Bailey Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 In today's Daily Echo apparently . . . http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4344251.What_Wilde_would_do_differently_at_Saints/ Be very interesting to hear what he has to say! Worth buying an Echo today me thinks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 I'm sure he'll be monitoring this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 5 May, 2009 Share Posted 5 May, 2009 Tell them about the blackmail Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I would like to know two things from him : Who promised investment in 2006 and let him down, and why ? Why did he totally succumb to Lowe over the last year ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdavewatson Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I would like to know if he still wants to buy my shares.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 After our bitter experiences from believing him last time why the f**k should we believe anything he has to say now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Will be interesting to see if his story agrees with Rupert's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I would like to know two things from him : Who promised investment in 2006 and let him down, and why ? Why did he totally succumb to Lowe over the last year ? Despite all his failings I believe his original theory that we needed investment to go forward has proved to be correct it is a shame he never found it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Well i wonder if we will get to hear this alleged Lowe action of 'Never going to sell his shares or his chums to anyone connected with Wilde or the board.' That would of more or less stopped investment i imagine. Especially when Lowe then proxied the lot together and rocked the boat by giving the impression he was trying to sell to others. I believe i read elsewhere that a character called Marc Jackson was kingpin in these scare tactics that Lowe orchestrated after removal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 There was a little teaser in the spread yesterday with Wilde effectively saying administration was "almost inevitable" the minute we got relegated due to the loss of revenue and the Club's infrastructure. Didn't think much of yesterdays revelations (bar the managerial salaries and the deferral/holidya of he stadium debt), so not holding out for the lid being blown today, but here's hoping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Well i wonder if we will get to hear this alleged Lowe action of 'Never going to sell his shares or his chums to anyone connected with Wilde or the board.' That would of more or less stopped investment i imagine. Especially when Lowe then proxied the lot together and rocked the boat by giving the impression he was trying to sell to others. I believe i read elsewhere that a character called Marc Jackson was kingpin in these scare tactics that Lowe orchestrated after removal. Wilde does not mention that http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4344588.Lack_of_Saints_buyer_not_major_shareholders__fault__says_Wilde/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 There was a little teaser in the spread yesterday with Wilde effectively saying administration was "almost inevitable" the minute we got relegated due to the loss of revenue and the Club's infrastructure. Yep. And most sensible people know that. The mistakes were made in the 2004-2005 season. By Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 (edited) Yep. And most sensible people know that. The mistakes were made in the 2004-2005 season. By Lowe. Yes that is Wilde's Point I would have thought and that is why he wanted a buy out Shame he did not have a plan B Edited 6 May, 2009 by John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Yep. And most sensible people know that. The mistakes were made in the 2004-2005 season. By Lowe. Uhm... a rather simlistic view? Sure the inevitability of losing 30 mil of TV revenue is a difficult oe for any business to cope with, especially for one that sees this compounded by an additional 30% reduction in revenue from fans... but not made any easier by spending 7 mil on a promotion or bust campaign... its more complex than we realise and its easy to blame without all the facts, but I dont think any of the protagonists in this are blameless - Yet are we to in need of someone to 'blame'? Is it not our own hurt pride that causes that? Made worse by the dire financial consequences. When we were relegated under LM, it was with a young inexperienced manager who did not have a football background to the extent of the competition - the difference was twofold, 1) the club stuck by him and let him learn his trade and build on the strong foundations, and 2) this was possible because there was no big financial loss as a result of relegation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 He always was a weasel and is a bigger one now wringing his hands once he has played his part in sending this club into a tail spin ! Git ! :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Wilde can speak out all he likes, but nobody is really interested in what he has to say. The long and short of it is that we really would have been better off had he not even got involved with the club at all. But his last involvement in bringing back Lowe was the last straw and he completely lost most of the respect that anybody had for him up until then. It was the action of a Quisling, a traitor, a turncoat. People without principle like that are worthy only of the deepest contempt. I despise him almost as much as I despise Lowe and Askham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreog Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Frankly who cares?...what is done is done and the blame game is best forgotten........time for a fresh start with new faces, new investment and people pulling in the right direction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 If only he was to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth....That would be how Lowey had you over Wildey.. And your ego grew larger by the day until it dawned on you....Rupert from day one has fluuucked everybody including you Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Well I thought we had one firm bid or is Wilde resorting to type and getting everything wrong here http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4344588.Lack_of_Saints_buyer_not_major_shareholders__fault__says_Wilde/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Please don't let Burley off the hook. Yes we were screwed, but we had one chance to rescue the situationa nd quickly get back up. Yet by his own admission, despite the squad, despite more money than anyone else, despite knowing ths situation, he aimed for 6th place and only just scraped that. Even if Lowe hadn't done anything else wrong, he'd still be a prize tit for believing the media hype around Burley and appointing him in the first place. Agreed. Burley had been a top manager and should have set the target for automatic promotion, not scraping in to the play-off positions. Mind you, when he was interviewed, had that been his ambition, it was up to those interviewing the candidates to reject anybody who did not have the ambition and the self-belief to get us promoted. Why would the players raise their game if their manager had set the bar too low? Hopefully our next manager will be one who sets the target at promotion back to the Fizzy pop division, regardless of the ten point deduction and is capable of instilling the belief in the players that they can do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocker268 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I swear that the money that went into Coventry last year was meant to go into Saints instead, but the investor pulled out at the last minute due to the fighting on the board, trouble caused by Lowe and Wilde calling an EGM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Tell them about the blackmail Mike. ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 ???? ...entirely speculative of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Well I thought we had one firm bid or is Wilde resorting to type and getting everything wrong here http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4344588.Lack_of_Saints_buyer_not_major_shareholders__fault__says_Wilde/ The definitive reason why no-one wanted to purchase the PLC was because SLH has always been a failed business in it's own right. It had no successful business plan of it's own, apart from leaching monies out of the football club. It existed simply to pay Lowe and all his and subsequent directors' enormous salaries. Plus somehow, goodness knows how, it's share price was ridiculously so over-priced it was not an attractive proposition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 ...entirely speculative of course. Smoke, fire? I want to know more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 The definitive reason why no-one wanted to purchase the PLC was because SLH has always been a failed business in it's own right. It had no successful business plan of it's own, apart from leaching monies out of the football club. It existed simply to pay Lowe and all his and subsequent directors' enormous salaries. Plus somehow, goodness knows how, it's share price was ridiculously so over-priced it was not an attractive proposition 100% Now what silly amounts were we paying these top executives to achieve exactly:rolleyes:....Run a football club like many amateurs in the CCC do quite well without Millionaire wages. Not Rupoes and buddies though:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Uhm... a rather simlistic view? Sure the inevitability of losing 30 mil of TV revenue is a difficult oe for any business to cope with, especially for one that sees this compounded by an additional 30% reduction in revenue from fans... but not made any easier by spending 7 mil on a promotion or bust campaign... its more complex than we realise and its easy to blame without all the facts, but I dont think any of the protagonists in this are blameless - Yet are we to in need of someone to 'blame'? Is it not our own hurt pride that causes that? Made worse by the dire financial consequences. When we were relegated under LM, it was with a young inexperienced manager who did not have a football background to the extent of the competition - the difference was twofold, 1) the club stuck by him and let him learn his trade and build on the strong foundations, and 2) this was possible because there was no big financial loss as a result of relegation... FFS change the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Please don't let Burley off the hook. Yes we were screwed, but we had one chance to rescue the situationa nd quickly get back up. Yet by his own admission, despite the squad, despite more money than anyone else, despite knowing ths situation, he aimed for 6th place and only just scraped that. Even if Lowe hadn't done anything else wrong, he'd still be a prize tit for believing the media hype around Burley and appointing him in the first place. I agree that Burley blew our one chance at redeeming the situation, but if Lowe hadnt been a tit in the first place, he wouldnt have had the opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Wayman Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Nobody is listening Judas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Wilde is full of ****. The current economic crisis only began around October time and he fails to mention SISU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I agree that Burley blew our one chance at redeeming the situation, but if Lowe hadnt been a tit in the first place, he wouldnt have had the opportunity. Gb did not achieve promotion and was allowed to spend more than we had.he still had major players taken out of the squad every time we looked to be heading somewhere. He is just another of the group who have failed us in the last 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 The definitive reason why no-one wanted to purchase the PLC was because SLH has always been a failed business in it's own right. It's a holding company, what did you expect it to do differently? It had no successful business plan of it's own It's a holding company, what sort of business plan did you want it to have? apart from leaching monies out of the football club. It was a requirement under rule 34, there was no choice at the time. It existed simply to pay Lowe and all his and subsequent directors' enormous salaries. Enormous? Compared to what, working in MacDonalds? Keep it in perspective, when it was Lowe & Cowen we paid average CEO salaries like Bolton and Charlton with performance bonuses. It was only when Wilde brought in twice as many execs to run the same club in the CCC on half the budget that the exec remuneration got out of kilter. Plus somehow, goodness knows how, it's share price was ridiculously so over-priced it was not an attractive proposition The only people dissuaded by the share price were people without 2 brass farthings to rub together. As evidenced by the fact nobody is buying the club even when it's dirt cheap in administration. In reality the share price was low and this actually prevented rights issues and placing from being more viable (not that Wilde & Co were ever going to do that as they'd have to invest their money as promised). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 FFS change the record. The classic response of the defeated - you know this is true, but as it goes against what you believe in your bigotted ignorance you feel this need to repeat this mantra of the ill informed ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I would like to know two things from him : Who promised investment in 2006 and let him down, and why ? Why did he totally succumb to Lowe over the last year ? Wilde with investment would have needed Lowe as far away as possible but Wilde without investment needed tight arse Lowe around to take the flack. Both decissions turned out to be dross for differing reasons. But realistically I cant see how things would have been much different had Wilde and Lowe not come back. Sure Pearson would have stayed but if money as that tight then there would have surly been massive changes on the playing staff and still a high chance of bad results and a relegation scrap? So the chances of Admin this season would still have been high IMO. I think if it was my choice and I knew Admin was a dead cert this season I would have stuck with Crouch. It would at least have been a better ride. Admin 50/50 and I actually think lowe would have got the nod as on paper I would have thought he would do better at balencing the books. Would be nice to have a few of those that have promised to pump in cash named and shamed though. Many people over the years have waited on the edge of their seats for billy big wallet to put money where mouths are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Please don't let Burley off the hook. Yes we were screwed, but we had one chance to rescue the situationa nd quickly get back up. Yet by his own admission, despite the squad, despite more money than anyone else, despite knowing ths situation, he aimed for 6th place and only just scraped that. Even if Lowe hadn't done anything else wrong, he'd still be a prize tit for believing the media hype around Burley and appointing him in the first place. Didnt he choose Burley instead of erm Mark Wotte? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I swear that the money that went into Coventry last year was meant to go into Saints instead, but the investor pulled out at the last minute due to the fighting on the board, trouble caused by Lowe and Wilde calling an EGM They didnt pull out cause of fighting, they were told to F Off by the main shareholders. I think it was the 1st time the 3 shareholders actually agreed on anything. That deal was set up by the execs to give them a nice pay out and from the other side SISU used us to twist coventrys arm. They were never going to buy us in a million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 The classic response of the defeated - you know this is true' date=' but as it goes against what you believe in your bigotted ignorance you feel this need to repeat this mantra of the ill informed ;-)[/quote'] to be fair their is alot who hold the same views, like him they reminds me of the old communist party members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 to be fair their is alot who hold the same views, like him they reminds me of the old communist party members. solent start looking under your bed or push Frank over and get him to look under his side of your bed.:heart: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 solent start looking under your bed or push Frank over and get him to look under his side of your bed.:heart: hi comrade ottery:heart: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 It's a holding company, what did you expect it to do differently? It's a holding company, what sort of business plan did you want it to have? It was a requirement under rule 34, there was no choice at the time. Enormous? Compared to what, working in MacDonalds? Keep it in perspective, when it was Lowe & Cowen we paid average CEO salaries like Bolton and Charlton with performance bonuses. It was only when Wilde brought in twice as many execs to run the same club in the CCC on half the budget that the exec remuneration got out of kilter. The only people dissuaded by the share price were people without 2 brass farthings to rub together. As evidenced by the fact nobody is buying the club even when it's dirt cheap in administration. In reality the share price was low and this actually prevented rights issues and placing from being more viable (not that Wilde & Co were ever going to do that as they'd have to invest their money as promised). You haven't explained why SLH failed to operate successful business operations in its own right, separate to running the football club, which is the basis of Lowe's claim that SLH is a separate business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 hi comrade ottery:heart: Its a Wilde thought but I was only under your bed..not as a commie:smt075but Collymore told me this doggin thing was fun:D But to be honest you and Frank would not even get in the Saints side..you are so bloooody slow....Luvvies..Neither of you are ever going to make the grade:smt009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 You haven't explained why SLH failed to operate successful business operations in its own right, separate to running the football club, which is the basis of Lowe's claim that SLH is a separate business. You mean like also owning a radio station and insurance comany and a stadium that can hold international matches and concerts? At one point the Holding company had many outlets although the football club was its main asset and the other assets wernt exactly flooding there bank ballence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 The classic response of the defeated - you know this is true' date=' but as it goes against what you believe in your bigotted ignorance you feel this need to repeat this mantra of the ill informed ;-)[/quote'] Nope, just reckon you repeat the same wishy-washy, fence-sitting, non-committal picky b****cks ad nasueam... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 to be fair their is alot who hold the same views, like him they reminds me of the old communist party members. Having those views is one thing comrade, feeling the need to comment whne not actually cotributing to the debate - but just to try and ridicule is what I find most juvenile ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I would like to know two things from him : Who promised investment in 2006 and let him down, and why ? Why did he totally succumb to Lowe over the last year ? I think it involved a nice meal and a film... Either that or some Rohypnol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I think it involved a nice meal and a film... Either that or some Rohypnol...Lol, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 You haven't explained why SLH failed to operate successful business operations in its own right, separate to running the football club, which is the basis of Lowe's claim that SLH is a separate business. No, what he stated as fact was that they were separate legal entities - which they are. Of course Crouch Potato then stuck his foot in it on Five Live by claiming Mystic Meg abilities over our corporate structure 8 years before the points penalties were introduced, but the fact remains that holding company controlled a stadium company, football company, catering, radio, insurance, healthcare, property and probably several other dormant companies. So to turn your question back around, it's you who hasn't explained what the hell you are talking about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 (edited) Nope, just reckon you repeat the same wishy-washy, fence-sitting, non-committal picky b****cks ad nasueam... You are in need of some help with this ridiculous obsession. You need to clam down, relax, have a cold one - you know those beers brewed by naked monks - chill a bit and try to understand that.... EXPRESSING THE DESIRE TO SEE LISTEN AND ACKNOWLEDGE BOTH SIDES OF AN ARGUMENT IS WHAT IS CALLED CIVILISED AND MATURE BEHAVIOUR - AS OPPOSED THE THE IGNORANCE THAT COMES WITH THR REFUSAL TO ENGAGE WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN your ENGRAINED VIEWS. All you do is name call and accuse of 'wishy washy' ****** etc - why not try the more sensible approach and debate your reasons why YOU feel that in this case its so black and white??? Or do you actually know your arguments are so weak? Can you not seperate the rational from the emotional? Emotionally, I can hand on heart dislike Lowe and for all that he has brought upon us... (let alone for being a feckin UKIP member) rationally, I can acknowledge that it was not all down to him, was not planned in some malicious way and there was even logic to what he was trying in challenging the old school way - afterall we had feck all chance of progressing traditionally without more capital, so why not try a different approach? So Darling, why the feck cant you see that for what it is? Why the feck do you feel the need to respond to everyone of my 'balanced' posts with a one line put down? got nothing better to say? If I didn't know any better I 'd think you were a cyber stalker.... Give us your views and the rational on which they are based for a change, not more pathetic morose misery induced melancholic depressive eyeore inspired sad pathetic negativity followed by another online dig at anyone who YOU BELIEVE to be of a particular 'side' ...oh and stop stalking me ;-) Edited 6 May, 2009 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I would like to know two things from him : Who promised investment in 2006 and let him down, and why ? Why did he totally succumb to Lowe over the last year ? 1. Manifesto promises = typically bull**** - some of us pointed that out at the time...but were ignored as the jingoistic ****** and 'lets go wilde T shirts' became the opium of the masses... 2. Control - simple as - on te outside he had no say in what happened with potentially lucrative development contracts is my suposition - especially at a time when there was a great deal of talk about outside investors and takeovers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 No, what he stated as fact was that they were separate legal entities - which they are. Of course Crouch Potato then stuck his foot in it on Five Live by claiming Mystic Meg abilities over our corporate structure 8 years before the points penalties were introduced, but the fact remains that holding company controlled a stadium company, football company, catering, radio, insurance, healthcare, property and probably several other dormant companies. So to turn your question back around, it's you who hasn't explained what the hell you are talking about... No. I am simply asking why SLH failed to generate a profitable income separate to its football holding. 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