Lowes "everybodys fault bar mine" syndrome

[1965onwards]

In todays pre-season special Lowe asks why the young players have not been playing.

 

Considering that these players have grown up exclusively under managers appointed by Lowe,barring of course Pearson,who did give some a chance;this aptly demonstrates that this man has changed not one iota,and accepts not a jot of responsibility for the clubs' present state.

 

Having said that the present course the club is following is the only intelligent way to go.

Hopefully the rest of football will take a similar course.

 

England is full of useless,gutless managers continually relying on has and never been players who are kept in the game way beyond their sell by dates,when they should be kicked out to make way for young players to get experience and develope their careers.

 

Every club is wasting money they do not have on these useless journeymen and getting very little back in return,and it is time it stopped.

 

It is no coincidence that the introduction of all these young players has made Saints fans feel as if they are getting their club back again,after losing it to couldn't care less managers and players,and businesmen using the club for their ego trips.

 

Roll on the revolution,even if partly instigated by Lowe.

[70's Mike]

I think Hull may see Dean Windass as an exception to your statement

 

"Every club is wasting money they do not have on these useless journeymen and getting very little back in return,and it is time it stopped."

 

It is all about balance , young and old mixed correctly

[John B]

In todays pre-season special Lowe asks why the young players have not been playing.

 

Considering that these players have grown up exclusively under managers appointed by Lowe,barring of course Pearson,who did give some a chance;this aptly demonstrates that this man has changed not one iota,and accepts not a jot of responsibility for the clubs' present state.

 

Having said that the present course the club is following is the only intelligent way to go.

Hopefully the rest of football will take a similar course.

 

England is full of useless,gutless managers continually relying on has and never been players who are kept in the game way beyond their sell by dates,when they should be kicked out to make way for young players to get experience and develope their careers.

 

Every club is wasting money they do not have on these useless journeymen and getting very little back in return,and it is time it stopped.

 

It is no coincidence that the introduction of all these young players has made Saints fans feel as if they are getting their club back again,after losing it to couldn't care less managers and players,and businesmen using the club for their ego trips.

 

Roll on the revolution,even if partly instigated by Lowe.

 

I dont understand how this demonstrates that this man has changed not one iota,and accepts not a jot of responsibility for the clubs' present state.

 

Please can you explain as I do not fully understand why Lowe is hated so vehmently.

[John B]

I've heard him say on numerous occassions that many people including himself made mistakes and had to take the blame for relegation. Can we just get over it now?

 

Yes I agree but I cannot really understand this hatred to wards Lowe it seems ridiculous and I am sure is having a bad affect on SFC as some fans are boycotting St Mary's

[1965onwards]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

 

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

 

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

 

Not difficult.

 

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

[70's Mike]

Yes I agree but I cannot really understand this hatred to wards Lowe it seems ridiculous and I am sure is having a bad affect on SFC as some fans are boycotting St Mary's

 

very few because of Lowe , more to do with the standard of football and cost.

i make no secret of the fact that i want lowe, wilde and crouch gone but would never let them be a reason to not support the club

[Panda]

Yes I agree but I cannot really understand this hatred to wards Lowe it seems ridiculous and I am sure is having a bad affect on SFC as some fans are boycotting St Mary's

 

I'm with you. Time to move on. The last two years have been as bad, if not worse, as the years before them. We have no one better to take us forward. We have no one else to take us forward. We have no other course to follow which will take us forward. We are where we are. Based on our experience of expensive 'journeymen' who do not deliver I think this really is wake up time for football as a whole. It is not sustainable in the long term if we go on the way we are. It is back to the sixties/seventies as far as I can see - grown your own and add in some seasoning when and where you can. Not before time.

 

And can we please get over this obsession with the club's board. It is down to the players and coach now and all we can do is go on supporting the club we love and care about. After 55 years a Saints fan I cannot and will not give up now regardless of who is chairman. Its not the chairtman I support and cheer, it is those in red and white stripes that matter and if they never do to me again what they did to me at Bristol Rovers (amongst others) last year then for me the only way is up.

[Roman]

Yes I agree but I cannot really understand this hatred to wards Lowe it seems ridiculous and I am sure is having a bad affect on SFC as some fans are boycotting St Mary's

 

I find this equation of anti-Lowe sentiment with damage to the club really tiresome.

 

And do you honestly think that those who say they'll boycott SMS amounts to more than a handful? I think you are seriously mistaken in over-hyping this.

 

Success on the pitch will bring fans back in the sort of numbers that will make a difference - not pro- or anti-Lowe feeling.

Edited 4 August, 2008 by Roman

[Panda]

.

I'm with you. Time to move on. The last two years have been as bad, if not worse, as the years before them. We have no one better to take us forward. We have no one else to take us forward. We have no other course to follow which will take us forward. We are where we are. Based on our experience of expensive 'journeymen' who do not deliver I think this really is a wake up call for football as a whole. It is not sustainable in the long term if we go on the way we have done. It is back to the sixties/seventies as far as I can see - grow your own and add in some seasoning when and where you can. Not before time.

 

And can we please get over this obsession with the club's board. It is down to the players and coach now and all we can do is go on supporting the club we love and care about. After 55 years a Saints fan I cannot and will not give up now regardless of who is chairman. It is not the chairman I support and cheer, it is those in red and white stripes that matter and if they never do to me again what they did to me at Bristol Rovers (amongst others) last year then for me the only way is up

[John B]

I find this equation of anti-Lowe sentiment with damage to the club really tiresome.

 

And do you honestly think that those who say they'll boycott SMS amounts to more than a handful? I think you are seriously mistaken in over-hyping this.

 

Success on the pitch will bring fans back in the sort of numbers that will make a difference - not pro- or anti-Lowe feeling.

 

I agree with you but with the Forum Down I was logging on to the Echo Site and there was a great deal of comment about not going to St Mary's whilst Lowe is there.

 

But any negativity surely will eventually affect the players and I thought Wilde's Interview came across quite well.

[John B]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

 

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

 

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

 

Not difficult.

 

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

 

Doesn't seem to be a very good argument to me.

 

The youngsters were not good enough for the Premiership and Lowe only worked with Burley for a few months

Edited 4 August, 2008 by John B

[66East]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

 

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

 

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

 

Not difficult.

 

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

 

Are you saying then, that you would prefer Rupert to pick the team? Surely the manager should be left to pick who he thinks.

[miserableoldgit]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

 

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

 

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

 

Not difficult.

 

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

I am NOT a fan of RL but he can`t win can he? If he tells his managers who to play he is accused of interfering in footballing matters. If he doesn`t, it`s his fault that the managers that he appointed play who they want, because that`s their job.:confused:

[manji]

very few because of Lowe , more to do with the standard of football and cost.

i make no secret of the fact that i want lowe, wilde and crouch gone but would never let them be a reason to not support the club

Quite.Lowe wasnt here last season and attendances were poor.

[Fowllyd]

I agree with you but with the Forum Down I was logging on to the Echo Site and there was a great deal of comment about not going to St Mary's whilst Lowe is there.

 

But any negativity surely will eventually affect the players and I thought Wilde's Interview came across quite well.

 

Chances are that those on the Echo site were exactly the same people you find saying the same things on here; of course, over the weekend they only had the Echo site as this one was out of action!

 

If you're worried about negativity affecting the players, then surely it's best for those most likely to be negative to carry out their boycott threat? After all, they'll have precious little effect on anything from outside the ground. More generally, any negativity in the ground itself will quickly disappear if the team starts playing good football and winning - witness the comments on the West Ham game on here. Let's just hope that happens, eh...

[Thedelldays]

isnt it about time we all got behind the team and forget about the boardroom

 

I was amazed at how the team played against West Ham and hope for a good season

[Thedelldays]

also, I am Thedelldays...any chance of changing my name back to that and maybe letting me stay before I sign up??????

 

my ban was up next week anyway (6 months ffs)

 

peace everyone..

[mprobert]

zzzzzzz

[Fowllyd]

also, I am Thedelldays...any chance of changing my name back to that and maybe letting me stay before I sign up??????

 

my ban was up next week anyway (6 months ffs)

 

peace everyone..

 

Wow, way to step out of the shadows! I think I prefer Thedelldays to Wonkey!

[1576]

very few because of Lowe , more to do with the standard of football and cost.

i make no secret of the fact that i want lowe, wilde and crouch gone but would never let them be a reason to not support the club

 

One here.

 

Just because I am not going does not mean I am not a supporter.

[Mole1]

Lowe will never change, he's far too pompous and full of his own self importance to ever admit he was wrong. Even when it all goes tits up this season he'll carry on blaming everyone else.

 

Two people are primarily responsible for the clubs demise; Lowe and Wilde - in that order.

 

Lowe sent us down with his 3 managers in one season debacle.

 

Wilde kept us down by taking over without a plan.

[Saint Bones]

Two people are primarily responsible for the clubs demise; Lowe and Wilde - in that order.

 

 

The Gaffer ? The Players ? I'm sure they were there during some parts of the relegation season ?

[Tamesaint]

Lowe will never change, he's far too pompous and full of his own self importance to ever admit he was wrong. Even when it all goes tits up this season he'll carry on blaming everyone else.

 

Two people are primarily responsible for the clubs demise; Lowe and Wilde - in that order.

 

Lowe sent us down with his 3 managers in one season debacle.

 

Wilde kept us down by taking over without a plan.

 

 

You can't say that on this forum !!!! Anything as sensible or as truthful as that will get immediately attacked by the luvvies.

 

Siundance Beast will go on about how relegation was inevitable for a club of our size. A good job this view wasn't around in the '90's when we were a lot smaller. The Professor will go on about how this view is too blinkered and ignores how Saturn was in its ascendancy during 2005 and that was not good for a club of our ability and anyway he is a lot cleverer than us so his view is more accurate.

 

 

3 managers in a season - I think you have got it in one..... and whose fault was that??? Now let me see....

[Andy Durman]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

 

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

 

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

 

Not difficult.

 

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

 

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous statement. Lowe has not been at the helm for almost 2 years and none of these youngsters have been good enough in this time. As I remember Burley was chosen because of his work with youth players.

 

Your hatred of Lowe clouds your judgement the man on numerous occasions accepted responsibility.

 

However he has laid the foundations for our survival and we should all be thankful.

 

Good luck Mr Lowe your success is our success.

[Guest Hacienda]

However he has laid the foundations for our survival and we should all be thankful.

 

That remains to be seen does it not.

[Snowballs2]

I've heard him say on numerous occassions that many people including himself made mistakes and had to take the blame for relegation. Can we just get over it now?

 

Oh when, because I have not seen any such statement where Lowe accepts any personal blame !

[Ekelund]

Oh when, because I have not seen any such statement where Lowe accepts any personal blame !

 

Does his offer of resignation after relegation not count then?

[Plumstead_Saint]

Does his offer of resignation after relegation not count then?

No. Bo back and reread it.

[sadoldgit]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

 

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

 

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

 

Not difficult.

 

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

 

On the one hand Lowe gets blamed for meddling too much in team affairs and now it seems he is getting balmed for not meddling enough???

 

Make you mind up. You can't have it both ways. If he expected these managers to play the youngsters more but they decided they didn't want too, that is their right as Manager, as it is his right to be disappointed with their decisions surely?

[sadoldgit]

You can't say that on this forum !!!! Anything as sensible or as truthful as that will get immediately attacked by the luvvies.

 

Siundance Beast will go on about how relegation was inevitable for a club of our size. A good job this view wasn't around in the '90's when we were a lot smaller. The Professor will go on about how this view is too blinkered and ignores how Saturn was in its ascendancy during 2005 and that was not good for a club of our ability and anyway he is a lot cleverer than us so his view is more accurate.

 

 

3 managers in a season - I think you have got it in one..... and whose fault was that??? Now let me see....

 

 

How many managers did we have last season? Who were the people in charge?

[70's Mike]

Does his offer of resignation after relegation not count then?

 

This has been debated so many times, he offered to resign in a private meeting NOT a board meeting, as a gesture.

If he had been serious he would have gone.

I want him and wilde and crouch gone but for now we are stuck with him, it is the pro lowe lobby who keep telling us what a great job he is doing for the club but when the counter argument is put about some of the crap previous decisions he made, then all of a sudden it is not his fault, it is the manager's, players or supporters fault.

[saint1977]

This has been debated so many times, he offered to resign in a private meeting NOT a board meeting, as a gesture.

If he had been serious he would have gone.

I want him and wilde and crouch gone but for now we are stuck with him, it is the pro lowe lobby who keep telling us what a great job he is doing for the club but when the counter argument is put about some of the crap previous decisions he made, then all of a sudden it is not his fault, it is the manager's, players or supporters fault.

 

Spot on Mike but you won't get much in the way of sensible debate on the topic of Rupert Lowe. I would sum it up by saying that I still support the team and go to games, the only thing that would stop me is if we had blatant asset-strippers and crooks in charge of the club - ie Bill Archer and David Bellotti at Brighton during the 90s who were only interested in flogging the Goldstone - or Richardson at Doncaster who tried to burn down the main stand for the insurance. I don't like Lowe, Wilde OR Crouch but you cannot accuse ANY of them of that and I think they are interested in saving SFC.

 

With regard to pre-season, I was delighted with the WHU performance and pleasantly surprised with Celtic. Let's not put too much pressure on these lads though and as 70's Mike said, you need a good blend to be successful, look at Windass last season and Barmby for Hull as well, class makes a mark at all levels of the game.

[Wes Tender]

How many managers did we have last season? Who were the people in charge?

 

Valid point Bern and I said as much on another thread where I said that ultimately it was the instability of changing manager three times in a season that caused our relegation from the Premiership and almost again from the Fizzy Pop league. Whilst not defending Crouch, Burley leaving was not his fault, but Dodd/Gorman was a mistake commensurate with the Wigley appointment. Had we been relegated again, I would have been happy to call for Crouch's head. As it turns out, Pearson kept us up with an improving team and I would have been very happy to have let him continue. Instead we have had further disruption at board level and also with the management. It might succeed against the odds, but if it fails, then it will not be unexpected based as it is on precedent.

 

But Lowe, Wilde, Crouch all ought to go.

[miserableoldgit]

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous statement. Lowe has not been at the helm for almost 2 years and none of these youngsters have been good enough in this time. As I remember Burley was chosen because of his work with youth players.

 

Your hatred of Lowe clouds your judgement the man on numerous occasions accepted responsibility.

 

However he has laid the foundations for our survival and we should all be thankful.

 

Good luck Mr Lowe your success is our success.

Fair point. I also seem to remember that when Redknapp was in charge, we played a League Cup game away (can`t remember who against) when he played loads of kids, because RL wanted him to. We lost the game,(IMHO delberately) and HR "proved" a point to RL about using kids.

[Guest Hacienda]

How many managers did we have last season? Who were the people in charge?

 

Which nearly got us relegated again.

 

Just goes to show that the decision to have too many managers leads to failure and that chairman who follow that path are failures themselves.

[pedg]

Just goes to show that the decision to have too many managers leads to failure and that chairman who follow that path are failures themselves.

 

Do you think its some sort of concious decision to have too many managers then??

[um pahars]

How many managers did we have last season? Who were the people in charge?

 

We had two managers last season, and changed when the first one walked out on us.

 

If you come back with , it was four, what about Dodd and Gorman, nah, nah, nah?, then it shows what a fool you are.

 

They were caretakers, in much the same way that Chatterley, Wigley et al were in the past. Normally, when someone walks out on you you have to fill the gap pretty quickly (if you're sacking someone, then it is much easier to plan ahead).

 

Going by your dumb logic in 2005 we had FIVE:rolleyes::

 

WGS

Wigley

Sturrock

Wigley

Redknapp

 

And then in 2006 we had FOUR:rolleyes:

 

Redknapp

Bassett

Wise

Burley

 

In fact, if you were looking at this you would claim we had NINE in two years;)

[um pahars]

Should have read 2004 (not 2005).

 

 

PS How do you edit on this new fandangle machine?

[um pahars]

Do you think its some sort of concious decision to have too many managers then??

 

Of course it's not a conscious decision, you would have thought you should always be looking for a degree of stability, but that just makes the fact that it did happen under Lowe's stewardship even more damning.

 

It just highlights that in 2004, he (and his associates) got the managerial/Head Coach appointments very wrong.

[SaintDonkey]

Lowe is an arrogant **** - but that doesn't mean that he's not good at his job. yes we were relegated during his watch - but it's not like we weren't flirting with relegation for years before he had ever heard of Southampton FC and relegation for a club of our size was something of an inevitability. Also under his watch we got a stadium that allows us to compete at this level, an academy that gives a chance to compete and a day out in Cardiff.

 

Some people hate him and will interpret everything he says in a negative light. It's a view point I can appreciate, after all hatred is an emotional rather than a logical response, but as such it's not worth arguing against.

 

Can we finally put the Lowe bashing behind us and jsut get on with supporting the team through a season that will be difficult enough without any more infighting.

[pedg]

It just highlights that in 2004, he (and his associates) got the managerial/Head Coach appointments very wrong.

 

The one key mistake was probably one that very few people saw coming, that being the appointment of Luggy. I was one of those who welcomed his appointment as he appeared to be a successful manager and I don't think I can remember anyone warning about the internal conflicts that ended up with him leaving and the roundabout that ensued as we played manager catchup.

 

He's not exactly the only candidate ever to apply for a job that interviewed well but then turned out to be a disaster.

Edited 5 August, 2008 by pedg

[Dicko]

I am totally bored with RL bashing.

 

He's back, get over it

In our current predicament, he is the best man to have at the helm

[PokingFun]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

 

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

 

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

 

Not difficult.

 

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

 

But this group of young players we have out there are only now maturing and some we didn't even have. Take the eleven against West Ham - Lloyd James, Jake Thomson, Spiderman, Gillett, Lee Holmes, McG, Lallana were out there and by all accounts played well, however, 2 were not with us (one we paid about £1m for) and the rest were very young in previous seasons or put out on loan to try to give them the experience needed. From what I understand the lads out on loan never set the world alight but maybe the experience they gained has helped them step up now?

[Professor]

This has been debated so many times, he offered to resign in a private meeting NOT a board meeting, as a gesture.

If he had been serious he would have gone.

I want him and wilde and crouch gone but for now we are stuck with him, it is the pro lowe lobby who keep telling us what a great job he is doing for the club but when the counter argument is put about some of the crap previous decisions he made, then all of a sudden it is not his fault, it is the manager's, players or supporters fault.

Once again there is confusion here between people who "Luv" Lowe - of whom there are very few, and people who see the constant attacks on Lowe as divisive and damaging to the club. Some of the Lowe-haters have very weak grounds for their position and inevitably these get challenged. We've all seen comments that Lowe is doing OK so far, and better than expected but 70's Mike has made up the statement that people 'keep saying what a great job he is doing' just so that Mike can then complain about it. The fact is people do NOT keep saying that. Its this sort of dishonesty that undermines the anti-Lowe argument.

As chairman in 2004/05 Lowe obviously played a part in the relegation, but many people dispute the line that it was 'all down to him'. That is a fair difference of opinion, but opinions should be based on fact. Simplifying it to '3 managers = relegation = chairman to blame' is just crassly stupid. Just as if "Colchester = 1 manager in 2 years = relegation = chairman to blame" is any more sensible.

 

As for 1965onwards criticising Lowe for commenting on team selection when he was not on the board but then blaming Lowe for it, is bizzare. This sort of desparation to find something to blame on Lowe simply shows the desparation of the anti-Lowe position. None of this makes Lowe a 'great' chairman, but neither does it make him guilty of being a bad one.

[Guest Hacienda]

Do you think its some sort of concious decision to have too many managers then??

 

I think it shows a clear lack of strategic thinking.

[buctootim]

Sorry is this TMS? Is it last week already? Have they found all the old posts?

 

Ah joy the same arguments from the same few explaining, although the world has changed and moved on, they cant / wont as a matter of principle.

[Bon Call Night]

I think Hull may see Dean Windass as an exception to your statement

 

"Every club is wasting money they do not have on these useless journeymen and getting very little back in return,and it is time it stopped."

 

It is all about balance , young and old mixed correctly

 

 

As much as McMenemy upsets me now with his continual sniping and bitterness towards the clubs decisions he did manage to achieve this mix pretty well. That said signing the likes of Osgood then is probably like singing say Shearer now.

[Guest Hacienda]

The one key mistake was probably one that very few people saw coming, that being the appointment of Luggy. I was one of those who welcomed his appointment as he appeared to be a successful manager and I don't think I can remember anyone warning about the internal conflicts that ended up with him leaving and the roundabout that ensued as we played manager catchup.

 

He's not exactly the only candidate ever to apply for a job that interviewed well but then turned out to be a disaster.

 

That is a very fair comment.

 

The real problem with that though was the appointment that followed him.

 

That decision is the one that really cost us.

 

The gamble Lowe is now taking I hope and pray works. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than having a team of young bloods and old heads pinging the ball about and playing with some pride and passion. God knows we've been wanting that for years.

 

My fear is that if it goes Pete Tong that Lowe will resort to type and replace the manager, thus repeating previous mistakes.

[pedg]

That is a very fair comment.

 

The real problem with that though was the appointment that followed him.

 

That decision is the one that really cost us.

 

And as I said the time in the season when we needed to replace Luggy was not a good time to find a decent manager (i.e. no half decent ones got fired before Luggy left!) which left us with the barrel scrapings we ended up with.

[Alucard]

We had two managers last season, and changed when the first one walked out on us.

 

If you come back with , it was four, what about Dodd and Gorman, nah, nah, nah?, then it shows what a fool you are.

 

They were caretakers, in much the same way that Chatterley, Wigley et al were in the past. Normally, when someone walks out on you you have to fill the gap pretty quickly (if you're sacking someone, then it is much easier to plan ahead).

 

Shows what fools LM and LC were then because the dynamic duo were appointed for the forseeable future because they were doing so well

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=9711