Legod Third Coming Posted 30 September, 2009 Posted 30 September, 2009 Anyone else read it? Talked a lot about being fit last season but not being able to be picked along with other 'senior' players for 'political reasons'... So finally the evidence, as if we needed it, that our senior players were being sidelined by the management of the club. Incredible. All the conspiracies were true.
saint stu 20 Posted 30 September, 2009 Posted 30 September, 2009 yeah i heard about this, apparently he got banned or something for arranging a team night out or something?! i always wondered when i saw him around he didnt look injured or anything
S-Clarke Posted 30 September, 2009 Posted 30 September, 2009 Lowe was trying to push Davis out too, that was the reason behind forecast signing...and was also the reason webster was put on gardening leave i believe. It was the same with Rudi, Safri, Davies, Rasiak...saga...john....euell. Ok they were obviously on a fair whack of wages, but it was too big a gamble to shut them all out – and it was also not the choice of Jan - what an awful situation he was in, if you think about it. Hockaday spoke up about it, he knew the kids as he had worked with them in the acamdy..he said to lowe it was too much too soon for them….but that was that and hoackady was put on gardening leave too. The plan was to get these young players doing well, and then sell them on for big bucks a season later - that's the only way lowe could possibly pay back the creditors and barclays. He was never looking for investment.
Torres Posted 30 September, 2009 Posted 30 September, 2009 Anyone else read it? Talked a lot about being fit last season but not being able to be picked along with other 'senior' players for 'political reasons'... So finally the evidence, as if we needed it, that our senior players were being sidelined by the management of the club. Incredible. All the conspiracies were true. We knew this when Euell said the same. :confused:
Pancake Posted 30 September, 2009 Posted 30 September, 2009 What conspiracy? Did you miss the fact we went into ADMINISTRATION and almost died as a functioning club (partially) due to the high wages/bonuses on certain "senior" players?
up and away Posted 30 September, 2009 Posted 30 September, 2009 Lowe was trying to push Davis out too, that was the reason behind forecast signing...and was also the reason webster was put on gardening leave i believe. It was the same with Rudi, Safri, Davies, Rasiak...saga...john....euell. Ok they were obviously on a fair whack of wages, but it was too big a gamble to shut them all out – and it was also not the choice of Jan - what an awful situation he was in, if you think about it. Hockaday spoke up about it, he knew the kids as he had worked with them in the acamdy..he said to lowe it was too much too soon for them….but that was that and hoackady was put on gardening leave too. The plan was to get these young players doing well, and then sell them on for big bucks a season later - that's the only way lowe could possibly pay back the creditors and barclays. He was never looking for investment. We should have kept them all, paid them their playing bonus every week and got ourselves into administration immediately. We all knew playing that volume of kids were going to cost, but if we could have got rid of more senior players we may have avoided administration. Anyone would think that administration was never an option and all we had to do was hide behind the sheets and everything would be ok!
Legod Third Coming Posted 30 September, 2009 Author Posted 30 September, 2009 What conspiracy? Did you miss the fact we went into ADMINISTRATION and almost died as a functioning club (partially) due to the high wages/bonuses on certain "senior" players? He didn't mention money. It didn't sound from the interview that money had anything to do with it. Otherwise, he could easily have said that. I suspect - given that he was unlikely to be on a goal bonus! - that he was fit and simply cost us as much sat at home as he would have done stopping someone scoring!!
Wes Tender Posted 30 September, 2009 Posted 30 September, 2009 Anyone else read it? Talked a lot about being fit last season but not being able to be picked along with other 'senior' players for 'political reasons'... So finally the evidence, as if we needed it, that our senior players were being sidelined by the management of the club. Incredible. All the conspiracies were true. It wasn't a great surprise to find that out. It was self-evident when Lowe jettisoned all of the high-earners and tried to sell them or loan them out, or not play them because of appearance fees. Quite why he also released a perfectly competent manager and replaced him with those Dutch jokers is harder to explain. I suppose that he knew instinctively that Pearson would have told him that he was barking if he thought that we could survive the league playing just the kids. As is clear from those mentioned who dared criticise the Fuhrer's master plan like Hockaday and Webster, he wasn't very accepting of criticism. As a ruse to keep afloat, Lowe's scheme ranks equal to that down the road, where the Skates hope to survive by selling all the decent players and replacing them with mediocrities. As with them, as soon as the scheme is implemented, you just know right away that failure is inevitable.
benjii Posted 30 September, 2009 Posted 30 September, 2009 We should have kept them all, paid them their playing bonus every week and got ourselves into administration immediately. We all knew playing that volume of kids were going to cost, but if we could have got rid of more senior players we may have avoided administration. Anyone would think that administration was never an option and all we had to do was hide behind the sheets and everything would be ok! Well, actually that would have probably been a better approach.
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 1 October, 2009 Posted 1 October, 2009 Anyone else read it? Talked a lot about being fit last season but not being able to be picked along with other 'senior' players for 'political reasons'... Doesn't make much difference in Thomas' case. If he had been picked, he'd have broken a toe nail or something within a couple of games and be back in the treatment room. I'm certainly no Lowe fan, but statements about Thomas's "fitness" I'd take with a shovelful of salt. He must have caught Paharsitis off the physio table.
Wes Tender Posted 1 October, 2009 Posted 1 October, 2009 Doesn't make much difference in Thomas' case. If he had been picked, he'd have broken a toe nail or something within a couple of games and be back in the treatment room. I'm certainly no Lowe fan, but statements about Thomas's "fitness" I'd take with a shovelful of salt. He must have caught Paharsitis off the physio table. Is your assessment made with certain knowledge that he is really injury prone, or was it prompted by assumptions that he must be because he hardly played at all last season?
alpine_saint Posted 1 October, 2009 Posted 1 October, 2009 Anyone still in doubt as to how much of a prize c*ck Lowe was ?
oxfordshire_saint Posted 1 October, 2009 Posted 1 October, 2009 The ultimate sick note. Get rid. I think you'll find he's played in a large percentage of this season's games
Bakovnetski Posted 1 October, 2009 Posted 1 October, 2009 I think you'll find he's played in a large percentage of this season's games Certainly looks good at RB at the moment (OK when he hasn't got a knock) and he'll be back for Saturday.
Yate Saint Posted 1 October, 2009 Posted 1 October, 2009 We all kind of knew this anyway. The appearance fee full stop is wrong. Don't players get enough reward in their actual salary. I don't get paid extra for appearing at work on time everday. This is another debate i suppose but it is annoying that an appearance is so much money that a club could not afford to play a player. As if the actual wage wasn't enough to pay!!
Legod Third Coming Posted 1 October, 2009 Author Posted 1 October, 2009 We all kind of knew this anyway. The appearance fee full stop is wrong. Don't players get enough reward in their actual salary. I don't get paid extra for appearing at work on time everday. This is another debate i suppose but it is annoying that an appearance is so much money that a club could not afford to play a player. As if the actual wage wasn't enough to pay!! It's a valid point but actually is a result of Rupert playing Lowe (sic) salaries and then supplementing them with appearance fees. Hard as it sounds, I think our players were underpaid compared to other clubs so had to have their salaries topped up this way! It was Rupert's way of encouraging the club to play its youngsters whom he hoped would keep the senior players out on ability and form, as well as cost I am sure. Much as you and I agree on their respective worth...
Saint_clark Posted 1 October, 2009 Posted 1 October, 2009 Well, actually that would have probably been a better approach. Indeed, we might have actually still been in the Championship with Liebherr and one of the best young English managers around.
SaintRobbie Posted 1 October, 2009 Posted 1 October, 2009 Anyone else read it? Talked a lot about being fit last season but not being able to be picked along with other 'senior' players for 'political reasons'... So finally the evidence, as if we needed it, that our senior players were being sidelined by the management of the club. Incredible. All the conspiracies were true. You mean we needed evidence? Mad wasn't it... and we paid his wages while he festered. Lowe... what a complete prat.
aintforever Posted 1 October, 2009 Posted 1 October, 2009 We should have kept them all, paid them their playing bonus every week and got ourselves into administration immediately. We all knew playing that volume of kids were going to cost, but if we could have got rid of more senior players we may have avoided administration. Anyone would think that administration was never an option and all we had to do was hide behind the sheets and everything would be ok! Or we could have just not forked out a small fortune for Schneiderlin? Anyway the Banks pulled the plug because Lowe's crazy decisions were relegating us, if we were sat comfortably mid-table there is no way they would have called in the administrators.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now