Hone & Dulieu

[Ivan Katalinic's 'tache]

Whatever happened to these two delightful chaps, who, in my eyes, have a certain culpability (alongside Rupert & "Go" Wilde) for our current predicament.

[ladysaint]

dont forget Andy Oldknow and Hoo's,

[stevegrant]

The lot of them have a hell of a lot to answer for.

 

I'm still baffled as to why Lowe, Wilde and Crouch agreed to actually pay their contracts up rather than have them sacked for gross misconduct.

 

I mean, seriously, who in their right mind sanctions spending of £7m on the basis of someone saying "yes, it'll be coming, don't worry"? Particularly the CEO of a public limited company!!

[um pahars]

The lot of them have a hell of a lot to answer for.

 

I'm still baffled as to why Lowe, Wilde and Crouch agreed to actually pay their contracts up rather than have them sacked for gross misconduct.

 

I mean, seriously, who in their right mind sanctions spending of £7m on the basis of someone saying "yes, it'll be coming, don't worry"? Particularly the CEO of a public limited company!!

 

To be fair to Hone and others, they were upfront that the money spent that summer was "in staged payments for the players, but it's been done on debt by and large".

 

I'm sure he and others thought some cash would be raised (and he said as much at the Solent forum that summer), so although he misjudged Wilde (and others) who didn't cough up and, who should therefore take some blame, I don't think it was that summer's spending that killed us.

 

In fact after that first season net debt was reduced to it's lowest for years and costs had been reduced.

 

They also followed the start by Lowe who spent £2m on Rasaik and who had also given Burley and others the impression money would be forthcoming with his warchest quotes in the run up to the EGM.

 

But I would have been much harsher on Hone and co for their failings to cut back and implement Plan B in the summer following our failure in the play offs. At that point they should have cut back and not sanctioned monies on Euell, Thomas etc.

 

They made some poor decisions, but it would never be deemed gross misconduct and sadly just like when Lowe and Cowen received their share of half a million+ when they were removed for failing in 2006, Hone and co were legally entitled for their pay offs as well.

 

Whilst both Lowe & co and Hone & co were legally entitled to those monies, I just can't halp but think it's morally wring considering both were removed from office for failing in their jobs.

[up and away]

The lot of them have a hell of a lot to answer for.

 

I'm still baffled as to why Lowe, Wilde and Crouch agreed to actually pay their contracts up rather than have them sacked for gross misconduct.

 

I mean, seriously, who in their right mind sanctions spending of £7m on the basis of someone saying "yes, it'll be coming, don't worry"? Particularly the CEO of a public limited company!!

 

This is the crux of the position and the result of many things that followed. Hone and Delieu made a classic schoolboy error in spending money that was not there. They had been duped into what finances were going to be available and virtually made themselves unemployable. They gave an ultimatum, either allow us to sort this mess out and get things back on an even keel or we will resign. Resigning would mean the company coming to a standstill, so they were given the power to sort out the finances. If Crouch had any common sense he would have kept Wilde within the board, but he was given the sword and room to do what's best.

 

The first big issue was the sale of Bale in the January window, something rejected by the other directors at Saints. You then had the gloves off and no love lost on either side. Crouch then tried to outflank the executive by installing Thompson, but had booted his trump card (Wilde) into the wilderness. The executives then polled the major share holders upon the way forward, do you want Thompson, how should the club be run? Lowe and Wilde agreed they did not want Thompson but little else, so the executive proceeded in that direction, going by the general assumed direction wished by the majority.

 

It's possible the executive could be dismissed for gross misconduct, but those trying to implement that charge would be equally guilty from that association. Lowe stayed out of the way with his only input being not wanting Thompson installed. If at any time either Crouch or Wilde had told the executive to get the costs under control earlier, it would have happened or Lowe would have to go against it.

 

Once the executive got past the position of sorting the initial over spend, there was very little you could blame them for, they were just following the majority view. The contracts would have had to have been paid up but a gagging order was thrown in for good measure and all went on their merry way. They managed to get a atatement in the accounts that they had returned very healthy figures and providing the only possibility of investment, SISU. But only the idiots could not see that all the family silver had been flogged off for one almighty **** up. With no further fall out from the inconsistency between the executives saying we were potless and had to sell players, to Crouch saying no we were not and could continue for a long time to come without weakening the squad. Off they went!

 

The small overspend at the beginning instigated the position that allowed everything to subsequently happen. The stupid spending that followed could not have happened if any two of the major share holders objected. But all were divided and the exceutive just made as much as possible available to Burley within basic financial guide lines. The executive are not at fault here apart from their intial error, it is the major share holders who allowed this to continue because they were more interested in petty vengances. The majority of this blame has to go down to Wilde and Crouch.

[Rebel]

To be fair to Hone and others, they were upfront that the money spent that summer was "in staged payments for the players, but it's been done on debt by and large".

 

I'm sure he and others thought some cash would be raised (and he said as much at the Solent forum that summer), so although he misjudged Wilde (and others) who didn't cough up and, who should therefore take some blame, I don't think it was that summer's spending that killed us.

 

In fact after that first season net debt was reduced to it's lowest for years and costs had been reduced.

 

They also followed the start by Lowe who spent £2m on Rasaik and who had also given Burley and others the impression money would be forthcoming with his warchest quotes in the run up to the EGM.

 

But I would have been much harsher on Hone and co for their failings to cut back and implement Plan B in the summer following our failure in the play offs. At that point they should have cut back and not sanctioned monies on Euell, Thomas etc.

 

They made some poor decisions, but it would never be deemed gross misconduct and sadly just like when Lowe and Cowen received their share of half a million+ when they were removed for failing in 2006, Hone and co were legally entitled for their pay offs as well.

 

Whilst both Lowe & co and Hone & co were legally entitled to those monies, I just can't halp but think it's morally wring considering both were removed from office for failing in their jobs.

 

Steve I'm not so sure - we had several conversations with Jim Hone, Lee Hoos and Andy Oldknow about the right way forward for the club - I think they were incompetent - that or so focused on takeover bonuses they might get they didn't care about anything else

 

We argued with them quite strongly that the only way was to run the club was within its means - whereas the fantastic four (lets inlcude Jones!) thought the only way was to spend money we didn't have to push for a play-off place and secure a takeover

 

they didn't even listen when we pointed out we were falling into a relegation battle and not a promotion fight

 

they all should have been sacked without a doubt and probably for gross incompetence

 

looks like we were right and they were very wrong!

 

As for Lowe's Warchest - they discovered that didn't actually exist - and they told us that but spent the money anyway!

[capitalsaint]

Steve I'm not so sure - we had several conversations with Jim Hone, Lee Hoos and Andy Oldknow about the right way forward for the club - I think they were incompetent - that or so focused on takeover bonuses they might get they didn't care about anything else

 

We argued with them quite strongly that the only way was to run the club was within its means - whereas the fantastic four (lets inlcude Jones!) thought the only way was to spend money we didn't have to push for a play-off place and secure a takeover

 

they didn't even listen when we pointed out we were falling into a relegation battle and not a promotion fight

 

they all should have been sacked without a doubt and probably for gross incompetence

 

looks like we were right and they were very wrong!

 

As for Lowe's Warchest - they discovered that didn't actually exist - and they told us that but spent the money anyway!

 

While I'm speaking from a biased position, I felt that Lee Hoos was an extremely honourable and agreeable businessman. He acted with Saints best interests at heart and he was not forced out of the club with Hone etc but stayed on with Leon.

 

It says a lot that the moment Mandaric took over Leicester he immediately hired Hoos, less is made of that than his decision to sign Pearson but I feel it is equally as significant.

[um pahars]

We argued with them quite strongly that the only way was to run the club was within its means - whereas the fantastic four (lets inlcude Jones!) thought the only way was to spend money we didn't have to push for a play-off place and secure a takeover

 

But that was after the summer of 2007, when we had just been dumped out of the play offs. I can clearly remember saying they should be implementing Plan B and not spending beyond our means, but they continued to spend, with no one holding them to account as the three shareholders *****ed amongst themselves until Crouch & SISU forced the issue that Autumn.

[um pahars]

This is the crux of the position and the result of many things that followed. Hone and Delieu made a classic schoolboy error in spending money that was not there. They had been duped into what finances were going to be available and virtually made themselves unemployable. They gave an ultimatum, either allow us to sort this mess out and get things back on an even keel or we will resign. Resigning would mean the company coming to a standstill, so they were given the power to sort out the finances. If Crouch had any common sense he would have kept Wilde within the board, but he was given the sword and room to do what's best.

 

The first big issue was the sale of Bale in the January window, something rejected by the other directors at Saints. You then had the gloves off and no love lost on either side. Crouch then tried to outflank the executive by installing Thompson, but had booted his trump card (Wilde) into the wilderness. The executives then polled the major share holders upon the way forward, do you want Thompson, how should the club be run? Lowe and Wilde agreed they did not want Thompson but little else, so the executive proceeded in that direction, going by the general assumed direction wished by the majority.

 

It's possible the executive could be dismissed for gross misconduct, but those trying to implement that charge would be equally guilty from that association. Lowe stayed out of the way with his only input being not wanting Thompson installed. If at any time either Crouch or Wilde had told the executive to get the costs under control earlier, it would have happened or Lowe would have to go against it.

 

Once the executive got past the position of sorting the initial over spend, there was very little you could blame them for, they were just following the majority view. The contracts would have had to have been paid up but a gagging order was thrown in for good measure and all went on their merry way. They managed to get a atatement in the accounts that they had returned very healthy figures and providing the only possibility of investment, SISU. But only the idiots could not see that all the family silver had been flogged off for one almighty **** up. With no further fall out from the inconsistency between the executives saying we were potless and had to sell players, to Crouch saying no we were not and could continue for a long time to come without weakening the squad. Off they went!

 

The small overspend at the beginning instigated the position that allowed everything to subsequently happen. The stupid spending that followed could not have happened if any two of the major share holders objected. But all were divided and the exceutive just made as much as possible available to Burley within basic financial guide lines. The executive are not at fault here apart from their intial error, it is the major share holders who allowed this to continue because they were more interested in petty vengances. The majority of this blame has to go down to Wilde and Crouch.

 

I really don't know where to start in tearing this tripe apart, so will just have to leave it for now.

 

Your analysis of the situation has been found wanting on numerous occasions from the 50% wage bill through to the 5million warchest left by Lowe, so I shouldn't be too surprised by this post on here today.

 

You really have no clue about how events unfolded that year andyou've been making stuuf up as you go along for ages with this regards.

[hypochondriac]

upandaway is the worst poster on here and that's saying something.

[um pahars]

upandaway is the worst poster on here and that's saying something.

 

I don't often like to get personal, but you're quite right there. Winging it springs to mind when I read his drivel. I'd need to be on here full time to continually correct all his noddy assertions and assumptions.