Basset : / Daily Echo : Lowe Did not pick the team

[NickG]

is this quote you used in the transcript?

[um pahars]

is this quote you used in the transcript?

 

I suppose there's a massive difference between:

 

'he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.'

 

and

 

'every week Rupert Lowe insisted he included more youngsters'

[Scudamore]

Only problem is Um that those words from Bassett:

 

"Every week Harrys selection was picked over, every week Rupert Lowe insisted he included more youngsters, every week Harry resisted."

 

Don't exactly tie up with what was actually said:

 

"But it is something that Rupert Lowe, when I was there, and he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about."

 

There's a big difference between pushing for more youth involvement and picking over the team sheet and insisting players be put in...

 

***which was in response to post #50 i hasten to add...and not the above post***

[NickG]

I suppose there's a massive difference between:

 

'he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.'

 

and

 

'every week Rupert Lowe insisted he included more youngsters'

 

you missed the initial one, and your loast one said about Lowe "Every week Harrys selection was picked over, every week Rupert Lowe insisted he.."

 

which is the bit used to say he is too involved, and doesn't appear in transcript unless I missed it

[um pahars]

you missed the initial one, and your loast one said about Lowe "Every week Harrys selection was picked over, every week Rupert Lowe insisted he.."

 

which is the bit used to say he is too involved, and doesn't appear in transcript unless I missed it

 

So this is the definitive part of the transcript along with a new quote from Basset:

 

'when I was there, and he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.'

 

along with:

 

'he was always keen that we played the youngsters',

 

 

And with these claims, the insinuation is exactly the same as it was when the story first broke (when people were paraphrasing what was said), namely that Lowe was interfering in first team affairs and suggesting who the manager should be including in the first team.

 

So the story is still the same.

 

Now if you feel it is OK for the CEO/Chairman to keep telling the manager on and on and on to play different players, then you have a different take on the responsibilities of managers and CEO's of football clubs.

[Scudamore]

So this is the definitive part of the transcript along with a new quote from Basset:

 

'when I was there, and he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.'

 

along with:

 

'he was always keen that we played the youngsters',

 

 

And with these claims, the insinuation is exactly the same as it was when the story first broke (when people were paraphrasing what was said), namely that Lowe was interfering in first team affairs and suggesting who the manager should be including in the first team.

 

So the story is still the same.

 

Now if you feel it is OK for the CEO/Chairman to keep telling the manager on and on and on to play different players, then you have a different take on the responsibilities of managers and CEO's of football clubs.

 

For paraphrasing see chinese whispers. With each getting a little more negative. Thus pushing a storm into a teacup. And i think we all know a storm should be outside and not in a teacup...

[NickG]

So this is the definitive part of the transcript along with a new quote from Basset:

 

'when I was there, and he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.'

 

along with:

 

'he was always keen that we played the youngsters',

 

 

And with these claims, the insinuation is exactly the same as it was when the story first broke (when people were paraphrasing what was said), namely that Lowe was interfering in first team affairs and suggesting who the manager should be including in the first team.

 

So the story is still the same.

 

Now if you feel it is OK for the CEO/Chairman to keep telling the manager on and on and on to play different players, then you have a different take on the responsibilities of managers and CEO's of football clubs.

 

by different types you mean home grown, cheaper ones, potential future talent who possibly had agents refusing to sign contracts with Lowe due to lack of first team opportunites -then possibly. Bottom line what he said didn't appear that bad yesterday when falsely exagerated, today it seems even milder - and remember the quotes I added (a few times!) that Bassett himself said he was happy to work with this level of involvement.

 

Perhaps we should leave it as we are getting caught up on a couple of words, made in passing by Dave Bassett of all people!

[um pahars]

For paraphrasing see chinese whispers. With each getting a little more negative. Thus pushing a storm into a teacup. And i think we all know a storm should be outside and not in a teacup...

 

You could put a fag paper between

 

'he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids.'

 

and

 

'every week Rupert Lowe insisted he included more youngsters'

 

which was at the crux of the matter, but let's not get distracted.

 

 

 

Instead why not focus on exact quotes of:

 

'he was always keen that we played the youngsters',

 

which followed on from:

 

'when I was there, and he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.'

 

Let's not get lost in semantics and instead debate whether or not it is right for the CEO/Chairman and the newly appointed Technical Director (who the manager did not report to at the time) to be telling the manager who to include in the first team.

[NickG]

think answered in one above -lets not argue over couple of words - but think

 

keen /wanted are expressing an opinion, where as picking over / insisted were used instead, I suggest deliberately to mischief make, which infer a higher level of control

[um pahars]

think answered in one above -lets not argue over couple of words - but think

 

I didn't really understand what you were alluding to in your response above. Sorry, but it doesn't really read well. Are you Ok with Lowe's involvement at that level or not?

 

keen /wanted are expressing an opinion, where as picking over / insisted were used instead, I suggest deliberately to mischief make, which infer a higher level of control

 

Let's not get distracted by this. We now have the transcript and rather than be sidetracked why not look at what was said.

[Scudamore]

Let's not get lost in semantics and instead debate whether or not it is right for the CEO/Chairman and the newly appointed Technical Director (who the manager did not report to at the time) to be telling the manager who to include in the first team.

 

Sadly i think semantics are important on this issue...because as i've said there is a difference between encouraging the use of youth players and telling the manager who to include in the first team...

 

Because some of the players in question could be very useful to us now. Not the likes of Bale and Walcott...it was always obvious they were going to leave. However players like Blackstock, Crainie, Mills and Best probably wouldn't have left us if they were getting a sniff of the action. And these players would be very useful for us now. Instead they're helping other teams in our league and also hurting us...

 

Yes we would have got frustrated with them and probably would still now but everyone of that four are pretty useful Championship players and we trained them up for that. And for what? Other teams to profit. That's pretty painful for me frankly...

[saintjay77]

And here's what I posted yesterday which is not about Lowe picking the team, but instead interfering in areas which he should not be.

 

Today's quotes just reaffirm exactly what I was saying yesterday (read the bold bits which have been reaffirmed by Bassett).

 

 

 

 

What is comical is how so many who think it is a storm in a tea cup either try and move the debate away from the real issues, start to insult others or miss the point entirely.

 

Firstly this has absolutely nothing to do with Lowe's background, his fondness for shooting or his preferred sport being hockey. To suggest otherwise is just diverting the issue.

 

Secondly there is nothing wrong with the Chairman/CEO dictating the parameters within which the manger manages, i.e. transfer kitty available, salary budget available and setting target & objectives. He should also be involved in contract negotiations, transfer negotiations and dealing with agents.

 

Thirdly, there is nothing wrong if the Manager/Head Coach decides he wants to go overwhelmingly with youth. That would be his decision and he would have to be judged on it.

 

But the problem comes from this part of the response from Basset:

 

 

 

This clearly states that the Chairman/CEO is second guessing the manager, interfering with team selection and stepping into areas of detail that he should be nowhere near.

 

Once given the general parameters to work with the manager should be left to manage. Of course he should be overseen, reviewed and assessed, but the Chairman/CEO should in no way be interfering with team affairs on this level.

 

Now if Lowe was prepared to interfere at this level with someone as 'backward looking', 'dinosauric' and 'traditional' as Redknapp, just what level is he interfering with poor old puppet Jan?????

 

 

I did respond to this post originally i think or maybe in-directly but I did try to give some idea on the way i interperated it.

 

Monday morning meeting could well have been about the team that harry had selected at the weekend and lowe could well have asked harry to bring through some of the youth. If lowe had speant 10 mill on a striker then im pretty sure he would be putting pressure on what ever manager to get him on the pitch. with 10 mil speant on the acadamy its no surprise that the chairman wants to see the fruits of that spend being brought into the 1st team otherwise these youngens are going to seek to further there carreers elsewhere.

 

IMO its no different at any club but because we are talking about kids with possible potential and not house hold names with a big price tag it is deemed that Lowe is doing something out of the ordenary.

 

I still havent gone through the posts to find who was stating a load of balls and i wasnt trying to accuse you. TBF its not really important. what i think many fans need to get over is there hate for the man at the top as they can sometimes look pretty silly when raging about stuff he has done when it is no different than what any other chairman would also do.

 

There are plenty of things to get arsed off with lowe for that is just and deserved and reading your posts you are one of the few that understand this. sooner we see light at the end of the tunnel the better for all of us me thinks.

[Mole]

I suppose there's a massive difference between:

 

'he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.'

 

and

 

'every week Rupert Lowe insisted he included more youngsters'

 

I wouldn't be too concerned about the hardline Lowe supporters trying to play with words. They have lost this argument as far as the middle ground goes.

[um pahars]

Sadly i think semantics are important on this issue...because as i've said there is a difference between encouraging the use of youth players and telling the manager who to include in the first team......

 

So where do you think 'when I was there, and he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.' fits with regards your two scenarios of (1) just encouraging and (2) telling the manager who to include???

 

As I said last night, no one was really suggesting that Lowe picked the team when Redknapp was here, but this statement would also appear to go further than just encouraging (the on and on and on infers a certain degree of continuous interference).

 

Because some of the players in question could be very useful to us now. Not the likes of Bale and Walcott...it was always obvious they were going to leave. However players like Blackstock, Crainie, Mills and Best probably wouldn't have left us if they were getting a sniff of the action. And these players would be very useful for us now. Instead they're helping other teams in our league and also hurting us...

 

Yes we would have got frustrated with them and probably would still now but everyone of that four are pretty useful Championship players and we trained them up for that. And for what? Other teams to profit. That's pretty painful for me frankly...

 

So what you are happy with is a scenario where

 

a) the Chairman/CEO wanted the manager to play youngsters to ensure they do not leave due to lack of first team action, regardless of ability, suitability for the job etc.

 

b) the Chairman/CEO wanted the manager to play players who the manager obviously believes are not better than who he is already playing.

 

c) that it is alright that makes suggestions on who should be in the first team.

 

Once the general parameters are laid down, (i.e. transfer budget, wages budget, seasons targets), then who the Manager plays and who he believes are best for the next match and the season ahead, is the domain of the manager. Of course, he won't be left in total isolation from one transfer window to the next, but ultimately he should make the playing decisions and will ultimately have to be judged by what he achieves on the pitch. That's his remit and the minute you get others interfering with team selection, transfer targets etc etc etc is the minute it will all start to unravel.

 

There should be no way that Lowe, nor Woodward, should have kept on going on and on and on at the manager about who they wanted in the team.

 

You get in a manager who is experienced to run the footballing side and leave the on the pitch decisions to him, and with all due respect to Lowe and Woodward (whom I sure know something about football), the idea that these two are going on and on and on about who to include in the team does not make pleasant reading

 

If there was a DOF style set up, and the manager fully bought into it from the off, then although I don't like that set up, you could accept that this is how it was going to work. But here we have a Chairman/CEO and a Technical Director (who BTW Redknapp did not report to) wanting specific youngsters to play. If you can't see how that is wrong, then we'll just have to accept that your views on roles and responsibilities in football is different to mine.

Edited 13 November, 2008 by um pahars

[CB Fry]

Why is this even new news to anyone?

 

The entire subtext of Lowe going on about the kids and Arry resisting it was blown apart when Arry played a team full of kids in the League Cup (against, remind me, Mansfield?) and they got gubbed.

 

And Arry's post match was basically "I told you they weren't good enough" which sounded odd at the time, but of course revealed pretty clearly what was happening, and why Arry had only spent the £90k that summer.

 

The good (ish) news is we are now reaching endgame on this stupid chairman and his arrogant ideas. In a couple of weeks time we will be stone, rock bottom, and he'll have nowhere left to go, because finally it'll be proved that his dopey notion is not going to work.

 

Let's just hope someone, anyone saves the day before the Ajax of Hampshire find themselves in League One.

[John B]

I think it is ridiculous to suggest that the board who have a long term strategy of producing youngsters should not be telling the manager what the strategy was it is not intereference.

 

That is the reason we now have JP and Wotte as I have said and others too it is because unlike the past when we had players like

 

Hollywood Paine Chivers Dean Holmes Stokes Andruszewski Agboola Williams Hebberd Waldron Channon Moran Dodd Benali Le Tissier Shearer Danny Wallace Rod Wallace etc

 

 

we did not apart from Bridge and to some extent Baird have any young players coming through which caused our decline

[Frank's cousin]

Talk about storm in a feckin teacup.... Jeez, rightly or wrongly lowe thought that spending on the academy was the wya forward - we know he hates parting with loads of money for over expensive players and especially on wages - nothing new there, I also believe he felt, again rightly or wrongly, that the only way we could compete and progress was through developing the ebst young talent, that hopefully had an added element of loyalty, rather than spending our way to improvement with monet we did not have. In addition he wanted to give us an advantage by state of the art sports science under SCW - that was the theory anyway. And as theories go its not that bad an idea. So why the feck is nayone surprised that he 'wanted' saints to play more youngsters? whether for their development or as a shop window - who cares? but the idea that its just shop window is a bit churlish, afterall we the first playesr shipped out were the big earners, not the kids...but thats another debate.

 

It failed for several reasons:

 

1. Lowe did not recognise that in the prem, you need annual improvement just to stand still - which means increasing the quality by signing nbetter players season on season - because everyone else is doing the same - those that dont get relegated. I dont like this situtaion as its driven by greed mostly and agents driving a profit from tyeh merry-go-round of playesr, and whats worse it does not allow many teams to bring through kids and establish a ssettled side, but thats the situation so we needed to at least do our bit in that department. - There is simply not enough time in a season for a side to bring in youngsters wholesale irrespective of the good ideals of homegrown players.

 

2. The 'laughingstock' media frenzy - never gave teh SCW thing a chance - it rubbed off on fans - and up against an old scvhool mentality it was never going to be given a proper chance

 

3. Confusion: LOwe failed to adequately communicate the responsibilties - coupled wioth Rednapp who was NEVER going to be receptive it became a mess

 

4. The IRONY ; Why the feck did Lowe bring in such an old school veteran as Harry to work with his 'innovative vision'? - Panic to save us from relegation 'for sure' - but even Lowe must have known he was going to feck up his strategy?

 

I am not surprised though at the current frenzy of excitement generated by the HOunds comments - LOwe's return was only ever going to cause divisions and only a miracle of say us now sitting in the top two would have shut up the decension - well maybe not from all- but you know what I mean. BUt FFS is any of it really surprizing? There seems to be this almost frenzied glee from some that there is another alledged stick to beat our club, rather than dissapointment that we have another row that is undermining the fragility of the current situation.

 

'look at me, look at me.. I was right and Lowe's an interferring co*k afterall' .....er well sorry, but irrespective of the truth or otherwise in Bassetss claims, I dont think ANY of our mess is something to celebrate.

[Beckster Von Doodle]

So Bassett is quoted, presumably after a bit of pressure from the club, the club is quoted, but no one with a counter view, which is dismissed as being held by 'some fans'. Really, really poor, one-sided journalism.

 

And Bssett's denial falls firmly into the category of non-denial denial.

 

You mean because it does not support your anti Lowe view you are dismissing it as contrived.

 

Maybe it is the press being economical with their quotes to make a story?

 

Rather than all of this bullsh1t can we not just agree that as soon as a better offer comes along from a proper investor we then ask Lowe to go - up until that point all of this is being destructive to what JP and the team are trying to do.

[Beckster Von Doodle]

Talk about storm in a feckin teacup.... Jeez, rightly or wrongly lowe thought that spending on the academy was the wya forward - we know he hates parting with loads of money for over expensive players and especially on wages - nothing new there, I also believe he felt, again rightly or wrongly, that the only way we could compete and progress was through developing the ebst young talent, that hopefully had an added element of loyalty, rather than spending our way to improvement with monet we did not have. In addition he wanted to give us an advantage by state of the art sports science under SCW - that was the theory anyway. And as theories go its not that bad an idea. So why the feck is nayone surprised that he 'wanted' saints to play more youngsters? whether for their development or as a shop window - who cares? but the idea that its just shop window is a bit churlish, afterall we the first playesr shipped out were the big earners, not the kids...but thats another debate.

 

It failed for several reasons:

 

1. Lowe did not recognise that in the prem, you need annual improvement just to stand still - which means increasing the quality by signing nbetter players season on season - because everyone else is doing the same - those that dont get relegated. I dont like this situtaion as its driven by greed mostly and agents driving a profit from tyeh merry-go-round of playesr, and whats worse it does not allow many teams to bring through kids and establish a ssettled side, but thats the situation so we needed to at least do our bit in that department. - There is simply not enough time in a season for a side to bring in youngsters wholesale irrespective of the good ideals of homegrown players.

 

2. The 'laughingstock' media frenzy - never gave teh SCW thing a chance - it rubbed off on fans - and up against an old scvhool mentality it was never going to be given a proper chance

 

3. Confusion: LOwe failed to adequately communicate the responsibilties - coupled wioth Rednapp who was NEVER going to be receptive it became a mess

 

4. The IRONY ; Why the feck did Lowe bring in such an old school veteran as Harry to work with his 'innovative vision'? - Panic to save us from relegation 'for sure' - but even Lowe must have known he was going to feck up his strategy?

 

I am not surprised though at the current frenzy of excitement generated by the HOunds comments - LOwe's return was only ever going to cause divisions and only a miracle of say us now sitting in the top two would have shut up the decension - well maybe not from all- but you know what I mean. BUt FFS is any of it really surprizing? There seems to be this almost frenzied glee from some that there is another alledged stick to beat our club, rather than dissapointment that we have another row that is undermining the fragility of the current situation.

 

'look at me, look at me.. I was right and Lowe's an interferring co*k afterall' .....er well sorry, but irrespective of the truth or otherwise in Bassetss claims, I dont think ANY of our mess is something to celebrate.

 

What ever your views pro or anti Lowe I think this sums the situation up pretty well, excellent piece.

[saintjay77]

What ever your views pro or anti Lowe I think this sums the situation up pretty well, excellent piece.

 

It was almost excellent, there were a few spelling mistakes

[slickmick]

What would your views be if you knew Rupert was part of the team selection at present ?

This isn't a dig or to try to catch anyone out, just wondered what peoples views are on this.

 

If he is, and its a success, then he deserves the credit.

If it fails, then he deserves to pay the consequences. Thats my opinion.

[Scudamore]

I wouldn't be too concerned about the hardline Lowe supporters trying to play with words. They have lost this argument as far as the middle ground goes.

 

Once again. Not a Lowe supporter. Certainly not a hardline Lowe supporter. Just opening debate by trying to see different sides of the argument. It's called having a grown up conversation...

 

Not mudslinging...

[SaintRichmond]

I suppose there's a massive difference between:

 

'he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.'

 

and

 

'every week Rupert Lowe insisted he included more youngsters'

 

 

 

...... Which of course has been completely vindicated by J - Lo's wonderful CCC Table Topping displays so far ..........

 

...... Mr Lowe ... exactly WHERE are we in the League at present ????

[solentstars]

think answered in one above -lets not argue over couple of words - but think

 

keen /wanted are expressing an opinion, where as picking over / insisted were used instead, I suggest deliberately to mischief make, which infer a higher level of control

i agree it seems most of the threads about lowe,wilde.crouch seem to be by the same people who twist the facts to suit their own agendas but are starting to look silly on the forum when the real facts emerge.

[trousers]

You join us at a key moment in 'hypothetical corner'....over to Trousers who is at the scene....

 

If Matt Le Tissier did a Niall Quinn and became our chairman would people still have qualms about the chairman 'being interested in' (aka 'interfering with') team selection?

 

i.e. is this a matter of principle or does it depend on the type of person who is chairman?

[krissyboy31]

You join us at a key moment in 'hypothetical corner'....over to Trousers who is at the scene....

 

If Matt Le Tissier did a Niall Quinn and became our chairman would people still have qualms about the chairman 'being interested in' (aka 'interfering with') team selection?

 

i.e. is this a matter of principle or does it depend on the type of person who is chairman?

 

I don't believe Quinn has any input into team matters apart negotiation of sallaries etc. Can you imagine Keane allowing that? There would be one almighty row (litterally).

[SaintRichmond]

I don't believe Quinn has any input into team matters apart negotiation of sallaries etc. Can you imagine Keane allowing that? There would be one almighty row (litterally).

 

 

Which completely explains why Pearson was not made Manager

 

There can only be ONE Manager ...... and that is LOWE

[eelpie]

Which completely explains why Pearson was not made Manager

 

There can only be ONE Manager ...... and that is LOWE

 

He should sack himself

[saintjay77]

...... Which of course has been completely vindicated by J - Lo's wonderful CCC Table Topping displays so far ..........

 

...... Mr Lowe ... exactly WHERE are we in the League at present ????

 

'every week Rupert Lowe insisted he included more youngsters'

 

not

 

'every week Rupert Lowe insisted he played all youngsters'

 

Difference between then and now is then we were in a position to bring the youth into the team at our discretion. Something that back then we as fans were also asking to be done.

 

Now we are doing it at the banks discretion and its not looking pretty as we dont have the right experience throughout the team to cope with it.

[NickG]

'every week Rupert Lowe insisted he included more youngsters'

 

not

 

'every week Rupert Lowe insisted he played all youngsters'

 

Difference between then and now is then we were in a position to bring the youth into the team at our discretion. Something that back then we as fans were also asking to be done.

 

Now we are doing it at the banks discretion and its not looking pretty as we dont have the right experience throughout the team to cope with it.

 

and it has also been shown that the insisted was made up as well -wanted -very different!

[St Landrew]

The case of Rupert asking for the inclusion of more youngsters is a very topical point within football, in a wider sense. Read this article. The last few lines are rather interesting in terms of what is happening at Saints:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7725388.stm

[NickG]

so Brooking wants chairman who want more young players involved!

[CB Fry]

The case of Rupert asking for the inclusion of more youngsters is a very topical point within football, in a wider sense. Read this article. The last few lines are rather interesting in terms of what is happening at Saints:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7725388.stm

 

so Brooking wants chairman who want more young players involved!

 

 

Of course he does.

 

Having a team featuring homegrown young players is undeniably a good thing.

 

In the period Arry and Arry were here, you couldn't move for people on this forum's predecessor demanding that so and so young player should play.

 

Over and over again, people would leap on reports from Stapleford or the reserves and work up players into overlooked world beaters.

 

And now you still get plaintive whining about oh why did we ever let Scott McDonald go, he's like the best player ever, oh why did we let Matthew Mills go he would have been brilliant just like he has been for, well, err... Okay, what about Brian Howard then.

 

Now it seems that the very idea of playing young players is an absolute disgrace and why oh why should anyone ever suggest a thing.

 

Lowe sticking his beak in is wrong, he shouldn't be interfering in the team, his Dutch project is wrong, playing all the kids is wrong, Lowe, JP both need to go and go now. 100% agree with all that.

 

But for things to hang Lowe about, a belief in our young players and a belief that they could and should be our future show that his heart is in the right place.

 

Wanting Saints to be a crucible of home grown young talent is not actually the most evil plan in the world, as some bitter people would have you believe.

 

He's wrong, and he's an idiot, fine. Don't disagree. I want him out.

 

But if AN Other figurehead came on and esposed the same beliefs in young players (say, a Nick Holmes, or a Gavyn Davies), I think he'd be called a breath of fresh air and a terrace hero.

[slickmick]

Of course he does.

 

Having a team featuring homegrown young players is undeniably a good thing.

 

In the period Arry and Arry were here, you couldn't move for people on this forum's predecessor demanding that so and so young player should play.

 

Over and over again, people would leap on reports from Stapleford or the reserves and work up players into overlooked world beaters.

 

And now you still get plaintive whining about oh why did we ever let Scott McDonald go, he's like the best player ever, oh why did we let Matthew Mills go he would have been brilliant just like he has been for, well, err... Okay, what about Brian Howard then.

 

Now it seems that the very idea of playing young players is an absolute disgrace and why oh why should anyone ever suggest a thing.

 

Lowe sticking his beak in is wrong, he shouldn't be interfering in the team, his Dutch project is wrong, playing all the kids is wrong, Lowe, JP both need to go and go now. 100% agree with all that.

 

But for things to hang Lowe about, a belief in our young players and a belief that they could and should be our future show that his heart is in the right place.

 

Wanting Saints to be a crucible of home grown young talent is not actually the most evil plan in the world, as some bitter people would have you believe.

 

He's wrong, and he's an idiot, fine. Don't disagree. I want him out.

 

But if AN Other figurehead came on and esposed the same beliefs in young players (say, a Nick Holmes, or a Gavyn Davies), I think he'd be called a breath of fresh air and a terrace hero.

 

 

Best and most logical post so far.

[Blandford saint]

Your right, CB. The whole point is that Redknapp was always the wrong manager for us. His whole style of management, signing experienced, expensive players and let the board worry about the consequences, was never suited to us. I'm sure Bournemouth's financial strife is still partly due to Harry. His wage bill at Pompey and West Ham was ginormous. What I can't understand was why Lowe didn't part company with him as soon as we were relegated and immediately appoint someone with a track record of building rather than buying a team. They would have always clashed.

[Beckster Von Doodle]

You join us at a key moment in 'hypothetical corner'....over to Trousers who is at the scene....

 

If Matt Le Tissier did a Niall Quinn and became our chairman would people still have qualms about the chairman 'being interested in' (aka 'interfering with') team selection?

 

i.e. is this a matter of principle or does it depend on the type of person who is chairman?

 

Good question. If we were winning would anyone care who was picking the team?

 

My feeling on this is that the chairman should employ a manager to manage and I do not want to get into symantics about coach, manager job titles. As in any business the manager should identify a) any glaring weaknesses and b) where the team could be strengthened by the inclusion and/or replacement of a player.

 

The manager should also identify preferred selections of players he wants.

 

The chairman should identify the strategy he wants the manager to employ, eg develop young players ahead of buying expensive established pro's.

 

At some point there has to be some negotiation between the Chairman (board members responsible) and the manager as to the best way forward.

 

Personally I would like to see a manager given a budget transfers and wages and it is his job to identify players to fit that budget and keep all the players happy (wages issues outside a structure method we used to employ). The chairman should do the negotiations and offload unwanted players to maintain the budgets accordingly.

 

In simple terms it should be a partnership with both sides driving each other to maintain objectives and work within budgets.

[Beckster Von Doodle]

 

Lowe sticking his beak in is wrong, he shouldn't be interfering in the team, his Dutch project is wrong, playing all the kids is wrong, Lowe, JP both need to go and go now. 100% agree with all that.

 

 

Agree with all you said but feel this is a bit out of place. I am not sure Lowe is directly picking the side, he is dictating who is picked by loaning out everyone on a high wage but this in turn is being dictated by the financial position.

 

I actually think I have seen better football and more spirit from a Saints side this year than I have for 5 years. I have also seen some of the worst and most naive football in that same period. Is that JP's fault I don't know - he is a breath of fresh air, he is candid in his analysis yet still encouraging to both fans and players, something Redkanpp never was here.

[CB Fry]

Good question. If we were winning would anyone care who was picking the team?

 

My feeling on this is that the chairman should employ a manager to manage and I do not want to get into symantics about coach, manager job titles. As in any business the manager should identify a) any glaring weaknesses and b) where the team could be strengthened by the inclusion and/or replacement of a player.

 

The manager should also identify preferred selections of players he wants.

 

The chairman should identify the strategy he wants the manager to employ, eg develop young players ahead of buying expensive established pro's.

 

At some point there has to be some negotiation between the Chairman (board members responsible) and the manager as to the best way forward.

 

Personally I would like to see a manager given a budget transfers and wages and it is his job to identify players to fit that budget and keep all the players happy (wages issues outside a structure method we used to employ). The chairman should do the negotiations and offload unwanted players to maintain the budgets accordingly.

 

In simple terms it should be a partnership with both sides driving each other to maintain objectives and work within budgets.

 

 

This is far too sensible for this forum. 100% correct.

 

And actually too sensible for Lowe who ignored this sensible advise and employed managers like Redknapp (who just doesn't buy into the concept of building a team from young players) and Gray/Wigley (who weren't strong enough, or experienced enough to fuse a team together within that remit).

 

Jones, Hoddle and Strachan could and did do that. The perfect blend of getting the best out of what you have, and being able to stand up to the chairman - the three of them had the gravitas to face down Lowe, who respected them for it. And, lest we forget - it bloody worked. Forest, Sheff Weds, Derby, Leicester and the rest all went down and we got better and better.

 

Burley should have been able to, but actually was given too much money and ended up being distracted by his new shiny thing at expense of his last shiny thing (Saga displacing Rasiak, John displacing Saga etc).

 

Burley now in the current set up would probably have been okay, forcing him back to his early Ipswich ways.

 

It's just a crying shame we didn't employ Gary Johnson or similar the day we went down. Or Dowie, or Boothroyd.

 

In fact any of those three now would be handy. A real manager with experience of building teams, that will face down Lowe is what we need.

 

But I don't think we're going to get him.

[um pahars]

Good question. If we were winning would anyone care who was picking the team?.

 

Let's be honest, if we were doing well then I'm sure there wouldn't be as much of a furore.

 

But that still doesn't make it right, as all those underlying problems would still be there.

 

Additionally, I just don't think you will get success with a set up where the roles aren't clear and where the manager is subservient to others (on first team issues).

 

My feeling on this is that the chairman should employ a manager to manage and I do not want to get into symantics about coach, manager job titles. As in any business the manager should identify a) any glaring weaknesses and b) where the team could be strengthened by the inclusion and/or replacement of a player.

 

The manager should also identify preferred selections of players he wants.

 

The chairman should identify the strategy he wants the manager to employ, eg develop young players ahead of buying expensive established pro's.

 

At some point there has to be some negotiation between the Chairman (board members responsible) and the manager as to the best way forward.

 

Personally I would like to see a manager given a budget transfers and wages and it is his job to identify players to fit that budget and keep all the players happy (wages issues outside a structure method we used to employ). The chairman should do the negotiations and offload unwanted players to maintain the budgets accordingly.

 

In simple terms it should be a partnership with both sides driving each other to maintain objectives and work within budgets.

 

I don't think many would have arguments with that set up (and it's similar to how I would like it set up), although of course I'm sure there would be some argument about degress of latitude in some areas.

 

However, I'm not sure how you would reconcile your description with the line that the Chairman and Technical Director going on and on and on about who should feature. And of course if Lowe was that bullish and forthcoming with someone as strong as Redknapp, you do have to wonder just what he is doing with regards poor Jan.

Edited 13 November, 2008 by um pahars

[NickG]

perhaps its just on here that the roles aren't clear? They maybe perfectly clear!

[um pahars]

perhaps its just on here that the roles aren't clear? They maybe perfectly clear!

 

I actually think they are very clear to Jan, Lowe, Hockaday et al, and they are that Lowe is up to his ar55e in first team affairs.

 

IMHO, Lowe is the de facto DOF and Jan is merely a first team coach.

[NickG]

maybe, like someone said if it works its good if it doesn't then its a bad idea!

 

trouble is with all finance issues how much better could it be working under any structure -we can't tell.

[John B]

i actually think they are very clear to jan, lowe, hockaday et al, and they are that lowe is up to his ar55e in first team affairs.

 

Imho, lowe is the de facto dof and jan is merely a first team coach.

 

how many days per week does lowe work at sfc

[NickG]

also what is a director of football? its only a name, there has always been someone on board supervising football matters.

We know he has not met until recently a lot of the players or do team talks etc so is not coaching or anything - but where line is drawn who knows?

[um pahars]

maybe, like someone said if it works its good if it doesn't then its a bad idea!.

 

But, I just don't think such a set up will work (and it's not working as we sit here now), and as much as Lowe has learnt about football, I don't think he should be involved to the degree I fear he is.

 

trouble is with all finance issues how much better could it be working under any structure -we can't tell.

 

I'm not really sure what relevance finance has to having Lowe involved in first team affairs.

[fos1]

Why did he move Liz coleys replacement from the stadium to the training ground !!!

[um pahars]

Of course he does.

 

Having a team featuring homegrown young players is undeniably a good thing

 

In the period Arry and Arry were here, you couldn't move for people on this forum's predecessor demanding that so and so young player should play.

 

Over and over again, people would leap on reports from Stapleford or the reserves and work up players into overlooked world beaters.

 

And now you still get plaintive whining about oh why did we ever let Scott McDonald go, he's like the best player ever, oh why did we let Matthew Mills go he would have been brilliant just like he has been for, well, err... Okay, what about Brian Howard then.

 

Now it seems that the very idea of playing young players is an absolute disgrace and why oh why should anyone ever suggest a thing..

 

But for things to hang Lowe about, a belief in our young players and a belief that they could and should be our future show that his heart is in the right place.

 

Wanting Saints to be a crucible of home grown young talent is not actually the most evil plan in the world, as some bitter people would have you believe.

 

With all due respect, I do think you have gone slightly overboard here.

 

People don't think the idea of playing youngsters is an absolute disgrace, merely that they think the way they have all been dropped in and how they are currently being used is open to question.

 

We're all entitled to our opinions on who to play, but ultimately it is down to the manager on who should feature and he will ultimately be judged by the results taht his teams achieve.

 

If we could field 8, 9, 10 or even 11 youngsters who are good enough, then I can't believe anyone would be against that (aka Arsenal).

[John B]

With all due respect, I do think you have gone slightly overboard here.

 

People don't think the idea of playing youngsters is an absolute disgrace, merely that they think the way they have all been dropped in and how they are currently being used is open to question.

 

We're all entitled to our opinions on who to play, but ultimately it is down to the manager on who should feature and he will ultimately be judged by the results taht his teams achieve.

 

If we could field 8, 9, 10 or even 11 youngsters who are good enough, then I can't believe anyone would be against that (aka Arsenal).

 

Say we kept Mills and Cranie and did not recruit Powell and Makin.

 

Suppose we kept Blackstock and Best and did not recruit Saga and BWP

 

Would we not be in a better position both financially and on the pitch.

[Beckster Von Doodle]

But, I just don't think such a set up will work (and it's not working as we sit here now), and as much as Lowe has learnt about football, I don't think he should be involved to the degree I fear he is.

 

I'm not really sure what relevance finance has to having Lowe involved in first team affairs.

 

This is scaremongering. Nobody knows to what degree, if any, he is involved in selection other than by default ruling players out by transfering or loaning them out.

 

What is not working is that the senior players are not stepping up to the plate. Wotton has not fulfilled the role I expected of him, Perry does not appear to be flavour of the month, Skacel is a shadow of what he should be, Svensson will never be fit enough to do what he is capable of, and David can do precious little from goal.

 

Players like Surman and McGoldrick who have played enough senior football to know what it is about need to have some responsibility shifted onto their shoulders and a striker is needed.

 

The relevance of finance to the Lowe's involvement is that we appear to be open to all offers and whether or not the players are integral to the current team is irrelevant. I am not sure what can be done here as we are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea as far as finances are concerned. Sell and be criticsed for lack of ambition, or hold onto them and be criticised for running the club into the ground.

 

The truth is Chairmen and coaching staff need to work together to produce the best 15 players for the league we are in, both will have input. Tactics, finances, available personnel etc are all relevant to our current position but I suspect that the ultimate choice of players from the squad lies with JP, the players in that squad have up til now been governed by the actions of the board dictated by the conditions imposed by the bank.

[NickG]

But, I just don't think such a set up will work (and it's not working as we sit here now), and as much as Lowe has learnt about football, I don't think he should be involved to the degree I fear he is.

 

 

 

I'm not really sure what relevance finance has to having Lowe involved in first team affairs.

 

relevant not is the level of involvement but the fact that it makes us unable to do a like for like comparison as to whether Lowes perceived level of involvement is effecting results - as we now have less able players