Frank's cousin

That really is speculation and you kno it - at the time the shareprice was 27p - market capiliazation of just over 7.5 million - and there was no interest - none of teh shareholders would have agreed to sell at 27p - and to expect them to do so is churlish and unrealistic.

Sorry, what opportunity? At teh time there was not the interest in prem clubs of our size that materilaized later in 2005-6. Do you know for certain that investmnent was not sought? Without any sort of evidence...that trainset comment is just a flipant remark

Think that may be due to Lowe believing we would be MORE receptive to someone like JP due to his playing success with Holland, rather than Wotte, who appeared to have tye better coaching record (Dutch U21s) but less of a playing one?

No responders?

I think thats a fair assessment. But would add that we do actually at present have two seperate issues in some respect - the financial survival and who the shareholders currently trust to avoid admin - and then the footballing side of things, the focus of fans on the footballing decions that have gone array. At times the two are linked, not always but certainly one impacts on the other. The question is about balancing the two... satisfying the oft unrelaistic demands and expectations of the fans, within the financial restraints of the revenues and liabilities. How you feel about Lowe, IMHO, if you take away all the bad PR rubbish and is Duke of Edinburgh tendancy for the gaff, is how you feel about that balancing act. Sure LOwe has had ideas re footballing that seem wierd and alien to fans, but thay have not all been without merit - just failed in implementation fro anumber of reasons... he has also however, made major errors which are compounded by the fact he refuses to acknowledge his mistakes or be humbled by them...

dont hold your breath ;-)

Uhm depends really, I recall that for most of 2003 teh shareprice hovered arounf the 23-27p a share mark... would not really have been much in it for any of the shareholders.

FFS Alpine if I had unequivical support for LOwe, I would have no problem in comming on here and facing up about it - I actually wish it was true so I could really get you wound up... Jeez, if thats what you want to believe feel free, but it just proves to me that you simply are too blinkered in your views to see the wood for the trees - I just cant take you seriously at all....

Nor at Charlton it seems if this is in the form of loan notes and not a gift - they want their money back.... hense its called debt.

And your inabilty to read and understand what folk are posting get worse everyday... FFS, so what Lawries pic was taken down... FFS LOwe/Lawrie dont get on, would you keep a fecking picture up...that is so insignificant its laughable - And for teh love of god, where is Pearson's yout record questioned in anything I have said? READ the feckin post before jumoping to inane and frankly idiotic conclusions. There is NO defence of Lowe here, merely a criticism of CRouch - but you seem unable as I have said precviously to distinguish between the two... why is this?

Thisdoes not make any sense UP - the fact that Peasron was happy to stay is irrelevent, to the contract he had, was offered or agreed to with Crouch, but as I have pointed out else where the 'target' was simple: to question why Crouch was using this as spin now - given the recent success Pearson has had at Leicester - and if he is using it, as some indicator of greater foresight, why NOT tie him down - because then he REALLY could gloat and score a point or two if Pearson was a success at Saints...

I have to agree Wes, I dont think /believe (as I dont know any facts - and nor does anyone it seems by the inconsistency of what we have been told) money really ahd anything to do with it - nor do I think Lowe made this decison based on some ingrained desire to rid the club of Crouch's choice - thats just daft. I think it was Lowe's longer term desire to see a youth policy in action - his vision of Saints as a mini Ajax with Dutch systems and dutch style. He finally got the opportunity because he probably thought there was nothing to lose, and it woudl fit within the budget at this time... I think Pearson was just unfornuate to be stuck in the middle. This does not excuse Lowe's handling of it - if what has been said is TRUE, nor am I supporting his decision - as its easy to see its well and truely failing - BUt I am honest enough to admit that in THEORY at least I liked the idea before the season started and after a couple of games despite teh initial results, it still looked promising, easy to fall into the trap of forgetting that this is a tough league for naive kids when you have a couple of games of neet pasing and attractive style....

UP - so what is the truth here? First you say money was not discussed and then you as 'even if it was?' - Seems like you are contradicting yourself a little?? - or making it up? The insinuation in this thread was to try and question why Crouch and MC were currently gloating pubilically because its easy to use Pearson as an example given his relative success at Leicester, but had he failed, they would probably also be keeping stum... just as some would criticise Lowe for appointing a risky 'Strachan' and then claiming some greater foresight when he was successful ;-) This is the crux, the fact that too often some use the SAME sitaution to support their stance, yet criticise the openent and its this inconsistency that baffles me.

YOu make two good points there, the first re the supporters - you are right, it is only a smalll minority but its this small mionority that lowe seems to have used to form his opinion of us - because they have been very vocal in their condemnation from the begininig. The proper corporate governance issue is though difficult to define... because as fans we see this as success on the pitch first and foremost - lets be honest for a majority, what it costs to achieve that and where the money is likely to come from is second to this... if thought about at all. In legal terms its just about the business and generating sufficient revenues during good time sto yield a small dividend... something alien to fans, but part of that governance you mention... and from that perspectiove Lowe did what he was meant to do.... We were done for in relegation, and whilst its ceratinly true that FOOTBALLING decisions made by lowe greatly contributed to this, it is something that is very difficult to plan for, yet can happen to any club - this year will see more of the mighty fall - Lowe would also argue that the 50% clause was also wise planning - again alien to fans who see this as lacking ambition. I do think there was then an element of panic and with the board chnages Wilde, Crouch etc this was compounded - no one really kenw the right direction to take after 27 years in the top flight and running a buisness with a 50mil + turnover to suddenly find ourselves in this financial mess has really thrown them all - I dont think any of the contenders wanted this and all probably did what they thought was best to improve things, but alll also seem unable to stop the financial rot. Why has he got away with it? Simple because at the moment he has the support of 46% of the shareholders who must see something in it or why else sit by and watch teh shareprice tumble. If anything the question we should be askingis wy do you support Lowe, to wilde, and Lowes share supporting colleagues. I susupect they believe he is the best one to rescue the finace side with football coming second. For me the issue with Lowe is that most fans would not give a flying feck about his remuneration or his running of the finances if we were successful on the pitch - its when in our view his decisons financially directly impact the playing side that we become angry that he fails to grasp it - eg investmnet in the side, or manager selection. That is fair enough, but are we prepared to listen to the reasons, or do we believe its all bull? For teh answer lies somewhere in between - its not as black and white as 3 or 0 points because I have never advocated simply doing what other clubs do.... spend what they dont ahve just to stand still... so Naturally i am supportive and have always been of the more prudent approach, as difficult as it is when seeing a side you love struggle because everyone else has spent money to improve and we begin to lag behind... thats really why i have been often considered a 'luvvie' when in reality I woukld support Wilde, Crouch or anyone who had that 'stabilty' in mind. As I have said many times for me its about the strategy, notthe person behind it. On the footballing side its without doubt that Lowe has made huge errors that make the situation worse and its about time he listened for the love of god to some wiser ears if he does not want to lose what fans remain attending games - and he needs to distance himself from the 'chairman role' if ever the clubs fans are to be reunited behind a common cause. Many will argue strongly that you cant seperate the two as the football is the core buisness, and I can see where they are coming from, but in the current situation, with the pressure from the banks the only priority at present is aviding administration, then avoiding relegation. If 46% of shareholders think LOwe is the man to do this, then there is not alot fans can do about it at present and I do feel that Crouch and MC for example are not helping with their public debates - Yes I know Lowe and Wilde did teh same, and they were out of order in doing so, but does that make Crouch and MC right in simply doing same?

trying to type fast with two fingers and no time for a spell check... must get some work done in between posting!

the 'problem' is that a majority of fans dont distinguish between the two and before long it will be come so engrained as another 'truth' - there are hundreds of these 'simply wrong' statemnets amde in haste that become the excepted belief amongst fans - it is important to make albeit subtle distinctions...unless if serves the purpose/agenda naturally.....

Hi MOG You have a little bit - the thing is no matter how justified we may feel in our aproach if its not working is it not worth trying a different tack? Lowes sees fans as illinformed and lacking teh knowledge - in part becaue of his arrogance and in part because of that minoroity that have always slagged him irrespective of the truth in tehir accustaions, or whether there was any logic in the deciosns made - they did kinda ruin it for everyone else in a way because Lowe refuses to now listen to any of us. Not saying its right, but if we took back teh moral highground maybe we would get somewhere.... not going to happen whilst we simply shout and screem or fight each other on the terraces is it? would you take some of those seriously?

I agree it is perplexing why Lowe failed to see the winwin benefit in this case... and cheers for the decent reponse .... I would like to hear what Lowe has to say about the matter - sadly he will avoid this issue. It was a stupid error of judgemnet for which he must surely carry the can.... so he must have had a huge amount of faith in the wotte experiement - I would love to know on what basis - I think Wotte was always the choice, with JP brought in because lowe might have assumed we would be more receptive to him given his playing history. But does Lowe's feck up, justify MC and LC making mileage out of the Pearson thing, given that at the time it would have been a very risky policy as well to keep in on - would they be using it if Leicester were mid to lower table and struggling?

1. I dont know what Lowe believes but suspect hes not as stupid as we make out and that would mean YES he probably does know that had he made different deciosn we mioght not be where we are now - although he would argue he was not allowed to reappoint Hoddle which was his choice... but that ones been done to death. 2. Strach - again the whole 'support' thing has been done to death as well because its been argued countless times that we did not have the money and it would have meant borrowing some 15 mil more if Bridge had not been sold... I would stick my neck out and say that Lowe would have loved Strachan to stay, but we simply did not have the revenues or resources to support Stachans needs, is thatso wrong? Depends on whether you believe its fine or not to borrow huge amounts to 'support' a manager or not - for me that risk would have been too great. 3. Councelling? probably does! ;-) I was not saying he is right to behave as he is, but trying to present how he might see it.... he has had abuse from some quarters since he came and even when we were at Cardiff, he thinks teh fans demands for spending (eg teh Strachan support issue) as unrealistic which he equates to fans not understanding the financials - which is reinforced by the very vocal abuse. I think he believes that part of the failures were because they were never given a chance from the outset - too much media pressure, on fans which ceratin vocal fans fed on and spread discontent - so again in his eyes it reinforces his views that fans are ignorant of the ways of the chairman. This all means that he loses touch with the fact that he has made genuine errors that he should be criticised for, because they are lost in the vocal abuse that goes beyond the footballing errors - the continued Strachan thing being one of them. I do think that if fans want to be taken seriously with him, and to be appreciated as knowledgeable and rational, then we have to regain the moral highground, we have to drop the hysteria and crap shouted loudly which IS based on illinformed nonsense to clear the ground for sensible debate and criticism where it is justified... do that and he has nothing to hide behind.. while we continue as we are we will be ignored and at worse ridiculed.

Fair enough points, but had we gone down, would Crouch have kept him on? - The purpose of this discussion really was to illustrate how easy it is now for CRouch to say, yes I would have done this differently, that differently etc, especially when we see how well Pearson is now doing - and how miserably the dutch dou have done to date, but would Leon have kept him had we gone down and he was making that decision... because at the time it would have beed a gamble to, yet LC and MC are making mileage out of it now. Yes its all ifs buts and maybes, but if you are going to use this as a point of attack - especially as it appeals to the fans, then its only fair to question it.

Thats what I thought t, happy to be corrected though. I agree not keeping Pearson was indeed a feck up, and the Dutch thing is turning into a right mess, but it is a knife edge really - Pearson could very easily have not had enough in the tank to keep us up, and the dutch duo could have worked... I agree with Duncan though on the 'change' Pearson brought with him, but at the time, i thought this was more down to the fact that we as fans seemed galvanised to try and avoid the drop... because early results were not that improved... dio we have that spirit this time around or are we resigned to the fact?

Why is it it pointless? the discussion ahs been interesting and actuially for once quite balanced from both sides, no one is forcing you to read it.

Uhm, the problem with Lowe is that he probably feels he is being unjustly treated....no hear me out... I think he probably believes that teh mistakes he has made, are genuine erors that happen to many in sport..especilaly in football where thngs such as players and managers can leave on a whim and leave plans in tatters etc just when corners have been turned... I beliee he thinks that his ideas that have failed to date were designed to address this and that teh failures have been mainly teh result of teh old school values refusing to accept new ideas - so he has isolated himself from these criticisms.... secondly and perhaps more importantly, these criticisma have becomelost/diluted in Lowes circle by many attacks that he believes are unjustified... the speculation, gossip and rumour stuff that is made so very vocal by as he believs is the 'lunatic fringe'. I can see how this may have occurred because of the very vocal element have been naysaying ever since he arrived, and even when we had moderate success....I honsetly believe he feels that he is the victim here and thats multiplied by hi innate stubborness...

Uhm.. The Whole politics of this is sad really... it shows the dangers that agents pose really - as at all clubs there are those that are in favour and those that are not welcome... its very possible that Pearson was a victim of these politics - the obvious link to CM etc... but as is also known the Dutch plan was in place before... I believe it was a mistake for Lowe and Wilde to not percieve the reaction of fans to this, and also to misread the situation. BUt from a pure footballing perspective, it would have been impossible to predict where we would be unfder each under the same circumstances... although the more I see of pearson, the more I ma inclined the believe we would be more comfortable.... hindsight is a wonderful yet annoying thing! PS. The 'misunderstood' was kinda intended - a debate needs its kick off.

Hi Have a look at the later post to as I am supportive of Crouch's decision, but was using this to illustrate a point.