um pahars

I don't think he implied that at all. And having heard Kelvin talk about the new set up, I don't think he is unmotivated. The simple fact is that anyone on a decent wedge was told ages ago that they could go if they found themselves another club because their wages were too high.

LMFAO. I'm not the one claiming it would be stupid to get rid of a manager at the start of the season (i.e. JP v Shearer), yet is only to happy to make excuses why it was OK to do it a few years back (Sturrock v Wigley), all in one ****ing thread. At least do it on different threads on different days.

I'm not sure you can grasp anything:rolleyes:

Don't even bother. Having to respond to these two makes me consider taking Sundance off ignore and praying for GM to take me off of his!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Which is exactly what I said if you had only taken the time to read the posts. i.e. What happens on the pitch is the single biggest influence on attendances. If you can't even manage to read and absorb a post, then I suppose it's no surprise that you fail to grasp the simplest things on here.

Happy to take that. Obviously lose a bit of continuity, but for me that is a small loss compared to having his presence in the other games. Just hope this is a part of gradual build up, as opposed to it being that he will never be the same again.

The Sturrock/Wigley/Redkanpp et al was a reference to the entire debcle of a season, not all three of them rolled into one. The reckless bit was firing Sturrock two games in and after wasting the vital pre season and the transfer kitty. As you yourself said: Then the really, stupidly reckless bit was appointing Wigley, something we never recovered from. And for the record I called it a terrible decision at the time and was fairly open about it at a fans forum not long after Wigley was appointed. How you can have two opposing viewpoints in one thread is risible (is it OK to change the manager ealry on or not???)

It may have had an impact on revenues, but I doubt it had any impact on attendances, as you yourself have said, many of those renewals were die hard fans who would have renewed anyway. There's a totally seperate argument about prices and IMHO there was no way keeping the prices at Premiership level could be justified (not even with the extra 4 matches). And I don't buy that fans paying less is a problem, as ultimatley there is a limit to what we should pay. I would argue the problem lies with costs (namely wages) not income from fans. Taking it to it's extreme, then the £400 S/T should be the minimum price payable, but "really loyal" fans can tick boxes from £500 to £1,000 to show how much they care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (or have buckets at the turnstile at every match that we an throw extra money in to give Nathan Dyer a wage rise).

Massive, massive difference between a full takeover/change of ownership and a change of leadershp (and being honest I though you would have been able to discern between the two). There were enough dinlos around for the last two EGM's who couldn't discern between the two and were throwing out "change of ownership clauses" etc, when in fact for both recent EGM's it has been nothing more than changing the man at the top. A change of owners will fundamentally change our Club, we should not run headlong into it. But we don't know if they are taking away the debts, replacing them or adding to them. We know nothing of peoples plans. And you really need to think about who is saying what and why they are saying it. LLS and St David (as well as others) got played the last time potential new wners appeared on the scene. Everything depends entirely on what their proposals look like. We are up against it, but I wouldn't advocate taking anything that comes along. Agreed, but they will only accept what is in their best interests (and they may even think a new owner woudl not give them that, it will have to be judged on the proposals put forward). The banker has required paying ever since we dropped out of the top flight. The reckess bet was Sturrock/Wigley/Redknapp et al. Everything after that (including the changes we have seen recently) is just playing catch up following relegation.

There may be an element of that in the decision. BUT a full takeover is a massive decision and even though we are ****ed, I don't think we should accept any old takeover.

Agreed, and it is their decision and soley their responsibility . Results will be the judge of them. Well he was involved in the U-21's and worked with the youngsters at a number of clubs. And of course you know nothing of JP's past apart from an embellished CV and some big ups on the OS. Let's try and be slightly even handed shall we. I think the league will be the judge of their plan, not meaningless friendlies (whether results in those are good or bad, once again some consistency is missing in your insights). They may have hit the ground runing for this year, but were you as concerned when they launched their bid in the midst of a relegation fight? Well, can I suggest that you wait until something happens before you judge it. It might all be rubbish, it might all be good. It might deliver results, it might not. Funny how an untried "Total Football" system is given the thumbs up and massive approval, yet you are quick enough to dismiss another untried system. Once again, a more balanced assessment is missing. Which takes us back to the awful 2004/5 season, where such a terrible decision was made. A decision that we never recovered from, a decision taking by the man you are so quick to praise.

And who is to say they won't make more of a mess? By your own admission they both made a mess of it last time, and whilst that is not a gaurantee they will **** up again, I think it is something that concerns many.

I would have to agree. Any takeover would have to have some real substance about it if it meant change at this crucial part of the season. The decision to sack Sturrock after the pre season and transfer kitty ws blown was absolutely diabolical on it's own, coupling it with the appointment of Wigley was tantamount to commiting Hari-Kari. We should never repeat thos awful decisions.

Failure on the pitch will certainly see us really suffer, but even allowing for a modicum of success, it will still be very, very difficult to run this club on a self sustaining basis. Only a few months back one of the duo in charge posted as much as that on the predecssor to this forum. I don't think talking to the bank and not being in a bid situation (or someone sniffing around) are at all related. We came out of a bid situation, because there were no bidders, not because the bank preferred Lowe and co in charge, but because there were no alteratives (with regards external investment). The bank would have spoken to Lowe/Wilde in just the same way they spoke to Crouch, i.e. we need to see your concrete proposals for running this Club, with projected cshflows, target etc. They would have thrown in their requirements, an then said happy or not happy. If a bid appears on the horizon then the bank will take stock of that if and when it arises and will then judge whether the bid is in their best interests. The bank are most definitely calling the shots nowadays (at least regarding the major decisions).

The giving us the all clear is a but OTT. At best, they have agreed to support us in the short term in an attempt to get everything in order. However, the problem with this is that it is very possible that we will never be able to cut our cloth down here and so this support is not open ended. There may well come a time when they cut us adrift. Indeed, if a consortium came along with a potential cash injection, I would not be at all surprised for the bank to be telling Wilde/Lowe that they must accept it (i.e. they get their overdraft paid off and if Lowe/Wilde dissented they would threaten to pull the plug).

Does anyone know what our season ticket take up was for those three seasons?????? I would suggest the three seasons attendances were to do with: 2005-06 Pemiership hangover, with quite a few season tickets already bought when in Prem 2006-7 A bit of optimism at the start, and a relatively successful season on the pitch. 2007-8 Decent level of season tickets (our best since relegation???) , but shi7e on the pitch. What this shows is that IMHO it is success or failure on the pitch that has the biggest effect on attendances. Some will stay away on principle, some will come afresh, but getting up the table is the best way of filling SMS.

Wait until Friday!!!!!!!!! (which one and in which year, **** knows!!!!). After helping reveal the Dubai/Barry Beardall deal as a farce, I am of the view that it is better to sit back and see what happens. Nothing will be gained one way or the other from tittle tattle on here, and nothing wil be able to be weighed up (one way or the other) until something concrete starts to happen.

Pretty decent synopsis fella and I have to say I agree with most of the top part. For me, too many teams are way out there due to parachute payments and generous owners. Think we're too good to go down, and will be somewhere in the middle. Thanks for the effort.

I honestly very much doubt we would have stayed up had Dodd and Gorman stayed in charge any longer and supporters would have been calling for their heads (along with Crouch and McMenemy). Even if somehow we had stayed up under them, I doubt Gorman would have taken it on (considering he stepped down at Northampton due to stress/personal reasons), and Dodd probably hasn't got the relevant UEFA badges. They were nothing more than stopgaps.

They were indeed an appointment, but certainly not an appointment in the same shape or form as the appointment of Sturrock, the appointment of Wigley or the appointment of Redknapp. Those three appointments were permanent appointments, not "hold the fort until we get our ar5es in gear" appointments until we make a long term manager appointment. Substance over form.

As opposed to someone who did take us down to the second division for the first time in nearly 30 years.

As in they are caretakers, just as Gray was caretaker until the end of the season when Hoddle walked, just as Wigley was caretaker until the end of the season when WGS went, etc, etc, etc. They were caretakers holding the reigns after a manager walked out, they were never full time, long term appointments. I thought Lawrie and Crouch got it wrong putting them in place for any length of time (certainly until the end of the season as I was up for an appointment much sooner) and we have gone for Billy Davies or someone of that ilk to push on. But to try and compare their stint as though they were full time appointed managers/Head Coaches in the same way that Sturrock, Wigley and Redknapp were in that fateful season is clutching at straws

And maybe that's what they went for. It's happened here before and it has happened elsewhere as well. Perhaps the board should have been tough enough to do it. Even though players get the mega salaries and the fame, I still think the manager is the single most important person at any club and be should be backed 100%. To undermine the manager, or not support him, just creates troble somewhere down the line. If we had not ended up with Wigley, but instead got someone else who then went on to keep us up, then I would say it would be deemed a good appointment. The board get paid good money to make these decisions. As I said at the start, that is a fair enough assumption (although it doesn't automatically mean we had to settle for Wigley when it went pear shaped). When things really started to come to a head, there was still time to ship some disruptive influences out, or alternatively get someone better than Wigley in!!!! Sorry, but we, as fans, might be to blame for some things, but to try and blame us for the managerial appointments (and the length of them) is taking the **** somewhat.

Said after they had been at the helm for two league games, i.e. until we get the appoinment sorted out, then these two guys will still hold the reigns. They weren't appointed as full time managers, given the appropriate contract and wheeled out in front of the media as the new gaffers (nor were they sacked when Pearson came in), they were just caretakers. I personally thought we dillied and dallied too long in appointing Pearson, and even then I was unsure that he was the right man and I said at the time that the end of the season wold be the time to judge whether Crouch and Pearson had made the righ decision.