Guided Missile Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 ...it might be worth looking at the latest credit report update (yesterday) on Wilde's company, Merlion Group Limited: Subject Reported on : MERLION GROUP LIMITED Registered Office: Harbour Ct, Compass Rd North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants PO6 Credit Score - 7 out of 100 - Extreme Risk! - This company exhibits characteristics similar to companies who have generally failed. Credit Limit - GBP 0 Selling to this company? The Credit Limit is the recommended maximum outstanding debtor exposure at any one time. This guy is a walking disaster area when it comes to businesses. Anyone who supported him shares the blame for our demise, IMHO. Crouch is trying to make amends for the damage he helped inflict. I wonder who else will? (Cue posts blaming Lowe from the normal window lickers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 ...it might be worth looking at the latest credit report update (yesterday) on Wilde's company, Merlion Group Limited: Subject Reported on : MERLION GROUP LIMITED Registered Office: Harbour Ct, Compass Rd North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants PO6 Credit Score - 7 out of 100 - Extreme Risk! - This company exhibits characteristics similar to companies who have generally failed. Credit Limit - GBP 0 Selling to this company? The Credit Limit is the recommended maximum outstanding debtor exposure at any one time. This guy is a walking disaster area when it comes to businesses. Anyone who supported him shares the blame for our demise, IMHO. Crouch is trying to make amends for the damage he helped inflict. I wonder who else will? (Cue posts blaming Lowe from the normal window lickers) i would if they would let me buy a season ticket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 19 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 May, 2009 i would if they would let me buy a season ticket Great Point. I'd buy 10 if it helped.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 i would if they would let me buy a season ticket Like you Mike the money is sat there waiting, better hurry up before the wife finds somthing else to spend it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 TBH, I don't care at the moment who was responsible - I just want to know that we'll have a club to support next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonist Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 (Cue posts blaming Lowe from the normal window lickers) I still blame Lowe for fighting such an ineffective campaign to retain his position, but yes Crouch bears some of the blame for backing the wrong horse. He was flip flopping until the very end though. Did he already know there was something wrong with Wilde and just put it to the back of his mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyes k8 Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 ...it might be worth looking at the latest credit report update (yesterday) on Wilde's company, Merlion Group Limited: Subject Reported on : MERLION GROUP LIMITED Registered Office: Harbour Ct, Compass Rd North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants PO6 Credit Score - 7 out of 100 - Extreme Risk! - This company exhibits characteristics similar to companies who have generally failed. Credit Limit - GBP 0 Selling to this company? The Credit Limit is the recommended maximum outstanding debtor exposure at any one time. This guy is a walking disaster area when it comes to businesses. Anyone who supported him shares the blame for our demise, IMHO. Crouch is trying to make amends for the damage he helped inflict. I wonder who else will? (Cue posts blaming Lowe from the normal window lickers) This touches on the main area that I found puzzling about saints finances either side of the Kenwyne Jones transfer. Once Wilde disappeared to the channel islands the execs left in charge spent very large sums of money and awarded unfeasible contracts. It was obvious that the club was significantly overspending and that there would be serious consequences. Only a couple of people on here pointed it out at the time, but there were that couple and it was obvious and simple maths. Given that why did the main shareholders Wilde, Lowe Crouch etc leave them in charge for so long? If you like why didn't any of them get btogether earlier to save their investments. It was really obvious that the spending would have a traumatic end. Fans can be forgiven because they want spending on players and are unlikely to say Can we actually afford this? But why did the fighting factions just watch their money being blown by the execs? Is it as simple as they hated each other so much that they did nothing or is there nmore to it than that? Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 i would if they would let me buy a season ticket How many would be prepared to if it came with a disclaimer stating not refundable in event of 'going out of business' ? a campaign to go with it targeting the amount needed to be sold in order we keep going Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Like you Mike the money is sat there waiting, better hurry up before the wife finds somthing else to spend it on. i have instructed my son who is home first each day, to hide any letters from Nat West or the wife will know we have a grand sat there waiting for the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 WGAF Trawling companies house for minor business holdings is the habit for oddballs IMHO I blame you for supporting Lowe etc yawn z z z z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 I blame Wilde equally for the debacle. Lowe was a plain egotistical 'do no wrong' stupid amateur, completely out of his depth in football matters. Wilde was weak and deceitful. He lied to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicko Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 MW was the worst thing to arrive in Southampton since the syphilis outbreak of 1495 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junction 9 Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 It's always amazed me how Wilde seems to have got of lightly compared to Lowe in all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonist Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 It's always amazed me how Wilde seems to have got of lightly compared to Lowe in all this. I think it's because Lowe is trying to pin the blame for Wilde's errors solely on Leon Crouch. Wilde is doing his best to remind us of what a ******** he is with all his recent bleating to the press, but Rupert, Leon and Lawrie have bigger media egos and while they squabble Wilde will fade into obscurity despite being the worst offender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third Division South Days Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 TBH, I don't care at the moment who was responsible - I just want to know that we'll have a club to support next season. Agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 If we are proportioning blame, then this is what I think: Wilde: 50% (set the course for disaster and then ran like a rat etc) Lowe 30% (ego got the better of him - he didn't actually know best) Askham: 11% (blinded by money, not what was best for the club) Crouch: 4% (caught between a rock and a hard place for a choice who to back but at least is providing funds in our hour of need) Barclays: 5% (don't understand their desire to pull the plug over a small amount having unilaterally reduced the overdraft last summer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicko Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 If we are proportioning blame, then this is what I think: Wilde: 50% (set the course for disaster and then ran like a rat etc) Lowe 30% (ego got the better of him - he didn't actually know best) Askham: 11% (blinded by money, not what was best for the club) Crouch: 4% (caught between a rock and a hard place for a choice who to back but at least is providing funds in our hour of need) Barclays: 5% (don't understand their desire to pull the plug over a small amount having unilaterally reduced the overdraft last summer) What ?!?!?! 0% David Jones You must be kidding - I blame Jones more than Lowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilchards Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Wilde came with a plan which was hire out Hone, Hoos and Durlieu in the hope they would bring him success in the premiership by taking a great sum of the silly money on offer. Because these three guys failed badly then he was left to take the blame. It was a gamble he took which cost him all his shares in the end. Silly man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 What ?!?!?! 0% David Jones You must be kidding - I blame Jones more than Lowe Good for you, I like your reasoning... there was me think Lowe masterminded everything Jones did and it was the otherway round Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 TBH, I don't care at the moment who was responsible - I just want to know that we'll have a club to support next season. +1.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 (edited) This touches on the main area that I found puzzling about saints finances either side of the Kenwyne Jones transfer. Once Wilde disappeared to the channel islands the execs left in charge spent very large sums of money and awarded unfeasible contracts. It was obvious that the club was significantly overspending and that there would be serious consequences. Only a couple of people on here pointed it out at the time, but there were that couple and it was obvious and simple maths. Given that why did the main shareholders Wilde, Lowe Crouch etc leave them in charge for so long? If you like why didn't any of them get btogether earlier to save their investments. It was really obvious that the spending would have a traumatic end. Fans can be forgiven because they want spending on players and are unlikely to say Can we actually afford this? But why did the fighting factions just watch their money being blown by the execs? Is it as simple as they hated each other so much that they did nothing or is there nmore to it than that? Anyone know? Cos the moaners were too busy slating Burley, and it only became a problem when we lost in the play-offs. Edited 19 May, 2009 by The9 That "we" must have been Freudian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 I think it's because Lowe is trying to pin the blame for Wilde's errors solely on Leon Crouch. Wilde is doing his best to remind us of what a ******** he is with all his recent bleating to the press, but Rupert, Leon and Lawrie have bigger media egos and while they squabble Wilde will fade into obscurity despite being the worst offender. The thing with Wilde is that his manifesto claimed investment was being sought, and though other media outlets claimed he'd "promised investment" and some people took this as gospel, when investment wasn't forthcoming he resigned. That, at least, seemed like the actions of a noble man. When he then came back with Lowe in tow there was a ready-made stalking horse with worse crimes than "recklessly spending money to try and get us promoted" and his low profile keeps him out of most mud-slinging threads... until someone decides to start one to even things out, at least. I've got no time for any of them, but hell, we're certainly going to fade away arguing about it to the death, aren't we ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Richard of Woolston Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 If we are proportioning blame, then this is what I think: Wilde: 50% (set the course for disaster and then ran like a rat etc) Lowe 30% (ego got the better of him - he didn't actually know best) Askham: 11% (blinded by money, not what was best for the club) Crouch: 4% (caught between a rock and a hard place for a choice who to back but at least is providing funds in our hour of need) Barclays: 5% (don't understand their desire to pull the plug over a small amount having unilaterally reduced the overdraft last summer) Interesting way of looking at it, Doc. I would up the ante on Leon and down it on Rupert a bit, whilst certainly giving 'Mike' a good share. I think with Lowe in charge all of the time we *may* have been in League 1 by now, such were his ideas on football, but certainly not in Administration. With Crouch & Wilde near the rudder for only a short time, we are suddenly both in League 1, in Administration and start next season (if we are lucky) on minus ten points for good measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 If we are proportioning blame, then this is what I think: Wilde: 50% (set the course for disaster and then ran like a rat etc) Lowe 30% (ego got the better of him - he didn't actually know best) Askham: 11% (blinded by money, not what was best for the club) Crouch: 4% (caught between a rock and a hard place for a choice who to back but at least is providing funds in our hour of need) Barclays: 5% (don't understand their desire to pull the plug over a small amount having unilaterally reduced the overdraft last summer) I blame Ken Tointon. This chap joined the Football Club board over 6 weeks ago and hasn't uttered a dickie bird since. What sort of leadership is that of a wholly discreet subsidiary of the parent company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 The thing with Wilde is that his manifesto claimed investment was being sought, and though other media outlets claimed he'd "promised investment" and some people took this as gospel, when investment wasn't forthcoming he resigned. It didn't help that the executives he employed spent the money that was supposedly promised/sought/pledged (delete depending on which chain of events you believe - I'll go with a little from B and C, personally) before it actually arrived, thereby putting us deep in trouble unless we got promoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 TBH, I don't care at the moment who was responsible - I just want to know that we'll have a club to support next season. Totally agree! Time to look forward as best we can! The past is past and we cant change it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 How many would be prepared to if it came with a disclaimer stating not refundable in event of 'going out of business' ? a campaign to go with it targeting the amount needed to be sold in order we keep going I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicko Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Good for you, I like your reasoning... there was me think Lowe masterminded everything Jones did and it was the otherway round I don't agree Jones was the finance director during our period of financial meltdown. To suggest he's absolutely blameless is ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 How many would be prepared to if it came with a disclaimer stating not refundable in event of 'going out of business' ? a campaign to go with it targeting the amount needed to be sold in order we keep going I think I might have taken a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Interesting way of looking at it, Doc. I would up the ante on Leon and down it on Rupert a bit, whilst certainly giving 'Mike' a good share. I think with Lowe in charge all of the time we *may* have been in League 1 by now, such were his ideas on football, but certainly not in Administration. With Crouch & Wilde near the rudder for only a short time, we are suddenly both in League 1, in Administration and start next season (if we are lucky) on minus ten points for good measure. I'm not sure how much influence Crouch had on affairs while he was involved while on the board, however he did make the decision to back Wilde in the beginning and pay-off the execs at the end of his time. His money is helping to keep the club in existance at the moment. Wilde was the catalyst that sped the decline which Lowe created by losing focus of the main objective (support first-team football) with his pet projects and the dutch revolution. Dave Jones was the CFO throughtout although I don't know his powers of veto so not sure of his influence or whether he just towed the line, however, Dicko seems to know more but will not let on. It is fair to say we could have been in League 1 with Lowe, but still with a club. It then comes to a point were a club this size has too many ongoings to support so assets would have to be sold. It's more difficult to see how it would have gone under Leon as cut backs were required - at least more would fans would have turned up and the 81% of turnover on player salary would have gone down with the return of the expensive loans that helped our survival in the CCC last season. It would have been interesting to see Pearson have a go at running the team as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 It didn't help that the executives he employed spent the money that was supposedly promised/sought/pledged (delete depending on which chain of events you believe - I'll go with a little from B and C, personally) before it actually arrived, thereby putting us deep in trouble unless we got promoted. Hey, YOU introduced me to him... But yeah, I couldn't be bothered to type that again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Richard of Woolston Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 It's more difficult to see how it would have gone under Leon as cut backs were required - at least more would fans would have turned up and the 81% of turnover on player salary would have gone down with the return of the expensive loans that helped our survival in the CCC last season. It would have been interesting to see Pearson have a go at running the team as well. Do you know, Doc, I am not sure just how many extra people would have turned up if Crouch/A N Other had been in charge instead of Lowe. Sure, there are some. On this forum there are several who say they stayed away because of Lowe - some will be telling the truth, others will not - such is the nature of a forum like this. There has also been some straight-line maths done between average attendances with Crouch and average attendances under Lowe and conclusions reached. Ah, if only life were that simple. However, if all other things were equal and it would appear they were not, I would have preferred Pearson to have stayed. He did appear to have upped the fitness levels a la Strachan and a full 12 months under him may well have trawled better results than we had under last season's management. If results had been better, then you would have seen better attendances. In retrospect money was spent that could have been spent on retaining Pearson. But I did not see too many complaints when Schneiders was signed, did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyes k8 Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Cos we the moaners were too busy slating Burley, and it only became a problem when we lost in the play-offs. Yes o.k but you could argue that that spending was a gamble that almost came off in the play offs. . The really extraordinary bit was that the spending then continued afterwards until the execs were booted out, but that took a heck of a time. It's the spending following the playoffs that really killed you. Why did L,W and C et al just sit and watch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 100% to the board of money grabbers in 1997 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Do you know, Doc, I am not sure just how many extra people would have turned up if Crouch/A N Other had been in charge instead of Lowe. Sure, there are some. On this forum there are several who say they stayed away because of Lowe - some will be telling the truth, others will not - such is the nature of a forum like this. There has also been some straight-line maths done between average attendances with Crouch and average attendances under Lowe and conclusions reached. Ah, if only life were that simple. Well, I'm sure there would have been a drop in attendance figures but what happen was rather stark in comparison to other clubs 26% vs 1% (I think). Even against similar clubs (size and recent relegation) the drop was around 10%. Ours was one of the worst. Yes with better results, attendances would have at least been maintained. In retrospect money was spent that could have been spent on retaining Pearson. But I did not see too many complaints when Schneiders was signed, did you? I think it gave false hope that that amount of money could be spent, we were not in that much financial trouble and there was a lot of biging [sic] the frormer france u-19s captain up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 What's an Escape Goat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 Yes o.k but you could argue that that spending was a gamble that almost came off in the play offs. . The really extraordinary bit was that the spending then continued afterwards until the execs were booted out, but that took a heck of a time. It's the spending following the playoffs that really killed you. Why did L,W and C et al just sit and watch? I actually can't remember, but probably because a lot of the "spending" was cemented in the wages of newly accepted multi-season players' contracts which, whilst a millstone in the long run, were regarded as unavoidable costs to a certain extent - and I should think that with a playoff season under their belt the incumbents probably thought we were well-placed to have another go at promotion as well, which would of course have solved everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 What's an Escape Goat? The Azazel goat (pronounced in Hebrew as aw-zah-zale), translated as scapegoat, was one of two goats chosen for a ceremony on the Day of Atonement. The first goat was sacrificed, while the scapegoat was taken out into the wilderness and released. The original meaning of scapegoat was escape goat, the goat that was allowed to "escape" with its life. The accepted modern meaning of scapegoat, someone who is punished for the wrongs of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 The Azazel goat (pronounced in Hebrew as aw-zah-zale), translated as scapegoat, was one of two goats chosen for a ceremony on the Day of Atonement. The first goat was sacrificed, while the scapegoat was taken out into the wilderness and released. The original meaning of scapegoat was escape goat, the goat that was allowed to "escape" with its life. The accepted modern meaning of scapegoat, someone who is punished for the wrongs of others. So, Jade Goody wasn't as intellectually challenged as some people made out then? (I'm led to believe the "what's an escape goat?" quote is attributable to her). Anyway, tangents aside....back to the chase.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 However, if all other things were equal and it would appear they were not, I would have preferred Pearson to have stayed. He did appear to have upped the fitness levels a la Strachan and a full 12 months under him may well have trawled better results than we had under last season's management. If results had been better, then you would have seen better attendances. In retrospect money was spent that could have been spent on retaining Pearson. But I did not see too many complaints when Schneiders was signed, did you? I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts on the above and there are many who have a strong feeling that had Pearson remained, then he would have achieved better results than both Poortvliet and Wotte, under similar financial restraints. The better results would have meant higher attendances and therefore survival in this division and probably consequently escape from administration. So how do you square that with this post, bearing in mind that you therefore would reduce Lowe's share of the blame to under 30%, when he was the one directly responsible for dismissing Pearson for what since appears to be petty and vindictive reasons? Interesting way of looking at it, Doc. I would up the ante on Leon and down it on Rupert a bit, whilst certainly giving 'Mike' a good share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 19 May, 2009 Share Posted 19 May, 2009 The Azazel goat (pronounced in Hebrew as aw-zah-zale), translated as scapegoat, was one of two goats chosen for a ceremony on the Day of Atonement. The first goat was sacrificed, while the scapegoat was taken out into the wilderness and released. The original meaning of scapegoat was escape goat, the goat that was allowed to "escape" with its life. The accepted modern meaning of scapegoat, someone who is punished for the wrongs of others. So what has transpired over the course of history, is that the escape goat, the one that survived, has in current idiom, become the one that is punished for the wrongs of others. In other words, the exact opposite of what it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 So what has transpired over the course of history, is that the escape goat, the one that survived, has in current idiom, become the one that is punished for the wrongs of others. In other words, the exact opposite of what it should be. That collectively makes all us trapped fans scape goats. So Rupert was right. He said it wasn't his fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 So what has transpired over the course of history, is that the escape goat, the one that survived, has in current idiom, become the one that is punished for the wrongs of others. In other words, the exact opposite of what it should be. Not quite. The first goat was offered as a sacrifice, the second was ushered away carrying the sins of the people had cast out into the wilderness, not for something HE had done, but for the sins of others. Leviticus 16: And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which [is] for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot fell, and offer him [for] a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, [and] to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 It's always amazed me how Wilde seems to have got of lightly compared to Lowe in all this. I agree. For all their faults both Crouch and Lowe have actually achieved something for the club (we can all argue by how much the negatives outweigh the positives). Wilde was just a disruptive influence, securing power on the back of unfulfilled promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbert Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 So you're saying that the problems at Merlion Group Limited have to do with Wilde's lack of business acumen and not the general collapse in the housing market? Or what? Bit of a crap argument if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 So you're saying that the problems at Merlion Group Limited have to do with Wilde's lack of business acumen and not the general collapse in the housing market? Or what? Bit of a crap argument if you ask me. I could be wrong but i thought i read somewhere that he drained the money from Merlion long before the recession struck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 MW was the worst thing to arrive in Southampton since the syphilis outbreak of 1495 Bit harsh on syphilis aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 ...it might be worth looking at the latest credit report update (yesterday) on Wilde's company, Merlion Group Limited: Subject Reported on : MERLION GROUP LIMITED Registered Office: Harbour Ct, Compass Rd North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants PO6 Credit Score - 7 out of 100 - Extreme Risk! - This company exhibits characteristics similar to companies who have generally failed. Credit Limit - GBP 0 Selling to this company? The Credit Limit is the recommended maximum outstanding debtor exposure at any one time. This guy is a walking disaster area when it comes to businesses. Anyone who supported him shares the blame for our demise, IMHO. Crouch is trying to make amends for the damage he helped inflict. I wonder who else will? (Cue posts blaming Lowe from the normal window lickers) The little bit at the bottom suggests you could rival NineteenCanteen for the post of Village idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RinNY Posted 20 May, 2009 Share Posted 20 May, 2009 You know, Wilde put about 2 million of his own money into buying into Saints, and I can't conceive of any reason for him to have done that other than his stated one of wanting to help the club and get it back to the Prem. He has now lost all that money, since the shares he bought are now worthless. You may feel that's his own fault, due to mismanagement, poor choice of executives to run SFC, wrongly associating himself with Lowe's attempt to turn SFC around which proved disastrous, etc. But I don't see any reason to be so bitter about a man who lost so much money trying to do the club some good, or to engage in schadenfreude at his expense. Seems to me that Wilde was not as smart as most of us thought/hoped when he took over. Seems to me he trusted some people he shouldn't have. Seems to me that, unless he is just a fantasist, he must have been seriously misled by some rich people who told him they would invest in SFC if Lowe were ousted, but never in fact did so. None of that makes him bad or evil. Seems to me that Patrick Trant proclaimed that he would put money into SFC as part of Wilde's board, but never in fact did so: no-one ever seems to blame him for this ... just as an example of how Wilde was misled and by whom. Wilde wasn't a successful club chairman, either the first time or the second time; Lowe wasn't a successful chairman either, especially second time round; Crouch seems to have been over optimistic as a chairman too. But it is facile to just scapegoat them, and not look further afield into the unwillingness of anyone (other than Crouch and Wilde) to put serious money into SFC. It's not clear to me why this is, as other football clubs seem to be able to attract investment from wealthy fans without too much difficulty. However, as upset as we obviously all have been at two relegations, and now the fiscal collapse of the club, I don't see how venting so much anger and scorn at one of the only two men who was genuinely weilling to risk his money on Saints makes any sense. 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