Gingeletiss Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 OK Guys and Gals, we appear to be going round the houses with most threads, and as someone pointed out, most degenerate into a point scoring exercise. So here it is, simple and to the point. Do you believe that:- a) Things got worse in Lowe's last couple of years YES/NO b) Things improved under Wilde's tenure YES/NO c) Things improved under Crouch's short Tenure YES/NO d) Things have got better since Lowe has come back YES/NO Now be Honest, forget what camp you sit in, just be honest with yourself. For the record, my answers are:- a) YES b) NO c) YES d) NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes yes (at first) yes no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_stevo Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 how soon is admin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 how soon is admin? Next Tuesday: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=209958&postcount=105 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 OK Guys and Gals, we appear to be going round the houses with most threads, and as someone pointed out, most degenerate into a point scoring exercise. So here it is, simple and to the point. Do you believe that:- a) Things got worse in Lowe's last couple of years YES/NO b) Things improved under Wilde's tenure YES/NO c) Things improved under Crouch's short Tenure YES/NO d) Things have got better since Lowe has come back YES/NO Now be Honest, forget what camp you sit in, just be honest with yourself. For the record, my answers are:- a) YES b) NO c) YES d) NO a)Yes - if you mean the season we got relegated and the following season b)No - They appeared to becuase lowe was gone but what went on combined with what had preceeded just made things worse. c)No - Again they appeared too but just followed on in Wildes footsteps and combined with mistakes from the previous 2 followed on with more of his own and things got worse still. d)No - Lowe has come back and made yet more mistakes and as if it couldnt get any worse..... it did. If the questions relate to whats happened on the pitch rather than at the club then its a simple a)No EDIT: I meant Yes b)Yes at the start c)No d)No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreog Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes no no no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes no no no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 (edited) how soon is admin? Next Tuesday: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=209958&postcount=105 Can someone explain to me in dummie language how the following scenario wont work if the above is true. Lets say Leon Crouch was to put £2m into the bank to stave off administration (if it really is about to happen) on the basis that he is given a period of time to balance the books and reduce the remaining overdraft. This of course on the condition that Rupert lowe and Michael Wilde can have no further role in the company at any point other than just share holders. Surely the bank would support this idea ahead of administration. It seems so easy, so what am I missing ? yes no yes (on a playing side of things, don't have enough info on the financial aspects) no To thread question Edited 19 February, 2009 by slickmick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes NO NO NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes no no no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Can someone explain to me in dummie language how the following scenario wont work if the above is true. Lets say Leon Crouch was to put £2m into the bank to stave off administration (if it really is about to happen) on the basis that he is given a period of time to balance the books and reduce the remaining overdraft. This of course on the condition that Rupert lowe and Michael Wilde can have no further role in the company at any point other than just share holders. Surely the bank would support this idea ahead of administration. It seems so easy, so what am I missing ? yes no yes (on a playing side of things, don't have enough info on the financial aspects) no To thread question I think the issue would be that whats' in it for Crouch? - He could for that amount of cash buy 50% of the club - but does he have the cash to make a bid for all shares? and would he want to given the problems financially? So why just give it to the club unilaterally? Lowe/wilde would still control perhaps 40% of the votes so could still scupper any major plans from te outside - so again nothing in it for Crouch - who amongst us would donate 2 mil if we had it simply to see no real change - because unless we get cash, its going to be a very long and drawn out rebuilding process... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintDonkey Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes Yes - at first, if Best hadn't scored that own goal at Pride park we'd have been in a relegation fight in the Prem last year rather than in the championship! No - for all those saying yes look at the state of the table when he took over and at the end of the season! Not his fault but you can't say it was an improvement. No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 I think the issue would be that whats' in it for Crouch? - He could for that amount of cash buy 50% of the club - but does he have the cash to make a bid for all shares? and would he want to given the problems financially? So why just give it to the club unilaterally? Lowe/wilde would still control perhaps 40% of the votes so could still scupper any major plans from te outside - so again nothing in it for Crouch - who amongst us would donate 2 mil if we had it simply to see no real change - because unless we get cash, its going to be a very long and drawn out rebuilding process... To protect his own investment ? If the debt is £5m and it was reduced to £3m surely the chance of going into adminstration would be slim bearing in mind the summer transfer window and contracts expiring. I agree the biggest stumbling block would be the Lowe/Wilde 40% control but surely if you were about to lose everything and someone came in to save your interest on a condition, would you not listen ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes No Yes No (my head's falling off now ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 a) Things got worse in Lowe's last couple of years YES b) Things improved under Wilde's tenure NO c) Things improved under Crouch's short Tenure YES d) Things have got better since Lowe has come back NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Neil Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 a) Things got worse in Lowe's last couple of years YES b) Things improved under Wilde's tenure NO c) Things improved under Crouch's short Tenure YES d) Things have got better since Lowe has come back NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 To protect his own investment ? If the debt is £5m and it was reduced to £3m surely the chance of going into adminstration would be slim bearing in mind the summer transfer window and contracts expiring. I agree the biggest stumbling block would be the Lowe/Wilde 40% control but surely if you were about to lose everything and someone came in to save your interest on a condition, would you not listen ? I agree to some extent, but even I who am not a fan of Crouch would not expect him to do this. We do tend to see these guys as some sort of limitless pit of cash because they have more than we can dream off, but his money is his money, its there for the important things in his life, his children, grandchildren and the like, and his own retirement - far more important than ****ing it up against the wall on a football clubs especially as at present the 2 mil he sunk into shares is worth feck all. And I dont think it would be even wise to provide it as a loan - interest or not... simply too risky if you ask me. So not throwing good money after bad is actually one of the wisest decision he could make - unless he can afford to lose all that is ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain saint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 I don´t see why Crouch would put in 2million for very little difference, when if what we are lead to believe and we are going into admin, he could wait a week and pick up the club for a song! Just seems common sense really! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 a) Things got worse in Lowe's last couple of years YES b) Things improved under Wilde's tenure NO c) Things improved under Crouch's short Tenure YES d) Things have got better since Lowe has come back NO + 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Seems to be splitting into two camps the Yes no no nos and the Yes no yes nos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain saint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Oh and.......... YES NO YES NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secret Site Agent Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 YES YES to a degree YES NOPE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 This is the whole problem with the site now. It's all clearcut YES/NO and god help anyone with a balanced view or suggesting something in the middle, or for each side. Example. Lowe's last couple of years got worse because we went down and then stayed down. But it got better so we stayed up that first season, when looking like collapsing. It got worse after he was gone, largely IMO because of Burley, who Lowe hired. But if we're saying it got worse in these years, I'm afraid we have to say it got better for many years after Lowe's arrival, with some exciting football under Souness, great signings under Jones, more good football under Hoddle, then our strongest team under Strachan. Just facts that balance it out a bit. Doesn't make him any less of a ****. But just as that success shouldn't allow him to get away with anything now, nor should any past failures be held against someone. It's this season that counts, and it's gone badly for him. No idea how you can change Wilde's tenure into a YES/NO considering we made the playoffs, yet drastically underachieved on the pitch given the resources, while we all but bankrupted the club. YES/NO/YES/NO/YES/NO, erm................? Crouch - Got worse, worse worse then better at the last minute with a dash of hope, quickly extinguished by Rupert. Leading us finally to this season....where financially the situation has improved (or shall we say, become less bad)...but on the pitch it's been dire and we'll probably go down. So YES/NO/NO/NO for this season. Would agree with that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkiesaint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 was there not a period of wilde-less tenure before the coming of crouch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjphilsaint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes, no, no and..... no! Easy we are crap!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 a) Things got worse in Lowe's last couple of years YES, obviously b) Things improved under Wilde's tenure NO mood improved but results average c) Things improved under Crouch's short Tenure YES slightly but from a low base d) Things have got better since Lowe has come back NO definitely not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes No No Yes; and by that I mean No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes - Looks like a 2nd relegation in his last 3 years, even Bungle has to say that reeks of failure. Yes and No - Wilde started off so well but couldn't hack it, he was kicked out by his own friends then it started to fall apart. Creating a large part of the financial mess we see now. Yes - Without a doubt. We had actually stabalised. We had halt the increase of money, we had backing from the bank, we had a decent manager who is now going to leap frog us, the fans were pretty much united etc etc the clubs slide was long before Crouch came here and the stats show that. His only error was to appoint Dodd and Gorman, but he fixed that by replacing them, that makes up for it. We were all set to start the new season with the right characters in place. He was seeking investment. No - Lowe came back without a proper plan, he came back for personal reasons not for his love of the club. He came back and made his 1st error by firing Pearson and taking on JP and going dutch. When we look back in the future the couple of games where we have played well will be mared by the 30 or so where we played awful. In a season where we were going to struggle to survive regardless we needed warriors on the pitch, the experienced players Leicester now have. Not players who are learning their trade and are not even that good potential wise. His next error was to stop negotiations with Fulthorpe over investment. If we could of come to an agreement we could of maybe secured keeping a few of our players here for longer giving us better odds to survive. Next error was to have the general meeting and start it with a letter to himself from himself, from that momment i think those who were on the fence changed to wanting him out with a passion. Then came sacking JP and putting in a guy lower down the ranks. That was his momment to make amends and bring in someone who understands english football. If the dutch system didnt work in holland for these guys why would it work for them in England? That in my book will be looked back on and sum Lowe up to a tee, a guy who ignores the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes No No NO! ...and any prospect of improvement looks like forlorn hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 a) Things got worse in Lowe's last couple of years YES, obviously b) Things improved under Wilde's tenure NO mood improved but results average c) Things improved under Crouch's short Tenure YES slightly but from a low base d) Things have got better since Lowe has come back NO definitely not Wot he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes - Looks like a 2nd relegation in his last 3 years, even Bungle has to say that reeks of failure. Yes and No - Wilde started off so well but couldn't hack it, he was kicked out by his own friends then it started to fall apart. Creating a large part of the financial mess we see now. Yes - Without a doubt. We had actually stabalised. We had halt the increase of money, we had backing from the bank, we had a decent manager who is now going to leap frog us, the fans were pretty much united etc etc the clubs slide was long before Crouch came here and the stats show that. His only error was to appoint Dodd and Gorman, but he fixed that by replacing them, that makes up for it. We were all set to start the new season with the right characters in place. He was seeking investment. No - Lowe came back without a proper plan, he came back for personal reasons not for his love of the club. He came back and made his 1st error by firing Pearson and taking on JP and going dutch. When we look back in the future the couple of games where we have played well will be mared by the 30 or so where we played awful. In a season where we were going to struggle to survive regardless we needed warriors on the pitch, the experienced players Leicester now have. Not players who are learning their trade and are not even that good potential wise. His next error was to stop negotiations with Fulthorpe over investment. If we could of come to an agreement we could of maybe secured keeping a few of our players here for longer giving us better odds to survive. Next error was to have the general meeting and start it with a letter to himself from himself, from that momment i think those who were on the fence changed to wanting him out with a passion. Then came sacking JP and putting in a guy lower down the ranks. That was his momment to make amends and bring in someone who understands english football. If the dutch system didnt work in holland for these guys why would it work for them in England? That in my book will be looked back on and sum Lowe up to a tee, a guy who ignores the obvious. Thats a hell of alot of gumf for a few yes or no answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Thats a hell of alot of gumf for a few yes or no answers. Ok my bad Yes Yes and No but more No then yes Yes No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes Yes and No but more No then yes Yes No Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalek2003 Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 StMarco's post is a very accurate summary of recent Saints history IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit2 Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 a) Things got worse in Lowe's last couple of years YES b) Things improved under Wilde's tenure NO / YES / NO c) Things improved under Crouch's short Tenure YES d) Things have got better since Lowe has come back NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 (edited) Not a single person has answered question d) with a YES. (EDIT - apart from Arizona being a nob ;-) ) How damning..... Edited 19 February, 2009 by alpine_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Not a single person has answered question d) with a YES. How damning..... The whole point of the exercise, regardless of what camp you're sat in, an honest one word answer..................say's a lot to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 a) Things got worse in Lowe's last couple of years YES b) Things improved under Wilde's tenure NO c) Things improved under Crouch's short Tenure YES d) Things have got better since Lowe has come back NO In C], if you mean once the execs had gone and Leon made all the decisions, then a most deifinite YES. But if you include him as Chairman while the execs were at SFC, pushing him out, then it's more like NO/YES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 February, 2009 In C], if you mean once the execs had gone and Leon made all the decisions, then a most deifinite YES. But if you include him as Chairman while the execs were at SFC, pushing him out, then it's more like NO/YES. Good point....I had in mind, that the period he was with the execs was classed under 'b', whilst the period he was chair after they had gone was 'c'..............sorry:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 The whole point of the exercise, regardless of what camp you're sat in, an honest one word answer..................say's a lot to me. I think it says we generally agree that things havnt gone well under any of the 3. I dont think anyone disputed that before TBH. The debate that goes on and will probably continue is what everyone thinks is the best way forward with what is available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 (edited) yes no no no the problem is things are not black and white there is a bit of murkiness, so some questions could be answered with a 'maybe' or 'no and yes' but i have stuck to the original post and answered the best i can. there was some scope for improvement under crouch but we didnt get the chance to see it so i have to go with no. Edited 19 February, 2009 by lordswoodsaints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Not a single person has answered question d) with a YES. How damning..... Actually it's a quite clever thread, as it gives the Lowe Luvvies and the Crouch Potatoes to have their say but at the end of the day the amount of yes's and no's tell the true picture... And it's not looking at all good for Lowe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 I believe that:- a) Things got worse in Lowe's last couple of years YES b) Things improved under Wilde's tenure NO c) Things improved under Crouch's short Tenure NO d) Things have got better since Lowe has come back NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigchrisy Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 a) Things got worse in Lowe's last couple of years YES relegation had a lot to do with it b) Things improved under Wilde's tenure NO he promised money that never came c) Things improved under Crouch's short Tenure NO with lowe still in the frame nothing was permanent d) Things have got better since Lowe has come back NO Ha ha dont make me laugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Yes No Yes (but only in terms of fans unity behind the cause) No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Can someone explain to me in dummie language how the following scenario wont work if the above is true. Lets say Leon Crouch was to put £2m into the bank to stave off administration (if it really is about to happen) on the basis that he is given a period of time to balance the books and reduce the remaining overdraft. This of course on the condition that Rupert lowe and Michael Wilde can have no further role in the company at any point other than just share holders. Surely the bank would support this idea ahead of administration. It seems so easy, so what am I missing ? yes no yes (on a playing side of things, don't have enough info on the financial aspects) no To thread question IMO he hasn't got £2mill he's willing to put in - his previous offer was purely an empty gesture in the endless internecine power struggle because he knew that Wilde & Lowe couldn't raise it either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Can some clever person give me the breakdown, since 2005, of who was in charge when, then I might be able to give a reasoned answer rather than a knee-jerk response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 5 March, 2009 Author Share Posted 5 March, 2009 Has anyone changed their mind..........I know I haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 CANNOT be bothered to type Yes or No Just wish all of them had never darkened our doors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 a) Things got worse in Lowe's last couple of years YES b) Things improved under Wilde's tenure NO c) Things improved under Crouch's short Tenure YES d) Things have got better since Lowe has come back NO 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