GreenTreeFrog

Yes, that is exactly how I understand it, and more importantly it is how Lowe explained things. Considering other expenditures the difference (either way) in manager/coach wages are likely to be almost insignificant anyway, the difference is probably less than a few months wages on the likes of Euell or Skacel. But manager wages were never the main issue - we were told it was about getting the very most out of the youth with both coaches working closer than would normally be the case and with little money to spend. Rightly or wrongly he thinks the Dutch duo are more likely to bring success under that system than Pearson. He may be totally wrong but as you say that is what he will, or should be, judged on over the long term.

But he NEVER AT ANY POINT said appointing Poortvliet was about saving money on wages. In fact if you go back and read his original comments he said that with success bonuses the Dutch pair would be on more than Pearson was on. Hardly a saving then unless he is planning on failure. The ‘misunderstanding’ comes from the fact Lowe said the decision not to continue with Pearson was ‘partly financial.’ Again looking back to those comments he immediately went on to explain what he meant by that. Basically he believes traditional managers need lots of money to buy new players or get in expensive loans (as Pearson did by bringing in 5 loan players but mainly only using two). Those that look at Leicester City’s results as proof of how good Pearson is seem to ignore the fact they are far better than the rest of the league and were joint favourites to get promoted. Of course ‘he’ is going to get them promoted but almost any half decent manager should be capable of the same given the competition and resources. I have not intention of getting into a Pearson v Poortvliet (or Lowe) discussion but whatever your thoughts on Lowe he did not get rid of Pearson because ‘he cost too much in wages’. Also Pearson was not ‘fired’ he was on a short term and well paid contract that had ended but was not renewed.

That is not far off what happened around 6 years ago in the Scottish Premier League (SPL). Rangers and Celtic got about three times more TV money each than the other 10 clubs in the SPL. A new TV channel deal (set up by the league) would have seen fairer distribution of money but to get change in the SPL it requires 11 of the 12 clubs to agree, and of course neither Rangers nor Celtic would vote for less money so it was never going to happen. The other 10 SPL clubs decided enough is enough and said they were considering quitting the SPL by giving two years mandatory notice after which they would set up their own league and invite the Old Firm to join but under fairer distribution of monies and with a system where a 66% majority is enough to force changes in future. The argument went on for around a month and offered the amusing prospect of a league of two with Rangers and Celtic playing each other 38 times a season. It was quite refreshing seeing the big two panicking for a while but ultimately they got their way and the league stayed as it is (maybe with some token changes). http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/1931985.stm OK. So its not saints related but its all part of the flow................

For me, under the circumstances you describe, there would be no question I would also take second option (the championship). But your question puts a very biased, or specific, slant on it and few would WANT to be in the first situation. We struggled in many years of the Premiership but were far more than the sad team in your bleak scenario (I don’t mean you were making the comparison, Phil). I am happy with what the club is trying to achieve and how different it is to the last few years but that does not exclude a return to the premiership where we hope to be able to compete again. Sunderland came down with a record points low (before Derby took the honours over) but when they got back up were stronger and looked to survive intially but then to improve a bit each year. They have not spent silly money. If we could do something like them then that would suit me fine – until we all get complacent and demand to move to ‘the next level’ of course.

It is an interesting question but I do think peoples opinion on this change as our circumstances do. That is natural, and not necessarily a bad thing, but it does make me a bit dubious of those fans that claim to be ‘happy’ to stay in this league. There was an excellent thread a few months back on much the same topic (Championship v Premiership) and I must admit it did surprise me how many genuine and varied arguments people gave for wanting to stay in the championship. I still think those same fans would be celebrating if we scraped through the play offs and made our way back to the ‘over rated’ Premiership though. In the many years we narrowly avoided relegation from the Premiership how many fans secretly hoped we would go down so we could then ‘compete in a more open league?’ In all those years I did not hear that argument forwarded even once. Maybe some will claim that was down a mistaken belief that the Premiership was the only place to be but now we know better. Those that argue we will win less and struggle in the premiership are of course right but using that logic it could be argued we would have been better off being relegated last season. It’s not enough just to win games though, surely most want to be the best we possibly can at the highest level we can compete in. So it’s the Premiership for me but I do think the club has a better ‘feel’ about it now there is more emphasis on the local development of youth and less on over the hill hit men that cost a lot but rarely add much value or sense of pride.

I expect he is happy with the signings considering there were no guarantees he would be able to get any replacements for those players sold or loaned out. Many on here feared no one would be brought in (or even want to come) and to be fair some of the signings were better quality than we expected. So I think when he says he is happy with the players he has got he is being realistic and accepting the situation we face. He is not suggesting there are not better players available elsewhere. Anyway what would have been the reaction on here if he said the squad was poor and we need to get better players? We cannot afford to pay even the wages of proven quality players and it would have only shown lack of faith in the players we do have. Whether he believed it or not he had to say something like that.

Somehow their enthusiasm never seems to saag.

Excellent post and I wish I had thought of it. I must admit while I would not slate the guy his record does not inspire a lot of confidence. Your comments are probably spot on though and in that context he could prove to be a decent addition to the squad. Being relatively young his fitness should not be an issue. I also wonder if always working under his dad may have actually held him back in some ways.

The link you gave showed a handful positive comments after a good start to the first 3 games of the season. I can't see how anyone could criticise that start so of course they are happy enough now. But lets not forget they are playing teams a league lower than they are used to and are joint favourites for promotion anyway. I hope Pearson does well for them, and he has nothing to apologise to saints for, but I wont lose any sleep if he doesn't get Leicester back up as is expected. He is in our past and I care more about our team's coaches than Leicester City's.

I agree its too early to get carried away but this thread is about being pleased at the performance during our first win. I don't see that as 'getting hysterical.' There will be plenty of times ahead when will be brought back down to earth but why not enjoy any good moments along the way. After so many years of under achievement its good to be able to cheer something positive at last. I think the difference this year is many have very little expectation of promotion (no matter what Poortvliet says) so can just enjoy the way they are playing at times. Almost anyone in the championship could reach the play offs, but I dont think that is a fair benchmark for assessing Poortvliets ability, as we are working on a bare miminum and survival is an achievement in itself. I am not expecting anything but a long hard season ahead. Our team is new, fresh and exciting, but I would be delighted with a mid table position this year. Anything else is a bonus. But next season......................who knows?

Maybe some will, but then maybe you should address them directly, rather than make vague comments that could be interpreted as being directed at anyone not in agreement with your views on Pearson. My opinion of him is he was 'OK' and did 'just about enough' and nothing more. I harbour no ill feeling against him or any desire to slag him off. But this thread is supposed to be about Poorvliet, it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Pearson. Its supposed to be a positive thread looking at the praise the team got after our first win. It's only those who are obsessed with the past that have changed it into an argument about a former manager. 'Rewriting history'? OK so Pearson alone was faced with hardship? When Pearson took over how many of the teams around us had players that were not demoralised? Not too many I would guess. I think many of the oppostion managers actually envied the players Pearson had available to him, and the chance to bring in 5 loans of his own choice. Some rewrite history and forget that even under D&G the first 2 or 3 games got a lot of praise from many on here. The players were said to be 'a team' again so were hardly 'totally demoralised' at that stage. Even after the shocking cup game against Rovers the players said they felt they had 'let the manager down' and were determined to 'put it right' in the next game.' D&G did not get a next game though. Were D&G 'treated awfully' like Pearson is supposed to have been? Or is 5 games enough to condemn 'decent, honest and hard working' men? Take a look at this site and see how Leicester fans 'greeted' Pearsons imminent arrival. http://www.footballfancast.com/blog/leicester-city/nigel-pearson-the-right-man-leicester-city/4193

I agree with parts of what you say but am not sure why you have highlighted my post to make your comments. Are your critical comments aimed at me? I have not slagged Pearson off anywhere. I would have accepted him continuing as our manager -mainly because its clear we wern't in a position to go for a 'big name' or a well thought of 'up and coming' candidate. But I fail to see how his record can be considered as anything but mediocre, even 'under the circumstances'. To say he eventually turned us round is not true. We steadily dropped from 18th to the bottom three and by the last day even a win could not guarantee our survival. Other managers have achieved significantly better results from similarly bad or worse positions. Check out Billy Davies record at Preston and Derby (4th bottom when he took over, top of league by January before spending any money). Or this year with Neil Warnock getting a desperate Palace team from the bottom 4 places to something like one loss in 15 games immediately (mainly wins I believe) and up to the play offs. They are managerial feats worth celebrating - the fact the men involved might also be 'honest and hard working' is nothing to do with it. Its only about results - I expect Dodd and Gorman were honest and hard working yet they got 5 games before being punted. I don't agree with slagging Pearson off, he did his best after all, but the reason some do is not hard to understand. Take a look at this thread. It is a welcome thread about positive comments from outside the club on how well we are playing under OUR CURRENT COACHES, and yet some are still more interested in looking back to Pearson and imaginary injustices. Pearson was a 'fire fighter' brought in to stop the leaky defence, he just about managed it, and then he moved on. Why cant some of our fans do the same and accept what we have?

How? If McLeish gets Birmingham promoted does it mean he is an 'above average manager?' Leicester are 3-1 joint favourites with Leeds for promotion. The next nearest rivals are 12- 1, so how well Leicester do is probably more down to the fact they still have significantly better resources available than the rest of the league, rather than ultimate proof of Pearson's ability. I wholly agree with earlier posts saying there is no need to slag Pearson off but on the other hand it is becoming tiresome hearing how we 'treated him appallingly' or how he is a 'great manager.' He was on a well paid short term contract and was given a budget which allowed him to bring in 5 loan signings. Wright and Perry were both excellent, but Pearce and Pericard started one game each, hardly showing him as a visionary. We were 18th when he took over and his only task was to stop us dropping further into the relegation spots. He did that by sorting the defence out - an area that Burley chose to ignore, so maybe it was not too hard for a defensive minded manager to stop leaking goals at the expense of scoring. But lets not forget we did see some awful performances under Pearson, such as those against Hull and Burnley and survival was out of our hands on the final day. Summing up I think the best than can be said is Pearson did 'OK' under difficult circumstances. Is that what we do now - celebrate mediocrity? Whatever Pearson does at Leicester is not relevant to saints. I believe what Poortvliet is getting out of the team is far more adventurous than we were ever likely to witness had Pearson remained - but of course its early days. Even if Poortvliet 'fails' it does not follow Pearson was the right man all along.

Johnny, That may be true enough but Poortvliet's comments the other day suggested Davies' agent has been trying to engineer a move to the Premiership for some time. Davies may not have asked for a move but it seems he may well have encouraged one. As I said, I do not really blame him for leaving once the premiership offer came in, but those that attempt to compare his situation to the average working mans are being totally unrealistic. But it does seem that contracts mean virtually nothing to players these days as they know the agents call the shots. You only have to look at what happened in the Kenwyne Jones case to see how clubs are almost powerless to prevent a player leaving if he wants to.

I have only just seen this thread and have to agree with you here. Every time a player ditches us for another club someone pipes up with, 'Everyone on this forum would happily leave their job for a better paid one .....' Its a weak comparison though as most of us have not signed a fixed term contract where we are pledging our allegiance for the next X years to a single company; most of us can leave whenever we want. Davies chose to sign for us over Hull or Norwich, clearly he decided saints was the best option for him at the time. Only eight months later he gets a better offer and so is off. I don't blame him at all, it's the way football is these days, but to say 'Good lad' or 'best of luck' just because he has trotted out some trite platitude (and probably written by his agent) is far too much to ask.

Micky, Your comments on this thread are perfectly valid and with a bit of 'luck' things could have worked out better for saints. Alpine says using bad luck as an excuse is poor form, and he is right if it is used for a team that regularly repeats the same mistakes, but we have had only TWO games so far and did well overall so that its not a relevant argument here. We always do poorly at Ninian Park yet were only a minute away from a well fought point with a team including 5 'debutants.' Any reasonable person will understand that it will take time for the players to adapt to each others strengths and weaknesses and gain a better understanding of exactly what is required of them. When that happens the team will obviously improve and I doubt anyone can argue against that - but maybe Alpine will give it a go.

If he had said that then it would be a ridiculous comment to make as it would mean we would only ever sell weaker players and buy better ones. Our finances make that totally impossible; in fact for most clubs it would be impossible. What he did say was our finances mean we are no longer be able to buy, or even get loan players, for any position where a young player is currently available in our youth team. He claimed the youth players would need to 'prove themselves' once given the chance but of course reality means we will have little choice but to play squad players regardless.

Yes it might well be. But then again Steve Wigley also took that role on and was similarly well regarded. Don't think there are too many shouts to get him back! Coaching international kids (a part time job) offers very different challenges to that of the stress of the weekly grind of the championship, where you can choose to play older, more experienced players if desired. Many managers feel it is less of a risk to do just and end up with a conveyor belt system of comings and goings. Personally I would rather take a chance with hungrier, more motivated younger players, than continue to see the short term 'solution' of temporary loans and getting in players that are well past their 'best by' date.

Wes, That is because its not about a direct comparison of the wages of the respective coaches/managers. Lowe did say the decision to change managers was 'partly financial' but he went on to explain how we cannot afford to buy new players or even pay wages of expensive loan signings any longer. He believes 'traditional managers' need to spend money to succeed but as we have very little to spend so it was decided we needed a new approach altogether. In fact if you recall Lowe even stated that success bonuses mean if the new team do well they will be on more money (combined) than Pearson was on. Pearson did an 'OK' job, and I would have accepted him continuing, but where is the evidence he can work successfully (and almost exclusively) with younger players? It's alright saying (in your words) he probably would have 'been prepared' to play them, but the management team we have now are used to that model and Pearson is not. Pearson strengthened our defence at the expense of scoring goals but what would he do this season? Any attempt at an answer to that is pure guesswork - he has no real history we can look to so the answers that need filling in remain blank. You also say its unlikely Pearson would have 'walked away from the challenge' and you are likely right, I mean he had nothing to lose and all the risk would be ours -none of it his. We would have been the brave ones here. In short it would have been as big a 'gamble' to continue with him than go with the new guys, at least they do have some experience in bringing young players through, admittedly at a lower level. Pearson did well out of us, appears he was very well paid and he got a new job out of it, so I find it a bit hard to feel too sorry for him. Anything more than last day avoidance of relegation is an improvement, but I am expecting a decent season in mid table with some new guys coming through. Most importantly it would be good to see players that really do want to play for the club again. As we are so strapped for cash it is not really even a huge gamble.