Rupert Lowe interview Part 1:

[Bon Call Night]

For the period when Blackstock couldn't get a look in, the manager was Burley and the CEO was Lowe (that was what I meant by that line, in that it was his appointment being overseen by him who was stifling this boy's future, i.e. it didn't happen in the two years that he was away!).

 

Therefore I see absolutely no relevance for Blackstock being used in his little tirade given he appointed that manager and he was overseeing the Club in his dual role of CEO and Chairman.

 

I'll ask again, do you want the manager or the CEO to pick the team?

 

You seem to want it both ways so long as you can blame Lowe when it goes wrong. Managers like Burley and Redknapp have got off scott free almost in comparison, yet they both had money and came up short of their marks under different CEO's.

 

Why can't people accept this piece for what it is as no doubt there are missing parts where it has been edited to fit the column space. There may also be an element of truth stretching. Essentially it says we have put in place a long term plan and we are going to try and follow through with it.

[um pahars]

Lowe is not saying that you have to let a player go as soon as he expresses an interest in moving.

 

Only if that is not successful does a club ultimately have to accept that trying to hang on to an unwilling employee is not likely to be in the club's best interest.

 

You must be living in some parallel universe if you really believe this.

 

On the same day that Lowe was berating the former board for letting these 6 youngsters go, he was elsewhere saying:

 

 

"While you’re in the Championship, there’s no point in saying that players aren’t going to move, because ultimately they’re the people who decide whether they’re going to go or not,” he explained.

 

“A club can’t make a player leave, a player makes a decision he’s going to leave.

 

“If he gets what he considers to be a better offer, and he’s making a career progression and he’s earning more money, then very often it’s them who will decide they are going to go."

 

 

Three of those who left were getting regular first team football (in fact I think we were building a team around them), but left for mega wonga and to ply their trade in the highest tier.

 

If you really think Lowe would have held on to Bale, Baird and Jones (who even went on strike), then you're living in fantasy land - Theo, Bridge and then the history of Beattie, Richards, Phillips, etc etc etc.

 

Blackstock left a month after Lowe, so his career was obviously "blighted" by Burley and Lowe (who had also just signed Rasiak). Who cares? Let's blame the old lot.

 

The problem with the lines peddled in that interview is that they clearly contradict with what he is saying elsewhere in the same week.

 

Young players who go when he was not around are a waste of talent and we should have held on to them.

 

Young players who go (or might go) when he is at the helm leave us with no choice as they hold the balance of power.

Edited 6 December, 2008 by um pahars

[um pahars]

I'll ask again, do you want the manager or the CEO to pick the team?

 

As I have said on many occasions, the manager (or Head Coach as Lowe would like to call them). And BTW I think you'll find there is much angst displayed against both Burley and Redknapp on here and in real life.

 

In football, managers, CEO's and Chairman (and even payers) will get praise when they do well and they will also get criticism when they make mistakes. As long as there approach is consistent and fair, I fail to see what's wrong with that.

 

But going back to that article, if you think stretching the truth is including three players who were regulars and who ****ed off for the money and status, along with one who ****ed off straight after Lowe, and using them as a stick to beat his predecessrs with, then in your Professors league of living in a dream world.

 

(PS When Wigley left we were in the bottom three).