Some interesting Cortese info

[Windmill Arm 2]

F**k me !!!, why are the boring tossers still bleating on about Woopert ******* Lowe ??????

[K,Billy's supersound]

F**k me !!!, why are the boring tossers still bleating on about Woopert ******* Lowe ??????

 

answered your own question.

[derry]

I dont think the current situation is anything like the situation when Lowe tried to avoid Administration it is more like the early to mid 1960s

 

Where we had a respected Manager in Ted Bates home grown talent in terms of Paine Sydenham and Chivers and good Pros like Knapp Huxford Walker Hollywood etc and a 30000 Stadium with no mortgage and not many people knew who the chaiman was

 

Now we have a respected Manager in Nigel Adkins home grown talent in terms of OXO Lallana and Morgan (like Paine he was bought in early) good Pros like Fonte Davis Harding Guly etc a 30000 plus Stadium with no mortgage but everyone knows who the Chairman is.

 

 

The past is the past SFC did OK with limited resources but the future is bright and before us although some of the dreams of Champions Leage football are a little unlikely

 

Terry Paine wasn't bought in. He was playing Hampshire League as an amateur for Winchester City and in the Saints/CPC youth team that reached the youth cup semi finals v MU.

[hamster]

I've got some news on Cortese. He has had some putting green put in his garden. I know the guys who worked at his house

 

Hope it's actually his this time. Re-landscaping someone else's garden can be very pricey if you don't have their explicit consent.

[Frank's cousin]

Never understood why this whole shebang was ever aout perosnality - IMHO it all comes down to what you want/believe and think about the way a club should be run ... either long term or under difficult short term circumstances...

 

1. Within your means, invest in youth/infrastructure and look to develop talent without debt on players and wages....

2. Borrow heavily against future income for a short period of success or a reaction to poor form and potential relegation (Its still cheating whether its 5 mil or 120 mil surely? ;-)

 

How you feel about Lowe, Crouch, Wilde, and NC surely depends on your opinion on the above.... (simplistically) - Add to that that everybody can and will amke mistakes and you have the more complex range of opinion - yet for too many, its about personality - fair enough as we all tend to be ''more forgiving of the beautiful people''

[VectisSaint]

The sensible thing would have been to stick with Pearson, bring in free, experienced players like Wotton and Harding on small wages and mix them with youth players. Then spend the money we spent on Morgan (however much) on a quality, experienced centre half.

 

Not rocket science and I reckon it would have got us midtable.

It may have done, but then what? We wouldn't be in the position we are now if the club had gone down the route you are suggesting, that would have been a short term band-aid, and the downward spiral would have continued as we had no money, a blinkered chairman and good young players leaving for pastures new. Pearson would have done a decent job, but would also have moved on after spending a year here and showing that he was a good manager, but being restricted by the Board. Lowe was a ****, but at least what he did luckily ended up with us being bought by a multi-billionaire and we are now a club on the rise again. We would probably be mid table League One with the master plan you suggest.

[John B]

Terry Paine wasn't bought in. He was playing Hampshire League as an amateur for Winchester City and in the Saints/CPC youth team that reached the youth cup semi finals v MU.

 

I think you are being Pedantic

 

From Book written by David Bull Constant Paine: From Southampton Legend to South African Ambassador. Bristol: Hagiology, 1998.

 

Page 16

 

Come the start of the 1955-56 season Terry was a Winchester City Player

 

Like the season before joining SFC Morgan Schneiderlin was a RC Strasbourg Player

[Alain Perrin]

That rather depends on what you are basing the costs on. In terms of wages to the players and the manager, that might well be the case. But had Pearson and the much more intelligent strategy of playing a team balanced between youth and experience, produced a situation where we avoided relegation, would you then argue that it had cost more overall? We might well have avoided administration, but I'm happy that we were relegated in hindsight, as that is what it took to rid us of Lowe and the charlatans of the old board and the other egos who held shares in us and we probably would not have Markus Liebherr take us over had Lowe been here with his cronies.

 

One of the disadvantages of a three post strategy is that perhaps silence is misinterpreted as agreement.... As it is the various useful contributions from Um Pahars et al still leave me feeling glad they don't manage my money.

 

FWIW, Wes Tender, I agree with you - I'd much rather be in our position now than with Lowe. But I did agree (or perhaps understand is better) what motivated him. He had an investment in Saints and therefore had zero interest in the club going into admin (and by the way it's fine for people to say "he should have gone into admin before the points deduction deadline"; a wonderfully altruistic view until it's your money...!).

 

I don't know Lowe (although I did stand next to him and a pre-Saints Woodward at a buffet once - does that count as insight?), but I do understand that to avoid admininstration you have to have more money coming in than going out. The position Saints got themselves post Wilde playoff push meant that drastic action was required, couple that with Lowe's belief in youth over experience and he was always going to go with Jan P and youth vs. Pearson and 'experienced heads'.

 

Why? Because they were obviously cheaper. Schoolyard economics like Lighthouses, where you should "buy players like Lambert and Fonte" - I know they are just examples but both of whom cost us fees in excess of £1m, plus the wages of players who are mature and wanted by 'bigger' clubs. They're bound to cost more (in the short term) vs. an unknown Dutch manager and an unknown French teenager (Schneiderlin played for relative pocket money compared to some of our sick notes / older players).

 

I recognise that being relegated costs more, but by then RL and his cronies investment would be worthless anyway so it's kind of irrelevant to their decision making.

 

So Lowe pursued a suicide strategy, but - in my opinion - it was the only game in town from his perspective. Any other play would have resulted in certain administration and wiped out his investment.

 

Our current position, where we can afford to blend youth and experience is obviously preferable to youth and Wotton - but our finances were so tight I don't believe there was any other option.

[Secret Site Agent]

One of the disadvantages of a three post strategy is that perhaps silence is misinterpreted as agreement.... As it is the various useful contributions from Um Pahars et al still leave me feeling glad they don't manage my money.

 

FWIW, Wes Tender, I agree with you - I'd much rather be in our position now than with Lowe. But I did agree (or perhaps understand is better) what motivated him. He had an investment in Saints and therefore had zero interest in the club going into admin (and by the way it's fine for people to say "he should have gone into admin before the points deduction deadline"; a wonderfully altruistic view until it's your money...!).

 

I don't know Lowe (although I did stand next to him and a pre-Saints Woodward at a buffet once - does that count as insight?), but I do understand that to avoid admininstration you have to have more money coming in than going out. The position Saints got themselves post Wilde playoff push meant that drastic action was required, couple that with Lowe's belief in youth over experience and he was always going to go with Jan P and youth vs. Pearson and 'experienced heads'.

 

Why? Because they were obviously cheaper. Schoolyard economics like Lighthouses, where you should "buy players like Lambert and Fonte" - I know they are just examples but both of whom cost us fees in excess of £1m, plus the wages of players who are mature and wanted by 'bigger' clubs. They're bound to cost more (in the short term) vs. an unknown Dutch manager and an unknown French teenager (Schneiderlin played for relative pocket money compared to some of our sick notes / older players).

 

I recognise that being relegated costs more, but by then RL and his cronies investment would be worthless anyway so it's kind of irrelevant to their decision making.

 

So Lowe pursued a suicide strategy, but - in my opinion - it was the only game in town from his perspective. Any other play would have resulted in certain administration and wiped out his investment.

 

Our current position, where we can afford to blend youth and experience is obviously preferable to youth and Wotton - but our finances were so tight I don't believe there was any other option.

 

Well put, AP. We never know the motivations, pressures, restrictions etc behind someones decisions, and we only see what decisions we would make from the confort and safety of the knowledge that we don't have to make them and deal with the consequences.

 

I personally believe that NC dos his business in a more structured way. It wouldn't surprise me if he has a 'Risk Matrix' somewhere to assist in his decisions, with lots of flow charts and predictions and SMART goals, rather than gut instinct and cheapness. There is a marked difference between cost and value.

[aintforever]

One of the disadvantages of a three post strategy is that perhaps silence is misinterpreted as agreement.... As it is the various useful contributions from Um Pahars et al still leave me feeling glad they don't manage my money.

 

FWIW, Wes Tender, I agree with you - I'd much rather be in our position now than with Lowe. But I did agree (or perhaps understand is better) what motivated him. He had an investment in Saints and therefore had zero interest in the club going into admin (and by the way it's fine for people to say "he should have gone into admin before the points deduction deadline"; a wonderfully altruistic view until it's your money...!).

 

I don't know Lowe (although I did stand next to him and a pre-Saints Woodward at a buffet once - does that count as insight?), but I do understand that to avoid admininstration you have to have more money coming in than going out. The position Saints got themselves post Wilde playoff push meant that drastic action was required, couple that with Lowe's belief in youth over experience and he was always going to go with Jan P and youth vs. Pearson and 'experienced heads'.

 

Why? Because they were obviously cheaper. Schoolyard economics like Lighthouses, where you should "buy players like Lambert and Fonte" - I know they are just examples but both of whom cost us fees in excess of £1m, plus the wages of players who are mature and wanted by 'bigger' clubs. They're bound to cost more (in the short term) vs. an unknown Dutch manager and an unknown French teenager (Schneiderlin played for relative pocket money compared to some of our sick notes / older players).

 

I recognise that being relegated costs more, but by then RL and his cronies investment would be worthless anyway so it's kind of irrelevant to their decision making.

 

So Lowe pursued a suicide strategy, but - in my opinion - it was the only game in town from his perspective. Any other play would have resulted in certain administration and wiped out his investment.

 

Our current position, where we can afford to blend youth and experience is obviously preferable to youth and Wotton - but our finances were so tight I don't believe there was any other option.

 

Nonsense, Pearson would have been on higher wages than the dutch guys but anyone who knows anything about football knows that the manager's wages are peanuts in comparison to players. And more importantly, a good manager is ALWAYS cost effective. The manager is ALWAYS the most important person at any football club.

 

Hire a donkey manager and all the other decisions become irrelevant. Pearson would have got more out of the same players and kept us up and the banks wouldn't have pulled the plug if it looked like we were staying up.

[um pahars]

He had an investment in Saints and therefore had zero interest in the club going into admin

 

Keeping it short as we really should move on from Lowe (was going to ignore it completely, until you name checked me!!!!).

 

I totally agree that Lowe had zero interest in us going in to Admin for a number of reasons. You of course allude to the most obvious one which was financial and the loss of his investment (and loss of potential income from being CEO had we moved upwards), but I also think an important factor was ego and his desire to be proved right. It wasn't only his reputation within the "city", but also the need to fuel his own personal ego with his belief that he was always right.If anything, IMHO it was more his ego than his quest for cash that caused most of the problems.

 

So Lowe pursued a suicide strategy, but - in my opinion - it was the only game in town from his perspective.

 

You are of course entitled to that opinion, but I am still of the opinion that there were other choices. The most obvious one would be to stick with a manager who had shown a modicum of success and who knew the English game (and who has gone on to show more success in recent seasons). It really was a false economy to go with Poortvliet.

 

I never saw the choices as young novices with an inexperienced Dutch manager vs seasoned pros & high wages & transfer fees. Instead, I always felt there was a middle way, even if it meant a number of decisions were constrained by the financial straight jacket we found ourselves in.

[Alain Perrin]

Keeping it short as we really should move on from Lowe (was going to ignore it completely, until you name checked me!!!!).

 

Deliberately, because you're always good for a debate and you have strong opinions on this.

 

 

It wasn't only his reputation within the "city", but also the need to fuel his own personal ego with his belief that he was always right.If anything, IMHO it was more his ego than his quest for cash that caused most of the problems.

 

....{snip}....

 

I am still of the opinion that there were other choices. The most obvious one would be to stick with a manager who had shown a modicum of success and who knew the English game (and who has gone on to show more success in recent seasons). It really was a false economy to go with Poortvliet.

 

 

I agree he has an ego and a firm belief in the Ajax model of home grown over bought in players. That strategy could have worked in a Premiership scenario where you could ease in the blend. However cash was the driver for the acceleration - we were going broke and had no choice but to rely on youth and Wotton.

 

As was proved by the fact we went into admin before the end of the season, even the uber-low cost / cheapo option wasn't cheap enough - so any change to the mix of players to bring in experienced heads would have been more expensive, driven us into admin earlier (and hence not in Lowe's interest).

 

I think he made a judgement that Pearson was a worse option than Poortvliet when it came to managing youth. Personally, as someone who travelled many miles to see some of the capitulations under Pearson, I think his god like capabilities were over egged by people motivated by knocking Lowe. I still remain to be convinced by him.

 

I doubted at first but there was a point where I genuinely believed that Jan P might be able to do it (around the time we played Birmingham off the park I think), but after a few knocks the confidence went and we were doomed thereafter (whether someone with more experience of the English game could have mitigated this I don't know).

[NickG]

Personally, as someone who travelled many miles to see some of the capitulations under Pearson, I think his god like capabilities were over egged by people motivated by knocking Lowe. I still remain to be convinced by him..

 

think there is some truth in this. We clearly would have been better off with Pearson but have always wondered why he is rated much better than what he achieved here. Think you may have a point that he is praised as more he is built up the more ridiculous the decision to sack him was.

[Daren W]

Deliberately, because you're always good for a debate and you have strong opinions on this.

 

 

 

 

I agree he has an ego and a firm belief in the Ajax model of home grown over bought in players. That strategy could have worked in a Premiership scenario where you could ease in the blend. However cash was the driver for the acceleration - we were going broke and had no choice but to rely on youth and Wotton.

 

As was proved by the fact we went into admin before the end of the season, even the uber-low cost / cheapo option wasn't cheap enough - so any change to the mix of players to bring in experienced heads would have been more expensive, driven us into admin earlier (and hence not in Lowe's interest).

 

I think he made a judgement that Pearson was a worse option than Poortvliet when it came to managing youth. Personally, as someone who travelled many miles to see some of the capitulations under Pearson, I think his god like capabilities were over egged by people motivated by knocking Lowe. I still remain to be convinced by him.

 

I doubted at first but there was a point where I genuinely believed that Jan P might be able to do it (around the time we played Birmingham off the park I think), but after a few knocks the confidence went and we were doomed thereafter (whether someone with more experience of the English game could have mitigated this I don't know).

 

Very good point there, after those two Birmingham games i seriously thought we'd be contenders that season. Sadly we never had a plan b, other clubs sussed us out rather quickly and we got found out but we do tend to forget that early on we did play some cracking football with the Dutch duo....

[JackFrost]

I think people took to Pearson initially because of the way he came across in his interviews. His straight-to-the-point interviews were a refreshing change from the pathetic excuses and repetitive waffle that Burley used to come out with time after time.

 

Also, at the end of the day Pearson kept us up when we were in freefall after our high earners had been loaned out and we'd gone through the disastrous spell with Dodd and Gorman in charge.

 

Would he have kept us up the following year? We'll never know but there were many of us who believed he at least deserved a chance

[um pahars]

I agree he has an ego and a firm belief in the Ajax model of home grown over bought in players. That strategy could have worked in a Premiership scenario where you could ease in the blend. However cash was the driver for the acceleration - we were going broke and had no choice but to rely on youth and Wotton.

 

I don't think anyone would have an issue over trying to emulate the Ajax model (or even the Barcelona model), but with Lowe I think it went further. He truly believed that he was different to the footballing establishment, that he could teach them all a trick or two and it was his ego that drove him on (the money wasn't that bad either).

 

We definitely had a choice and the most obvious choice was with regards the manager.

 

There wouldn't be much between two Dutch guys on the cheap and Pearson (certainly Pulis and Forecast would have funded it!!!). I have never suggested that money wasn't tight, but even the little but we had was spent unwisely. Get a decent manager in would have been my first shout (and then I wouldn't have gone and speculated on a French teenager - however much he cost - as that was not our priority.

 

Pearson proved himself the season after that he could work with youngsters (his team at Leicester was predominantly a very young side - I remember one game he had something like 11 out of 15 players under 20 playing for him).

 

As was proved by the fact we went into admin before the end of the season, even the uber-low cost / cheapo option wasn't cheap enough - so any change to the mix of players to bring in experienced heads would have been more expensive, driven us into admin earlier (and hence not in Lowe's interest).

 

It was a false economy that cost us even more when you consider the revenue lost through falling attendances. Lowe's return, coupled with **** poor results saw attendances diminish quickly (I reckon our ave attendance was about 16,000 before those last few games). Close to 100,000 less punters through the door (£2million in revenue???).

 

That extra money would have been nice!!!!

 

No one was suggesting spending loads on experienced players, instead they were asking why we hadn't gone with an experienced manager, with good contacts who had enjoyed a modicum of success?

 

I think he made a judgement that Pearson was a worse option than Poortvliet when it came to managing youth. Personally, as someone who travelled many miles to see some of the capitulations under Pearson, I think his god like capabilities were over egged by people motivated by knocking Lowe. I still remain to be convinced by him.

 

He did indeed make that judgement, one which in hindsight looks to have been found severely wanting. Poortvliet was an unmitigated disaster and the whole set up was as much to blame. The interviews and snippets that came out after show that the season was a complete sham.

 

I've never held Pearson up to be the next Mourinho, but he did enough at the back end of the previous season to be given a shout. He certainly had the support of the fanbase and when we dispensed with him he quickly went on to show us what we might have been missing as we traded places come the following May.

 

I doubted at first but there was a point where I genuinely believed that Jan P might be able to do it (around the time we played Birmingham off the park I think), but after a few knocks the confidence went and we were doomed thereafter (whether someone with more experience of the English game could have mitigated this I don't know).

 

Of course there were brief moments of sunshine, but just as when Wigley was appointed, I just could not see it working!!!

 

And no one will ever be able to say with any degree of certainty what might have happened had we gone with Pearson over Poortvliet (that's the beauty of football, with us all having our own opinions), but I know which one I would have appointed!!!!

Edited 30 May, 2011 by um pahars

[Wes Tender]

I don't think anyone would have an issue over trying to emulate the Ajax model (or even the Barcelona model), but with Lowe I think it went further. He truly believed that he was different to the footballing establishment, that he could teach them all a trick or two and it was his ego that drove him on (the money wasn't that bad either).

 

We definitely had a choice and the most obvious choice was with regards the manager.

 

There wouldn't be much between two Dutch guys on the cheap and Pearson (certainly Pulis and Forecast would have funded it!!!). I have never suggested that money wasn't tight, but even the little but we had was spent unwisely. Get a decent manager in would have been my first shout (and then I wouldn't have gone and speculated on a French teenager - however much he cost - as that was not our priority.

 

Pearson proved himself the season after that he could work with youngsters (his team at Leicester was predominantly a very young side - I remember one game he had something like 11 out of 15 players under 20 playing for him).

 

 

 

It was a false economy that cost us even more when you consider the revenue lost through falling attendances. Lowe's return, coupled with **** poor results saw attendances diminish quickly (I reckon our ave attendance was about 16,000 before those last few games). Close to 100,000 less punters through the door (£2million in revenue???).

 

That extra money would have been nice!!!!

 

No one was suggesting spending loads on experienced players, instead they were asking why we hadn't gone with an experienced manager, with good contacts who had enjoyed a modicum of success?

 

 

 

He did indeed make that judgement, one which in hindsight looks to have been found severely wanting. Poortvliet was an unmitigated disaster and the whole set up was as much to blame. The interviews and snippets that came out after show that the season was a complete sham.

 

I've never held Pearson up to be the next Mourinho, but he did enough at the back end of the previous season to be given a shout. He certainly had the support of the fanbase and when we dispensed with him he quickly went on to show us what we might have been missing as we traded places come the following May.

 

 

 

Of course there were brief moments of sunshine, but just as when Wigley was appointed, I just could not see it working!!!

 

And no one will ever be able to say with any degree of certainty what might have happened had we gone with Pearson over Poortvliet (that's the beauty of football, with us all having our own opinions), but I know which one I would have appointed!!!!

 

A great summary and one that I agree with totally. And whereas you believe that Lowe attempted the Dutch experiment because his ego drove him to attempt an experiment that he had possibly been aching to try for some time, I believe that there was also the factor that Pearson was a Crouch appointment and that Lowe was petty-minded enough not to want him, out of spite.

[NickG]

think if Pearson had done better it may have put pressure on Lowe's ego but think he was unconvinced by him enough to think his plan a better option. Almost certainly wasn't. If he had unearthed someone like Lambert or Adkins then we probably have very quickly forgotten Pearson and our history would have been very different!

[Hopkins]

think if Pearson had done better it may have put pressure on Lowe's ego but think he was unconvinced by him enough to think his plan a better option. Almost certainly wasn't. If he had unearthed someone like Lambert or Adkins then we probably have very quickly forgotten Pearson and our history would have been very different!

 

This. Pearson is unbelievably over rated on here. The Dutch duo obviously was a worse option so you can't defend Lowe on that but getting rid of Pearson was not the massive disgrace being made out. Some of the football he played (Obviously with a poor squad but still not too bad) was horrific and from all accounts of Hull and Leicester fans wasn't mind blowing. He should have done better with Hull last year and did pretty much just above par with Leicester.

[Lighthouse]

It may have done, but then what? We wouldn't be in the position we are now if the club had gone down the route you are suggesting, that would have been a short term band-aid, and the downward spiral would have continued as we had no money, a blinkered chairman and good young players leaving for pastures new. Pearson would have done a decent job, but would also have moved on after spending a year here and showing that he was a good manager, but being restricted by the Board. Lowe was a ****, but at least what he did luckily ended up with us being bought by a multi-billionaire and we are now a club on the rise again. We would probably be mid table League One with the master plan you suggest.

 

Saints came out of a sewar smelling of roses 2 years ago, but it in no way justifies any of the mismanagement which went on before. Walk in to the boardroom of any company and say, "Hey, let's run this company out of business, then maybe a Swiss billionaire will take pity on us."

 

What makes you think we'd be a midtable League 1 club? We probably still would have gone into admin, but if we weren't relegated we would have been in a massively improved situation. For a start the 10 point penalty would have been taken at the end of the 08/09 season, so even if that did relegate us we'd still have started our first season on 0 points instead of -10. Net result? I reckon we would have been promoted last season instead of this season.

 

All hypothetical, we will never know for sure, but to suggest Markus and Nicola saving us justifies Lowe's horror show in some way is absurd.

[Dark Munster]

A great summary and one that I agree with totally. And whereas you believe that Lowe attempted the Dutch experiment because his ego drove him to attempt an experiment that he had possibly been aching to try for some time, I believe that there was also the factor that Pearson was a Crouch appointment and that Lowe was petty-minded enough not to want him, out of spite.

 

This.

[Dark Munster]

This. Pearson is unbelievably over rated on here. The Dutch duo obviously was a worse option so you can't defend Lowe on that but getting rid of Pearson was not the massive disgrace being made out. Some of the football he played (Obviously with a poor squad but still not too bad) was horrific and from all accounts of Hull and Leicester fans wasn't mind blowing. He should have done better with Hull last year and did pretty much just above par with Leicester.

 

Nige's first season in charge of the Leicester kids:

 

 

Nige's second season:

 

 

Yep, really overrated. Not much better than the Dutch duo.

Edited 31 May, 2011 by Dark Munster

[John Smith]

I just want to add another aspect to this very interesting debate. When we got relegated to League 1, I had given up my season ticket and listened to the majority of Saints games on the radio or followed them on here. The day we went down, it was almost like a release. Seeing Lowe move on, was a relief and when ML came in for us, jubilation. But, from a football perspective, the day we got relegated, I knew we had to start again. And so it proved, we have rebuilt this squad from an overloaded, inexperienced rag tag of footballers, to one that has a mix of youth and experience, flair players and hodd carriers. We have become the team that I think most of us always wanted.

 

Whatever your view of the past, I think it must be difficult to celebrate the decisions that previous owners have made since Premiership relegation. For me, it was one bad decision after the next, which resulted in the predictable administration and minus 10, all whilst in League 1, and League 2 was a real threat as was oblivion. That was until ML turned up. As I said at the time, I didn't want billions spent on the team, but to take these bare bones and build fromt the ground up. Slowly but surely. I don't care how long it takes us to get to the Prem, all I want is management of our growth and players that want to play here. When I go to matches, I want to see players that want to be here, that want to play for the team and who want to play as a team. This is more difficult than it seems, but, with decisions like Adkins, both surprising and gradually pleasing, our future seems to be in the right hands.

 

Looking forward, we need to lay to bed the past. The divisions in the board room have ripped the fans apart. Many still don;t see eye to eye on what has gone before. But, today, taking away the personalities, can we all see that Saints are moving in the right direction. Can we see results on the pitch? Can we all see a 'team' that can make you proud to be a Saints fan once again? I can...

 

Come on you Saints!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SaintRichmond]

think if Pearson had done better it may have put pressure on Lowe's ego but think he was unconvinced by him enough to think his plan a better option. Almost certainly wasn't. If he had unearthed someone like Lambert or Adkins then we probably have very quickly forgotten Pearson and our history would have been very different!

 

I do not agree. It had nothing to do with Pearson. Lowe was Hell bent on appointing HIS Dutch Dream Ticket, and going with the youth team

 

Total Football ??? Total Lunacy as it turned out

 

But try telling that to Lowe. He (as always), would only listen to his own voice

 

It was entirely Lowe's fault that led us to getting the -10 points in the following season

 

Say it loud and clear. He came Very Very close to destroying OUR Club. Never Ever forget that

[Daren W]

No one seems to have mentioned it on this thread but to employ two Dutchmen with absolutely no experience of English football whatsoever to get the club promoted was sheer lunacy.

If you were to ask any football fan this right now, what reply would you get? How on earth was this sold to us?

"Ok, we're going to ditch a British manager who has experience of lower league football and replace him with two Dutch guys with no experience of even English football and get them playing football based on the Ajax model... in the championship..."

I'd hazard a guess and say even the most reasonably minded Saints fan would say you were barking...

Edited 31 May, 2011 by Daren W
punctation...

[hughieslastminutegoal]

It all sounds a little bit Walter Mitty to me. We were supposed to improve Staplewood and it failed to happen. Now those plans have been revised, but I don't know if work has started yet, perhaps someone can advise.

 

The "we've got shed loads of money, we just have chosen not to spend it yet" may be good psychology at this point, but at some stage you have to show there's truth behind it. When injuries started to mount when we really needed to push on to get promoted, we hardly pushed the boat out on signings did we? - OK we got promoted, but could so easily done a Reading.

 

I know every promotion winning side has its pieces of luck in a season, but Jon Forte's double strike with his first two kicks of the game was several season's worth all rolled into one. Without that, at that critical time, things could have been very different.

 

I'm not saying we should have done differently, but it puts a question mark in my mind about whether there is a whiff of BS in hypo's info.

[NickG]

Nige's first season in charge of the Leicester

 

his saints record?

[dubai_phil]

Still personally think we are missing the simplest explanation of why Pearson was fired.

 

Lowe was ousted by Wilde & Crouch. he was not a happy bunny at that.

 

Pearson was "a man appointed by a moron" in his own opinion.

 

Politics were still in play, Lowe had returned by a coup de grace.

 

Lowe would n't have wanted anyone tainted by "the other man" anywhere near the management of the club.

 

Ergo, no matter whether Pearson was the Second Coming, offered to PAY to work for us and had won every game 25-0, he never stood a hope.

 

After that? Well, for all the technical & experience faults of the Dutch Joke, a primary reason we went down is still that we failed to sign either a decent CB or a CF in the Jan window, even on loan.

 

For me though, the sad thing is that those days have now GONE, and yet STILL people on here work over old arguments.

 

I AM GLAD PEARSON WENT. Simply because it was one more step on the journey to our being rebuilt as John Smith so eloquently put it.

[NickG]

This. Pearson is unbelievably over rated on here. The Dutch duo obviously was a worse option so you can't defend Lowe on that but getting rid of Pearson was not the massive disgrace being made out. Some of the football he played (Obviously with a poor squad but still not too bad) was horrific and from all accounts of Hull and Leicester fans wasn't mind blowing. He should have done better with Hull last year and did pretty much just above par with Leicester.

 

There is a lot of rose tinted with Pearson, I think it is understandable due to that great last game and the ill-feeling when he was sacked. There is no doubt we were doing poorly before he came in, but it was not a miraculous escape that some seem to remember it as. We were 18th, 4 places clear of relegation zone and 6 points clear when he arrived. He took us into the relegation zone with one game left.

 

Totally agree we were dropping points before he came, 6 league games before him we had only got 5 points, he then got 7 from next 6. He was here for 14 games and got 3 wins, in 14 games before we also got 3 wins.

 

The best I would rate Pearson for us was average / poor BUT showing good character and potential that he would be an ok manager if given a season.

 

I was very disapointed that he wasn't re-appointed more for the instability and how badly those who followed performed rather than missing Pearson.

Edited 31 May, 2011 by NickG

[JackFrost]

There is a lot of rose tinted with Pearson, I think it is understandable due to that great last game and the ill-feeling when he was sacked. There is no doubt we were doing poorly before he came in, but it was not a miraculous escape that some seem to remember it as. We were 18th, 4 places clear of relegation zone and 6 points clear when he arrived. He took us into the relegation zone with one game left.

 

Having been in the top half earlier in the season under Burley's win 4, lose 4 management with our best players here. We were in freefall when NP took over after Dodd and Gorman had been in charge.

 

Totally agree we were dropping points before he came, 6 league games before him we had only got 5 points, he then got 7 from next 6. He was here for 14 games and got 3 wins, in 14 games before we also got 3 wins.

 

how many of those under Dodd and Gorman in the league? 0 as far as i can remember

 

The best I would rate Pearson for us was average / poor BUT showing good character and potential that he would be an ok manager if given a season.

 

I was very disapointed that he wasn't re-appointed more for the instability and how badly those who followed performed rather than missing Pearson.

 

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you here but I think Pearson's overall record on results was ok in the circumstances considering we were in freefall when he took over, confidence was rock bottom, our best players who had played earlier in the season had been loaned out, and the entire squad and even our most committed players were looking completely disinterested and didn't want to be here.

 

What Pearson did do was bang heads together and turn a disinterested playing squad into something that resembled a Championship football team. His down-to-earth/no-nonsense interviews were also a refreshing change from the drivel that Burley churned out week after week. The football he played wasn't pretty but it was the best he could do in the circumstances. Also just before Pearson took over, it was a time of such depression and doom that we had reports of Jason Dodd saying that he wanted the manager's job permanently.

 

Pearson's results may have looked very mediocre on paper but I thought Pearson did a good job with very limited resources and I thought he deserved a chance to manage us the following season. But as we know, Lowe wasn't having any of it.

[NickG]

Having been in the top half earlier in the season under Burley's win 4, lose 4 management with our best players here. We were in freefall when NP took over after Dodd and Gorman had been in charge.

 

 

 

how many of those under Dodd and Gorman in the league? 0 as far as i can remember

 

 

 

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you here but I think Pearson's overall record on results was ok in the circumstances considering we were in freefall when he took over, confidence was rock bottom, our best players who had played earlier in the season had been loaned out, and the entire squad and even our most committed players were looking completely disinterested and didn't want to be here.

 

What Pearson did do was bang heads together and turn a disinterested playing squad into something that resembled a Championship football team. His down-to-earth/no-nonsense interviews were also a refreshing change from the drivel that Burley churned out week after week. The football he played wasn't pretty but it was the best he could do in the circumstances. Also just before Pearson took over, it was a time of such depression and doom that we had reports of Jason Dodd saying that he wanted the manager's job permanently.

 

Pearson's results may have looked very mediocre on paper but I thought Pearson did a good job with very limited resources and I thought he deserved a chance to manage us the following season. But as we know, Lowe wasn't having any of it.

 

think thats all pretty fair - particularly as someone strong to stop things getting worse - not sure woud quite go as far as good, but doesn't realy matter. Think many manager would have done as well / better in circumstances - Adams etc

[Lighthouse]

his saints record?

 

Went from bottom of the form table to 13th IIRC. Not quite sure what you were expecting, but I'd consider that a pretty good return considering he had no money to spend.

[NickG]

probably more than 3 wins in 13.

[Alain Perrin]

It was entirely Lowe's fault that led us to getting the -10 points in the following season

 

Rubbish. It was administration that led to the -10 points and the blame for that can be pinned to a number of people.

- relegation from the Premiership (Dalek, help me out here, what was the reason?)

- the failed promotion push when "Saints went Wilde"

- crazy contracts (with no reduction clauses in them)

- declining attendances (Lowe, and results related)

 

The dutch duo / play youth was Lowe's attempt to stave off administration, not create it. Unless someone is arguing we could recruit senior players and Pearson for less than the Dutch Duo plus the youth team then I really think you don't understand the finanical hole we were in.

 

PS. I'm not sure who made the point that Pearson gave good interviews but, recruiting someone on the basis of their post match interview style is about the same as selecting a plumber because he 'has nice hair'.

[NickG]

plumber in films have nice hair

[Lord Duckhunter]

I still cant believe that people are questioning Pearson on here. As Leeds, Forest,Charlton and Sheff Weds have found getting out of League 1 is not easy. He did it at a canter, it was never in any doubt. First season back up he got Leicester into play off's where they lost on Pens, most newly promoted teams would take that. Hull were a shambles, with players on long contracts and big money, with a steady hand needed. There was no way Hull were going back up as they were totally mismanged in their final year in the Premiership and there was even talk of them being in severe finacial trouble.He has steadied thye ship, as I believe he would have done had Lowe not returned. I wouldn't swap him for NA, but he's done a couple of decent jobs since leaving us.

[Daren W]

There is a lot of rose tinted with Pearson, I think it is understandable due to that great last game and the ill-feeling when he was sacked. There is no doubt we were doing poorly before he came in, but it was not a miraculous escape that some seem to remember it as. We were 18th, 4 places clear of relegation zone and 6 points clear when he arrived. He took us into the relegation zone with one game left.

 

Totally agree we were dropping points before he came, 6 league games before him we had only got 5 points, he then got 7 from next 6. He was here for 14 games and got 3 wins, in 14 games before we also got 3 wins.

 

The best I would rate Pearson for us was average / poor BUT showing good character and potential that he would be an ok manager if given a season.

 

I was very disapointed that he wasn't re-appointed more for the instability and how badly those who followed performed rather than missing Pearson.

 

Disagree.

Pearson inherited a very poor squad from Burley, very average players on good money (for the Championship), a rudderless ship going down rapidly. He brought in a few loanees, Richard Wright for one, Chris Lucketi and Chris Perry two others and we looked as if we might get the right balance between experience and youth...

Far too many people writing off his times at Leicester and Hull, Pearson's a good Championship manager and we made mistake in letting him go...

[Daren W]

think thats all pretty fair - particularly as someone strong to stop things getting worse - not sure woud quite go as far as good, but doesn't realy matter. Think many manager would have done as well / better in circumstances - Adams etc

 

The same Adams who took Sheffield United down?

There's no point debating Pearson's tenure at Southampton as he was barely here long enough to stamp his own authority on to anything. We have to look at work done with clubs of a similar size, ie Leicester and Hull, over the longer time period... Pretty impressive methinks...

[NickG]

I still cant believe that people are questioning Pearson on here. As Leeds, Forest,Charlton and Sheff Weds have found getting out of League 1 is not easy. He did it at a canter, it was never in any doubt. First season back up he got Leicester into play off's where they lost on Pens, most newly promoted teams would take that. Hull were a shambles, with players on long contracts and big money, with a steady hand needed. There was no way Hull were going back up as they were totally mismanged in their final year in the Premiership and there was even talk of them being in severe finacial trouble.He has steadied thye ship, as I believe he would have done had Lowe not returned. I wouldn't swap him for NA, but he's done a couple of decent jobs since leaving us.

 

he did well as Leicester, but Hoddle was good for us and poor elsewhere. I agree I wouldn't swap him for NA.

[NickG]

Disagree.

Pearson inherited a very poor squad from Burley, very average players on good money (for the Championship), a rudderless ship going down rapidly. He brought in a few loanees, Richard Wright for one, Chris Lucketi and Chris Perry two others and we looked as if we might get the right balance between experience and youth...

Far too many people writing off his times at Leicester and Hull, Pearson's a good Championship manager and we made mistake in letting him go...

 

so he added three good players and got 3 wins in 13, same as the weaker squad had in their last 13

 

i am not writing off his time elsewhere, or saying we were right to get rid of him. He did do well elsewhere and, without a doubt, we should have kept him. But that was more based on seeking stability and promise he showed rather than the mediocre achievement he had in his short time here

[up and away]

Rubbish. It was administration that led to the -10 points and the blame for that can be pinned to a number of people.

- relegation from the Premiership (Dalek, help me out here, what was the reason?)

- the failed promotion push when "Saints went Wilde"

- crazy contracts (with no reduction clauses in them)

- declining attendances (Lowe, and results related)

 

The dutch duo / play youth was Lowe's attempt to stave off administration, not create it. Unless someone is arguing we could recruit senior players and Pearson for less than the Dutch Duo plus the youth team then I really think you don't understand the finanical hole we were in.

 

PS. I'm not sure who made the point that Pearson gave good interviews but, recruiting someone on the basis of their post match interview style is about the same as selecting a plumber because he 'has nice hair'.

 

Crouch took us to the financial cliff edge and just left us teetering, administration then looked inevitable. I liked Pearson and subsequently he has done very well, but hardly any indication with us. We really blew our chance when a team failed to turn up at home against Burnley, totally inept performance for such a vital game. We managed to stay up by beating SheffU on the last day, who had just lost the leagues top goal scorer and had no centre halves left to field. Lucky, but we took full advantage on one great day that masked what was to come.

 

In hindsight I would have said Pearson would have been the better choice, but the priority was to try and avoid administration. We had to find money from some where and the only real source was from those youth players. As amply demonstrated, we could not give most of the others away because clubs were not even prepared to pay half their salaries.

 

From all that pain and suffering we now find ourselves in the best position for a long time, even though out of the Premier. We now have a future and the last time I had that feeling was under Strachan.

[JackFrost]

Rubbish. It was administration that led to the -10 points and the blame for that can be pinned to a number of people.

- relegation from the Premiership (Dalek, help me out here, what was the reason?)

- the failed promotion push when "Saints went Wilde"

- crazy contracts (with no reduction clauses in them)

- declining attendances (Lowe, and results related)

 

The dutch duo / play youth was Lowe's attempt to stave off administration, not create it. Unless someone is arguing we could recruit senior players and Pearson for less than the Dutch Duo plus the youth team then I really think you don't understand the finanical hole we were in.

 

PS. I'm not sure who made the point that Pearson gave good interviews but, recruiting someone on the basis of their post match interview style is about the same as selecting a plumber because he 'has nice hair'.

 

I've pointed out Pearsons good interviews but I agree a manager shouldn't be recruited purely on the basis on them. My point was his interviews were a reason so many of us took to him and why he got so much praise. For the fans his no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is interviews were a highly refreshing change from the pathetic excuses Burley trawled along with game after game. All good post match interviews do are to help endear yourself to the fans, but the way the players attitudes improved soon after he took over it was evident he'd done the same to the players and had told them to get their act together.

 

I think many of us appreciated Pearson because he had forced the players to make an effort after the run of completely disinterested performances they'd given us at that time. Bad performances are bad enough but not making an effort is nothing short of appalling. Even if the results on paper weren't great I think Pearson endeared himself to a lot of people in this way especially when he did enough to keep us up, with a playing squad that had recently not cared whether we'd gone down or not.

[The Kraken]

Disagree.

Pearson inherited a very poor squad from Burley, very average players on good money (for the Championship), a rudderless ship going down rapidly. He brought in a few loanees, Richard Wright for one, Chris Lucketi and Chris Perry two others and we looked as if we might get the right balance between experience and youth...

Far too many people writing off his times at Leicester and Hull, Pearson's a good Championship manager and we made mistake in letting him go...

 

I just don't agree with that the squad was "very poor". Certainly on too much money for their actual worth, but not poor. Pearson inherited a squad that contained the likes of Kelvin Davis, Andrew Davies, Surman, Viafara, Safri, Stern John, Saganowski, Dyer, Wright-Phillips, and a young Lallana. Not an amazing squad, but by no means a "very poor" squad.

 

While definitely not being good enough to challenge for the top of the table, that squad were under-achieving. Pearson did well to turn it around (and I very much wanted him to stay), but lets not convince ourselves it was a miracle that he saved us.

[St Marco]

I just don't agree with that the squad was "very poor". Certainly on too much money for their actual worth, but not poor. Pearson inherited a squad that contained the likes of Kelvin Davis, Andrew Davies, Surman, Viafara, Safri, Stern John, Saganowski, Dyer, Wright-Phillips, and a young Lallana. Not an amazing squad, but by no means a "very poor" squad.

 

While definitely not being good enough to challenge for the top of the table, that squad were under-achieving. Pearson did well to turn it around (and I very much wanted him to stay), but lets not convince ourselves it was a miracle that he saved us.

 

Think your find quite a few of those were injured. We had a massive injury problem that year where we had to get lot's of players in on loan or older players joining.

I remember going to that WBA away game where we had to get something (think they were top and playing well at the time) and seeing our team sheet. The defence was Jermaine Wright,Luketti a semi cripped Perry and Surman. Had Wright bought in to go in goal too. Now i don't know about you but if i saw that defence and saw that the most inspirational guy in the team at the time (Surman) was bunged into defence i would fancy my chances of scoring quite a few goals! Add to that those non-work horses Idiakez, Safri and Euell in midfield and then John in attack means a really poor side imo.

 

That team was screwed for sure. Pearson just delayed the inevitable by a year.

[trousers]

For anyone remotely interested, a reminder of the opening post:

 

I have a source at SFC (have posted about him before) and had some lunch with him yesterday where he filled me in on some positive stuff.

 

Cortese has ****ed off a few this year but the players love him because he is a big believer in player power.

 

He is very into sports science and that sort of thing and will be employing a number of staff to analyse things like training and individual performance in games. It is why Adkins and him gets on so well apparently.

 

In the words of my source we 'have too much money' (lol) but haven't spent too much on players because Cortese prepares to focus on the infrastructure because in the long term this is more beneficial. He apparently encouraged his staff to 'come to him with projects' and that if he liked them he would approve it regardless of cost (an example given was 20 million.)

 

Cortese has a new five year plan which involves us being top five in the premiership.

 

Now as you all know I have my reservations about Cortese, but I thought most of that was pretty positive and put me in a good mood.

[NickG]

players used by Pearson in selection of his games, including first and last. Some decent players there.

 

Saints: Davis, Thomas, Davies, Powell (Viafara 21), Vignal, Euell (Idiakez 75), Wright, Surman, John, Wright-Phillips (Hammill 45), Saganowski. Subs: McGoldrick, Poke

Saints: R Wright, J Wright, Powell, Perry, Surman, Viafara, Safri, Idiakez (Licka 78), Euell, John, Saganowski (Lallana 73). Subs: Wright-Phillips, Pericard, Davis.

Saints: Poke, Ostlund, Thomas, Viafara, Vignal, Surman (Hammill 57), Safri, Euell, Licka, John (Gillett 90+1), McGoldrick (Saganowski, 57) Subs: Pernecky, Baseya.

Saints: R Wright, J Wright, Lucketti, Perry, Vignal (Surman 42), Licka, Idiakez (Viafara 70), Safri, Euell, John (Pericard 70), Wright-Phillips. Subs: Saganowski, Davis.

Saints: R Wright, J Wright, Lucketti, Perry, Surman, Viafara, Idiakez, Safri (Dyer 63), Euell, John (Wright-Phillips 75), Saganowski (Lallana 75). Subs: Licka, Davis.

[hypochondriac]

For anyone remotely interested, a reminder of the opening post:

 

It has veered off somewhat!

[Wade Garrett]

It has veered off somewhat!

 

Yes it has. Same old boring gits hijacking threads.

[aintforever]

so he added three good players and got 3 wins in 13, same as the weaker squad had in their last 13

 

i am not writing off his time elsewhere, or saying we were right to get rid of him. He did do well elsewhere and, without a doubt, we should have kept him. But that was more based on seeking stability and promise he showed rather than the mediocre achievement he had in his short time here

 

Considering he was a relative novice I would say keeping us up was anything but a mediocre achievement. When a club is in free fall it is not an easy job to turn it around, even for an experienced manager. Only a simpleton would look just at the players names and points per game ratio and make a judgement. The people at SFC who I spoke to said the players and everyone at the club thought Pearson did a fantastic job.

 

Pearson p!ssed League 1 with Leicester, yet Adkins is considered a managerial god after scraping into 2nd spot.

Edited 31 May, 2011 by aintforever

[NickG]

ok, if you think 3 wins in 13 and dropping several places in league after adding players is fantastic you just have different threshold than I do, to me fantastic is more but accept your opinion and agree to disagree.