Frank's cousin

I appreciate the principle of your stance DW, and wont have a go about it. Its your choice and you dont ahve to justify it to anyone. BUt I would suggest that the decline that we will probably see whatever division we end up in, will not really be effected by the number of protesters with your principles. I think that wont be more than a 100 or so. I think the decline is more to do with the form, CCC football and the financial situation. - Given that you can get tickets when you want to, there is no 'pressure' to stump up a big chunck in advance, simply go when you can/want and get a decent seat. There is an advantage to the club getting the income guarranteed, as it helps with reducing the interest and charges on the overdraft over the course of the season, as well as helping with budgeting - thats a simple fact, so yes paying up front helps the club financially. My gripe is not with those whose genuine principles dictate their stance not to buy or even go, but to those who know that in reality its down to them simply not wanting to watch CCC or form form sides in this division, who use the 'protest' as an excuse, and I suggest there are plenty of those. (NB. If you simply dont like CCC football and dont see it as value for money, thats also fine by me, as spending your cash is your choice, no one elses. just wish folk owned up if thats teh cas rather than using Lowe as a convenient excuse) I did not renew last year after 10 successive years, simply because I thought I would have moved up North by now, so just pay on the door when I go, no other reason.

Think realistically,if we can win 3 out of the next 5, I think we will be out the relegation zone and possibly have our destiny back in our own hands - think thats all we can ask at this stage.

Think we'll do alright Tuesday, confidence should be good and crowd should be good too with it being a £5 for many..

;-) fat Barsteward me, so will take some knocking over, but easy to catch I guess... still think it should be 'luvvies' v 'antis' - but as Ponty says, would enough antis stump up £100 for Lowe? ;-)

Dissapointed we did not give Pearson a go, but liked the principle of 'lets go with the youth' afterall could things get any worse and understood the need to cut costs... Was worried that it might not work bu was hopeful after those initial games - maybe naively thought the results would come... Its easy to be wise when not in pocession of all the facts as to why ceratin decisions were made - I simply dont know (although have speculated elsewhere, whether this was purely Lowe's long term masterplan, or how much was forced on us due to the true nature of the finances. Lowe has alwys been into the idea of youth, but we never went so far down that route when in the prem, or even after relegation under Harry or Burley so what wa shis rational for fdoing it at last summer - Its easy to say he just fecked up again, but I would like to know why those decisons were made before casting the stones? Naturally this is Luvvie speak so cue the insulting sheite....

Surely the only way forward for this club is success on the pitch. if we get that, does it really matter how or who is in the boardroom?

To many long words? Just for you stanley, I'll start posting cartoons. This is actually so funny, because for someone so adverse to my posts, you seem somewhat obsessed. Are you stalking me? You sould actually read some and you might then have the something intersting to provide in your responses.... but i doubt it.

You just blatently misunderstood the context completely - no longer sure if intentionally or just because you just cant...

Whatever, UP... turning that post into your 'diservice of wotte' is typical... I used to enjoy watching out and reading your responses, but now they are like a stuck record, you repeat the same stuff whatever is actually posted or whatever is actually said - no skin off my nose if you dont read the waffle, but please at least respond in context, surely thats not beyond someone of your wisdom and insight???

Think you'll find we are all in supreme physical condition....for propping up the bar.

Iam 6'2" slim and athletic with 6 pack, a fine head of hair and extremely irrestible to the ladies with charm and charisma... a scoring machine of the highest order, is that what you have me down as? ;-)

It is a bargin, payed £280 for 45 mins in 2003 for the football aid thing. As to your other point about the half time talk - thing you are relegated to the bench for that one! ;-)

On a slightly serious note, think the luvvie 11 v antis would be quite a good way of healing a few wounds (or opening them well and proper ;-)) Might actually see that the 'other' side is not actually that bad at all! The Luvvie 11 will of course be playing yah basic total football in the true Dutch spirit! ;-)

Would suggest have say 6-7 90 places perside and then the remainder as rolling subs which should get about 45 min each - from teh football aid game its clear it s a big pitch and carrying th extra weight that many of us were, makes the whole thing hard but fun work! Following subs would be helpful for many and allow more to take part!

That would be telling! ;-) I'd be up for playing - did the Football aid a few years back - but would need to try and loose 4 stone and get a bit fitter first!

Could you find 22 luvvies though? ;-) (or for Alps and UP, 22 that would admit to it!);-)

Quite and amusing analogy! ;-) and quite a good one really. Perhaps what is missing though is that the building firm may have said at the outset that not only were they going to use the revolutionary mortar because it was cheaper and thus within budget, but that they though it had other advantages, although unproven, could potentially last longer, etc? Explantation? the problem is we will only ever get what either they think we want to hear, or the otherside ppresenting opinion as fact to stick the boot in, probably never a truthful picture will emerge - but I would hazzard a guess, that we have not actually changed a great deal, just added more old sand to the mix....

Maybe a few more photocopies were sold last month?

I would just say that maybe in this case because we all differ in our experience and sensitivities, it might just be common courtesy to avoid using a word if we 'know' it it going to offend fellow posters? We all tend to use words on here that describe what we think and feel that are OTT really when viewed in the graeter context, taht when seen in that light do tend to trivulise more important things than football - just think we should maybe be sensitive to it really, its just being a decent bloke.

I think some of sometimes forget who we actually are and the size of club we are... as if it should be easy and straight forward selecting a manager irrespective our finace problems. I believe we went down the youth route for two reasons - Finance (although I suspect Lowe took that element to the extreme, eg the costs for schneiderlin could have kept us one or two of the more experienced pros rather than loaning them out) and the second his philosophy. When in the prem doing well under Strachan, I think the fact that WGS left because h had taken us as far as he felt he could without substantial investment of the 15 mil a year + mark, would have ****ed lowe off no end. The fact that for a club of our size we struggled to attract better players because of wages restrictions (to avoid adding to debt) and the difficulty in holding onto players such as Bridge the moment a big club came calling again primarily due to wages saw Lowe looking at other approaches - rightly or wrongly. The first was his look at the Dutch set at Ajax, with continuity of youth players comming through more regularly and seemlessly taking teh place of those that had been sold to bigger clubs - I am sure Lowe liked the idea of the revenue stream this potentially created as well - but if the players were going to ;leave anyway as soon as someone came sniffing, then why not cash in if you have a ready made replacement? The second aspect was the SCW thing. I know he was slated and laughed at here. But I believe the premise was based on logic - bring someone in with fresh insights or different approaches to up the ante on Sports science and try and squeeze every advantage out of these to give us an edge over similar sized clubs etc... eg. If we cant compete financially, why not try getting an advantage through improved standards of fitness, sports science and psychology? NOt a stupid idea, if perhaps a naive one given the dangers if there is even the slightest slip up. Lastly we again come to the manager, and perhaps the weakest aspect to Lowe's philosophy. Lowe was mightily ****ed off when Hoddle decamped - his 'north London Yobbos' comment probably being the least of the expletives he probably used in private. So what does he do, the managers job wa becoming like the drummers in Spinal Tap - was there a way of changing the system to make this less relevent? I think his idea was to dilute the role, have a coaching TEAM similar to that of SCW with teh England Rugby squad, a manager who managed less of the side, but a team of specialists in each area, thus becoming less susceptible if one of them leaves for whatever reason. This is only speculation, but it would explain a few things as to why we perceive Lowe as 'clueless' in the traditional football sense because the commentators and fans alike predicted in waves it would not work, was not appropriate for the premiership or in getting senior pros to respect it and respond to it. So does Lowe abandon the plan? NO... but he sees that if he wants to implement this he has to start with..... the youth and get them into the system. It was not helped by relegation either. Instead of abandoning it totally, he probably felt 'arry would have enough to get us to bounce straight back and in teh meantime SCW could get on with implementing the new system beginning with teh youth and reserves... Andrew Surman stated at te time that teh academy and younger players saw real benefits to the vision coaches and greater use and analyse of prozone etc.. but its likely that 'arry, the fans and the media all ridiculing the approach saw the senoir players cool to this as well. The confusion in direction and problems this would ahve given 'arry were clear to see and so again it was abandoned... Lowe puts it back on the shelf to wait until the time is right... Brings ion Burley who has achieved good things with Hearts. Then of course he is ousted in the boardroom shuffle. Skip forward to the return and waht do we see? Pearson is the innocent victim of LOwe's desire to finally implement parts of his strategy - he believes the time is right, we are skint so it provides a good reason to use the kids who are cheap, and has teh belief that the acaemy boys have teh potential to play that passing game and achieve success, even if it takes a couple of seasons... brings in the Dutch Duo and away we go.. the football quality is good, its entertaining and surely it will only be a matter of time before the results reflect this approach and he wins over the sceptics? As we now know, it failed. And yes there are those who say honestly they predicted it would - and probably teh odds were stacked against it working with such young and inexperienced players. But that did not mean it was guarranteed to fail. We are still playing good football, passing the ball quickly and playing an entertaining style, probably not that far removed from what we started the season doing, albeit with a more traditional and importantly with the added experience, so I dont actually believe Wotte has changed a great deal in the philosophy, just been fortunate enough to be able to utilise greater experience - players whose use naturally dictates the formation being used and its a huge improvement. This post is bound to be seen by some as some sort of apology or support of Lowe. Whatever, not bothered by that tag any more. But its really just my musings on why I suspect/believe Lowe has gone about it in this way. And yes I can see the logic in it, yes I can even honestly say I like the concept of it. BUT I can also as everyone else can see that if the points dont add up, its failing and irrespective of what is causing that it needs to be reviewed. Ironically, as mentioned, I dont actually think Wotte is doing much different to what was being done before, just more experience, and a better more cohesive attitude and passion means we are finally getting the results the style and approach deserves. Will it be enough over the next 10 games? hopefully yes, but its going to be tight. As for next year? who knows what strange and wierd things will happen over the summer....

You omit the issue of whether JP had the SAME players at his disposal though, regardless of the reasons (and we DONT know the facts about the contract/financial restrictions - merely speculation) why, he did not. Had Wotte the same options would he be faring any better?

Slightly pedantic dont you think - it does not effect the point of the post.

Thats the crux really - so ideally we end up basically not hearing from or even registering the chairman - and MOST fans would as you say not gicve a flying feck who is in the board room with we are doing well, challenging and see progress. A ggood example recently has been how we are told the us playing sheite under JP was all due toLowe picking the team, interference etc, yet with Wotte we hear didly squat on the same point????? GO figure. Lowe is far from the ideal chairman if we were to put the criteria together, but the reality is it makes feck all difference IF we maintain a winning form.

TBF must also partake in a slice because despite being initially supportive of the whole thing, thought Wotte would be more of the same...

This cant be right, I thought we were the laughing stock of the football league.... ;-)