Lowes "everybodys fault bar mine" syndrome

[um pahars]

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.

 

The problem was rumbling all during the close season (it first came to light not long after he took over when many of the 'superstars' took umbrage with him).

 

I can remember the rumours, stories and muck spreading all through the summer.

 

Personally, I think the Chairman and board should have shipped out all the negative influences and supported the manager (as had happened with Lawrie and Nicholl).

 

Alternatively, they should have cut it short earlier before Luggy had spent the transfer budet and wasted the vital pre season build up.

 

What followed (i.e. Wigley) was the real disaster.

[dubai_phil]

Yawn.

 

Yes we KNOW already. As Wes says - the shareholders had to work together or they all had to go.

 

But as SOME people who MAY spend SOME of their life doing something OTHER than searching for new ammunition in the pro-anti debate MAY have NOTICED, the global economy is f*******d

 

Now this is IMPORTANT to us Saints fans because it means that CREDIT is hard to get (not just for us to buy tickets and beer but it means that people and BUSINESS want to find sources of CASH.

 

Anybody who has MADE money needs to have had HALF a brain and luck to succeed. But RIGHT now, if you have money you can make a LOT more money with it, people and companies go bust and whether it's Flog It or Alliance & Leicester you can make MONEY if you have MONEY in a "slump".

 

The ONE thing that people with money will NOT do right now is WASTE it on extremely dubious dodgy deals.

Invest 20mil or so to buy the shares in SLH and what - we are LOSING money - so they have to fund that gap OR work their socks off to STOP the losses.

Why would anyone with a brain come in right now and invest the money when somebody else has ALREADY started to do the hard and unpopular work?

They can earn MORE money elsewhere, wait for the finances to be destroyed OR stabilised (minimising their risk) and THEN still buy the club for the same basic cost as it is today.

 

So it matters not one iota what anyone thinks. Simple economics, simple business sense and pure bloody bad luck mean the shareholders will be around until

1) The "recession" shows sign of easing or

2) The club's finances make an investment a sensible business risk.

 

You guys on both sides are just going to spend another year typing the same boring stuff that we have read, and agreed with 1,000's of times already.

 

They WILL be gone, but not in the next 5 days before the season starts but one thing I can guarantee, it AIN'T gonna happen because you scored a debating point this week

 

If Only is a phrase that if you start to use it will consume your life. Leave it, move on or you get hit by another if only that you didn't see coming

[pedg]

Personally, I think the Chairman and board should have shipped out all the negative influences and supported the manager (as had happened with Lawrie and Nicholl).

 

Alternatively, they should have cut it short earlier before Luggy had spent the transfer budet and wasted the vital pre season build up.

 

What followed (i.e. Wigley) was the real disaster.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Remember there was a possible third option that the manager and the players might have learnt to get on.

 

What would people have said if we had shipped out some well known and popular players?

 

What would people have said if we had got rid of Luggy earlier?

 

Persevering with the new manager and the players at the time, who, lets now forget were supposed to be professionals not school children, was an equally valid approach to take at the time without the wonders of hindsight and if anything the constant moaning on places like this about the number of managers that worked under Lowe probably contributed to the fact that he was kept on for too long in the end once it started to become obvious that there was not going to be any reconciliation.

Edited 5 August, 2008 by pedg

[um pahars]

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

 

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.

[um pahars]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Remember there was a possible third option that the manager and the players might have learnt to get on.

 

And maybe that's what they went for.

 

What would people have said if we had shipped out some well known and popular players?

 

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.

 

What would people have said if we had got rid of Luggy earlier?

 

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.

 

 

Persevering with the new manager and the players at the time, who, lets now forget were supposed to be professionals not school children, was an equally valid approach to take at the time without the wonders of hindsight

 

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!!!!

 

and if anything the constant moaning on places like this about the number of managers that worked under Lowe probably contributed to the fact that he was kept on for too long in the end once it started to become obvious that there was not going to be any reconciliation.

 

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.

[Alucard]

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.

It was after 3 of their 5 games in charge and the quote from Crouch was.

 

We have a stable squad and a strong board which is more

united than it has been at any time in the past four years. We

still have serious ambitions to make the play-offs and we believe

John and Jason can provide the spark to get us there with the kind

of run we had at the tail-end of last season.

 

Hopefully this will now end the speculation and uncertainty

and enable us to focus fully on reaching at least the last eight of

the FA Cup and mounting a strong challenge for the

play-offs.

 

That quote doesn't seem to suggest that Dodd and Gorman were only in place for another 2 games. It was only the knee jerk reaction to the Bristol Rovers debacle that meant they weren't in charge at the end of the season.

[um pahars]

It was after 3 of their 5 games in charge and the quote from Crouch was.

 

We have a stable squad and a strong board which is more

united than it has been at any time in the past four years. We

still have serious ambitions to make the play-offs and we believe

John and Jason can provide the spark to get us there with the kind

of run we had at the tail-end of last season.

 

Hopefully this will now end the speculation and uncertainty

and enable us to focus fully on reaching at least the last eight of

the FA Cup and mounting a strong challenge for the

play-offs.

 

That quote doesn't seem to suggest that Dodd and Gorman were only in place for another 2 games. It was only the knee jerk reaction to the Bristol Rovers debacle that meant they weren't in charge at the end of the season.

 

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

[scooby]

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

 

He isn't.

 

Unless we figure in the Northam fringe who are frustrated working class heroes and full of bile when it comes to someone of the 'upper crust' coming into their sport, their game.

[St Paul]

He isn't.

 

Unless we figure in the Northam fringe who are frustrated working class heroes and full of bile when it comes to someone of the 'upper crust' coming into their sport, their game.

That's rubbish, stop playing the class card. People dont like him because in their eyes he's mismanaged the club (that's an opinion they're entittled to, like you are), it has nothing to do with his background.

 

Was it just the Northam who stood at the Ipswich game?

[Professor]

That's rubbish, stop playing the class card. People dont like him because in their eyes he's mismanaged the club (that's an opinion they're entittled to, like you are), it has nothing to do with his background. Was it just the Northam who stood at the Ipswich game?

Mismanagement is a totally unreasonable accusation, in fact Lowe managed the club very effectively for 10 years. The compaints about relegation in 2005 tend to be from people who look for one simple cause to blame, when in fact the world is far more complicated. The chairman played a role in the relegation season but the outcome of the season, relegation by ONE goal, was not caused by him alone. If Neimi had saved one more shot, or if Crouch or Phillips had scored one more goal, relegation would have been avoided but that would not have made Lowe a good chairman, any more than the failure to get that goal made him a bad one. The events after Lowe was removed in 2006, showed that we could also do a lot worse - and we did.

Its true that people are entitled to their opinions, but if opinions are based on closed minded predudice, others are entitled to point out that out.

[OldNick]

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

UM, you are living in a dream world if you really think that had they stayed until the end of the season and then let go.If they had been there to the end without a doubt we would have been doing ok, and so they would then have made the transition.

Had they done well they would have deserved to have been installed as the main men and all season long people pointed out that had GB been sacked that's who we would have got.

As for NP the jury is still out, I quite liked him but he still took us to the brink of relegation.

[Alucard]

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

 

To deny that an appointment for the forseeable future (surely longer than a week) was not an appointment is clutching at straws.

[Snowballs2]

Does his offer of resignation after relegation not count then?

 

What the informal chat one? He never offered at a board meeting or in writing

[St Paul]

Mismanagement is a totally unreasonable accusation, in fact Lowe managed the club very effectively for 10 years. The compaints about relegation in 2005 tend to be from people who look for one simple cause to blame, when in fact the world is far more complicated. The chairman played a role in the relegation season but the outcome of the season, relegation by ONE goal, was not caused by him alone. If Neimi had saved one more shot, or if Crouch or Phillips had scored one more goal, relegation would have been avoided but that would not have made Lowe a good chairman, any more than the failure to get that goal made him a bad one. The events after Lowe was removed in 2006, showed that we could also do a lot worse - and we did.

Its true that people are entitled to their opinions, but if opinions are based on closed minded predudice, others are entitled to point out that out.

People are entittled to their opinion, just as you and Scooby are.However what makes you think it's all down to Lowe's class?

 

I bet there is just a tiny handful of people against Lowe becasue of his upbringing, just as there are a handful who are against anyone else solely because they're not Lowe.

 

It seems to me that some of you can not bring yourself to think anyone could be Anti Lowe, because of the job he did, and therefore automatically think it's some sort of class prejudice.

 

I would not insult you by saying you didn't like the job Crouch, did soley on the basis he wasn't Lowe. Why therefore should it be assumed people dont like Lowe because of his class?

[Wopper]

Lowe is disliked because of his obnoxious ignorant personality.

[um pahars]

To deny that an appointment for the forseeable future (surely longer than a week) was not an appointment is clutching at straws.

 

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.

[um pahars]

UM, you are living in a dream world if you really think that had they stayed until the end of the season and then let go.If they had been there to the end without a doubt we would have been doing ok, and so they would then have made the transition.

Had they done well they would have deserved to have been installed as the main men and all season long people pointed out that had GB been sacked that's who we would have got.

As for NP the jury is still out, I quite liked him but he still took us to the brink of relegation.

 

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.

[puff the magic dragon]

Lowe is an arrogant **** - but...

 

Didn't Lowe's PR company start posts along similar lines?

[OldNick]

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.

Come on UM, how has a few badges stopped someone coming manager, Wigley didnt either if you recall.

The financial set up at the time could only really go for the cheap option.

[jam]

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.

 

In one of Gorman's post mach interviews on Radio Hants he made it clear that he and Dodd wanted the job full time.