch stayed there can be no doubt that we would be in administration by now.

 

I love the way the same old faces and fractions of support are dressing up the timing of the announcement. I rarely read threads on here these days but one thing I do notice are snippets of useful information from people like Steve Grant. He told us this was coming on Friday. Those seeing it like the biggest conspiracy theory since ‘did the royal family have Diana killed’ need your heads tested. Why let fact get in the way of the daily fiction you like to play out in your sad little minds.

 

One point of interest I have is the loan note holder our mortgage lender or is there an additional financial institution we now owe money too?

[solentstars]

This just does not sink in with the muppet / anti saint crossbreds. It was obvious to Lowe that Reading were a push over and he would be able to produce these results in the glow of the Reading result.

read the report,lowe was not even here it dams the old board dulieu and hone, have alot to answer for.

[saintjay77]

Yes, possibly. If it had referred to the Reading result, there would have been zero subtlety about the spin element and would have been easier to dismiss.

 

I am not saying it was written after the Reading game, but it IS still possible that it was.

 

Its a conspirecy I tell ya!!!!! :cool:

[Window Cleaner]

that is the bit i found interesting in the report

 

Of note;

The "execs " warned in their half term report that players would have to be sold in January. The half-year player and coach salary mass was 6.1 million.

 

For the second half of the tear, despite loaning out Skacel and Rasiak who

were presumed high earners, Burley leaving,Ifill,Dailly,Bennett going back to

their parent clubs and Makin and Lundekvaam supposedly retiring we only shave 100K off the wage bill in the second half. Surely 5x2x40K (Saving on Skacel and Rasiak) + 3x30K (Burley) should result in a saving greater than 100K.

In fact if Rasiak and Skacel had stayed we would have increased our player coach salary mass by about 400K in the second half.

From this you must draw the conclusion that D+G+Pearson were at least as expensive as Burley (despite protests that Pearson came cheap) and

that the new loans Lucketti,Perry,O Halloran and Ian Pearce (what a waste) cost at least as much as Ifil Dailly and Bennett albeit for a shorter period.

 

Despite all that we still managed to squander 300K of the 400K we no doubt saved on Skacel and Rasiak, unless of course we were subsidising their pay.

[dubai_phil]

Has anyone, can anyone come up with a better alternative than Lowe's plan? He gets a lot of criticism on here, but I still have yet to see what else the club can do in the real world. (Takeover? Ha!)

 

Any suggestions from abroad?

 

Yes.

 

Survive at all costs then something might happen, especially with the UK economy still nowhere near Ground Zero on it's plunge.

 

HTH

[stevegrant]

And last time I checked, Monday is the first business day after Saturday.

 

Tell me Steve, seeing as all Trust grandees seem to be in the pocket of the club nowadays, would these results have been posted today if we had lost 5-0 on Saturday, or would they have been held back until in the hope of a potential win against Plymouth ?

I'm nothing to do with the Trust, and haven't been for the best part of a year.

 

The results were submitted late on Friday afternoon (after the LSE had closed for the weekend, I believe), so the first possible release time was first thing this morning, which was when it was published. The LSE don't hold back reports once they've been submitted, they get published as soon as they can.

 

One point of interest I have is the loan note holder our mortgage lender or is there an additional financial institution we now owe money too?

The loan note holder is Norwich Union, the mortgage lender.

[Window Cleaner]

read the report,lowe was not even here it dams the old board dulieu and hone, have alot to answer for.

 

But this is the problem. They said players would have to be sold in January,

nobody was and we still paid out as much as we did in the first 6 months.

No-one not in the know can ever say how much of the mismanagement is down to the execs and how much is down to interference by the non-execs.

 

 

"The discussion then moved to the appointment of Andy Oldknow to the Board of the PLC. Their response was as follows:

 

"When Mr Crouch and certain other Directors came to the SLH Plc Board meeting on 29 June (i.e. the meeting at which Mr Oldknow was appointed to the Board) they came armed with a number of resolutions that would have allowed them to take control of the Board and the Company at zero cost and without any commitment to new investment. In the event that those resolutions had been passed, then Mr Paul Thompson would have been appointed Chairman and Chief Executive of the Company and Mr Crouch would have been confirmed as Chairman of Southampton Football Club without reference to the Company�s shareholders."

[saintbletch]

[Warning contains high degrees of political and economic allegory]

 

Oh the beautifully ironic symmetry of it all.

 

I was just watching Gordon Brown on Bloomberg addressing the CBI telling our nation's business leaders what he plans to do to get us out of the situation that, whatever the rights or wrongs of the argument, happened on New Labour's watch.

 

As you'll know, Brown is advocating significant government borrowing to fund tax cuts and increased government spending in an effort to stimulate our economy into life.

 

He's on stage talking as if completely blameless for the dire situation we're in. He's talking in the abstract of how he will now take the correct action to fix the economic problems we face. He's telling anyone who'll listen that he and his party are the ones that now have the answers to a problem that he allowed to happen in the first place.

 

This curative action involves hocking our country up to the eyeballs with absolutely staggering levels of debt, and will ultimately have to result in increased taxes and reduced public spending once/if we the economy returns to "normal" levels.

 

And then a mate sends me a link to the piece in the Echo from Lowe. Where Lowe talks as if it was all milk and honey when he so nobly stood down only to have to ride back into town and force hard medicine down the patient's throat.

 

Our Championship status was Lowe's recession - our largesse under Crouch was Brown's stimulus package - our current reliance on the academy the payback for the stimulus package.

 

Trace the problem back to the root cause and you can't escape the fact that we wouldn't have needed a stimulus package if we hadn't fallen into recession.

 

I would have preferred Lowe to have look forward and not back.

 

(And I do recognise that the global recession is something that can't be pinned on Gordo completely but the lack of regulation of UK registered financial institutions and the resultant bailout can. I also recoginse that whilst it's incredibly risky, this bailout package looks like a necessary evil).

 

Hope the economy and Saints can get back in the Premier League soon.

[lordswoodsaints]

Let's try and be both precise and honest here: who are 'the other lot', which players did they gamble on, how much, and when?

 

if you dont know the answers to your own questions then you must have been hiding in a cupboard for about 2 years.

 

just to nudge your memory.....

crouch,wilde and co let burley loose with about £7m to take a punt on getting promoted,he went and bought a load of overpaid fancy boys and we didnt get promoted.

we came close and some would say that coming close was a result (fools mainly) but the reality is we didnt get promoted and we were stuck with a load of overpaid ponces.

 

todays problems are all down to that summer of madness,we spunked a load of money we didnt have and now it is pay back time.

 

time to come out of the closet me thinks.

[Roman]

if you dont know the answers to your own questions then you must have been hiding in a cupboard for about 2 years.

 

just to nudge your memory.....

crouch,wilde and co let burley loose with about £7m to take a punt on getting promoted,he went and bought a load of overpaid fancy boys and we didnt get promoted.

we came close and some would say that coming close was a result (fools mainly) but the reality is we didnt get promoted and we were stuck with a load of overpaid ponces.

 

todays problems are all down to that summer of madness,we spunked a load of money we didnt have and now it is pay back time.

 

time to come out of the closet me thinks.

 

So, as I thought, included in the 'other lot' is the present lot.

 

In fact, you're going further - and saying that the WORST offender among the other lot is one of the present lot.

 

Thanks. Just checking.

Edited 24 November, 2008 by Roman

[Gordon Mockles]

...preparing us for the sale of our final decent established or fast-improving players in January.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/3871404.Saints_announce___4_9m_loss_/

 

Isnt it nice that the club is run in an honest and utterly non-cynical manner ??

 

You've got to admire their timing. So transparent!

 

Must admit, thought exactly the same! Coincidental eh? And a veiled dig at the former board in the Echo by Jones and the usual spun ******** (from the coven of b*llsh*tters) blaming Crouch for inheriting Wilde’s and Lowe’s mess and being the principal cause for our demise! Laughable.

[solentstars]

Of note;

The "execs " warned in their half term report that players would have to be sold in January. The half-year player and coach salary mass was 6.1 million.

 

For the second half of the tear, despite loaning out Skacel and Rasiak who

were presumed high earners, Burley leaving,Ifill,Dailly,Bennett going back to

their parent clubs and Makin and Lundekvaam supposedly retiring we only shave 100K off the wage bill in the second half. Surely 5x2x40K (Saving on Skacel and Rasiak) + 3x30K (Burley) should result in a saving greater than 100K.

In fact if Rasiak and Skacel had stayed we would have increased our player coach salary mass by about 400K in the second half.

From this you must draw the conclusion that D+G+Pearson were at least as expensive as Burley (despite protests that Pearson came cheap) and

that the new loans Lucketti,Perry,O Halloran and Ian Pearce (what a waste) cost at least as much as Ifil Dailly and Bennett albeit for a shorter period.

 

Despite all that we still managed to squander 300K of the 400K we no doubt saved on Skacel and Rasiak, unless of course we were subsidising their pay.

thats why i find it interesting about the management of the club at the time which is why we had to have a firesale of the players.

[Saint Bones]

Surely this annoucement had to happen at a certain time ?

 

Anyone who thinks prior that we were going to pick up points against Reading away or even expecting us to beat Plymouth at home purely to wait for this annoucment has their knob in their hands. ( Me- After we'd beat Reading I had my Knob in my hand ! - not prior )

 

Why is there always something sinister happening at Southampton ? Or is it we have the biggest drama queen supporters ?

[NickG]

yea its typical Alpine looking for more misery and conspiracy.

 

As explained in two posts above Saints were committed to this timing when they released info to stock exchange so unless they were supremely confident in beating Reading, Alpine logic is flawed -now there's a first!

[saintjay77]

yea its typical Alpine looking for more misery and conspiracy.

 

As explained in two posts above Saints were committed to this timing when they released info to stock exchange so unless they were supremely confident in beating Reading, Alpine logic is flawed -now there's a first!

 

While we have Lowe at the club there will always be this kind of reaction though. Anything good that happens will be judged as some kind of conspiricy and anything bad will be used to beat the board with.

 

I was talking to my dad at the weekend about something Le Tiss said on SSN. He was asked why Sturrock never got a real chance at SMS. Le Tiss said he thinks the pressure of the prem got to him and it was a shame. He was asked straight if it was a clash with Rupes and he said it wasnt and that Rupes still talks very highly of Sturrock.

 

My ole man imediatly suggested that Le Tiss wont say anything out of order on TV in case he ends up having to work with the person he might be offending. Saying that He wont upset Rupes in case he finds himself in a position where rupes might be able to help him out. I let him rant and rave for a bit then asked him what if its Sturrock who he has to go cap in hamd too? The guy who he has just said cant hack the big time. Whats the chances of Sturrock helping out Le Tiss when he has just slated him on SNN?

 

I know allot of that is hypothetical but it shows that my dad and many other people that cant stand Lowe hear something and choose it to mean what ever they want. If Le Tiss said that Rupes is he best man for the job my dad would say he was being sarcastic and was winding everyone up. If he said he a tosser my dad would go round telling people he is a tosser and back it up with the fact that Le tiss said so.

 

Most logic is flawed on here.

[mprobert]

Sneaky and underhand tactics if you ask me. RL engineers it so that we win our 4th away from home (only Wolves has more away wins in the CCC) just so he can sneak out the financial results - the lengths some people will go to!

[Lowestoft-Saint]

hmmmm...not to sure what to think

 

lowe left us with nearly 4m in the bank (granted parachute payments) he returns and the club is spending 81% of its turnover on wages...and 6m in the red

 

what the hell happened...?????

 

 

I would of thought the answer to your question was obvious ......

 

It went something like this.....

 

Anyone other than Lowe will do for SFC....

 

Well turned out just great did our mr Anyone

[John B]

You've got to admire their timing. So transparent!

 

Must admit, thought exactly the same! Coincidental eh? And a veiled dig at the former board in the Echo by Jones and the usual spun ******** (from the coven of b*llsh*tters) blaming Crouch for inheriting Wilde’s and Lowe’s mess and being the principal cause for our demise! Laughable.

 

Maybe laughable to you but it seems to be the truth to me.

 

Cost cutting should have started in July 2007 and continued into 2008.

 

The last board said as much this time last year but Crouch appeared not to do anything that is the probable reason Wilde acted.

[Saint dyer]

Presumably Mike Wilde will be saying i am sorry i appointed the previous regime that did most of the damage

 

i agree... these results dont include a gareth bale payment, the releasing of idiakez,licka,powell, wright,viafara,jesus etc. and the loans of rasiak and saga...so surely our losses should be a lot less than what has been reported today... or am i being too optimistic??

[Window Cleaner]

Maybe laughable to you but it seems to be the truth to me.

 

Cost cutting should have started in July 2007 and continued into 2008.

 

Crouch appeared not to do anything that is the probable reason Wilde acted.

 

 

Yes he did loaned out Rasiak and Skacel for a miserable total of 0.6 million in loan fees and increased our payroll in spite of that.

Appointed a f*ck awful duo to manage the club,then Pearson, not so bad that though.Should have done it in the first place, I've nothing against Pearson, just the other 2 wannabees.

I mean for the few quid that Skacel and Rasiak saved us or brought in surely we could have done without such fabulous loan signings as Pericard and Ian Pearce. Skacel could play left back freeing up Vignal to play in central defence where he has had some experience. I mean I thought we got serious money for those 2 being out on loan, "we have obtained good loan fees" was the word on the street at the time.For the ****y amount we got they'd have been better off here trying to get into the play-offs or at least beat Bristol Rovers and get some more cup money. Lunacy, pure lunacy.

[Window Cleaner]

i agree... these results dont include a gareth bale payment, the releasing of idiakez,licka,powell, wright,viafara,jesus etc. and the loans of rasiak and saga...so surely our losses should be a lot less than what has been reported today... or am i being too optimistic??

 

Yes things are better without a doubt but the fans aren't happy because we have no "names". The fact that when we did, they were utter crap and totally useless has been overlooked.

[John B]

Yes he did loaned out Rasiak and Skacel for a miserable total of 0.6 million in loan fees and increased our payroll in spite of that.

Appointed a f*ck awful duo to manage the club,then Pearson, not so bad that though.Should have done it in the first place, I've nothing against Pearson, just the other 2 wannabees.

I mean for the few quid that Skacel and Rasiak saved us or brought in surely we could have done without such fabulous loan signings as Pericard and Ian Pearce. Skacel could play left back freeing up Vignal to play in central defence where he has had some experience. I mean I thought we got serious money for those 2 being out on loan, "we have obtained good loan fees" was the word on the street at the time.For the ****y amount we got they'd have been better off here trying to get into the play-offs or at least beat Bristol Rovers and get some more cup money. Lunacy, pure lunacy.

 

I agree with your comments but I would have thought £600,000 was a reasonable Loan fee - Rasiak did little at Bolton.

 

The increase in wages must have been Richard Wright and Andrew Davies.

 

 

Apparently Wright has not played well for Ipswich this season but Davis has for us and I dont know whether Davies has played at Stoke.

 

If not the decision to keep Davis and Sell Davies seems a good one

[um pahars]

I mean for the few quid that Skacel and Rasiak saved us or brought in surely we could have done without such fabulous loan signings as Pericard and Ian Pearce. .

 

Before you thump the keyboard, go and have a good think about how things transpired in the second half of that season, how easy it was to release players midway through a season and who we still had on the payroll.

 

With regards the first one, although you are quick to name Pearce and Pericard, you are somewhat slower to remember Wright, Lucketti and others who were brought in to effectively save our season. Whilst they obviously impacted on our wage bill, the cost of not bringing them in was probably a million times worse.

 

Secondly, moving players halfway through a season is a tough ask. Lowe and Wilde have found it hard to sell players in the longer summer window so by comparison that month window is tough to trade in. Additionally, when you trade in the summer you have the flexibility of remoulding a team in pre season, whereas games are fast and furious in January.

 

And lastly, it is also worth remembering that many players contracts expire in the summer (e.g. Lundekvam and many others) and so the more obvios time to cut back is in those summer months.

 

When Lowe released the trading statement a while back it was clear that wages had remained at similar levels for the Hone period through the Crouch period, with the reasons above being the rationale.

 

Not everything Crouch did was good, and like you I think he dithered post Burley, but his hands were somewhat tied by the previous actions of the Executives and others before that (himself included of course).

[Verbal Kint]

If the gates continue at below the break even figure, why is it a surprise that we will have to sell players? It isn't rocket science.

 

You could make a case for blaming those that could go to the games, but choose not to do so......

 

"The customer is always right"

[Verbal Kint]

Not surprised by the content of the financial report and although I can't stand a lot that Lowe stands for I am so glad he returned. The previous board including 'super fan' Leon Crouch gambled with our future. Oh and to think people are suggesting he come back to replace Wilde and Lowe on the viable alternatives thread. Oh my god please NO!!! Had Crouch stayed there can be no doubt that we would be in administration by now.

 

 

Crouch and Salz had the support of the bank. Tell me what did Crouch do financially in the 6 months he was here that was so disastrous?

[John B]

Crouch and Salz had the support of the bank. Tell me what did Crouch do financially in the 6 months he was here that was so disastrous?

 

The fact he did nothing

[up and away]

I would of thought the answer to your question was obvious ......

 

It went something like this.....

 

Anyone other than Lowe will do for SFC....

 

Well turned out just great did our mr Anyone

 

There are several that went along with that theory the first time round, me included, but not again. The same muppets that were peddling that line then, are still doing it now. As always the answer has been to work together, but these numpties put the removal of Lowe higher than the good of Saints. They can clearly see how their original choice was totally flawed, yet still keep peddling the same old sheite as if they had previously backed such a marvellous success for Saints.

Who can take these idiots seriously when you look at the positions and logic they employ. Wanting the club to go into administration, wanting Saints to lose, starve the club from funding just to emphasise a point. Typical of the flawed logic is that the rosy cheeks deliberately filed the accounts prior to a outstanding team display to sneak them through. Irrespective that those accounts are nothing to do with the current board and even quoted as such. But this little nugget has no chance of registering with the likes of these, along with the fact that the accounts could not be stopped, irrespective of the Reading result.

I am glad Lowe is back and we are actually taking the actions we now see. It did not have to be Lowe, but out of what was available, he was the only one who showed any understanding of the mess we had got into and what was required to get out of it. I still think the task is too big, but wish him all the luck in trying.

[John B]

Before you thump the keyboard, go and have a good think about how things transpired in the second half of that season, how easy it was to release players midway through a season and who we still had on the payroll.

 

With regards the first one, although you are quick to name Pearce and Pericard, you are somewhat slower to remember Wright, Lucketti and others who were brought in to effectively save our season. Whilst they obviously impacted on our wage bill, the cost of not bringing them in was probably a million times worse.

 

Secondly, moving players halfway through a season is a tough ask. Lowe and Wilde have found it hard to sell players in the longer summer window so by comparison that month window is tough to trade in. Additionally, when you trade in the summer you have the flexibility of remoulding a team in pre season, whereas games are fast and furious in January.

 

And lastly, it is also worth remembering that many players contracts expire in the summer (e.g. Lundekvam and many others) and so the more obvios time to cut back is in those summer months.

 

When Lowe released the trading statement a while back it was clear that wages had remained at similar levels for the Hone period through the Crouch period, with the reasons above being the rationale.

 

Not everything Crouch did was good, and like you I think he dithered post Burley, but his hands were somewhat tied by the previous actions of the Executives and others before that (himself included of course).

 

Yes some of what you say is right but increasing the loss was irresponsible

[um pahars]

Yes some of what you say is right but increasing the loss was irresponsible

 

And I said so the moment it was obvious that Hone and co weren't implementing Plan B last summer. They should have started the cutbacks back then.

[NickG]

Crouch and Salz had the support of the bank. Tell me what did Crouch do financially in the 6 months he was here that was so disastrous?

 

we don't know, which is why much of this banter on here is just that -we know nothing about the running of a football club to comment on the qualities of Lowe and Crouch.

 

What we do know is the management appointments where Lowe caused problems in the past and Crouch followed suit with the Dodd/Gorman appointment.

[70's Mike]

"The customer is always right"

 

we were customers when Sky bankrolled the club NOW we are suddenley supporters again ???????????????

[John B]

And I said so the moment it was obvious that Hone and co weren't implementing Plan B last summer. They should have started the cutbacks back then.

 

Yes I agree but two wrongs dont make a right

[solentstars]

And I said so the moment it was obvious that Hone and co weren't implementing Plan B last summer. They should have started the cutbacks back then.

that what i think the statement in the saints accounts hints at.

[sadoldgit]

We beat Reading and lo and behold, Alpine manages to start yet another negative thread.......

 

Christ, can't you just enjoy a good win for once?

[um pahars]

that what i think the statement in the saints accounts hints at.

 

hints!!!!!! It does more than hints!!!!!!

 

It blames everyone else, conveniently forgetting the reason why Plan B would have had to be implemented, which would be as a direct result of relegation which has turned this Club's finances upside down.

 

To suggest that all the current turmoil is down to Hone and co's actions last summer shows Lowe to have a tenuous grip on reality.

[Amesbury Saint]

when do we get the good news?

 

where is Morph with his hopes for the future?

[Gordon Mockles]

Maybe laughable to you but it seems to be the truth to me.

 

Cost cutting should have started in July 2007 and continued into 2008.

 

The last board said as much this time last year but Crouch appeared not to do anything that is the probable reason Wilde acted.

 

And gullible has been taken out of the dictionary! Do me a favour! Anyone who blames Crouch for Lowe, and more recently, Wilde's disasterous decisions and financial mess that has culminated post relegation is either a.) in the Lowe PR camp with some obscure agenda b.) Completely stupid or c.) Ignorant to the facts (or maybe all 3!!)

 

If cost cutting should have been instigated in July 2007, then surely the blame lie with Lowe and, chiefly, Wilde. Crouch wasn't even Chairman at that time and only stepped in to temporary charge after Wilde's p*ssing about & standing down, eventually leaving the board top heavy with the mutinous execs Wilde appointed (Hone, Oldknow, Dulieu, esq.)

 

It's old news but we all know the dreaded Hone press-gang took the club siege & removed Crouch in July 2007. So, Wilde's self-serving bunch of imbeciles were in charge, dishing out stupid, lucrative contracts to players & allegedly trying to negotiate large renumeration packages for themselves (re: initial takeover talks at the time) so I struggle to understand how Crouch can be blamed for his own controversial removal by a mutinous board appointed by Wilde. Crazy!

 

Crouch's second tenure was again abruptly halted by the EGM (called by Wilde and Lowe) but I am sure Crouch would have not renewed the contracts of a great deal of the players whose contracts were due to expire so Wilde and Lowe can't really claim much credit for this cost saving (as anyone with a brain would have realised the players weren't up to scratch and surplus to requirements), although I am sure they will try.

 

Spin and more spin. The levels of hypocrisy astounds me!

[saintjay77]

Yes I agree but two wrongs dont make a right

 

the same could be said about the stay away fans.

 

Its wrong that we still have Lowe back at the club and its wrong for supporters to deliberatly stay away from match days starving the club of cash it desperatly needs.

[saintjay77]

And gullible has been taken out of the dictionary! Do me a favour! Anyone who blames Crouch for Lowe, and more recently, Wilde's disasterous decisions and financial mess that has culminated post relegation is either a.) in the Lowe PR camp with some obscure agenda b.) Completely stupid or c.) Ignorant to the facts (or maybe all 3!!)

 

If cost cutting should have been instigated in July 2007, then surely the blame lie with Lowe and, chiefly, Wilde. Crouch wasn't even Chairman at that time and only stepped in to temporary charge after Wilde's p*ssing about & standing down, eventually leaving the board top heavy with the mutinous execs Wilde appointed (Hone, Oldknow, Dulieu, esq.)

 

It's old news but we all know the dreaded Hone press-gang took the club siege & removed Crouch in July 2007. So, Wilde's self-serving bunch of imbeciles were in charge, dishing out stupid, lucrative contracts to players & allegedly trying to negotiate large renumeration packages for themselves (re: initial takeover talks at the time) so I struggle to understand how Crouch can be blamed for his own controversial removal by a mutinous board appointed by Wilde. Crazy!

 

Crouch's second tenure was again abruptly halted by the EGM (called by Wilde and Lowe) but I am sure Crouch would have not renewed the contracts of a great deal of the players whose contracts were due to expire so Wilde and Lowe can't really claim much credit for this cost saving (as anyone with a brain would have realised the players weren't up to scratch and surplus to requirements), although I am sure they will try.

 

Spin and more spin. The levels of hypocrisy astounds me!

 

Its difficult to go through and pin blame on each person for exact things over the years. much easier to just blame Lowe for the whole lot.

 

And there is loads on all of the threads that twist fact's and rumours to sensationalize things to suit there needs