"Bootboy" doing well!

[miserableoldgit]

With Leicester gaining promotion at the first attempt last season and top of the Championship this morning, it makes you wonder what would have happened if Rupert HAD stuck with Nigel Pearson. Would the old regime still be here?? Whilst I am extremely happy with our current situation, this must make one or two people on here think about eating their words!!

[Thedelldays]

so is holloway at lesser blackpool....he was roundly laughed at on here when suggested he should be manager.

I also remember mike newell doing something similar with little old luton when they got up to the CCC...is he the "best"..?

 

was phil brown the "best" this time last year when Hull were 4th..?

 

lets see where leicester finish before we get all excited..

[sotonjoe]

When will people realise that our fate did not solely depend on the departure of Pearson!?!?!?

 

We had zero cash which meant zero playing prospects. We could have had Alex Ferguson at the helm and we still would have struggled.

 

It's all in the past ... so just get over it and conentrate on the here and now.

[CB Fry]

When will people realise that our fate did not solely depend on the departure of Pearson!?!?!?

 

We had zero cash which meant zero playing prospects. We could have had Alex Ferguson at the helm and we still would have struggled.

 

It's all in the past ... so just get over it and conentrate on the here and now.

 

 

What a load of rubbish. If we had Ferguson last season we would have finished mid table, probably play offs.

 

Or are you saying that Pootvilet would win the league with Man United, as who the manager is makes no difference?

[miserableoldgit]

When will people realise that our fate did not solely depend on the departure of Pearson!?!?!?

 

We had zero cash which meant zero playing prospects. We could have had Alex Ferguson at the helm and we still would have struggled.

 

It's all in the past ... so just get over it and conentrate on the here and now.

It was just a hypothetical question - an interesting (I thought) subject for a debate, not a "dig up the past" post. Bloody Hell!!:confused:

[Smirking_Saint]

We didn't have long enough to judge NP's ability TBH, he only done what many other managers would do. Keep it simple and fix the leaks, we as fans could see that.

 

Also a change of manager will often lift the confidence levels briefly.

 

He walked into a relegated foxes team already ready for a promotion push, they had a newish chairman and so he wanted to make a mark, and this year is benefiting from the confidence inspired upon them from last season.

 

We also do not know the story, how much did he want etc ?? Did he ask for transfer cash ?? I certainly would not have stayed without it.

 

Don't get me wrong, i in no way support Lowe's regime nor the appointment of the dutch dire duo but would Pearson have kept us up the next year ?? End of the day we got a massive slice of luck against the blades, and Wotte's end of season stats were not a million miles away from pearson's.

 

Ok, he has done well, can we leave it now ?? What has been has been. And without all that we could have been without Markus, Cortese and pardew

Edited 1 November, 2009 by Smirking_Saint

[sotonjoe]

What a load of rubbish. If we had Ferguson last season we would have finished mid table, probably play offs.

 

Or are you saying that Pootvilet would win the league with Man United, as who the manager is makes no difference?

 

So by your logic, Ferguson could have got a bunch of legless individuals to keep Saints in the Champ? That's the point I'm making ... other factors meant we would never have had a competitive team, so to lay our fate entirely at the departure of Pearson is irrational. FWIW, it's also pure conjecture as we shan't be turning the clocks back soon and you're better off getting behind the current team at St Marys when Brighton visit.

[sotonjoe]

It was just a hypothetical question - an interesting (I thought) subject for a debate, not a "dig up the past" post. Bloody Hell!!:confused:

 

 

I'm not getting at you on a personal level, it's just that every time Pearson passes a milestone with leicister, we have to put up with similar posts asking "why did we let him go". My opinion is that his success with leiciester doesn't make any difference, we had no choice and he would have failed at saints under the circumstances anwyay. Ultimatey, it's in the past and we're better off concentrating on the here and now.

Edited 1 November, 2009 by sotonjoe

[sadoldgit]

The same happens when we release a player people think is carp and then he scoes a goal for another team and the same people say we should never had released him!

 

Pearson is managing under a different set of circumstances now. He only managed to win three games for us, if he had won a lot more I think he could well have stayed...we shall never know and we shall never know if he had stayed if he would have been any good for us.

 

Strachan is hated by Coventry fans but loved by ours. McMenemy was loved by ours and hated by Sunderland fans.

 

Good luck to him, but all these ifs and buts are a waste of time. If Strachan is successful with Boro no doubt there will be much waling and wringing of hands on here....

[miserableoldgit]

The same happens when we release a player people think is carp and then he scoes a goal for another team and the same people say we should never had released him!

 

Pearson is managing under a different set of circumstances now. He only managed to win three games for us, if he had won a lot more I think he could well have stayed...we shall never know and we shall never know if he had stayed if he would have been any good for us.

 

Strachan is hated by Coventry fans but loved by ours. McMenemy was loved by ours and hated by Sunderland fans.

 

Good luck to him, but all these ifs and buts are a waste of time. If Strachan is successful with Boro no doubt there will be much waling and wringing of hands on here....

Not quite ALL of our fans!

[sotonjoe]

quite right sadoldgit

[John B]

so is holloway at lesser blackpool....he was roundly laughed at on here when suggested he should be manager.

I also remember mike newell doing something similar with little old luton when they got up to the CCC...is he the "best"..?

 

was phil brown the "best" this time last year when Hull were 4th..?

 

lets see where leicester finish before we get all excited..

 

Yes I agree with you but NP is doing well at the moment as Fryatt seems to be scoring goals.

 

With no money last season it was unlikely that we could have afforded a really top class striker so with any manager it would have been difficult to win matches unlike this season where Lambert is scoring lots.

[OldNick]

NP is doing well.I watched them twice this week and felt they grind out results and were fortunate.NP has made then very hard to beat and I wish him well although it is annoying that Mandaric is part of it

[Nineteen Canteen]

NP is doing well.I watched them twice this week and felt they grind out results and were fortunate.NP has made then very hard to beat and I wish him well although it is annoying that Mandaric is part of it

 

I agree with this and certainly the last two games they would have been lucky to come away with 2 points let alone all 6. Pearson is riding his luck at the moment and praying nothing happens to Fryatt and Delldays says it's a bit early to be passing judgement.

 

I would still have Pardew over Pearson and at the time still understood the need to let Pearson go - it's not as though he had us storming to safety and damn near took us down from the safety of 18th when he took over.

 

His goalkeeper kept Carlisle in the football league with a goal in the 93rd minute in his other managerial appointment. Perhaps he is just a lucky manager for the time being and if Pardew left us Pearson still wouldn't be in my top 5 candidates to replace him.

 

Are we going to have a thread everytime an ex-manager does well or has a bit of luck - if so lets balance it out shall we?

 

Great impact Strachan had yesterday and oh so predictable. Gibson is going to regret dumping Southgate for a manager who left a two horse race when riding the thoroughbred with all the cash behind him.

[The Majestic Channon]

I agree with this and certainly the last two games they would have been lucky to come away with 2 points let alone all 6. Pearson is riding his luck at the moment and praying nothing happens to Fryatt and Delldays says it's a bit early to be passing judgement.

 

I would still have Pardew over Pearson and at the time still understood the need to let Pearson go - it's not as though he had us storming to safety and damn near took us down from the safety of 18th when he took over.

 

His goalkeeper kept Carlisle in the football league with a goal in the 93rd minute in his other managerial appointment. Perhaps he is just a lucky manager for the time being and if Pardew left us Pearson still wouldn't be in my top 5 candidates to replace him.

 

Are we going to have a thread everytime an ex-manager does well or has a bit of luck - if so lets balance it out shall we?

 

Great impact Strachan had yesterday and oh so predictable. Gibson is going to regret dumping Southgate for a manager who left a two horse race when riding the thoroughbred with all the cash behind him.

 

Not relevant, the question is would you rather have a couple of no hope dutch coaches with zilch experience of english football or the man who took leicester straight back up as champions and are now 2nd in the championship ?

Well done lowelife...

[CB Fry]

So by your logic, Ferguson could have got a bunch of legless individuals to keep Saints in the Champ? That's the point I'm making ... other factors meant we would never have had a competitive team, so to lay our fate entirely at the departure of Pearson is irrational. FWIW, it's also pure conjecture as we shan't be turning the clocks back soon and you're better off getting behind the current team at St Marys when Brighton visit.

 

 

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

 

Ferguson or whoever (last season the cliche was usually "even Mourinho couldn't keep us up etc etc...") would select, motivate and organise ten times better than Poortvilet and then Wotte did.

 

Ferguson would have spent what funds we had more wisely than Jan/Wotte/Lowe did. Ferguson would have sent teams out knowing they would win, no sh1t scared they couldn't even hold on to a point.

 

We wouldn't have been relegated if we'd had a halfway competent manager.

 

Last year we drew fifteen games. Turning just five of those into wins would have meant ten more points and rock solid mid table. If you seriously think Alex Ferguson (or cliche manager of choice) couldn't have done that you're chuffing bonkers.

 

I take it you'd be happy if Pardew was sacked and replaced by Portvilet tomorrow, then, as it makes absolutely no difference at all who the manager of the team is?

Edited 1 November, 2009 by CB Fry

[saintwarwick]

Not relevant, the question is would you rather have a couple of no hope dutch coaches with zilch experience of english football or the man who took leicester straight back up as champions and are now 2nd in the championship ?

Well done lowelife...

 

Who knows what Pearson could of done for us last season after trimming the squad and no money to spend, we may have survived who knows but its history. Yes he got Leicester promoted but they had a better financial backing than we had, we were ****ing against the wind all season and it could of been just the same under Pearson. Good luck to him I say and lets see where he finishes at the end of the season however lets just concentrate on what Alan Pardew can do for us, thats all that counts for me.

[Saint_clark]

so is holloway at lesser blackpool....he was roundly laughed at on here when suggested he should be manager.

I also remember mike newell doing something similar with little old luton when they got up to the CCC...is he the "best"..?

 

was phil brown the "best" this time last year when Hull were 4th..?

 

lets see where leicester finish before we get all excited..

 

Your smug first comment was contradicted by your snide second one.

Congratulations, you've actually out-c*nted yourself.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Not relevant, the question is would you rather have a couple of no hope dutch coaches with zilch experience of english football or the man who took leicester straight back up as champions and are now 2nd in the championship ?

Well done lowelife...

 

Yes at the time as I said in my post I fully understood the reasons to let Pearson go as he took us from 18th to the brink of relegation with 20 minutes to go and the reliance on one of two teams slipping up and doing us a favour. You cannot deny Peason has been a lucky manager and there was nothing in his short tenure at Saints that screamed hire me.

 

Other posters in the know on here have subsequently shed some light on the hire of the dutch duo and reading between the lines we got the best we could afford and no doubt created a much needed angle to spin.

[Katalinic]

 

Other posters in the know on here have subsequently shed some light on the hire of the dutch duo and reading between the lines we got the best we could afford and no doubt created a much needed angle to spin.

 

The best we could afford??? There were hundreds of out of work managers in England that at the very least understood the English game. Suggest you read Poortvliet's recent interview about his time at Saints, even he admitted he knew nothing of the league and that the whole thing was actually a shambles.

[Nineteen Canteen]

The best we could afford??? There were hundreds of out of work managers in England that at the very least understood the English game. Suggest you read Poortvliet's recent interview about his time at Saints, even he admitted he knew nothing of the league and that the whole thing was actually a shambles.

 

You need to ask yourself was Poortvliet's time at Saints a shambles or merely a product of the shambles that went before in the previous two seasons. In isolation I agree with you and in hindsight why not simply hire Wotte as he at least talked a better game than Poortvliet. The problem is you cannot look at the appointment of the Dutch in isolation without taking into account the events of the previous two years to lead Saints to have to consider such options. Many out of work managers I suspect would not be willing to work for such low wages and if they did I would argue they would be no better than the dutch and minus the opportunity to at least put a positive spin on the new set up.

 

 

Anyway back on topic looks like the boot boy is losing it - back to 4th without kicking a ball - his luck must be deserting him.

[miserableoldgit]

I believe that I read somewhere that no negotiations took place between Pearson and Lowe and that the first inkling that he had that he wasn`t being kept on was when his agent phoned him and told him. From that it would appear that Lowe had no intention of keeping Pearson on board regardless of monetary considerstion as his mind was set on going ahead with the "Total Football" experiment.

[The Majestic Channon]

Yes at the time as I said in my post I fully understood the reasons to let Pearson go as he took us from 18th to the brink of relegation with 20 minutes to go and the reliance on one of two teams slipping up and doing us a favour. You cannot deny Peason has been a lucky manager and there was nothing in his short tenure at Saints that screamed hire me.

 

Other posters in the know on here have subsequently shed some light on the hire of the dutch duo and reading between the lines we got the best we could afford and no doubt created a much needed angle to spin.

So he got leicester promoted as champions and is now 2nd in the championship by luck then.

[krissyboy31]

So he got leicester promoted as champions and is now 2nd in the championship by luck then.

 

Well, if he has, I'd rather have a lucky manager than an unlucky one!

[Katalinic]

You need to ask yourself was Poortvliet's time at Saints a shambles or merely a product of the shambles that went before in the previous two seasons. In isolation I agree with you and in hindsight why not simply hire Wotte as he at least talked a better game than Poortvliet. The problem is you cannot look at the appointment of the Dutch in isolation without taking into account the events of the previous two years to lead Saints to have to consider such options. Many out of work managers I suspect would not be willing to work for such low wages and if they did I would argue they would be no better than the dutch and minus the opportunity to at least put a positive spin on the new set up.

 

 

Anyway back on topic looks like the boot boy is losing it - back to 4th without kicking a ball - his luck must be deserting him.

 

It was merely a shambles. Cost is a red herring as money was not even discussed with Pearson or any other English manager (would they really have cost less than Poortvliet and Wotte?). The Poortvliet appointment was purely down to Rupert thinking a) he knew best and b) being obsessed with somehow being revolutionary in the football world.

 

As an aside, using your logic, you can't look at the previous 2 years shambles in isolation without looking at how we arrived there then and that is down to, in no small part, a certain R.Lowe.

[Nineteen Canteen]

So he got leicester promoted as champions and is now 2nd in the championship by luck then.

 

2nd? 4th and thanks to Reading not taking advantage of them at home despite outplaying them and the QPR goalkeeper gift wrapping an extra 2 points. Time will tell but I am pleased we have Pardew over Pearson as it's clear from their press interviews who the more astute manager is.

 

Lowe cannot be held responsible for Wilde's false promises and Crouch's IMO misguided actions. Lowe was in charge during our first relegation and perhaps his biggest mistake was trying to rescue the club second time around. IMO we wouldn't have made Christmas 2008 whilst talk and false hope of investment would have hindered any effort to address the real issues.

 

The problem many fans have is that they choose to be selective in their review of historical events and belief that the small provincial club McMenemy took into the top flight could compete with the money of the big clubs and those with wealthy owners in the new Premier league. It could be argued that Lowe did well to keep us up for as long as he did on the budget we had and that he adopted the correct prudent approach post relegation.

 

Am I pleased we have got rid of Lowe, Crouch and Wilde? Absolutely, but that does not stop me assessing the past a little more objectively than selecting convienient scapegoats.

 

MOG it is my understanding and in my opinion your view of the finances at the time is simply wrong. I don't know for certain but I have read the accounts of some well connected posts on this forum that I have decided to accept as a close account to the reality as we are ever likely going to get against the more inflammatory and ill-considered version of events. The problem is if you are selective in what you read you miss these important nuggets as they go against what you and others would like to fit your scapegoat ideal.

[miserableoldgit]

2nd? 4th and thanks to Reading not taking advantage of them at home despite outplaying them and the QPR goalkeeper gift wrapping an extra 2 points. Time will tell but I am pleased we have Pardew over Pearson as it's clear from their press interviews who the more astute manager is.

 

Lowe cannot be held responsible for Wilde's false promises and Crouch's IMO misguided actions. Lowe was in charge during our first relegation and perhaps his biggest mistake was trying to rescue the club second time around. IMO we wouldn't have made Christmas 2008 whilst talk and false hope of investment would have hindered any effort to address the real issues.

 

The problem many fans have is that they choose to be selective in their review of historical events and belief that the small provincial club McMenemy took into the top flight could compete with the money of the big clubs and those with wealthy owners in the new Premier league. It could be argued that Lowe did well to keep us up for as long as he did on the budget we had and that he adopted the correct prudent approach post relegation.

 

Am I pleased we have got rid of Lowe, Crouch and Wilde? Absolutely, but that does not stop me assessing the past a little more objectively than selecting convienient scapegoats.

 

MOG it is my understanding and in my opinion your view of the finances at the time is simply wrong. I don't know for certain but I have read the accounts of some well connected posts on this forum that I have decided to accept as a close account to the reality as we are ever likely going to get against the more inflammatory and ill-considered version of events. The problem is if you are selective in what you read you miss these important nuggets as they go against what you and others would like to fit your scapegoat ideal.

I understand what you say here, but of course that works both ways. It is easy to be selective in what we read/quote and make it fit any agenda, assuming that we have one. My reason for starting this thread was not to dig up the past, but much in the same way as the "What If..." books work, discuss what might have been if the decision to keep or not to keep NP had been different. Sadly, as usual, it all ends up as a pro/anti Lowe argument.

[OldNick]

I believe that I read somewhere that no negotiations took place between Pearson and Lowe and that the first inkling that he had that he wasn`t being kept on was when his agent phoned him and told him. From that it would appear that Lowe had no intention of keeping Pearson on board regardless of monetary considerstion as his mind was set on going ahead with the "Total Football" experiment.

NP was interviewed. I think it was a case of going through the motions by RL as he had already in his mind had a plan worked out to try and use the pathetic resources we had to try and keep us aflot.

It was a terrible failure but it was what he thought was best.

I wish the clubs finances were open for viewing so we could see why he went that way.

Allegedly we could not even afford to have the mowers serviced and our account had been put on stop by some suppliers!! that is how bad the funds were.

[sotonjoe]

 

I take it you'd be happy if Pardew was sacked and replaced by Portvilet tomorrow, then, as it makes absolutely no difference at all who the manager of the team is?

 

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

 

I was going to give you a dignified response since 80% of your post seemed to warrant it. However, your facetious, and simultaneously hilarious, ending means I'd rather go and clean the bathroom.

[CB Fry]

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

 

 

Well, you seem to absolving Poortvilet of any blame at all for our position last season if you think a manager who has won fourteen league titles and four mjor European trophies couldn't have done any better.

 

Edited 2 November, 2009 by CB Fry

[sotonjoe]

Well, you seem to absolving Poortvilet of any blame at all for our position last season if you think a manager who has won fourteen league titles and four mjor European trophies couldn't have done any better.

 

 

I didn't say that though did I? Try reading it again if you have the patience.

[CB Fry]

I didn't say that though did I? Try reading it again if you have the patience.

 

So what did you say? I'm saying you said that "even if we had Alex Ferguson at the helm we would have struggled" and I'm saying you challenged my assertion that Ferguson would have kept us up last year.

 

And here's where you said it, I had to look really hard for it......

 

When will people realise that our fate did not solely depend on the departure of Pearson!?!?!?

 

We had zero cash which meant zero playing prospects. We could have had Alex Ferguson at the helm and we still would have struggled.

 

So by your logic, Ferguson could have got a bunch of legless individuals to keep Saints in the Champ? That's the point I'm making ... other factors meant we would never have had a competitive team, so to lay our fate entirely at the departure of Pearson is irrational.

 

 

You're wrong. All things being equal (ie the "other factors" being the same) Ferguson would have kept Saints up last season, no problem, all day long. My example of him turning five of our fifteen draws into wins is example enough.

 

Funnily enough I think he's a better manager than Jan Poortvilet. Controversial, I know.

 

The quality of manager does make a difference to the quality of the team in my experience.

 

I don't understand why you think that is such controversial opinion.

Edited 2 November, 2009 by CB Fry

[sotonjoe]

So what did you say? I'm saying you said that "even if we had Alex Ferguson at the helm we would have struggled" and I'm saying you challenged my assertion that Ferguson would have kept us up last year.

 

And here's where you said it, I had to look really hard for it......

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're wrong. All things being equal (ie the "other factors" being the same) Ferguson would have kept Saints up last season, no problem, all day long. My example of him turning five of our fifteen draws into wins is example enough.

 

Funnily enough I think he's a better manager than Jan Poortvilet. Controversial, I know.

 

The quality of manager does make a difference to the quality of the team in my experience.

 

I don't understand why you think that is such controversial opinion.

 

 

I don't understand why you think you can predict a future that never happened.

 

I said we would have 'struggled' under Ferguson, not that he wouldn't have kept us up, and I certainly wasn't wishing to start posing hypothetical 'what if' scenarios.

 

My point was, and is, that other factors prevent a manger from working at their best. Those factors would have played a greater role than anything else during our relegation season, to the extent that, if you believe the official line by the club, we could ony have afforded the Dutch duo anyway.

 

The hypothetical scenario in which Pearson was appointed and supported financially didn't and (apparently) couldn't have existed anyway so, as I also said, this conjecture is an absolute waste of time.

 

To look at Pearson's progress now at another club and to try and draw parallels between his current situation and what he may have done at Saints is ridiculous and serves no purpose whatsoever.

[miserableoldgit]

I don't understand why you think you can predict a future that never happened.

 

I said we would have 'struggled' under Ferguson, not that he wouldn't have kept us up, and I certainly wasn't wishing to start posing hypothetical 'what if' scenarios.

 

My point was, and is, that other factors prevent a manger from working at their best. Those factors would have played a greater role than anything else during our relegation season, to the extent that, if you believe the official line by the club, we could ony have afforded the Dutch duo anyway.

 

The hypothetical scenario in which Pearson was appointed and supported financially didn't and (apparently) couldn't have existed anyway so, as I also said, this conjecture is an absolute waste of time.

 

To look at Pearson's progress now at another club and to try and draw parallels between his current situation and what he may have done at Saints is ridiculous and serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

Wow! You must be a real bundle of laughs to chat with if you think that conjecture is ridiculous and serves no purpose whatsoever! I have never met anyone who only talks factually.:confused:

[saintfully]

Why is it acceptable to call Pearson 'Boot Boy', and not just embarressing, petty and rude?

 

Like it or not, he did keep us in the Championship for another season and has gone on to do well at Leicester. I would have thought that it was just plain decent to refer to him by name and not imply he's a skill-less apprentice with no achievements to his name. Those that do are sociopathic ****s apparently unable to recognise reality. IMHO.

[miserableoldgit]

Why is it acceptable to call Pearson 'Boot Boy', and not just embarressing, petty and rude?

 

Like it or not, he did keep us in the Championship for another season and has gone on to do well at Leicester. I would have thought that it was just plain decent to refer to him by name and not imply he's a skill-less apprentice with no achievements to his name. Those that do are sociopathic ****s apparently unable to recognise reality. IMHO.

I don`t think that it is particularly acceptable. I was referring to a couple of "controvertial" posters on here who used that term whilst dismissing his abilities.

[saintfully]

I don`t think that it is particularly acceptable. I was referring to a couple of "controvertial" posters on here who used that term whilst dismissing his abilities.

 

Absolutely - I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote above, and think you raise a good, valid question. Instead I was possibly thinking of the same 'controversial' posters.

 

Maybe its a failing of mine, but it really aggravates me that NP is dismissed in the way that he sometimes is, when he clearly successfully did the job he was paid to do. For the benefit of these controversial posters I would draw a parallel with Lowe, JP, Wotte etc who failed.

 

Especially Lowe who, I think we all agree, is a cu.nt.

[krissyboy31]

Especially Lowe who, I think we all agree, is a cu.nt.

 

Funnily enough, "the same 'controversial' posters," would probably beg to differ.

[saintfully]

Funnily enough, "the same 'controversial' posters," would probably beg to differ.

 

I think they probably would too. Whether this is because they genuinely believe he isn't a cun.t, or because they have an insatiable desire to be divisive I don't know.

 

I reckon we need more evidence.

 

Can anyone find me an example of someone being such a tw.at that the only possible explanation is that can only be doing it to be contentious ? I don't know... something like equating Marlon King with MLT (as if that were possible).

 

Feel free to start a list of examples of prize knobbery.

[CB Fry]

I don't understand why you think you can predict a future that never happened.

 

I don't know really. Silly how some people want to predict a future that never happened......

 

When will people realise that our fate did not solely depend on the departure of Pearson!?!?!?

 

We had zero cash which meant zero playing prospects. We could have had Alex Ferguson at the helm and we still would have struggled.

 

 

Oh.

 

 

As they say in the playground, you started it.

 

 

 

 

My point was, and is, that other factors prevent a manger from working at their best. Those factors would have played a greater role than anything else during our relegation season

 

 

And my point is that the quality of the manager is by far the single most important factor in determining success of a football club.

 

We didn't have much money last season but you're kidding yourself if you think our budget wasn't comparable to Barnsley or Blackpool last season, or indeed this season. Barnsley are still in the Championship and Blackpool are riding high this season with such megastars as Jason Euell and Adam Hammill in the team.

 

It's quality of manager, above all else. Poortvilet would have struggled with Saints with a budget of £500million. And the flip side is Alex Ferguson would have been more successful on last year's Saints budget.

 

Simple.

Edited 3 November, 2009 by CB Fry
"more" successful in response to nickh's fair point below. Relatively successful.

[OldNick]

 

 

. And the flip side is Alex Ferguson would have been successful on last year's Saints budget.

 

Simple.

I dont agree he would have been successful, but he would have done better.

Jan was unfortunate that the draws were not wins, in fact in the first part of the season our away form was very respectable. It was the curse of St Marys that did for him and us.

It is history now and in fact fate may have dealt us a better hand for it.

[JackFrost]

I thought Pearson did an incredible job here, keeping us up when key first team players were out on loan and the club being in freefall, was an impressive achievement

 

Replacing Pearson with Poortvliet was a horrendous decision (in hindsight) as Poortvliet was bloody awful, but I'm not at all surprised to see how well Pearson is doing.

 

Out of interest why was he called bootboy? (I've only recently joined the forum)

[hypochondriac]

I thought Pearson did an incredible job here, keeping us up when key first team players were out on loan and the club being in freefall, was an impressive achievement

 

Replacing Pearson with Poortvliet was a horrendous decision (in hindsight) as Poortvliet was bloody awful, but I'm not at all surprised to see how well Pearson is doing.

 

Out of interest why was he called bootboy? (I've only recently joined the forum)

 

Because Scooby is a numpty.

[skintsaint]

Personally glad Pearson was let go only because I can sit here knowing the club is on the way back up.

 

At the time he was the better option than JvP and would rather have kept him but not sure he could of done a better job.

[The Majestic Channon]

Personally glad Pearson was let go only because I can sit here knowing the club is on the way back up.

 

At the time he was the better option than JvP and would rather have kept him but not sure he could of done a better job.

Def pardew over N.P. yeah, but the 2 dutch over perason? only a clueless loony like lowe and his small army of fans...

[Dark Munster]

It was merely a shambles. Cost is a red herring as money was not even discussed with Pearson or any other English manager (would they really have cost less than Poortvliet and Wotte?). The Poortvliet appointment was purely down to Rupert thinking a) he knew best and b) being obsessed with somehow being revolutionary in the football world.

 

As an aside, using your logic, you can't look at the previous 2 years shambles in isolation without looking at how we arrived there then and that is down to, in no small part, a certain R.Lowe.

 

c) NP was a Crouch hire, so no matter how good he may have been, Lowe wasn't going to let him stay on.

[Arizona]

I dont agree he would have been successful, but he would have done better.

Jan was unfortunate that the draws were not wins, in fact in the first part of the season our away form was very respectable. It was the curse of St Marys that did for him and us.

It is history now and in fact fate may have dealt us a better hand for it.

 

You'd have to be a fool to blame last years results on fotune and curses.

 

We we'ren't unfortunate not to win. We were disorganised in defence and toothless in attack. No matter how nicely you pass the ball around the middle of the park, you are never going to win games like that. I never walked away from a game last season thinking we were robbed.

 

I know you aren't blaming an actual gypsy curse for our home form, but at the same time it wasn't luck either. It was quite simply young, unprepared and poor quality players bottling it in front of an increasingly frustrated home crowd.

 

I wouldn't be so bold as to say Pearson would have kept us up, but he made a decent fist of doing a job with no money in his time here. We'd at least have put up a stronger fight with him in charge.

[Big John]

c) NP was a Crouch hire, so no matter how good he may have been, Lowe wasn't going to let him stay on.

 

 

Nigel Pearson would have turned down a genuine offer to stay and work with Rupert Lowe in my opinion. Whataevr the reasons behind the chamges at boardroom level, they were a complete mis-match. I believe that Nigel would have had advice from his friends within the game and furthermore had some fairly decent offers from other (better suited) clubs, he would have been head-hunted anyway

 

It would not have worked.

[Dark Munster]

Nigel Pearson would have turned down a genuine offer to stay and work with Rupert Lowe in my opinion. Whataevr the reasons behind the chamges at boardroom level, they were a complete mis-match. I believe that Nigel would have had advice from his friends within the game and furthermore had some fairly decent offers from other (better suited) clubs, he would have been head-hunted anyway

 

It would not have worked.

 

It has been well documented that Nige was more than willing to stay on.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/untoldstories/4350665.What_Saints_managers_were_paid/

 

Pearson signed a £300,000 a year deal when he arrived in mid-February 2008 with Saints nosediving down the Championship table and humiliated at lower division Bristol Rovers in the FA Cup. That was £100,000 less than Burley was on.

 

But the chairman who appointed him, Leon Crouch, insists Pearson would have accepted a lower salary when the contract was due to be renegotiated last summer.

 

Crouch was also happy to give Pearson an initial £300,000 contract as Saints had just received £250,000 compensation from the Scottish FA for Burley’s services at a time when Saints fans were getting increasingly restless with the former Ipswich manager’s results.

 

Former PLC chairman Lowe told shareholders at last December’s stormy AGM at St Mary’s that “we couldn’t afford” the salary Crouch had been paying Pearson.

 

But according to Crouch, Pearson would have accepted a lower salary to manage Saints in 2008/09 with a bonus to be paid if the club won promotion back to the Premiership.

 

Other sources close to Pearson have confirmed that the former England under-21 coach was desperate to continue the job he had started.

[Big John]

Other sources close to Pearson have confirmed that the former England under-21 coach was desperate to continue the job he had started.

 

 

Under Rupert Lowe? I doubt it very much, he's not the type of character to be comfortable under the incoming regime.

 

I do stress that this is all just my opinion, but quite often when someone in the football world makes it clear that they want to stay, it actually transpires that what they actually mean is 'come and get me'.

 

You may of course know those involved or be close to the inner workings at the club, but I really do not think that the two would have got on so taking that into account and accepting the fact that Rupert was back, it's probably best that they split amicably (ish).