Channon's Sideburns Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 (edited) I wonder... Having spent shedloads in achieving the 16% shareholding in SLH to uproot Rupey Baby, then being uprooted by his own executives (apparently)...and then coming back again with Rupey Baby in a 'Roland Rat and Kevin the Gerbil' double act... Michael, tell me, 'Was it really all worth the effort'? What have you achieved? You paid out all that money to get Rupert out of this club...only to let him back in. --- One other observation, has anyone else noticed that amongst even the Lowe Support not even they have any good words to say about Wilde??? --- How does that make you feel then Mike? Does it make you want to 'Go Wilde' again.? Go on, flex your 16%. Edited 19 February, 2009 by Channon's Sideburns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Are you expecting a reply to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Are you expecting a reply to this? Are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Are you? Am i Michael Wilde? No i'm Keyser Söze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Its a fair point - because right now the ONLY think that i can think of as to why Mr Wilde got involved and has played it to remain on the inside irrespective of who it means supporting is the potential of Property... long term plans be it Jacksons Farm or other land assets that might be worth ...not very much right now... but property always picks up and is a great long term money spinner. At the Illfated SOS meeting with him, he did hint that he felt the club had NOT exploited all the possible commercial spin offs of its assets. I got the feeling that he did not want to be sat on the outside whilst CRouch potentially sold lock stock and jacksons farm to SISU or the like or other local entrpeneurs who also saw the long term value in the assets. I am not against exploiting these assets IF THEY GENERATE INCOME for the club... eg unlike many i would ahve no problem if Lowe, Wilde and CRouch and teh other shareholders all ended up with a few mil if it meant 30-40 mil plus coming directly into the club... its the lower return high take greedy bastard approach that would get my goat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 19 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Are you expecting a reply to this? Well he has to stick his head out from the parapet at some point...he might as well explain his thoughts now... Or wait for Admin....or Relegation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 At the Ill fated SOS meeting with him' date=' he did hint that he felt the club had NOT exploited all the possible commercial spin offs of its assets. I got the feeling that he did not want to be sat on the outside whilst [b']Crouch potentially sold lock stock and jacksons farm to SISU[/b] or the like or other local entrpeneurs who also saw the long term value in the assets. I thought it was the execs that were working this not the three major shareholders. Can you clarify FC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Well he has to stick his head out from the parapet at some point...he might as well explain his thoughts now... Or wait for Admin....or Relegation... Suggests to me that football was never really top of his agenda? Does that make him evil? Nah, just a businessman who saw an opportunity - if he makes a few quid on teh back of saints making a few more, fair play i think. I just dont like the whiter than white nostalgic uberfan who believes such things are sacreligeous, who is 'apalled by this' - quite happy and encourgaing that we fork out obscene cash to players and agents who dont have any loyalty or interset in the club either, yet a tad hypocritical when complaining about director remuneration or someone making a few quid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 I wonder... Having spent shedloads in achieving the 16% shareholding in SLH to uproot Rupey Baby, then being uprooted by his own executives (apparently)...and then coming back again with Rupey Baby in a 'Roland Rat and Kevin the Gerbil' double act... Michael, tell me, 'Was it really all worth the effort'? What have you achieved? You paid out all that money to get Rupert out of this club...only to let him back in. --- One other observation, has anyone else noticed that amongst even the Lowe Support not even they have any good words to say about Wilde??? --- How does that make you feel then Mike? Does it make you want to 'Go Wilde' again.? Go on, flex your 16%. Well here is my take on a response to it. When Wilde was on the outside, before he ousted Lowe, he was a bit like a fan and wanted what was best for the club. After getting the main job he soon realised it was not for him and that he fell short of doing it properly. Then as the largest shareholder he watched while another bloke had a go. Now, armed with knowing how things were going before Lowe got chucked out and being partly involved with the blokes who took over after he was involved, he decided to safeguard his share value by voting one way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 I thought it was the execs that were working this not the three major shareholders. Can you clarify FC? Crouch as in 'in charge' - eg the crouch regime. Sorry if it was not clear, did not mean to insinuate anything, just that teh SISU deal was here when he was at the helm, and we know he was also talking to others, no the point was that I feel sure Wilde did not like the idea of being on the outside during such negotiations - As I understand it + speculation, I suspect Wildes position bcame untenable in Crouch's eyes when the 'investors' he promised failed to materialize, so he was out and the resulting falling out with Crouch about this kinda eventually done for Crouch..? BUt this begs the question, did Crouch not do due diligence on these 'investors' before backing the Wilde camp first time round? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 19 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Suggests to me that football was never really top of his agenda? Does that make him evil? Nah' date=' just a businessman who saw an opportunity - if he makes a few quid on teh back of saints making a few more, fair play i think. I just dont like the whiter than white nostalgic uberfan who believes such things are sacreligeous, who is 'apalled by this' - quite happy and encourgaing that we fork out obscene cash to players and agents who dont have any loyalty or interset in the club either, yet a tad hypocritical when complaining about director remuneration or someone making a few quid...[/quote'] Frank, what I am primarily interested in is how his mind works? For all I know the 'outside links' of SFC was what he was after all along, it may never have been about the Football Club.. It's just extremely confusing when you see a manifesto based on 'Football First', bearing in mind the weight that was put behind the argument of removing Lowe, that in fact could well prove to be a huge red herring... I don't care if he makes some money AS LONG as the Football Club isn't run into the ground in the process. Which, I'm sure you may agree, is the biggest gripe against Lowe. Maybe they are two peas in a pod after all... BTW, has anything else happened about those threats to Wilde being investigated by the Police?? It's gone very quiet, perhaps we'll hear more tomorrow just before the protest on Saturday eh? What strange timing it was to release that info last time...just three days before a massive fans protest...hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Are you expecting a reply to this? Does it f**king matter ? Its a rhetorical question about what the f**k Wilde is thinking.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Frank, what I am primarily interested in is how his mind works? For all I know the 'outside links' of SFC was what he was after all along, it may never have been about the Football Club.. It's just extremely confusing when you see a manifesto based on 'Football First', bearing in mind the weight that was put behind the argument of removing Lowe, that in fact could well prove to be a huge red herring... I don't care if he makes some money AS LONG as the Football Club isn't run into the ground in the process. Which, I'm sure you may agree, is the biggest gripe against Lowe. Maybe they are two peas in a pod after all... BTW, has anything else happened about those threats to Wilde being investigated by the Police?? It's gone very quiet, perhaps we'll hear more tomorrow just before the protest on Saturday eh? What strange timing it was to release that info last time...just three days before a massive fans protest...hmmm Sorry was not aiming that comment at you by the way... I dont really have any more insights TBH, certainly nothing concrete... The football first stuff ? at a push I would suggest/speculate two things... 1) everyone knows that the perception amongst fans (much of it justified, but not all IMHO) is that LOwe has no interest in the game, etc not a football man, and how fans feel towards him is partly driven by this whatever else he does. To win over fans - position yourself as the opposite? 2) Wilde would have to be a major plonker not to recognise that in order to gain control of a PLC with a max 16% share he needs allies, from amongst those shareholders not allied to Lowe - eg the self professed 'Fans' - MC, Crouch. LM etc - so his approach is based on winning their support and fans support - get fans support and the uberfan shareholders will follow like lemmings - without due diligence? Just a theory, but it would make sense. So to me its more a strategy to get control than anything else.. do I have an issue with it? only in that if true it would suggest a lack of transparency - as with the promised manifesto investors - with Lowe he is at least transparent we know what we get - or do we only think we do because he is less focussed on winning over fans, which he has never had the need to because of his shareholder support. (his biggest misjudgemnet in my opinion) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Well here is my take on a response to it. When Wilde was on the outside, before he ousted Lowe, he was a bit like a fan and wanted what was best for the club. After getting the main job he soon realised it was not for him and that he fell short of doing it properly. Then as the largest shareholder he watched while another bloke had a go. Now, armed with knowing how things were going before Lowe got chucked out and being partly involved with the blokes who took over after he was involved, he decided to safeguard his share value by voting one way. Are deaf.....have you not listened, was this just said to provoke an argument. The said 'blokes who took over', were appointed by the very man you now champion.....Mr Wilde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Wilde is a complete idiot, but those of us who pointed out his flaws at the time and his laughable "manifesto" were shouted down by the alpines of this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Wilde is a complete idiot, but those of us who pointed out his flaws at the time and his laughable "manifesto" were shouted down by the alpines of this world. True, but surely you weren't intimidated by Alpine! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Wilde is a complete idiot, but those of us who pointed out his flaws at the time and his laughable "manifesto" were shouted down by the alpines of this world. So, what were the flaws you were shouting out ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 So, what were the flaws you were shouting out ? You may well recall Alps, the questining of the manifesto, nothing concrete and the natural suspicion that the fan friendly football first rhetoric, digging MC and LM out of the woodwork was a mask was simply a strategy to gain control rather than a genuine 'new found love' for the club that the Wilde supporters were insisting was true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Are deaf.....have you not listened, was this just said to provoke an argument. The said 'blokes who took over', were appointed by the very man you now champion.....Mr Wilde. Firstly lets address what you might have meant by "are deaf" as it makes no sense to me. Now let me further help you out of your corner of ignorance. I don't champion him at all. I don't champion Lowe either. Neither do I champion Crouch. I was answering a question on what Wildes thoughts might have been. I gave my opinion of what I thought his thoughts would be. let me give you another example. Imagine that somebody had asked if I had any thoughts on why Peter Sutcliffe killed 13 women. If my answer was that I believe he thought he had heard voices telling him to do it, then that in no way means that I support him in his carrying out of these crimes. Do you understand? have you not listened? (your words there, although quite how one listens to text I don't know.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WealdSaint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 I suspect that Wilde bought 16% of Saints with money he did'nt really have (see other recent posts about his company accounts). With the cold winds of the downturn, he desperatly wanted to get as much money back from his Saints investment as possible, hence his sudden alliance with Rupert. I think that Rupert has promised a lot of people with shares in Saints that he was the man to save their investments. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when Rupert tries to explain to them why everything has gone so terribly t*ts up!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 I suspect that Wilde bought 16% of Saints with money he did'nt really have (see other recent posts about his company accounts). With the cold winds of the downturn, he desperatly wanted to get as much money back from his Saints investment as possible, hence his sudden alliance with Rupert. I think that Rupert has promised a lot of people with shares in Saints that he was the man to save their investments. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when Rupert tries to explain to them why everything has gone so terribly t*ts up!.He will blame it on the supporters and the previous regime. That is Rupert Lowe's way. He is incapable of any other view. It is like a sickness. His make up will not allow it any other way. That's my opinion for what it is worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Wilde has no supporters. It must feel lonely for him being universally disliked by saints fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Abraham Lincoln: If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Mullet Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 I would feel completely embarrassed if I were him. Very sad when he can't even sit in his regular seat and watch the team he still undoubtedly loves because he made bad decisions, initially in good faith and latterly in desperation I expect. Sad sad sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 19 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 February, 2009 I would feel completely embarrassed if I were him. Very sad when he can't even sit in his regular seat and watch the team he still undoubtedly loves because he made bad decisions, initially in good faith and latterly in desperation I expect. Sad sad sad. But surely in the Directors Box they get to sit where they like? Or do they have to do certain things to make their way to the front like Rupes??? Do you know him or something JM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 You may well recall Alps' date=' the questining of the manifesto, nothing concrete and the natural suspicion that the fan friendly football first rhetoric, digging MC and LM out of the woodwork was a mask was simply a strategy to gain control rather than a genuine 'new found love' for the club that the Wilde supporters were insisting was true...[/quote'] Oh, the irony again..... Lowe refused to respond when Crouch ask for him to explain his plans through the Echo last March-April time... So, at what point did Lowe convince us of his detailled concrete plans ? If this season is what concrete detailled planning gives us, I vote for a return to Wooliness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Lowe refused to respond when Crouch ask for him to explain his plans through the Echo last March-April time... So, at what point did Lowe convince us of his detailled concrete plans ?... I think it was right that Lowe did not respond to Crouch through the media and i'm sure, at the time, he convinced Barclays and Aviva of his plans, which are the only parties he probably thought matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Firstly lets address what you might have meant by "are deaf" as it makes no sense to me. Now let me further help you out of your corner of ignorance. I don't champion him at all. I don't champion Lowe either. Neither do I champion Crouch. I was answering a question on what Wildes thoughts might have been. I gave my opinion of what I thought his thoughts would be. let me give you another example. Imagine that somebody had asked if I had any thoughts on why Peter Sutcliffe killed 13 women. If my answer was that I believe he thought he had heard voices telling him to do it, then that in no way means that I support him in his carrying out of these crimes. Do you understand? have you not listened? (your words there, although quite how one listens to text I don't know.) It's always amusing how you try and act all clever by highlighting minor gramatical errors in what people state, either spelling mistakes or the accidental omission of words. Given the fact you come accross as being rather uneducated it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I can see errors in your post, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 what is another question.. was it worth it for YOU..? fans could not wait to "go wilde"...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 I think it was right that Lowe did not respond to Crouch through the media and i'm sure, at the time, he convinced Barclays and Aviva of his plans, which are the only parties he probably thought matters The are you suprised that the vast majority of the fan base hold him in such low esteem ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 It's always amusing how you try and act all clever by highlighting minor gramatical errors in what people state, either spelling mistakes or the accidental omission of words. Given the fact you come accross as being rather uneducated it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I can see errors in your post, can you? Thanks Stanley........I was going to respond to him/her, but didn't feel it was worth getting into a bun fight. His/her posts say's it all to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Oh, the irony again..... Lowe refused to respond when Crouch ask for him to explain his plans through the Echo last March-April time... So, at what point did Lowe convince us of his detailled concrete plans ? If this season is what concrete detailled planning gives us, I vote for a return to Wooliness... I agree its wrong to take this in isolation and Lowe is EQUALLY guilty of repeating the errors made by Wilde at that time.... so you are right in pointing this out.. however UP on the Lowe's biggest mistake thread has told me off for bringing up CRouch in a LOwe thread, so I must apologise for complying with UPs posting rules and therfore not presenting both sides of the argument.... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Thanks Stanley........I was going to respond to him/her, but didn't feel it was worth getting into a bun fight. His/her posts say's it all to me. No probs, Johnny****wit isn't very bright. 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