alpine_saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 In the Echo. Just thought I'd get this in before the likes of Jonah try to use it to justify why Crouch would be such a poor chairman compared to Lowe. How many people has SFC made redundant in recent times ??? At least Crouch's firm are doing it because they are suffering from the economic crisis, whereas SFC had to do because they are being run, well, shiiit.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 So just to confirm, Crouch's redundancies are good, strong, healthly redundancies, whereas Lowe's redunancies are nasty evil redundancies. I hope you get in touch with all those that Crouch has let go and let them know how lucky they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Fact of life at the moment everyone will know someone who has been made redundant which is down to the global economy nothing more nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SP Saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Only a **** would try to take advantage of good working people being thrown on to the scrap heap. I'm sure jonah wouldn't stoop to that. Good luck to the guys, I hope they all fond work elsewhere asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 At least Crouch's firm are doing it because they are suffering from the economic crisis, whereas SFC had to do because they are being run, well, shiiit.... How do you know this? Are you in senior management in Crouch's firm? I believe you have just totally made this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SP Saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Only a tw0t would try to take advantage of good working people being thrown on to the scrap heap. I'm sure jonah wouldn't stoop to that. Good luck to the guys, I hope they all fond work elsewhere asap. I meant 'find' of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 You really are an arse sometimes alpine. Apart from a couple of desperate comments from offix and snowballs2, there weren't even any such comments about Lowe when RF Webb had problems - it's just an unfortunate part of the downturn and usually nothing to do with how the company is being run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Fact of life at the moment everyone will know someone who has been made redundant which is down to the global economy nothing more nothing less. You can't argue with that . Some eijit posted on here recently that had Crouch still been in charge of SFC we'd be in Admin already because he would not have made any cut backs/player disposals last summer (presumably because despite all evidence to the contrary he's actually a crap businessman) and he's blinded to basic commercial realities by his love of the club and a need to remain popular with the fans . This sad news tends to suggest that LC like most successful businessmen can actually read a balance sheet and take the appropriate action , as if anybody should need telling in the first place . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 I feel for anyone who is made redundant in these times and wish them well in their endeavours to find employment elsewhere, it is both wrong to use this news as a reason to praise the commercial nous of Crouch or as a further swipe at Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambosa75 Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Interesting. He's apparently got £2m to put in to Southampton Football Club providing Lowe and Wilde do the same, but hasnt got the money to put in to save his workforce from the scrapheap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 February, 2009 I feel for anyone who is made redundant in these times and wish them well in their endeavours to find employment elsewhere, it is both wrong to use this news as a reason to praise the commercial nous of Crouch or as a further swipe at Lowe. I agree completely; the purpose of this thread was to try to pre-empt anyone trying to. Its very easy for jonah to get all huffy at my insinuation, yet I wonder how he would have reacted if I hadnt posted it. Sadly, we'll never know, but suffice to say it has served its purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Interesting. He's apparently got £2m to put in to Southampton Football Club providing Lowe and Wilde do the same, but hasnt got the money to put in to save his workforce from the scrapheap... He owns shares in both. Isnt he saving jobs if he puts cash into SFC too ? Maybe he made the money from one of the business from one of the other companies in his group. But thanks, sambosa, for proving the need for this thread was spot-on. I knew someone would use it to have a swipe at Crouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambosa75 Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 He owns shares in both. Isnt he saving jobs if he puts cash into SFC too ? Maybe he made the money from one of the business from one of the other companies in his group. But thanks, sambosa, for proving the need for this thread was spot-on. I knew someone would use it to have a swipe at Crouch. But if he was the great man everyone seems to allude to him being, would he not have that £2m available to put in to this other company to stave off administration? At the end of the day, he owns that company whereas he simply owns a stake in Southampton, surely it would make more sense finacially to do that? It's not a case of having a go at him, its a question that needs to be asked. He has openly stated he is liquid for £2m to put into SFC, yet makes all these poor people redundant when usually that is done as a very last resort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 February, 2009 But if he was the great man everyone seems to allude to him being, would he not have that £2m available to put in to this other company to stave off administration? At the end of the day, he owns that company whereas he simply owns a stake in Southampton, surely it would make more sense finacially to do that? It's not a case of having a go at him, its a question that needs to be asked. He has openly stated he is liquid for £2m to put into SFC, yet makes all these poor people redundant when usually that is done as a very last resort. He is a PART owner of that company, just like he is a PART owner of SFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 At least he can afford the £2million and maybe more now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambosa75 Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 He is a PART owner of that company, just like he is a PART owner of SFC. I see... regardless the point still stands. He was willing to put £2m into Southampton providing others did the same whereby £6m would probably make a big difference and make a lot of peoples job safe. I'm willing to wager £2m put into that company would have also made a massive difference though and would have spared these people their jobs. I'm, only asking the question because I'm sure the people that have been made redundant will be asking the same thing which they have every right to do. Do they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 (edited) He owns shares in both. Isnt he saving jobs if he puts cash into SFC too ? Maybe he made the money from one of the business from one of the other companies in his group. But thanks, sambosa, for proving the need for this thread was spot-on. I knew someone would use it to have a swipe at Crouch. I like the way you compare a football club with employees pulling down six, seven, eight grand a week as comparable to a building firm where the people being laid off would be on, what, twenty to forty grand a year? So putting £2m into SFC wouldn't "save jobs" really, would it? And Lowe getting those high earners out of the club is something you'd support now to "save jobs" is it? Yesterday you were screaming for the club to go into administration, how does that "save jobs"? This thread is nonsense and you know it - if one of the firms Lowe is involved in lays people off you'd have a bloody field day. Christ there is so much to hate Lowe for, but to hate him for, ummm, not laying people off like Crouch has, or something, errr hang on, I'll make my point in a minute, err, good old Crouch, Lowe out. PS - 50 x £40k equals.....go on, I'll let you work it out. Edited 13 February, 2009 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 He owns shares in both. Isnt he saving jobs if he puts cash into SFC too ? Maybe he made the money from one of the business from one of the other companies in his group. But thanks, sambosa, for proving the need for this thread was spot-on. I knew someone would use it to have a swipe at Crouch. I look at your post count and can't help thinking that the need for this thread is to prove how unfair life is, when anyone is made redundant ahead of you. (Alpine nervously glances behind him, as he hides this website with a random spreadsheet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 I agree completely; the purpose of this thread was to try to pre-empt anyone trying to. Its very easy for jonah to get all huffy at my insinuation, yet I wonder how he would have reacted if I hadnt posted it. Sadly, we'll never know, but suffice to say it has served its purpose. Stone the fu(king crows. You actually are so deluded that you feel that because you made the opposite comment first, as to what Crouch's reasons for making redundancies were, then that's it, it is official. Mate, get out more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 He owns shares in both. Isnt he saving jobs if he puts cash into SFC too ? Maybe he made the money from one of the business from one of the other companies in his group. But thanks, sambosa, for proving the need for this thread was spot-on. I knew someone would use it to have a swipe at Crouch. LOL Right, lets get this right. You don't like people having a go at your lover, Crouch, so to stop that you start a thread which you knew would make others attack your man. I repeat, get out more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 I think it is sad that redundancies are being used as an arguement in support or against any party. Pretty sad and pathetic thread. These are peoples lives that are being used as a tool for pathetic reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 It this relevant? I see where you're coming from, 'Look Crouch isn't a good businessman, but maybe Lowe is because he hasnt laid anyone off' but is it relevant? Crouch owns a large business, Lowe a collection of retirement homes and some shares in Saints that he was gifted. Lowe IS running SFC worse than any other chairman in its history and has made some dire decisions that have sentenced the club to relegation and possibly administration (which will result in ALOT of SFC staff losing their jobs). Crouch spent alot of money on a gamble to get us back to the Premiership, narrowly missed it in the playoffs, sought a buyer to cover the gamble, found one (SISU), rejected it for mysterious reasons along with Wilde and Lowe. But he is not the one putting in crap Dutch coaches and kids as a Club Policy. It goes back to the basic premise. Who do you want in charge - a man who IS failing and is a proven failure...thus certain relegation/admin or a chance (however slim) with Crouch to stay in this league and rebuild? I dont really hate Lowe, but I recognise his incompetence, selfcentredness and ineptitude at Football Chairmanship. I'm sure he's not making redundant his retirement home nurses but due to his actions he will shortly make redundant alot of staff at SMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Lowe a collection of retirement homes and some shares in Saints that he was gifted.. ?? You sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambosa757 Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 It this relevant? I see where you're coming from, 'Look Crouch isn't a good businessman, but maybe Lowe is because he hasnt laid anyone off' but is it relevant? Crouch owns a large business, Lowe a collection of retirement homes and some shares in Saints that he was gifted. Lowe IS running SFC worse than any other chairman in its history and has made some dire decisions that have sentenced the club to relegation and possibly administration (which will result in ALOT of SFC staff losing their jobs). Crouch spent alot of money on a gamble to get us back to the Premiership, narrowly missed it in the playoffs, sought a buyer to cover the gamble, found one (SISU), rejected it for mysterious reasons along with Wilde and Lowe. But he is not the one putting in crap Dutch coaches and kids as a Club Policy. It goes back to the basic premise. Who do you want in charge - a man who IS failing and is a proven failure...thus certain relegation/admin or a chance (however slim) with Crouch to stay in this league and rebuild? I dont really hate Lowe, but I recognise his incompetence, selfcentredness and ineptitude at Football Chairmanship. I'm sure he's not making redundant his retirement home nurses but due to his actions he will shortly make redundant alot of staff at SMS. Robbie, this really isnt the thread for it but Rupert Lowe isnt doing this because he thought it would be a jolly good idea and a bit of a laugh. He is doing this because Leon Crouch and Michael Wilde ploughed this club into so much debt in an all-or-nothing attempt at Promotion. When that didnt come off, we had a squad full of over-paid, disinterested and largely unsellable players. Lowe had to make tough decisions and the first one was whether to keep paying players who werent putting in a shift, keep a manager that would be demanding transfer funds and wages to offer (cant blame Pearson for that) or strip the club of its biggest wage-earners in an attempt to keep the wolf from the door, get a load of loans in on the basis that their parent clubs contribute or still pay their wages and employ a manager who was happy to operate under the circumstances that were laid out before he accepted the job. If you want to carry on discussing the pros and cons of both Rupert and Leon, there are 1000 other threads to do it on though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 He owns shares in both. Isnt he saving jobs if he puts cash into SFC too ? Maybe he made the money from one of the business from one of the other companies in his group. But thanks, sambosa, for proving the need for this thread was spot-on. I knew someone would use it to have a swipe at Crouch. don't be so arrogant it was you who started the political point scoring in the very first post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 February, 2009 don't be so arrogant it was you who started the political point scoring in the very first post! Only because I got in first. In my first post, it was a toss-up as to whether I put "jonah" or "NickG"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 In the Echo. Just thought I'd get this in before the likes of Jonah try to use it to justify why Crouch would be such a poor chairman compared to Lowe. How many people has SFC made redundant in recent times ??? At least Crouch's firm are doing it because they are suffering from the economic crisis, whereas SFC had to do because they are being run, well, shiiit.... He owns shares in both. Isnt he saving jobs if he puts cash into SFC too ? Maybe he made the money from one of the business from one of the other companies in his group. But thanks, sambosa, for proving the need for this thread was spot-on. I knew someone would use it to have a swipe at Crouch. rather than you who very maturely used Crouch's redundencies to have a go at the club! And get a grip -I have not made a single post criticising Crouch's business ability so get over your petty bitter sniping try a post on football rather than bitter baiting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Robbie, this really isnt the thread for it but Rupert Lowe isnt doing this because he thought it would be a jolly good idea and a bit of a laugh. He is doing this because Leon Crouch and Michael Wilde ploughed this club into so much debt in an all-or-nothing attempt at Promotion. When that didnt come off, we had a squad full of over-paid, disinterested and largely unsellable players. Lowe had to make tough decisions and the first one was whether to keep paying players who werent putting in a shift, keep a manager that would be demanding transfer funds and wages to offer (cant blame Pearson for that) or strip the club of its biggest wage-earners in an attempt to keep the wolf from the door, get a load of loans in on the basis that their parent clubs contribute or still pay their wages and employ a manager who was happy to operate under the circumstances that were laid out before he accepted the job. If you want to carry on discussing the pros and cons of both Rupert and Leon, there are 1000 other threads to do it on though. You're quite right it's not the thread for that but you still took the opportunity to re-write history I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 February, 2009 rather than you who very maturely used Crouch's redundencies to have a go at the club! And get a grip -I have not made a single post criticising Crouch's business ability so get over your petty bitter sniping try a post on football rather than bitter baiting I had a go at the club's management, not the club. Thanks for the Freudian slip. You obviously do beleive SFC is Lowe's personal fiefdom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambosa757 Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 You're quite right it's not the thread for that but you still took the opportunity to re-write history I see. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to shine some light on where exactly I might have done that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 ok (god this is like reasoning with my kids!) you used Crouch's redundencies to score points against Lowe in your first post. you then moaned saying that you knew someone would use it for point scoring, missing the obvious that it was you! (btw you didn't mention Lowe so didn't think I would bring his name into it) thanks for the freudian slip...??? sound like a 7 year old in playground nah nah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Only because I got in first. In my first post, it was a toss-up as to whether I put "jonah" or "NickG"... Why don't you spray paint "No graffiti please" on the side of your car. That will ensure everyone leaves it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Perhaps you'd be kind enough to shine some light on where exactly I might have done that? Specifically in pointing the finger at Crouch for 'ploughing the club into so much debt'. I think it's fair to say that this has been debated to death and there is a consensus of agreement that he did no such thing during his tenure. Hone and his gang yes but Crouch no. The rest of your post I agree with. I'm not a fan of Crouch by any stretch but let's try and stick to facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 February, 2009 ok (god this is like reasoning with my kids!) you used Crouch's redundencies to score points against Lowe in your first post. you then moaned saying that you knew someone would use it for point scoring, missing the obvious that it was you! (btw you didn't mention Lowe so didn't think I would bring his name into it) thanks for the freudian slip...??? sound like a 7 year old in playground nah nah Nope. I posted to take the wind out the sails of anyone who tried to use this news to score points against Crouch. You're just piiissed I robbed you of a golden opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Specifically in pointing the finger at Crouch for 'ploughing the club into so much debt'. I think it's fair to say that this has been debated to death and there is a consensus of agreement that he did no such thing during his tenure. Hone and his gang yes but Crouch no. The rest of your post I agree with. I'm not a fan of Crouch by any stretch but let's try and stick to facts. That would make it a pretty empty forum wouldn't it? No daily stories of how Lowe was seen eating babies and drowning puppies, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Nope. I posted to take the wind out the sails of anyone who tried to use this news to score points against Crouch. You're just piiissed I robbed you of a golden opportunity. That worked, dinlo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 you are right I do find you annoying, but I wouldn't find any glee in this local business troubles effecting families, nor have I ever doubted or posted a doubt about Crouch's business acumen -which is where your posts lose their argument totally. Sorry to disappoint you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 That worked, dinlo! probably better reply than trying to reason with him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Fact of life at the moment everyone will know someone who has been made redundant which is down to the global economy nothing more nothing less. I feel for anyone who is made redundant in these times and wish them well in their endeavours to find employment elsewhere, it is both wrong to use this news as a reason to praise the commercial nous of Crouch or as a further swipe at Lowe. Well said gentlemen! Looking, first hand, at the worried faces of young, family men, in Ford would bring this closer to those who treat redundancy so flippantly. It's not just a pain for those who lose their jobs. The employer, invariably, loses skills peculiar to his business. Then, if the business survives to the upturn, the employer has to teach those skills again to new people. Sad and bad times all round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 February, 2009 you are right I do find you annoying, but I wouldn't find any glee in this local business troubles effecting families, nor have I ever doubted or posted a doubt about Crouch's business acumen -which is where your posts lose their argument totally. Sorry to disappoint you. What a load of bolllocks. For one, I dont believe you that you would not have used it against Crouch. Secondly, there is a wide range of examples to choose from of posters on here with a given agenda using the plight of one of the 3 Amegos's other business interests as a stick to beat them with. I can give one immediately, Guided Missile's (or jonah's, for that matter) continued, regular and obsessive pursuit of Wilde via Merlion. Sorry, does not Merlion employ people that could lose their job just like anyone else ? Does he think of this when he uses Merlion as a stick with which to beat Wilde. I doubt it. So come down off your high horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 This is nothing new every company is laying off people through lack of work its a sign of the times nothing to do with how successful a company is. Just like sfc will be, its a shame we can't make Lowe and Wilde redundant too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 do we really need another lowe / crouch bashing thread? bored now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 February, 2009 This is nothing new every company is laying off people through lack of work its a sign of the times nothing to do with how successful a company is. Just like sfc will be, its a shame we can't make Lowe and Wilde redundant too Sorry, I see a difference. I believe SFC has contributed to its own plight during a backdrop of economic catastrophe with inept management. There is no indication that I am aware of that Crouch's company has been ineptly managed. Has Barclays or HSBC suffered the same ridiculous losses as RBS or HBOS ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 You can't argue with that . Some eijit posted on here recently that had Crouch still been in charge of SFC we'd be in Admin already because he would not have made any cut backs/player disposals last summer (presumably because despite all evidence to the contrary he's actually a crap businessman) and he's blinded to basic commercial realities by his love of the club and a need to remain popular with the fans . This sad news tends to suggest that LC like most successful businessmen can actually read a balance sheet and take the appropriate action , as if anybody should need telling in the first place . Does make you wonder though how those 50 people feel when they read that Crouch is waving £2m around to invest in a football club instead of investing it closer to home to save their jobs. Many companies are adopting different policies to pull back on production and retain staff until they can ride out this downturn. Having said that Crouch may not have had any choice but this couldn't have been a surprise to him so makes his recent offers of investment a little crass and insensitive to those who have worked for him and now find themselves on jobseekers allowance. Crouch may have many strengths but good PR is not one of them IMO and this again shows a lack of thought on his part. If his offer of £2m was a ruse to shame Lowe and Wilde then I would suggest it has backfired on himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 February, 2009 does make you wonder though how those 50 people feel when they read that crouch is waving £2m around to invest in a football club instead of investing it closer to home to save their jobs. Many companies are adopting different policies to pull back on production and retain staff until they can ride out this downturn. Having said that crouch may not have had any choice but this couldn't have been a surprise to him so makes his recent offers of investment a little crass and insensitive to those who have worked for him and now find themselves on jobseekers allowance. Crouch may have many strengths but good pr is not one of them imo and this again shows a lack of thought on his part. If his offer of £2m was a ruse to shame lowe and wilde then i would suggest it has backfired on himself. qed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 What a load of bolllocks. For one, I dont believe you that you would not have used it against Crouch. Secondly, there is a wide range of examples to choose from of posters on here with a given agenda using the plight of one of the 3 Amegos's other business interests as a stick to beat them with. I can give one immediately, Guided Missile's (or jonah's, for that matter) continued, regular and obsessive pursuit of Wilde via Merlion. Sorry, does not Merlion employ people that could lose their job just like anyone else ? Does he think of this when he uses Merlion as a stick with which to beat Wilde. I doubt it. So come down off your high horse. You are so fu(king boring. In fact, you remind me of this person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 February, 2009 You are so fu(king boring. In fact, you remind me of this person. A straight term of abuse with no attempt to address the point. Must have been a good point I made... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Fact of life at the moment everyone will know someone who has been made redundant which is down to the global economy nothing more nothing less. No, it's down to wholesale incompetence and greed. The buying and selling of debt is one way of making money. The buying of bad debt, wrapping it in gold foil and telling people it's good debt is tantamount to fraud and I hope every miserable banker who was responsible for misleading other myopic bankers, suffers as a result. Even Standard Life - that bastion of good faith - misled investors as to the security of their 'cash funds' which were invested in leveraged debt!!!! But above all, financial regulators and governments across the world simply fell asleep at the wheel. If something looks too good to be true, it is. And who pays the price? You and me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 ...... it's just an unfortunate part of the downturn and usually nothing to do with how the company is being run. Indeed. It has more to do with those financial city types / banksters (in Iceland on Thames) who not only screwed the banks, but also screwed the economy to the detriment of entrepreneurs and real wealth creators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 13 February, 2009 Share Posted 13 February, 2009 Stone the fu(king crows. You actually are so deluded that you feel that because you made the opposite comment first, as to what Crouch's reasons for making redundancies were, then that's it, it is official. Mate, get out more. LOL Right, lets get this right. You don't like people having a go at your lover, Crouch, so to stop that you start a thread which you knew would make others attack your man. I repeat, get out more. Why don't you spray paint "No graffiti please" on the side of your car. That will ensure everyone leaves it alone. That worked, dinlo! A straight term of abuse with no attempt to address the point. Must have been a good point I made... :rolleyes: Actually I have responded to your original post quite often, pointing out the inane drivel at every opportunity, which you chose not to answer. Now that I merely mention how boring it has all been you suddenly change tack and try to make out I have not tried to debate with you, to attempt to win some moral victory no doubt. 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