Darlington...WTF?

[OldNick]

F%^&ing wake up you plumb. Lowe was chairman of the company, his signature was on the cheques. Rupert over saw everything, what sort of buisness man is Lowe if He knew the club couldn't honour said cheques, still signed them knowing failure to clear would result in admin!

Barclays didn't put us in admin, SFC PLC did, Lowe could of done the best for the club and taken admin 4 days earlier, no Lowe no -10 this season!

jason if you read the Wilde interviews you would see that Fry from Barclays sat in the board meetings and oversaw all the financial decisions, we were in the main being run by him.Barclays dropped our overdraft without warning and then bounced cheques again without a call to warn us.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

jason if you read the Wilde interviews you would see that Fry from Barclays sat in the board meetings and oversaw all the financial decisions, we were in the main being run by him.Barclays dropped our overdraft without warning and then bounced cheques again without a call to warn us.

 

Come on Nick, you know people don't care about facts.

 

I think Lowe has just been wh0ring himself round to everyones wives, and they're ashamed that he can pleasure them better than they can.

 

In my humble opinion, of course...

[Bearsy]

Businessman in trying to avoid writing off his investment until there's no other choice shock.

 

Fandom aside, and Lowe was never a fan, were it my business I should have done the same thing.

[Wopper]

Lowe never had a clue how to run a football club

[SaintJackoInHurworth]

Just for a bit of light relief, please read the last bit of the article, funny how that doesn't apply to the mighty red 7 white!!!

 

http://www.pcw.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2033806/football-league-adopts-administration-rules

 

I agree, but also this also just about sums up why I think the usage of this stupid rule is so wrong..! The rule was introduced to stop clubs getting a competitive advantage of the sort enjoyed by Leicester, where they were able to use it to gain promotion. It was not introduced to hit struggling football clubs over the head with their debts in order to make things even worse... yet that seems exactly how these rules are now being used!

 

Isn't it about time the Football League took a long hard look at this rule and re-examined the spirit of the rule and the reasons it was introduced, in order to get away from the situation where clubs are abused in this way?!

 

Saints, Darlington, Bournemouth, Rotherham, etc... there are so many clubs that are being punished for simply struggling financially. It's a bit like if the government instead of bailing Northern Rock out, had told them they had to cut interest rates on all loans by 1%! Everyone would have riddiculed the government for being out of touch and unsympathetic to a British firm and its investors and savers, etc.

[converted_saint]

I firmly believe that Lowe is the real villain here. He knew how bad the situation was and could so easily have got us into admin before the cut off point. He knew that his time was up and said stuff you lot. You all wanted me out so you can have what you want. I am going but when I say not you.

He still lives in a nice house and earns a nice living. But for the arrival of Mr Marcus Leibher we were cooked to a tea and the remains consigned to the dustbin. He has proven himself to be a nasty small minded vindictive and blinkered little boy. Worse still, one who thought that he was god.

All in my honest opinion of course.

 

Backfired on him though hasn't it! Even if we're in League 1 on -10 (-9 now, woo!), we're still in an infinitely better place now than at ANY time during his reign. His plan to wipe us out of existence has emphatically failed! COYR!

[SaintRichmond]

Why do some people still believe that Lowe put the company into admin. You are all ****ing moron's, you really are. Just get all the facts, take a step back and think before posting.

 

By putting the club in admin Lowe lost all his money. Why the hell would he do that? Tell me why and I will bow down to your knowledge. If you can't tell me why just get back to cleaning those toilets or whatever you low brows do.

 

A very good point .... WHY would he put us into Admin if it meant him losing his Dosh ???? ...........

 

....... and THAT is exactly the reason WHY it was left TOO LATE ..... because he did not want to lose his precious money ... ( Incidently, FLEECED from some original Shareholders for peanuts by the way ) ........

 

..... He delayed and delayed until it was after the League Cut Off date .... thus ... UNDER WELL KNOWN LEAGUE RULES .... costing us - 10 points

 

Lowe ... The Great Businessman

 

Start realising the truth DPS .........Lowe cost this Club dear ....... and, but for Markus Leibherr .... very nearly cost us our EXISTANCE ........

[kpturner]

Lowe never had a clue how to run a football club

 

I embarrassed for you.

[SaintRichmond]

I agree, but also this also just about sums up why I think the usage of this stupid rule is so wrong..! The rule was introduced to stop clubs getting a competitive advantage of the sort enjoyed by Leicester, where they were able to use it to gain promotion. It was not introduced to hit struggling football clubs over the head with their debts in order to make things even worse... yet that seems exactly how these rules are now being used!

 

Isn't it about time the Football League took a long hard look at this rule and re-examined the spirit of the rule and the reasons it was introduced, in order to get away from the situation where clubs are abused in this way?!

 

Saints, Darlington, Bournemouth, Rotherham, etc... there are so many clubs that are being punished for simply struggling financially. It's a bit like if the government instead of bailing Northern Rock out, had told them they had to cut interest rates on all loans by 1%! Everyone would have riddiculed the government for being out of touch and unsympathetic to a British firm and its investors and savers, etc.

 

I agree ... the Football League should take a good long look at tiself

 

There is a vast difference in the likes of Premiership Clubs taking out massive HP LOANS ( cos that is what they are) to fund MegaMillion transferes ..... as opposed to the likes of Bournemouth, Darlington, etc etc , who are fighting a DAILY battle just to keep solvent

YET IT IS THE SMALL CLUBS, that cannot defend themselves that the Mighty FA go for

 

I bet you, that WHEN a BIG Club "fails" financially after a circa £100 outlay, the FA will be POWERLESS to do anything, because the BIG Clubs are so BI(G now, it is THEY that can and will call the shots ...... All they have to say to the FA is " we have SKY backing, if you try to impose your Dickensian Rules on us, we can quite easily form a "Breakawy" Premier League

 

Simples ......

 

Unfortunately, the "minnows" do not possess that sort of clout

[kpturner]

Saints, Darlington, Bournemouth, Rotherham, etc... there are so many clubs that are being punished for simply struggling financially. It's a bit like if the government instead of bailing Northern Rock out, had told them they had to cut interest rates on all loans by 1%! Everyone would have riddiculed the government for being out of touch and unsympathetic to a British firm and its investors and savers, etc.

 

You could argue that saints punishment was in the spirit of the rule. Like it or not the board of SFC (without Lowe) sanctioned loans from barclays that they could afford to repay to fund an attempt at promotion. The failure of the gamble had a price - admin and -10 points. You could also argue that funding a promotion push in this way is a form of cheating when compared to clubs who do it within their means - a crime equally punishable in the eyes of Barry Hearns.

 

I think we got what we deserved, and have been blessed with a fighting chance of a quick recovery.

[September Saint]

But administration is not a choice, it's something that is forced upon you. You can't put a solvent company into administration for instance, just because you want to?!

 

That is certainly my understanding of the matter.

 

As Rupert had all the facts at his disposal he could have fairly have anticipated that bankruptcy was imminent. He should also have known that the Football League tend to make up the rules as they go along so his "scam" wouldn't go unchallenged.

[The9]

The question mark you mean? Yeah, I was going to change that when I proof read it, but due to being on the Blackberry it is very hard to click and change parts that are in the middle of sentences. I do agree though, it does not look good.

 

I meant the apostrophe, though mobile devices do have their foibles. My iPhone keeps wanting to put an apostrophe in one word I type all the time. Boringly I can't remember what it is.

 

It would be even more boring if I did remember, of course.

[Frank's cousin]

A very good point .... WHY would he put us into Admin if it meant him losing his Dosh ???? ...........

 

....... and THAT is exactly the reason WHY it was left TOO LATE ..... because he did not want to lose his precious money ... ( Incidently, FLEECED from some original Shareholders for peanuts by the way ) ........

 

..... He delayed and delayed until it was after the League Cut Off date .... thus ... UNDER WELL KNOWN LEAGUE RULES .... costing us - 10 points

 

Lowe ... The Great Businessman

 

Start realising the truth DPS .........Lowe cost this Club dear ....... and, but for Markus Leibherr .... very nearly cost us our EXISTANCE ........

 

Thing is, you may well believ that, or it may just be your opinion, but we really DONT know the truth about the timings and the reason why Barclays pulled the plug when they did... i could just as easy come out with a similar strength of argument how it had nothing to do with him which would be about as credible as your post because we dont know the truth... But when has that ever bothered the majority? We chose tho believe what we want to believe....

 

I would hazzard a guess though that Lowe's business accumen or lack of it (take your pick) probably had feck all to do with the timing.

[Frank's cousin]

As Rupert had all the facts at his disposal he could have fairly have anticipated that bankruptcy was imminent. He should also have known that the Football League tend to make up the rules as they go along so his "scam" wouldn't go unchallenged.

 

Only if you are speculating that the club knew there was no way it could meet its comitments within the AGREED overdraft limit. That agreement with Barclays would probably have been based on a minimum level of income, the lions share of which was from gate reciepts. In a nutshell what probably happened is that the Masterplan was club to do all it possibly could to reduce its costs (loaning out players/selling players etc) so that it reduced the outgoings to a minimum that was sustainable within the Agreed overdraft... then when there were no takers for certain players in January (because they were either crap or too expensive - and who committed us to these players?) the avergae gate was no longer high enough to sustain the exisiting contracts - cant see how this is something we can only blame on 1 person really.

 

Dont forget as well, The bank woudl also have known the implications - considereing the were less than 3-4 weeks away from ST sale revenue and the opening of the transfer window as well as the ability not to renew certain contracts...

 

BUt if you really want to believe (not that I know why the obsession) that Lowe was somehow quite happy and ignorant of the situation as it suits the underlying 'dislke' ofthe man, feel free, its history and of no relevance... would just be nice though for once to actually look at FACTS for a change when discussing these HISTORIC issues?

[aintforever]

Only if you are speculating that the club knew there was no way it could meet its comitments within the AGREED overdraft limit. That agreement with Barclays would probably have been based on a minimum level of income, the lions share of which was from gate reciepts. In a nutshell what probably happened is that the Masterplan was club to do all it possibly could to reduce its costs (loaning out players/selling players etc) so that it reduced the outgoings to a minimum that was sustainable within the Agreed overdraft... then when there were no takers for certain players in January (because they were either crap or too expensive - and who committed us to these players?) the avergae gate was no longer high enough to sustain the exisiting contracts - cant see how this is something we can only blame on 1 person really.

 

Dont forget as well, The bank woudl also have known the implications - considereing the were less than 3-4 weeks away from ST sale revenue and the opening of the transfer window as well as the ability not to renew certain contracts...

 

BUt if you really want to believe (not that I know why the obsession) that Lowe was somehow quite happy and ignorant of the situation as it suits the underlying 'dislke' ofthe man, feel free, its history and of no relevance... would just be nice though for once to actually look at FACTS for a change when discussing these HISTORIC issues?

 

The facts speak for themselves, they all point to nothing other than a complete balls up by Lowe.

 

The issue is not about admin but the timing of it, it is the timing which has screwed up this season.

 

All the facts point to one of 3 things:

 

Either Lowe had a massive communication failure with Barclays.

 

or Lowe tried to call Barclays bluff and failed miserabley.

 

or Lowe purposely waited untill after the dealine to spite us, Crouch n co.

 

Either way Lowe is to blame for the -10 this season.

 

Many other clubs have managed to time administration to suit them, sometimes down to the hour. they all had banks with overdrafts, creditors etc, there is no excuse for Lowe's mis-management.

[madsent]

The facts speak for themselves, they all point to nothing other than a complete balls up by Lowe.

 

The issue is not about admin but the timing of it, it is the timing which has screwed up this season.

 

All the facts point to one of 3 things:

 

Either Lowe had a massive communication failure with Barclays.

 

or Lowe tried to call Barclays bluff and failed miserabley.

 

or Lowe purposely waited untill after the dealine to spite us, Crouch n co.

 

Either way Lowe is to blame for the -10 this season.

 

Many other clubs have managed to time administration to suit them, sometimes down to the hour. they all had banks with overdrafts, creditors etc, there is no excuse for Lowe's mis-management.

 

Alternatively, a bean-counter at Barclay's told management that they needed to rein in the spending of several businesses pdq which led to an arbitrary decision to freeze SLH's overdraft and this led to cheques not being honoured beyond the prescribed limit and henceforth to administration and a new beginning.

 

FWIW, I'm very happy Lowe has gone and the club is in going in the right direction but I'll certainly never bank with Barclay's now.

[Frank's cousin]

The facts speak for themselves, they all point to nothing other than a complete balls up by Lowe.

 

The issue is not about admin but the timing of it, it is the timing which has screwed up this season.

 

All the facts point to one of 3 things:

 

Either Lowe had a massive communication failure with Barclays.

 

or Lowe tried to call Barclays bluff and failed miserabley.

 

or Lowe purposely waited untill after the dealine to spite us, Crouch n co.

 

Either way Lowe is to blame for the -10 this season.

 

Many other clubs have managed to time administration to suit them, sometimes down to the hour. they all had banks with overdrafts, creditors etc, there is no excuse for Lowe's mis-management.

 

Sorry disagree - Wilde, Crouch and all the other major shareholders will have had a very good understanding of the finance - Do you think that if it was simply down to incompetence Crouch would have been so quiet about his 2 mil being lost? Or the other shareholders who would have had a far greater uunderstanding of our predicament than you or I? Wilde went back to Lowe because in his opinion not enough was being done to reduce costs etc (and because he was probably ****ed at being on the outside) - There is an unwelcome truth in this that everyone is too feckin scared of admitting - IS that had we had just 3000 more per home game we would have gotten to the summer - with sales and ST income.

 

The simple reason seems to be that gates fell below the break even figure on too many occaisions and as such costs exceeded revenue and the bank forclosed... its not rocket science. Thats not blaming fans, as who could blame them, but I think most of us would have thought we could have maintained 18000 or so at least despite teh crap on offer or the protesters

[OldNick]

A very good point .... WHY would he put us into Admin if it meant him losing his Dosh ???? ...........

 

....... and THAT is exactly the reason WHY it was left TOO LATE ..... because he did not want to lose his precious money ... ( Incidently, FLEECED from some original Shareholders for peanuts by the way ) ........

 

..... He delayed and delayed until it was after the League Cut Off date .... thus ... UNDER WELL KNOWN LEAGUE RULES .... costing us - 10 points

 

Lowe ... The Great Businessman

 

Start realising the truth DPS .........Lowe cost this Club dear ....... and, but for Markus Leibherr .... very nearly cost us our EXISTANCE ........

I know you think RL is hiding under your bed but you do twist things to try and justify your ridiculous stance.

Imagine you have your house but know you cant pay the mortgage, you do have a car and some valuable paintings.You may lose the lot but if you sell your car and paintings you still have the house you'd do so, or in your world do nothing and so lose the lot.RL has many assets he could have sold to hold on to his money if he knew there was the slightest chance of the club going into admin. in my opinion he would have sold anything to have saved the club from administration, if he had fair warning.It does not add up how things panned out.

[Doctoroncall]

 

The simple reason seems to be that gates fell below the break even figure on too many occaisions and as such costs exceeded revenue and the bank forclosed... its not rocket science. Thats not blaming fans, as who could blame them, but I think most of us would have thought we could have maintained 18000 or so at least despite teh crap on offer or the protesters

 

but then what FC? If the club had made it to the summer, do you really think it would have got better or Lowe and co would have gone?

 

Surely the club would have continued to decline for another season or so before the inevitable would have happen. There is only so much the club can do to stop the decline, we went passed that stage at the first relegation.

[Frank's cousin]

but then what FC? If the club had made it to the summer, do you really think it would have got better or Lowe and co would have gone?

 

Surely the club would have continued to decline for another season or so before the inevitable would have happen. There is only so much the club can do to stop the decline, we went passed that stage at the first relegation.

 

Given our situation, it was necessary to sacrafice either the football or the finance - sacrafice the finance to try and get more bums on seats? = Admin - sacrafice the football by selling on the expensive guys even for nothing over the summer and with the contracts ends we could have stabalised and budgeted for a new season on an average gate of say 10,000 - no more no less - I think that would have avoided admin. Then we would have entered the vicious circle - If by some miracle we start well = attract greater crowds = more in the coffers = better players... flip side - play crap, less than 10k, losing money and sell better players = relegation....

 

The flip side is then what next? How to you then build and seek promotion without a sugar daddy - and therein lies the answer why there are alot of great clubs that over the last 30-40 years just seem to stay in at their level.... This is not really a saints only thinkg, but a sad truth that the premiership billions have so distorted the natural payscales, that only money can deliver long term success - because without it you cant hold onto your best youth for the future...

[Doctoroncall]

Given our situation, it was necessary to sacrafice either the football or the finance - sacrafice the finance to try and get more bums on seats? = Admin - sacrafice the football by selling on the expensive guys even for nothing over the summer and with the contracts ends we could have stabalised and budgeted for a new season on an average gate of say 10,000 - no more no less - I think that would have avoided admin. Then we would have entered the vicious circle - If by some miracle we start well = attract greater crowds = more in the coffers = better players... flip side - play crap, less than 10k, losing money and sell better players = relegation....

 

The flip side is then what next? How to you then build and seek promotion without a sugar daddy - and therein lies the answer why there are alot of great clubs that over the last 30-40 years just seem to stay in at their level.... This is not really a saints only thinkg, but a sad truth that the premiership billions have so distorted the natural payscales, that only money can deliver long term success - because without it you cant hold onto your best youth for the future...

 

Indeed... we have been very very lucky!

[Frank's cousin]

Indeed... we have been very very lucky!

 

Yup... but There is not one successful club in football that aint had their fair share of it - so we were due a bit of luck - now lets see what we can do with it!

[once_bitterne]

Lowe never had a clue how to run a football club

 

It could very well be argued that although we got relegated under Lowe's Chairmanship, if it hadn't been for him we would have been relegated about a decade earlier.

 

From the heady days of the early 80s the club had been on a downward spiral and by the mid 90s we were a team that had no business being in the Prem League if it hadn't been for one man, MLT. We had a run down ground unable to sustain top flight football and a youth set-up that had dried up when Mr and Mrs Wallace stopped procreating. Take a look at the players that surrounded MLT in the Branfoot days, they were utter garbage, Dixon, Reid, Groves, etc. I can't see any sane person saying that if it wasn't for MLT we would have been relegated long before Lowe ever rode into town.

 

The late 90s/early 2000s when SLH came into existance co-incided with the tail end of MLT's career, but guess what, instead of us getting relegated as his playing abilities diminished, we actually got better as a team. As well as the oft mentioned new stadium and decent youth set-up, on the field we went from relegation fodder to a decent mid-table (and better on occasions) Prem team who were looking at UEFA qualification more than relegation under Hoddle and WGS and reached the Cup final.

 

Yes we ended up getting relegated, but with each passing season more and more teams of the like of Wigan and Portsmouth were becoming established in the Prem under financing from a rich a sugar daddy which made avoiding relegation for a self-financing club like us more and more difficult.

 

Yes Lowe was a pompus and arrogant individual with an appaling grasp of PR and a crass idea of the worth of the fans who came through the turnstiles (clouded no doubt by his belief that Sky money was more important than ticket sales) but to say he knew nothing about running a football club is laughable.

 

Keeping SFC in the Prem for as long as we were is no mean feat and without Lowe we wouldn't have had the Hoddle and WGS eras which were by far the most successful we have had since the early 80s and tbh seasons I quite enjoyed.

 

Maybe history will view Lowe's achievements a bit more objectively than many fans seem to be doing now on the back of us winning the new owner lottery.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

 

Start realising the truth DPS .........Lowe cost this Club dear ....... and, but for Markus Leibherr .... very nearly cost us our EXISTANCE ........

 

Oh God, I certainly don't deny it, that is true and thank god we've got ML in now. All I am saying is that from what I can tell, and there has still been no argument about this, is that Barclays have as much to answer for in relation to putting us into administration as Lowe did.

[aintforever]

Sorry disagree - Wilde' date=' Crouch and all the other major shareholders will have had a very good understanding of the finance - Do you think that if it was simply down to incompetence Crouch would have been so quiet about his 2 mil being lost? [/quote']

 

You're missing the point again, admin was unavoidable after the Dutch gamble, going into admin a matter of days after the deadline was not IMO.

 

Nothing changed in our financial situation over the few days between the deadline passing and the club going in admin. Lowe should have thrashed it out with the bank a few days before the deadline.

 

Barclays had no motivation to stitch up the club, the -10 just devalued the club and meant they got less. Lowe had nothing to lose, he lost his cash regardless, it made no difference to him if we started on -10.

[Frank's cousin]

You're missing the point again, admin was unavoidable after the Dutch gamble, going into admin a matter of days after the deadline was not IMO.

 

Nothing changed in our financial situation over the few days between the deadline passing and the club going in admin. Lowe should have thrashed it out with the bank a few days before the deadline.

 

Barclays had no motivation to stitch up the club, the -10 just devalued the club and meant they got less. Lowe had nothing to lose, he lost his cash regardless, it made no difference to him if we started on -10.

 

Uhm... I think though that its only speculation about what was avoidable or not...dont get me wrong, I am not trying defend anyone in this, but not fall into the trap of assuming soemone is at fault when I simply dont have the facts - and thats something barclays and the board really only have

[up and away]

You're missing the point again, admin was unavoidable after the Dutch gamble, going into admin a matter of days after the deadline was not IMO.

 

Nothing changed in our financial situation over the few days between the deadline passing and the club going in admin. Lowe should have thrashed it out with the bank a few days before the deadline.

 

Barclays had no motivation to stitch up the club, the -10 just devalued the club and meant they got less. Lowe had nothing to lose, he lost his cash regardless, it made no difference to him if we started on -10.

 

Never mind the point, you have bypassed the planet. Admin was unavoidable because of the financial mess and subsequently not being able to move on players to reduce salaries and obtain fees. When it became clear that we were not going to drag in Walcott or Bale fees from the younger players, it was all a question of when not if. The Dutch gamble was just a last throw of the dice from an impossible position. This position was created beause of our over spending and without managing to find a way of plugging that financial hole, admin and relegation were always going to follow.

[Frank's cousin]

It could very well be argued that although we got relegated under Lowe's Chairmanship, if it hadn't been for him we would have been relegated about a decade earlier.

 

From the heady days of the early 80s the club had been on a downward spiral and by the mid 90s we were a team that had no business being in the Prem League if it hadn't been for one man, MLT. We had a run down ground unable to sustain top flight football and a youth set-up that had dried up when Mr and Mrs Wallace stopped procreating. Take a look at the players that surrounded MLT in the Branfoot days, they were utter garbage, Dixon, Reid, Groves, etc. I can't see any sane person saying that if it wasn't for MLT we would have been relegated long before Lowe ever rode into town.

 

The late 90s/early 2000s when SLH came into existance co-incided with the tail end of MLT's career, but guess what, instead of us getting relegated as his playing abilities diminished, we actually got better as a team. As well as the oft mentioned new stadium and decent youth set-up, on the field we went from relegation fodder to a decent mid-table (and better on occasions) Prem team who were looking at UEFA qualification more than relegation under Hoddle and WGS and reached the Cup final.

 

Yes we ended up getting relegated, but with each passing season more and more teams of the like of Wigan and Portsmouth were becoming established in the Prem under financing from a rich a sugar daddy which made avoiding relegation for a self-financing club like us more and more difficult.

 

Yes Lowe was a pompus and arrogant individual with an appaling grasp of PR and a crass idea of the worth of the fans who came through the turnstiles (clouded no doubt by his belief that Sky money was more important than ticket sales) but to say he knew nothing about running a football club is laughable.

 

Keeping SFC in the Prem for as long as we were is no mean feat and without Lowe we wouldn't have had the Hoddle and WGS eras which were by far the most successful we have had since the early 80s and tbh seasons I quite enjoyed.

 

Maybe history will view Lowe's achievements a bit more objectively than many fans seem to be doing now on the back of us winning the new owner lottery.

 

Careful now OB, You will get a rep as a luvvie with sensible statements like that! ;-)

 

Seriously my take is that Lowe began in the right vein... he DID have a strategy that worked during the early years that allowed us to stay up... whoever 'saved' teh SMS deal as some love to point out 'it was the council', is actually not the most important aspect of it... it was being able to fund it. By having a finacial policy that was based on 'living within our means' a stable breakeven budget, we were able to demonstrate financial competence and thus secure the loans necessary. Its too easy to assume this was because we had Sky millions. Would have counted for jack, if we had as many Prem clubs do, been running at a loss due to excessive risk on transfers and wages.

 

So I do think on that score he got things absolutely spot on - FOR A CLUB WITH NO SUGAR DADDY... So his skills did have a positive impact on the club to being with.

 

Where he failed though was once we got to that 'stable mid table' position - How do you build on that without a sugar daddy? - Lowe put teh eggs in the conveyor belt of youth approach so successful at Ajax - problem was he did not appreciate that this was not The Netherlands and the competitive nature of the prem and even CCC made survival almost impossible without experience. But having kept us up for so many years and seen us progress, I think his ego kicked in big time believeing he had all the answers... The premise was actually realistic, I think he knew and quite rightly that because of the finance and club budget if we wanted to survive we needed every possible advantage because we could simply not compete transfer and wage wise without that benefactor so many other clubs had... hense the academy investment and later the whole SCW saga - he had seen success in another sport by instigating a different coaching stratgey and management set up, believing it would be possible to implement in football... that was where he failed to understand the mentality within the game that has the 'gaffer' entrenched its its playing culture. So you could argue, was Lowe at fault for not recognising it, or the players and engrained culture within the game for being closed to radical changes? Who knows but it failed... but by now I think his ego was driving too many decisions and thats where it started to fall apart.

 

I have always said that in the right role Lowe would have made a very positive contribution, but he needed strong experienced figures who understood the culture to help guide him through that minefield - unfortunately for us ,he did not see it that way.