um pahars

6 points from the next two games is certainly not impossible and would mean 9 points from 7 games which is OK. We need to stiffen up the defence and be more clinical up front, which are both doable. Much depends on the many youngsters confidence and I don't think that is too much of a problem now, but we do need to stay off their backs if it's not working. Come Saturday evening, we could be OK(ish). Howeve, there is also the potential for losing both or just picking up the odd draw, in which case we will definitley be in the mire. But 6 points is doable and I'l be giving the youngsters (although I hope there will be somd old heads playing as well) my support.

Some very salient and relevant comments on why Crouch is the architect of the financal problems that are now manifesting themselves. Excellent, you've surpassed yourself with that response. Did I really pay a fiver to be associated with such people :confused:

Which is why just before Wilde and co took over Lowe committed us to a 4 year deal with Rasiak making him our highest paid player by far (and promised to bankroll Burley further). When Wilde and co came in, they carried on with this and apart from sanctioning a further £2m, they ran the Club in ostensibly the same way as it was before. The only difference was that rather than a flirtation with relegation, and promotion nowhere in sight, the first season without Lowe saw us get to the play offs. The reason for running the Club this way was that they all knew that the only place this Club can survive in its current form is in the top flight and the best chance of getting back there was during the parachute period. So for two years we ran as a quasi premiership club (beyond out meas for sure, but for a limited period using every advantage available). The tie to retrench was last summer, but instead the Executives had their eye on a takeover, whilst the shareholders were too busy fighting each other to ake them to task over not imlementing Plan B.

Feel free to reconcile such a "straight down the line approach" with their reckless failure to cut back last summer when the parachute payment ended and we became another £7m worse off overnight. Hone cemented his position with the appointment of Oldknow (and the stepping down of Hunt) and was calling all the shots up until his removal in December (but of course, feel free to blame Crouch:rolleyes::rolleyes:).

So are you seriously saying that the players we got in and the way we have decided to set out our stall is the only route that a club like ours can follow? If so, then I have to wonder why football is supposed to be that hard if there is really only one way of doing something and there are no alternatives whatsoever.:smt102 Wotton is an example of someone who may not be a bad buy. Someone who has been around a while, happy to leave his foot in. Rather than relying on the youth, maybe we should have hunted around for other seasoned veterans of this division (or even from the lower reaches) who could provide some steel, nous and calmness to our youngsters. Just as our financial position may well have limited our choices on the managerial front (and there were choices there), so will our predicament limit our player dealings. However, it will limit them, not rule out every potential alternative out there. IMHO the youth have their part to play, but they need to be augmented by seasoned pros. Now these may be the disillusioned ones on our books who the manager needs to motivate or these need to be others brought in o frees and loans.

Air Florida me up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First we have your noddy financial analysis and now this. This was all "started off" by relegation and the tens of millions wiped off of the top line as a result, so sadly Lowe has to ake the blame on that one. As for what happened after, then you need to engage your brain, see where Crouch was in the balance of power, and then relate that to the two year time frame. Crouch was certainly an accomplice in the initial period when Wilde and co first took over, but I bring you back to the results delivered for that first season when we go to the play off spot. Your financial analysis was shown up to be pathetically out of touch with reality, with costs reduced, losses and cash outflow reduced and net debt at its lowest for years. So for the period when Crouch had any real say, the financial position wasn't that bad (particularly when compared with what went before and after). When Wilde jumped (before he was pushed) Crouch was immediatelyy marginalised, as at that point the Executives, under Hone, had control of the decision making and control of the PLC board. This was further enhanced that summer, with the resignation of Hunt & the appointment of Oldknow, and Hone had full power (hence Crouch being kicked off the Football Club Board). Crouch only got in the top seat half way through last season, so slightly unsure how you can accuse him as being architect of all the financial problems we now face. Sadly, once again your understanding and appreciation of the situation has been found wanting.

Which is why I said eek out a one nil win or win a scrappy game. Last season's non gutsy losers will not be easily forgotten, but sadly this season is turning into a losing one, albeit that the players are gutsy. Being gutsy is admirable, but the last time I checked the league rules I couldn't see how many points you were awarded for that characteristic. I would prefer neither losing with or without a gutsy performance, and instead get back to watching a winning team and moving up the league.

A bit raw at times, but have to say he looked exceptional in parts today. No idea whether he'll make it or not, but he's got to be our brightest prospect. Obviously has a lot to learn (and needs to bulk up a bit) but I think he has got what it takes. Just need to try and keep hold of him.

We knew Thomas has an injury history, we knew Killer would be touch and go, we knew Skacel was ****ed off and we must have known Perry was getting on a bit. So having known all that then maybe we should have thought about bringing in some other wise old heads who can help the youngsters in these tough matches. We may be skint, but there are players out there who would fit the bill and who would not have broken the bank (free transfers and an average wage). We didn't because the "revolutionary new coaching set up" believed the youngsters could hack it.

A very good summary and something I really have an issue is the piece I have put in bold. IMHO the decision to go with two rookies at centre half away from home was wrong. If we are going to blood players, then at least try and pair them up with an experienced player. Additionally, try and do it home where the youngster might fel a bit more comfortable and also where the opposition might only play with one up front. JP was very naive today and IMHO it cost us.

I was in agreement with Case after the game when he said we need to be tougher and we need some experience in there to help the youngsters (something Dublin was also saying). I don't mind us having a number of youngsters who have come through the ranks, but I was always worried that they would be outfought and outthought by seasoned pros in this division. I don't mind a majority of youngsters and inexperienced players, but the 9-2 majority today was a few too many. It's still early days, but I do think the "revolutionary new coaching set up" need to take a long hard think about just how many youngsters they play at any one time. If they haven't got the squad to enable them to do this, then someone needs to hold their hand up and say so, and then we need to get some loans in PDQ.

I'm sorry Yorkie, but I would rather be eeking out 1-0 wins and winning scrappy games as opposed to being the whipping boys who have spirit and play some neat football in the middle of the park. Football is ultimately about winning and the gutsy losers will soon be forgotten.

the horse

Just thought that from the minute I saw the teamsheet we would be in for a hard day at the office. When Surman is your most experienced defender (and even he's not a defender) and you have two centre halfs who have never played together before, then I'm afraid it's a big ask for them to get something from a tough away match. I don't mind a blend of youth, but 9 youngsters (including debutants and others with a handful of games) is a few too many IMHO. It needs to be a blend, with some old heads and a couple of bruisers in there to help the youngsters. I certainly don't blame the youngsters for todays defeat, IMHO they should never have been put in that position. JP made a few wrong calls today and showed his naivety.

I was always go by what would I be saying had an opposing defender chopped down one of our forwards. He was off the ground, late, wrapped around his standing leg, so on balance I think it was the right call by the ref. Lancashire was very naive in making that challenge and it was more youthful exuberance and naivety than a malicious lunge, but he had to go. I won't be cricifying him though, he's young and he's got a lot to learn and perhaps more importantly he's been dropped in at the deep end. As I mentioned on another thread, a few weeks back he was due to go out on loan to Orient, so it's a big ask for him to step into a team alongside a back four whose combined ages just about come up to my own age!!!!

Just one point on your post (alot of which I agree with). After speaking to Lowe, Pearson was still very much interested in the job and went away convinced he would be returning once he came back from holiday. I have that from an impeccable source, but it's up to you whether you believe it or not. It came as a major shock to him when it was announced that the "revolutionary coaching system" was being implemented, and he would be playing no further part. Some on here have some good contacts and if you cast your mind back to the summer, it was around that time that we were getting two distinctly opposing views. Those that had a route in to Lowe, Wilde (and even Corbett and Crouch who had got wind of Lowe's plans) were adamant that Lowe was lining up someone else to take over and so those stories surfaced. At exactly the same time, those that had a route in to Pearson, some of the staff, and players were confident that Pearson would be returning as the boss (because Pearson was sure he would be back).

I agree with what you're saying and I also don't think anyone is dissing our youngsters, merely pointing out it's a pretty big gamble to be relying on them to fill such an important position in the team. It wasn't long ago that even Poortvliet was unsure about using them, and as he had arranged to send Lancashire out on loan to Orient!!!!

Even though his first full season was a reasonable success, I never ever took to the idea of our manager only lodging down here. It just didn't send out the right message and I do have to question as to whether it was good for Burley's sanity, because being couped up in a hotel room, no matter how swish, would drive any sane man slightly mad.

Give it up you old woman.:smt075 Burley gets some stick on here for his dismal performance and attitude last season, before he walked out. And in many people's opinion he was deserving of it, because his performances, attitude and demeanour were shocking after the success the season before. But people's criticisms or rants aren't just restricted to your hero Burley (nor your saviour Lowe). Instead you will find that Branfoot and Redknapp also come in for a fair share of stick on here (mostly justified). Maybe because of your blinkered love for all things George (and Rupert) you miss the various Branfoot, Redknapp and others posts :rolleyes: . Have a look here from a week or so ago: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=38420&highlight=branfoot#post38420 So it's not a Burley witch hunt, just some supporters voicing their displeasure at being let down by their manager. HTH

So, if they would never admit it then how do you know that's what they want? Telepathy, private messages (if so I reckon you should out them) or just ****** you've made up. Don't take offence, but I'm plumping for number three.

Aha, so we finally admit that Hoddle was not the only choice we had. Methinks you've seen the light. And I'm afraid you'll have to ask Lowe why he went for Sturrock (and then failed to back him) and then why he went for the Talented Mr Wigley.

I know it wouldn't take long before that lame line got trotted out again.:rolleyes: Feel free to list out all those people who have said as much. I await the long list of names;)

Even bigger than appointing Wigley LOL ??? And then maybe we/they/us/the fringe/whoever: a) wouldn't have appointed Sturrock, or b) may have backed Sturrock over the players, or c) wouldn't have appointed the talented Mr Wigley etc etc etc So to sum up today, first of all we have nickh saying that the only current choice is Poortvliet and now we've got you saying the only choice back then was Hoddle. **** me, this football malarkey must be easy if you only ever have one choice o make. I'm surprised so many people get it wrong as there must be one odained path of rightiousness for every team out there. :smt046

I actually thought it sounded like Lowe, then again we could both be right!!!!!!