SaintRichmond Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Opening up at the Sports pages, I was greeted with the headline .... " Crouch tips the balance and Lowe steps down "........... I broke the UK High jump record from a standing position before I realised it was an Historical article .......... Memo to the Echo ........ CAN YOU MAKE IT COME TRUE AGAIN PLEASE ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy Nutkins Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Yes my heart skipped a beat for a second........shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Yes, I mean Crouch was such a great success as a Chairman..... One things for sure, if he was still Chairman we would we in admin already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 One things for sure, if he was still Chairman we would we in admin already. Of course we would........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Of course we would........ I agree too Scummer. He was woeful and would have just got us over the admin finish line a lot quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Yes, I mean Crouch was such a great success as a Chairman..... One things for sure, if he was still Chairman we would we in admin already. how do you know? he didnt have long in the hot seat and had lowe et al waiting to stab him in the back. i bet he would have been a lot better than what we have now. And, probably higher up the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 how do you know? he didnt have long in the hot seat and had lowe et al waiting to stab him in the back. i bet he would have been a lot better than what we have now. And, probably higher up the table. Crouch is far too concerned about being viewed as a fan and liked by all to be able to deal with the situation the club is in. There isn't a hope in hell he would have made the hugely unpopular financial decisions to sell anyone we could, ship off all the high earners who couldn't be sold on loan and replace them in the team with kids and players like Molyneux who could be paid in buttons. We would have had John, Rasiak and the rest in the team at the start of the season and would have plunged into admin because of this already. We might well of have a couple more wins because of this (tho John can't even get in the Bristol City team now!) but we would have the 10 point deduction and would now be in the grips of administrators who would have sold everything including the kitchen sink. Some fans really do need to relalise that if Lowe is to be hounded out we do need a viable alternative. More than any other club in the country we need to realise 'Anyone But' campaigns do us far more harm that good. 'Anyone But Hoddle' got us Sturrockwigelyredknapp and relegation 'Anyone But Lowe' got us Wilde then Crouch and then the brink of admin. We don't seem ever to learn...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 I agree too Scummer. He was woeful and would have just got us over the admin finish line a lot quicker. I'm not a Leon Crouch fan for the record but I have to say there is little evidence to back that statement up. Hone did most of the damage and he was Wilde's man, until that was he realised Mikey was a Walter Mitty and booted him off the Board. Crouch was left with a right mess - granted the Dodd/Gorman appointment was straight out of Rupert's book of stupid appointments - but he did at least get fans onside and seemed to have the bank's backing. If he didn't, Barclays would have pulled the plug. He was also less engaged with Tommac that I thought, Askham's cabal were allegedly engaged as well. He was already priming us for cost-cutting as well. The daft spending on wages for Safri and Euell was opposed by Crouch and in the case of Euell a respected poster on here - one that is neutral on this whole business - says Wiseman signed it off and Crouch was outvoted by Hone et al. I think some of the things Leon says - "we'd be in the top 6 etc" are daft and he doesn't totally convince me but let's actually judge the man on what he did in the short-time he DID have at the helm? It was a feck sight better than Mike Wilde, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Crouch is far too concerned about being viewed as a fan and liked by all to be able to deal with the situation the club is in. There isn't a hope in hell he would have made the hugely unpopular financial decisions to sell anyone we could, ship off all the high earners who couldn't be sold on loan and replace them in the team with kids and players like Molyneux who could be paid in buttons. We would have had John, Rasiak and the rest in the team at the start of the season and would have plunged into admin because of this already. We might well of have a couple more wins because of this (tho John can't even get in the Bristol City team now!) but we would have the 10 point deduction and would now be in the grips of administrators who would have sold everything including the kitchen sink. Some fans really do need to relalise that if Lowe is to be hounded out we do need a viable alternative. More than any other club in the country we need to realise 'Anyone But' campaigns do us far more harm that good. 'Anyone But Hoddle' got us Sturrockwigelyredknapp and relegation 'Anyone But Lowe' got us Wilde then Crouch and then the brink of admin. We don't seem ever to learn...... See my post below. Lowe owns less than 6% so the alternative in the short-term is simple - hire a better CEO. This is the responsibility of Wilde and Askham's sharebases but as ever, responsibility is what they lack (as well as backbone). Much easier to have Rupert struggling in the headlights taking the flak whilst the juggernaut approaches... In the medium-to-long term, I do agree with you, we need an alternative to ALL the major shareholders, including Leon Crouch. Lowe doesn't need to be bought out though, can we just lay that myth to rest? No having a pop at you OB but I see it posted often on here and it's simply nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 (edited) Yes, I mean Crouch was such a great success as a Chairman..... One things for sure, if he was still Chairman we would we in admin already. One thing's for sure, you are not entitled to make assertions like that and dress them up as fact. What you are spouting is crap, pure conjecture. Many on here share the opposite opinion, that had Crouch remained, so would Pearson have remained. Again, under those circumstances, most believe that we would have been higher up the table than we are and almost certainly the club would have been more unified, with more cash through the turnstiles. Having seen the further points in support of your original comment, all you have added is more baseless conjecture with no more validity than mine. Nothing at all is factual. Edited 12 February, 2009 by Wes Tender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 'Anyone But Lowe' got us Wilde then Crouch and then the brink of admin. We don't seem ever to learn...... No, we don't, especially as we now have Wilde and Lowe combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Yes, I mean Crouch was such a great success as a Chairman..... One things for sure, if he was still Chairman we would we in admin already. How can you possibly make a statement like that? There is no possible basis for coming to that conclusion. I am confident that Crouch is just as capable of making the necessary savings as Lowe, but one thing is certain: the return of Lowe has caused a drop in income through the turnstiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Why though? It's one thing to say it, but where are we thinking this extra money came from? Why did we not have to loan out high earners? He loaned out skacel and rasiak himself last january, because we needed to. We were losing far too much money in the summer, and we're still losing enough now. So, why would we be better off financially? Even if we assume we'd kept pearson, say we'd been comfortably above relegation, how would we be magically safe from administration? I don't understand. More paying guests through the turnstiles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintDonkey Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Now would be a good time for Crouch to return. The painful cost cutting has been done by the bogey man Lowe, the transfer window has closed so he wouldn't be criticised for not buying players and the 'Lowe out' euphoria might just get a few more people through the turnstiles and a decent atmosphere at Saint Mary's so we could avoid relegation and administration. Of course Lowe would then have to come back to do the next round of cost cutting and not buying anyone in the summer. Kind of a job share, Lowe does the unpopular bits, Crouch does the populist stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Smith Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Crouch is far too concerned about being viewed as a fan and liked by all to be able to deal with the situation the club is in. There isn't a hope in hell he would have made the hugely unpopular financial decisions to sell anyone we could, ship off all the high earners who couldn't be sold on loan and replace them in the team with kids and players like Molyneux who could be paid in buttons. We would have had John, Rasiak and the rest in the team at the start of the season and would have plunged into admin because of this already. We might well of have a couple more wins because of this (tho John can't even get in the Bristol City team now!) but we would have the 10 point deduction and would now be in the grips of administrators who would have sold everything including the kitchen sink. Some fans really do need to relalise that if Lowe is to be hounded out we do need a viable alternative. More than any other club in the country we need to realise 'Anyone But' campaigns do us far more harm that good. 'Anyone But Hoddle' got us Sturrockwigelyredknapp and relegation 'Anyone But Lowe' got us Wilde then Crouch and then the brink of admin. We don't seem ever to learn...... I do love it when posters do this. When I do this type of post, you can see the irony and the sarcasm in it. When somebody who really believes this type of post, actually posts it, it's even more ironic. OK, I'll jump passed all the old drivel and rhetoric, and say to you this OB: WHERE WERE YOU WHEN LOWE CAME BACK? DID YOU STANDUP FOR THIS THEN? WHERE IS LOWES INVESTMENT AND IF CROUCH ISN:T ANY BETTER THAN LOWE, WHY WAS IT OK FOR LOWE TO DEPOSE CROUCH? Where were all the sympathisers then? I'll tell you, on the OS lapping up the spin of this new wonderful experiment whilst ignoring that all the cost cutting proposed was already being implemented by Crouch or was due to be! You lot waste my time, L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 12 February, 2009 Share Posted 12 February, 2009 Why though? It's one thing to say it, but where are we thinking this extra money came from? Why did we not have to loan out high earners? He loaned out skacel and rasiak himself last january, because we needed to. We were losing far too much money in the summer, and we're still losing enough now. So, why would we be better off financially? Even if we assume we'd kept pearson, say we'd been comfortably above relegation, how would we be magically safe from administration? I don't understand. Probably because he wouldn't have tried the dutch experiment. Wasn't it Crouch that sent Rasiak and Skacel off on loan? Two high earners. There are many ways to lower outgoings and still get a team that is capable of competing -Swansea, Doncaster, Preston, Blackpool...etc If we had gates that only dropped ~1% (FL average) instead of the 26% that has happen, it would have helped further stablise the finances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Yes, I mean Crouch was such a great success as a Chairman..... One things for sure, if he was still Chairman we would we in admin already. Utter bollllocks. We would have had similar cost-cutting, but with maybe one striker more, and higher attendances due to better results because of a far better manager. You do talk shiiite sometimes, OB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SP Saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Crouch is far too concerned about being viewed as a fan and liked by all to be able to deal with the situation the club is in. There isn't a hope in hell he would have made the hugely unpopular financial decisions to sell anyone we could, ship off all the high earners who couldn't be sold on loan and replace them in the team with kids and players like Molyneux who could be paid in buttons. We would have had John, Rasiak and the rest in the team at the start of the season and would have plunged into admin because of this already. We might well of have a couple more wins because of this (tho John can't even get in the Bristol City team now!) but we would have the 10 point deduction and would now be in the grips of administrators who would have sold everything including the kitchen sink. Some fans really do need to relalise that if Lowe is to be hounded out we do need a viable alternative. More than any other club in the country we need to realise 'Anyone But' campaigns do us far more harm that good. 'Anyone But Hoddle' got us Sturrockwigelyredknapp and relegation 'Anyone But Lowe' got us Wilde then Crouch and then the brink of admin. We don't seem ever to learn...... And how do you know that Crouch would or wouldn't have done those things. I somehow doubt that he told you himself. You say 'we don't ever learn' ; some people are happy to judge others without even listening to what they have to say. That's OK though I suppose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 No we do not ever learn..we got Lowe the failed chairman back again to finish us off this time. Icannot believe that Wilde was so stupid in letting him back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manji Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Opening up at the Sports pages, I was greeted with the headline .... " Crouch tips the balance and Lowe steps down "........... I broke the UK High jump record from a standing position before I realised it was an Historical article .......... Memo to the Echo ........ CAN YOU MAKE IT COME TRUE AGAIN PLEASE ???? Yes it heralded a new glorious dawn at Southampton Football Club..................oh **** no it didnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now