um pahars

No one at the time even acknowledged we had gone through with this, which I thought was poor by Crouch/Hoos. It was only leaks in the press, and Wilde and Lowe using it in their 9 points in the Echo (they look very lame now BTW), that we got to hear of it.

Someone mentioned on here a few weeks back that the Club have still to receive the money. No idea if true or not, but it was a strange deal all round.

At the point Lowe left he left a cash hungry company consuming circa £16m in cash a year (£9m cash out on normal trading , even after recieving £7m parachute payments). That would have been initialy reduced by any exodus that summer, but the signing of Rasiak and statements of a transfer kitty to support Burley, along with aims of gaining repromotion in the second year of the parachute payments, also give a clear indication that further monies would have been spent that summer and the wage bill being added to. Th strategy of holding back from implementing Plan B was one that almost everyone (with the exception of you and nickh) would have implemented. Lowe's plan was to implement Plan B after the second season down. Furthermore, as will be shown by the current years accounts (and I'll happily take a wager on it), despite the ruthless cuts administered by the current regime, we are still a loss making enterprise that will have to rely on player sales to cover those losses. What are you on about. The £2m "mortgage" is an integral part of our running costs (i.e. the £16m deficit), where has this increased gate come from??? If anything slashing and burning to get us down to CCC revenues has resulted in reduced gates. When Lowe left he did not leave a cash rich Club that was self sustaining. He left a very cash hungry Club, whose appetite would get even hungier a year down the line with the withdrawal of the parachute payments. A Club whose own Football Club Chairman doubts we will ever get to a position of self financing unless we regularly sell players.

I'd rat Hammill as a 3 ot of 10 and BWP as a 2. Neither impress me, but one is slightly worse than the other.

And to get to that tally after 13 games Jan will have to amass another 11 points from 6 games. 3 wins, 2 draws and 1 defeat from our next 6 games. I'd settle for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two very quick thoughts on this one: 1. Don't the majority of those players just get rolled out for this competition. i.e. they are not expected to turn out for 7 games in 21 games and perform in a division of cloggers (with shiyte refs). 2. They actually have some serious talent in there.

So are you saying we should have cut right back at the end of the first season down? If so, then you would have been out on your own for holding that view as even Lowe was aware you had to go for promotion during the parachute period. He even sanctioned a £4m commitment to Rasiak and made it clear that Burley would be further supported in the transfer market. He was not going to slash and burn in that second season down as the prize of the Premiership was so valuable we had to go for it. Just a simple question: Why do you think we are we now cutting back?

Most historians actually view "trekking" as the natural instinct of self preservation (in the same manner as Londoners going down the tube and then back to work in the morning) which then enabled the workforce to go back to work the next morning. The population of many cities "trekked out" at night (at some points more than 50% of Coventry's population would trek out nightly). Perversely, GM's noddy rant may actually provide some similarities with our own predicament, but not in the manner in which he first intended (that's even before we start to delve into his slur on the good people of Southampton who msut have gone through hell in those dark days). What is also universally agreed upon is that the Administration and Civic Leadership failed during the blitz of 1940. Despite 2,000 extra firefighters being drafted in from around the country, very often their kit was not compatible, there were water shortages and a paralysis of central authority leadership. Additionally the leadership of Mayor William Lewis was found wanting at the City's most darkest hour. Is Rupert Lowe the modern day William Lewis and is his administration just as paralysed????

You seem to be reading my post but not digesting it in the context of the reply to Up and Away. I was just pointing out that when Lowe left he did not leave a stable business, he did not leave a pot of cash, nor did he leave a business that was cash neutral. In fact we lost £9m out the door in cash that first season ust running the Club and that was after receiving £7m in one off parachute monies (i.e. without it we were losing £16m out the door on normal business, exc play transfers). So the context was that he left a cash hungry Club that needed the player transfer income and parachute payments just to survive. The second point was that it is universally recognised (including by Lowe) that you have to do all you can to get repromotion during the parachute years and the strategy taken by the new regime was probably much in line with what he would have done. At the end of that period, in relative terms we were stable (debt was at it's lowest for years and costs had been managed down). Getting on to that third season down, I have always maintained that Plan B should have then been implemented at that point. I never ageed with Hone not implementing it and have said so numerous times. It is also something all the shareholders agreed on (my only caveat would be that Plan B would not have mirrored Lowe's Plan B in it's exact execution!!!!). So Hone must definitely shoulder the blame for overspending last year. My only caveat there is that whilst it was a totally unjustified and the cash was lost forever, it is not that overspend that put us in such a perilous financial position. It certainly didn't help to have further millions put on the debt, but the precarious financial position stems solely from losing £75m+ from the top line over the last three years. You can react to your circumstances, but I think the current lot will also find it impossible to make this Club wash it's face given the inherent infrastructure and cost base (in fact the Football Club Chairman has openly shared his fears on here).

Player wages 1st season down : £13.6m Player wages 2nd season down : £10.5m Player wages 3rd season down : £12.1m There really should have been a serious effort in getting them down in that 3rd year, but Hone in his own wisdom actually increased them. Whilst there was obviously a few million overspent in that third year and lost forever (and I would never condone that) it really is fairly insignificant when compared to the £25m to £35m lost from the top line every year that we're out of the top flight. It certainly needed correcting, but it is not the main reason for the position we now find ourselves in.

Pearson was unbeaten in all the Cup competitions:rolleyes::supz::supz:

That's just on normal operations, with the deficit being made up from regular player sales.

But don't that "young" Arsenal team only get rolled out once a month for this competition (hence they won't have played all these games in a short period). They're not all played regularly in the top flight.

£16m of the player sales and parachute payments went to fund the normal operational cash out the door in the first year down (ie we lost £9m out he door even after banking the £7m parachute payment). It's not hard to see that an enterprise eating up so much money after being relegated will soon consume so much cash. Additionally, the existing Football Club Chairman has made it known that he doubts we will ever be self financing in this division (so will always be eating more cash than we make).

Whilst I agree it won't affect the outcome of the match, I'm just not comfortble that the man who makes all of the day to day decisions is not there for the most important 90 minutes of the business' week. It was something that Hone took some stick for (and rightly so), as ultimatley the CEO is the managers boss, so matchday performancs play a massive part in evaluating just how the manager and squad are doing. It certainly didn't sit well with me when Hone and others didn't travel midweek, and I have no reason to change that view now (in fact you could arue that in the current circumstances it is even more imperative to be there to review performances).

I agree it is a balance, and my balance would be that by having some strong leaders in there it would mean the youngsters could be blooded with support and develop alongside some tough guys (in the same that Lawrie maintained a good mixture). I would argue that by playing alongside such players and being supported, encouraged and protected, they would come through the experience in better shape and so would grow stronger.

Not really (although he did bring the decision maker in), it was Hone, who by then had total control of the PLC board with himself, Hoos, Dulieu, Oldknow & Jones easily outnumbering Wiseman, Trant and Crouch.

Even Lowe acknowledges that most teams give it a go during both years of the parachute payments, hence his various words and deed at the end of that first season down: signing Rasiak Informing Burley he had a transfer kitty to spend Stating that history had shown that repromotion happens most in the 2nd year down (OK so he was wrong on the stats, but he was stating that we would be giving it a real go in the second year, bless him). Compiling a Plan B that would be implemented once the parachute payments finished. etc etc etc. Most of our financial problems stem simply from relegation (and then failure to get repromoted). That turned this Club upside down and cost us tens of millions. The situation was then not helpled by the failure to implement Plan B after the parachute payment ran out (as was acknowledged at the Runnymede meeting), which put a few million more on the debt. And who was in charge of the PLC board and the day to day decsion maker when Plan B was not implemented?????

What I was saying was that those that came in did not inherit a position where everything was hunky dorey (as Up and Away would have us believe). They inherited a cost base that even after being cut in the first year down was still far in excess of the income that was being generated. There was no vast pot of money, but instead we were still a heavily loss making business. (As an example, even after axing many Premiership players, our wages bill was just as high under Burley for the last part of the season as it was under Redknapp for the first part). The legacy of relegation and having a Premiership cost base was still with us (and still is in many areas, not least the £2m pa in interest on the "mortage").

Who says that the alternative choices are likely to be equally poor options???? That's rather presumptious of you. They could be worse, equally as poor or potentially better. And given that JP was looking for the play offs and many were backing that as achievable, you could argue that his start has been very poor and that there was more than an outside chance that doing things differently may have resulted in better performances (and results). Given the recent run of poor form (and strange selections and tactics) many are suggesting that we should have gone for an experienced CCC/English League manager. Additionally, maybe we should also have steered away from total football being played by a team of mainly young lads. Given our recent form and current position, the I think you would be hard pushed to do things worse (or even equally as poor)!!!!!!!!!!! First and foremost, I would not have sacked Pearson. His salary is probably above that of Poortvliet's, but for me the manager is the most important person at any club. I would have made a number of sacrifices to ensure we got the right man. Then I would have accepted a number of youngsters from within the academy in the first team squad and decided to play those who could handle the CCC. I then would have held back spending any money bringing in other youngsters (Scheiderlin, Pekhart, Holmes, Forecast,Cork). I also would have saved the money of getting players who couldn't contribute from the off (Pulis and whatever the other blokes name is). I would also have saved money by letting Webster go to Ipswich (he's on a 6 figure sum). I would have subsidised half of Skacels wages to let him go Ipswich. He's costing us £600,000 a year for nothing, I'd rather it was £300,000 for nothing. I would also have saved some money by letting Dyer go (that's aother 6 figure sum). I would not have relied on Killer being the lynchpin of our defence. With the savings above (why don't you put an estimate on them) I would have endeavoured to get a number of good CCC experience in on free transfers and/or loans. A prime example would be someone like Darren Moore (there's also quite a few good experienced pros on free transfers/loans and cheap buys in this lot - http://www.watford.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=123324). Having a balance of motivated youngsters and solid professionals would have been my approach and I see no reason why this could not have been achieved, even within our current financual consraints, had people prioritised correctly.

If you take the point at which Lowe left then you will see that for that year we lost £9m cash out the door on normal operations. That was what was inherited. Not a cash rich company generating millions from normal trading, but a massive loss making enterprise. The legacy was blown the minute we fell out of the top flight.

I just don't think that players bulk up and fully develop until the early to mid 20's. Of course there are always exceptions(Rooney always struck me as a lump when he was 16), but I think are lot are still growing and filling out and currently don't have the physique to have alot of stamina. Additionally, I don't think they're used to the quick succession of games and the pace and intensity of the CCC. To make things worse this season will be aound 50 matches, and most of them are probably used to half that amount of games per season. It was always going to be a big ask for these lads to perform consistently at this level.

It should be shelved and instead the award given to one of the fans who went last night.

I'm not advocating changing the manager (yet!), but wouldn't you agree that sometimes it's the right thing to do, particularly when it corrects an earlier poor decision? i.e. The sacking of Wigley who shoud never have been appointed in the first place. I fully accept that sacking Wiley produced instability and disruption, but was it not the lesser of two evils? Sometimes the error lies in the appointment, not the removal.

Totally disagree that all experience makes you stronger. I'm sure there are a number of occasions when a bad experience can sap your confidence, ebgender bad vibes and be a real negative experience. One of my worries was that some of these youngsters were being played too young and are suffering as a result. Talent has to nurtured, not thrown in at the deep end and asked to rescue a club. That's a huge responsibility on some young shoulders.