Begrudging thanks to Rupert Lowe and Southampton City Council

[Colinjb]

He ultimately was because Wilde brought him in to clean up his mess. As I said, he was responsible for this first relegation but plenty of clubs of our size have been relegated and not gone into admin, however much you don't like to admit it, that wasn't lowes fault.

 

So a process that Lowe played a part in beginning was nothing to do with him when it eventually resolved under his renewed leadership?

 

Had he not overseen relegation to begin with he wouldn't have been ousted. Wilde wouldn't have seen the need to buy into the club and eventually gain favour with the shareholders. He spearheaded the PLC, he knew the risks, they didn't pay off and we all paid the price.

 

As for admitting fault, Lowe was at fault, Wilde was at fault. All are culpable. This isn't a black and white issue hence why I specifically said I was taking Lowe's role in isolation when I initially commented.

[Turkish]

Coventry are still run as a business. The political nightmare that is SISU are another matter altogether, they are just playing poker over the Ricoh arena. As for 'my own' Coventry, f**k me you sad sod I havn't accumulated the amount of posts on here for a f**king laugh!

 

Sport does require an amount of speculation to accumulate. There is a balance though, go too far you overspend, be too conservative you neglect the team. We went too far to the later, spending money on poor players and ending up with a large and ineffective squad (Van Damme, Jakobsson, Nillson, etc.) and humoured managerial experiments (Gray, Wigley, eventually Woodward) at terrible times.

 

Lowe put into place the core elements needed to be a stable Premier League club, but he neglected the club's reason for existence and went for cheap options to sustain the business end. It was a pity, because as we are seeing now, the foundations were all there.

 

He also brought to the club One of the best goalkeepers we've ever had and one of the best centre halves of a generation, as well as James Beattie, Kevin Davies and Dean Richards, all good players signed for a pittance and sold for millions. Let's also not forget many of the players now breaking into the first teams were signed when Lowe was here and Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain, dyer etc all came to the club under his stewardship. Its easy and fashionable to blame him for everything but the truth is far different to the myth peddled out on here.

[Colinjb]

He also brought to the club One of the best goalkeepers we've ever had and one of the best centre halves of a generation, as well as James Beattie, Kevin Davies and Dean Richards, all good players signed for a pittance and sold for millions. Let's also not forget many of the players now breaking into the first teams were signed when Lowe was here and Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain, dyer etc all came to the club under his stewardship. Its easy and fashionable to blame him for everything but the truth is far different to the myth peddled out on here.

 

I'm not, I also acknowledge that he put into place the infrastructure that made us attractive when we were eventually picked up by the Liebherr family.

 

It's a delicious irony in it's way.

 

Nothing will ever be perfect but we are seemingly in a great position now. For better or worse the past helped create that.

[Turkish]

So a process that Lowe played a part in beginning was nothing to do with him when it eventually resolved under his renewed leadership?

 

Had he not overseen relegation to begin with he wouldn't have been ousted. Wilde wouldn't have seen the need to buy into the club and eventually gain favour with the shareholders. He spearheaded the PLC, he knew the risks, they didn't pay off and we all paid the price.

 

As for admitting fault, Lowe was at fault, Wilde was at fault. All are culpable. This isn't a black and white issue hence why I specifically said I was taking Lowe's role in isolation when I initially commented.

 

As I said the blame for 2005 relegation was lowes fault. The fans in 2006 were angry and would have taken anyone but Lowe. Wilde got his feet under the table by sucking up to Keith Legg and the whole 'Mike asked me to ask you' cringeworthy stuff. Lowe wasn't here when Wilde spunked millions we didn't have or failed to deliver the investment he promised, Lowe came back to a club in debt to to get us out of the mess that Wilde mob had put us in. Of course the moron fans turned on Lowe when all he was doing was stop us going bust, I'm no fan of Lowe and as I've said many times he started out demise, but he wasn't the reason we went into admin.

[Colinjb]

As I said the blame for 2005 relegation was lowes fault. The fans in 2006 were angry and would have taken anyone but Lowe. Wilde got his feet under the table by sucking up to Keith Legg and the whole 'Mike asked me to ask you' cringeworthy stuff. Lowe wasn't here when Wilde spunked millions we didn't have or failed to deliver the investment he promised, Lowe came back to a club in debt to to get us out of the mess that Wilde mob had put us in. Of course the moron fans turned on Lowe when all he was doing was stop us going bust, I'm no fan of Lowe and as I've said many times he started our demise, but he wasn't the reason we went into admin.

 

Yes, the events were linked. All part of the same sorry spectacle.

 

A lot of money did appear for transfers when Wilde came in, I often wonder what would have happened if Rupert Lowe would have given Redknapp greater access to that same pot.

[buctootim]

 

As for admitting fault, Lowe was at fault, Wilde was at fault. All are culpable.

 

Why fault for anybody? Saints finances at the time placed us in the lower half of the PL. We were firmly in the group of 12 or so clubs who stayed up when signings and management appointments worked out - but when a couple of things bombed were dragged down, we wren't unique. Lowe was around for 10 years - during which 30 clubs got relegated, some of them even without an evil bogeyman in charge.

 

The only truly reckless and stupid decisions were made under Wilde and Crouch who blew the last of the clubs funds on a desperate gamble to bounce back up - without that there would likely have been no admin.

Edited 26 January, 2014 by buctootim

[Colinjb]

Why fault for anybody? Saints finances at the time placed us in the lower half of the PL. We were firmly in the group of 12 or so clubs who stayed up when signings and management appointments worked out - but when a couple of things bombed were dragged down, we wren't unique. Lowe was around for 10 years - during which 30 clubs got relegated, some of them even without an evil bogeyman in charge.

 

Who is saying evil? I said when I initially posted that i'm sure Lowe operated as he always felt befitted the clubs best interest, unfortunately it didn't work out. As the chairman at the time he is culpable for the bad things that happened and were resultant of his time in charge.

[SarniaSaint]

Why fault for anybody? Saints finances at the time placed us in the lower half of the PL. We were firmly in the group of 12 or so clubs who stayed up when signings and management appointments worked out - but when a couple of things bombed were dragged down, we wren't unique. Lowe was around for 10 years - during which 30 clubs got relegated, some of them even without an evil bogeyman in charge.

 

The only truly reckless and stupid decisions were made under Wilde and Crouch who blew the last of the clubs funds on a desperate gamble to bounce back up - without that there would likely have been no admin.

 

 

This

 

IMO opinion these 2 and Lowe were responsible for our demise BUT if we hadn't gone way down would not been rescued by Marcus Leibherr.

 

Strange how Lovable Leon never gets any of the blame

[Hockey_saint]

If it was Lowe who decided that "Crosseley place" (i.e. after the fat keeper who has the dubious honour of being the only man to save an MLT Penalty in a competitive game) was a great name for a street built on where the Dell used to be off Milton road, then I'd happy put in a petition for public castration but otherwise I concur with the Fitzhugh fella up there, he was a polarising figure from the minute he performed a reverse takeover with his granny homes building company and really, I think his negatives far outweigh the positives.

[CB Saint]

This

 

[/b]IMO opinion these 2 and Lowe were responsible for our demise BUT if we hadn't gone way down would not been rescued by Marcus Leibherr.

 

Strange how Lovable Leon never gets any of the blame

 

Probably because he stuck his hand in his pocket, unlike the others.

[david in sweden]

" the evil than men do lives on, the good is often interred with their bones " ..or so thought Shakespeare anyway.

 

Its true that Ceasar Rupert didn't make a lot of friends, and made a fair number of bad / unpopular decisions ...and had more than his fair share of critics (and probably not without cause).

and in time a similar history will probably record... a plus and minus side.... to cover the period of Cortese's reign,

 

....but what did come out of the Lowe years was a new stadium (even if we were gifted the land by the council). I always asked myself ....How come no-one else was able to achieve that during the previous 30-odd years of wasted discussions , when almost everyone seemed to think that Stoneham was the Holy Grail that we had to seek after, and the only possible alternative site to The Dell?.

 

Surely no-one can still claim that Lowe " created the Academy ", but he did modernise the antiquated Youth system that had been pushed from pillar-to-post and starved of funding for several decades.

We pointed to the occasional youth player who made it to the first team as though it were some measure of great success. Sadly, we turned to an " improved " Academy very late in the day, and the " Double Dutch " experiment, though enlightened was clearly .. too little too late, (although many of those lads survived to make lower league careers....with some modest degree of success).

 

The real success came... after Lowe....by getting the right personnel to run the system effectively, but without RL's iniative we might not have seen the exciting prospects that have come in the years since.

On a personal level, he came over as somewhat arrogant public-school type and with a definite ego problem.. but nothing that could be compared to his eventual successor, who achieved much more for the club. Ce la vie.

Edited 26 January, 2014 by david in sweden

[Wes Tender]

Why are we raking over these old coals yet again?

 

The best thing to do with the Lowe era, is either to forget it as a footnote in our history, or be grateful that he cocked everything up so completely that he enabled Markus Liebherr to buy us and begin our phoenix-like rise.

[aintforever]

He ultimately was because Wilde brought him in to clean up his mess. As I said, he was responsible for this first relegation but plenty of clubs of our size have been relegated and not gone into admin, however much you don't like to admit it, that wasn't lowes fault.

 

He played a sizeable part, firstly in getting us relegated in the first place with the Sturrock/Wigley fiasco, then with his mis-management afterwards twice (the Redknapp/Woodward farce and then the Dutch joke).

 

Would the bank have pulled the plug if we were sat comfortably mid-table in the Championship?

[Dr Who?]

Wrecked our club, made himself rich, along with his partners in crime!

 

We had a great chance of pushing on in 2003/2004 season and the club with him as the leader made an epic fail. The season after we paid the price for not investing in the success we had. Then the rest is history.

 

It has in hindsight turned out for the best and I have enjoyed the last 4.5 years, but will we push on now, I do not think we will progress and hit a European place, but be a stable mid table premier league club.

 

If someone comes in who are willing to splash their cash and take us to the next level then great, but it is going to take not only someone with a lot of money (kl) but also someone willing to splash the cash in the hope for success and a return of some of their cash.

[ottery st mary]

Why are we raking over these old coals yet again?

 

The best thing to do with the Lowe era, is either to forget it as a footnote in our history, or be grateful that he cocked everything up so completely that he enabled Markus Liebherr to buy us and begin our phoenix-like rise.

 

 

This...

[Charlie Wayman]

This. He couldn't afford it so he tried to put loads if retail development in the plans and it was thrown out.

 

Which in fact was only following the Reading model and in itself a bloody good idea. When you look at the environs of SMS, like a post apocalypse industrial waste ground and it nigh impossible accessibility too traffic you can't help but wonder how it came out so wrong. Yes, we got the stadium but only because no other use could be found for such a barren site.

[Baird of the land]

Never been a Lowe hater. A lot of the foundations were building on come from his work. If anything his major flaw was his lack of Corteselike ruthlessness.

[Viking Warrior]

There are those that mock the stoneham initiative . But it was the only site available and we were desperate for a new stadium. No other site was available even in the previous 30 odd years . When the old gas work site suddenly and out of the blue came on the table there were still many hoops to jump through.

 

How many of those moaning about Lowe and post Lowe turned up at various HCC and the Southampton Town hall meeting . Not many I would hazard a guess .

 

I was one of those individuals I had my five minutes or whatever it was we had to put our case for the SMS site .

 

Richard Chorley was als in the same group as I. He gave an impressive pro SMS speech as well . I don't have much time for Chorley but on that day we were comrades in arms .

 

Also how many on here spent hours of their own time speaking to the residents the local ethnic communities mosques , temples etc i did and I'm proud that my small part had a positive impact on the st Mary's coming to fruition

 

It's easy to focus on the negative parts of our stadium part but there was a lot of work going on behind the scenes by fol like me and that also includes Chorley and co

[alpine_saint]

LOL at all the revisionism on here.

 

He didnt give a sh*t about the club or team. His goal, his ONLY goal, repeated many times by the man himself, was increased shareholder value, and probably the resulting rewards it generated him and his mates.

 

Has everyone forgotten his reaction to PL relegation ? He went on about the f**king catering and radio station.

[um pahars]

He ultimately was because Wilde brought him in to clean up his mess. As I said, he was responsible for this first relegation but plenty of clubs of our size have been relegated and not gone into admin, however much you don't like to admit it, that wasn't lowes fault.

 

Interestingly both the Clubs who went down with us in 2005 suffered financial difficulties with Palace really struggling and Norwich only keeping their heads above the water due to injections of funds from their main shareholders.

 

The year before saw Leeds, Wolves & Leicester relegated. Wolves got a new owner to stabilise them, Leicester had not long come out of administration following a previous relegation and once again struggled until Mandaric propped them up with £££ and then there is Leeds!!!

 

West Ham, Sunderland, Birmingham are others relegated around the same time and all struggled financially, needing big money investors to keep their heads above the water.

 

Ipswich entered administration, whilst others such as Sheffield United have continuously struggled, Derby went in to receivership from an early 2000ish relegation and struggled again after another relegation. Coventry, relegated in early 2000s are an absolute basket case. Sheff Weds are still struggling after their fall from the top flight and think Forest only stayed afloat due to tens of millions pumped in by their former Chairman.

 

Newcastle needed millions from Ashley to keep them afloat following their relegation (same can be said for Blackburn, Boro, Wigan etc). Hull and Portsmouth needed restructuring to differing degrees!!!!

 

Given the huge drop in income following relegation in the early days of the Premier League, many clubs have consistently struggled to keep their heads above the water with most, like us, unable to balance the books (and those that avoided administration only doing so by huge injections of £££ from owners/shareholders/new investors). The recent change on parachute payments might help, but we are still seeing the likes of Bolton run up huge debts following relegation.

 

 

In his early days I though Lowe had much to be proud of, notably overseeing the move to the new ground (SKY + Council + support certainly helped, but he delivered it) and a decent team on the pitch. In many areas he also dragged us in to the 21st century. Sadly I think like many others in football, his ego then spiralled out of control.

 

He was culpable for a series of poor decisions that led to our relegation in 2005, then for me without new ££££ coming in, or a quick repromotion [sic], then administration was almost inevitable.

[Miltonaggro]

LOL at all the revisionism on here.

 

He didnt give a sh*t about the club or team. His goal, his ONLY goal, repeated many times by the man himself, was increased shareholder value, and probably the resulting rewards it generated him and his mates.

 

Has everyone forgotten his reaction to PL relegation ? He went on about the f**king catering and radio station.

 

 

Absolutely! There was also a great deal of scepticism opposition to Lowe from the first day of his tenure, of which I was a part following an interesting conversation with an old friend at PWC - does anyone remember the 'reverse takeover' deal, and the subsequent documentary. This strong opposition was also evident in SISA (who were representative of a substantial contingent of the fanbase at the time), and this didn't wane, even in the cup final year / high finish year under Strachan. As for the Saints Forever Board at the time, this was completely split on Lowe right from the earliest incarnation. Lowe saw football fans as football people as idiots who could be easily manipulated and duped, as many were. Above all else he was a chancer who was lucky enough to become a football Chairman at exactly the 'right' time, he was then lucky that the council gifted him the gas works site following the Stoneham debacle, lucky to have had Le Tissier alongside some other staff appointments (there were good, but many more bad). When the luck dried up it was very much a case of the Emperors new clothes...

[Turkish]

Interestingly both the Clubs who went down with us in 2005 suffered financial difficulties with Palace really struggling and Norwich only keeping their heads above the water due to injections of funds from their main shareholders.

 

The year before saw Leeds, Wolves & Leicester relegated. Wolves got a new owner to stabilise them, Leicester had not long come out of administration following a previous relegation and once again struggled until Mandaric propped them up with £££ and then there is Leeds!!!

 

West Ham, Sunderland, Birmingham are others relegated around the same time and all struggled financially, needing big money investors to keep their heads above the water.

 

Ipswich entered administration, whilst others such as Sheffield United have continuously struggled, Derby went in to receivership from an early 2000ish relegation and struggled again after another relegation. Coventry, relegated in early 2000s are an absolute basket case. Sheff Weds are still struggling after their fall from the top flight and think Forest only stayed afloat due to tens of millions pumped in by their former Chairman.

 

Newcastle needed millions from Ashley to keep them afloat following their relegation (same can be said for Blackburn, Boro, Wigan etc). Hull and Portsmouth needed restructuring to differing degrees!!!!

 

Given the huge drop in income following relegation in the early days of the Premier League, many clubs have consistently struggled to keep their heads above the water with most, like us, unable to balance the books (and those that avoided administration only doing so by huge injections of £££ from owners/shareholders/new investors). The recent change on parachute payments might help, but we are still seeing the likes of Bolton run up huge debts following relegation.

 

 

In his early days I though Lowe had much to be proud of, notably overseeing the move to the new ground (SKY + Council + support certainly helped, but he delivered it) and a decent team on the pitch. In many areas he also dragged us in to the 21st century. Sadly I think like many others in football, his ego then spiralled out of control.

 

He was culpable for a series of poor decisions that led to our relegation in 2005, then for me without new ££££ coming in, or a quick repromotion [sic], then administration was almost inevitable.

 

Wouldn't have happened if they'd stuck you on the board would it pal.

[Turkish]

He played a sizeable part, firstly in getting us relegated in the first place with the Sturrock/Wigley fiasco, then with his mis-management afterwards twice (the Redknapp/Woodward farce and then the Dutch joke).

 

Would the bank have pulled the plug if we were sat comfortably mid-table in the Championship?

 

Isn't that what I said dipsh*t? He was responsible for the first relegation. When the Dutch clown came in and the bank pulled the plug it was after Wilde brought him back and we were skint. Skint because wilde had spunked a load of money we didn't have and made promises he couldn't keep.

Edited 26 January, 2014 by Turkish

[Turkish]

LOL at all the revisionism on here.

 

He didnt give a sh*t about the club or team. His goal, his ONLY goal, repeated many times by the man himself, was increased shareholder value, and probably the resulting rewards it generated him and his mates.

 

Has everyone forgotten his reaction to PL relegation ? He went on about the f**king catering and radio station.

 

As CEO of a PLC that is his job.

[aintforever]

Isn't that what I said dipsh*t? He was responsible for the first relegation. When the Dutch clown came in and the bank pulled the plug it was after Wilde brought him back and we were skint. Skint because wilde had spunked a load of money we didn't have and made promises he couldn't keep.

 

But if Lowe hadn't had made such a pigs ear of it by appointing the dutch duo the bank might not have pulled the plug. Lowe relegating us to League 1 probably made the banks act.

[Turkish]

But if Lowe hadn't had made such a pigs ear of it by appointing the dutch duo the bank might not have pulled the plug. Lowe relegating us to League 1 probably made the banks act.

 

What part of 'we were skint' don't you understand? Pearson only kept us up on the last day of the season with a fat more experienced squad. As well as the cheap manager we had to play kids because we had no money too and the reason we were skint was because Wilde spunked millions we didn't have.

[um pahars]

Wouldn't have happened if they'd stuck you on the board would it pal.

 

An interesting response to a somewhat comprehensive rebuttal of your claim that it was only us who suffered financial hardships following a relegation from the top flight.

 

onwards and upwards pal.

[shurlock]

As CEO of a PLC that is his job.

 

Shareholder value as an outcome or objective?

 

This will be fun...

[Turkish]

An interesting response to a somewhat comprehensive rebuttal of your claim that it was only us who suffered financial hardships following a relegation from the top flight.

 

onwards and upwards pal.

 

Well Stephen by listing all the clubs that got into financial difficulty upon relegation you merely prove my point that Lowe wasn't the some Buffoon that lead us down the path to disaster, it happened with plenty of other clubs too. We had new owners who promised the earth too, funny how those who were sucked in won't criticise them.

Edited 26 January, 2014 by Turkish

[JackFrost]

Lowe did a good job to run the club on a relative shoestring for a while but when it looked like we were going somewhere we made the mistake of buying in a load of solid PL jobbers as opposed to 2-3 quality signings that could have moved us to the next level. As soon as Strachan left the warning signs were there, and I don't think it's the fact we were relegated, but it's Lowe's shambolic running of the club during that period that grates with people. This was what was ultimately responsible for our relegation from the PL. Lowe failed to endear himself to the fans and did more to conform to the 'arrogant toff' stereotype than anything else and it's why the urban myths came about and the inaccurately directed blame towards him came about.

 

However as Turkish said earlier it's all too easy to blame Lowe for our relegation into League 1. People forget that it wasn't just Lowe who appointed the failed Poortvliet/Wotte experiment but it was actually Lowe/Wilde. Whilst with hindsight it was a terrible decision the seeds had already been sown by then. It was the equivalent of choosing the wrong type of fire extinguisher to put out the raging inferno of debt that Wilde's previous recklessness brought about in the first place.

 

Wilde was a chancer that exploited the "anyone but Lowe" fanbase, pounced on the cheap anti-Lowe stereotypes and the flawed notion that no-one could as bad a chairman as Lowe. He then manoeuved tactically to try and ensure the fans would blame his failings on Lowe, and the whole thing ended up in a complete cluster**** with Lowe, Wilde and Crouch all wanting control. None of them had the ability or resources to take the club forward and I wasn't actually that disappointed when we entered administration, because until of 3 of them exited the club we weren't going anywhere. At least Crouch actually put a load of his money into the club which is probably why he is remembered with a little more fondness.

 

Lowe did a decent job and then let himself down with his ego and stupid decisions, but Wilde was far worse.

[Turkish]

Shareholder value as an outcome or objective?

 

This will be fun...

 

So you disagree that a CEO of a PLC is answerable to his shareholders and if he fails them may well be out of a job? Fair enough, you're right it should be fun.

[shurlock]

So you disagree that a CEO of a PLC is answerable to his shareholders and if he fails them may well be out of a job? Fair enough, you're right it should be fun.

 

If the CEO's objective is to maximise shareholder value, then it's the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result not a strategy. The CEO's main constituencies are his employees, customers and products - if he gets all that right, he should increase the long-term value of the business that ultimately benefits shareholders.

 

Not me talking but Jack Welch.

 

Too many helmet CEOs -Rupes arguably being one- put the cart before the horse and become obsessed with their shareholders and invariably short-term results.

[aintforever]

What part of 'we were skint' don't you understand? Pearson only kept us up on the last day of the season with a fat more experienced squad. As well as the cheap manager we had to play kids because we had no money too and the reason we were skint was because Wilde spunked millions we didn't have.

 

We were skint but hiring two dutch morons as manager just made things worse. It's when you have to work on a shoestring (we did have some money to spend on players) that hiring a decent manager is important - Lowe failed miserably.

[Turkish]

We were skint but hiring two dutch morons as manager just made things worse. It's when you have to work on a shoestring (we did have some money to spend on players) that hiring a decent manager is important - Lowe failed miserably.

 

So tell me about the decent managers that could have come here knowing we were seriously in debt and sliding into administration, would have no money for transfers, has to loan out the experienced players, would have to play a team of kids and had avoided relegation on the last day of the previous season with a stronger squad than the one he'd be going into the next one with. They must have been queuing up.

[Turkish]

If the CEO's objective is to maximise shareholder value, then it's the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result not a strategy. The CEO's main constituencies are his employees, customers and products - if he gets all that right, he should increase the long-term value of the business that ultimately benefits shareholders.

 

Not me talking but Jack Welch.

 

Too many helmet CEOs -Rupes arguably being one- put the cart before the horse and become obsessed with their shareholders and invariably short-term results.

 

Short term results like the revamp of our academy, hiring George Prost who is credited with a large part of this, bring Walcott, Bale etc to the club and overseeing their development, those sort of short term results you mean?

[um pahars]

Well Stephen by listing all the clubs that got into financial difficulty upon relegation you merely prove my point that Lowe wasn't the some Buffoon that lead us down the path to disaster, it happened with plenty of other clubs too. We had new owners who promised the earth too, funny how those who were sucked in won't criticise them.

 

 

But sadly during that era, any club who were relegated from the top flight almost certainly then booked themselves in for a visit from the administrators not long after, with only those lucky to have or find a sugar daddy (or quickly repromoted) escaping this fate.

 

 

Almost as certain as night follows day, the fall out from relegation required a huge restructure, large amounts of investment or a date with administration.

 

 

And contrary to your claim above plenty of clubs went in to administration (with almost every other relegated club in that period only avoiding administration by having a sugar daddy to bankroll them through the initial years).

 

 

Without outside investment to tide us over or quick repromotion, then I'm afraid administration was nigh on inevitable, another symptom of the initial relegation from the top flight.

 

 

All three (or was it four or even five) of the various management teams that were at the helm in the Championship failed in their attempts to get us promoted, failed in attempts to bring in cash to tide us over, and failed to balance the books (and I criticised every one of the various permutations that failed, although Mr Crouch gets some serious latitude for sticking his hand in his pocket in our darkest days and bringing us the closest to washing our face).

[um pahars]

So tell me about the decent managers that could have come here knowing we were seriously in debt and sliding into administration, would have no money for transfers, has to loan out the experienced players, would have to play a team of kids and had avoided relegation on the last day of the previous season with a stronger squad than the one he'd be going into the next one with. They must have been queuing up.

 

Nigel Pearson??

[The Kraken]

Nigel Pearson??

Was Pearson all that great with us, though? Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing but fondness for the guy, and the club was a bit of a basket case during his time with us. But he brought in a few high earners on loan to bail us out and we still needed a last day hurrah to stay in the division. I think he did ok for us and wouldn't judge him solely on his time with Saints, but he was a relatively new and untested manager at the time and didn't do a huge amount with us to boost his CV.

[Wes Tender]

Which in fact was only following the Reading model and in itself a bloody good idea. When you look at the environs of SMS, like a post apocalypse industrial waste ground and it nigh impossible accessibility too traffic you can't help but wonder how it came out so wrong. Yes, we got the stadium but only because no other use could be found for such a barren site.

 

I concur fully with Alpine's post, that a lot of revisionism is taking place on this debate, this post being a classic example. The land had been earmarked by Southampton Council for Social Housing and thankfully the opportunity to change that usage was recognised at the time that Lowe cocked-up Stoneham and it became apparent that there appeared nowhere else we could go. Some Saints fans with connections on Southampton City Council saved Lowe's bacon.

 

Miltonaggro:

Absolutely! There was also a great deal of scepticism opposition to Lowe from the first day of his tenure, of which I was a part following an interesting conversation with an old friend at PWC - does anyone remember the 'reverse takeover' deal, and the subsequent documentary. This strong opposition was also evident in SISA (who were representative of a substantial contingent of the fanbase at the time), and this didn't wane, even in the cup final year / high finish year under Strachan. As for the Saints Forever Board at the time, this was completely split on Lowe right from the earliest incarnation. Lowe saw football fans as football people as idiots who could be easily manipulated and duped, as many were. Above all else he was a chancer who was lucky enough to become a football Chairman at exactly the 'right' time, he was then lucky that the council gifted him the gas works site following the Stoneham debacle, lucky to have had Le Tissier alongside some other staff appointments (there were good, but many more bad). When the luck dried up it was very much a case of the Emperors new clothes...

 

I'm obviously a colleague in arms with you and also if I'm not mistaken Alpine. All the apologists for the Lowe regime can bleat all they like about the things he did which they consider to be good for the club, but at the same time they choose to ignore the unethical and immoral way that the old board invited the reverse takeover to enrich themselves, attempting to hoover up shares to distribute to their cronies. No realistic assessment of Lowe's tenure can be made if the shonky circumstances of his arrival at the club are glossed over.

 

The club's demise under him and Wilde had two beneficial outcomes. The first was the arrival of Markus Liebherr on the scene. The second was that we were finally rid of Lowe, Cowan, Askham, Wiseman, Richards and all the other charlatans. The additional bonus was that all of them lost of the value of their shares so that all of their devious manoeuvrings came to nought.

 

Much as I feel that this has been done to death, I see that unless the revisionists are pulled up on their innacurate musings, history will eventually come to see the Lowe era as being not as bad as it really was for the club.

[um pahars]

Was Pearson all that great with us, though? Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing but fondness for the guy, and the club was a bit of a basket case during his time with us. But he brought in a few high earners on loan to bail us out and we still needed a last day hurrah to stay in the division. I think he did ok for us and wouldn't judge him solely on his time with Saints, but he was a relatively new and untested manager at the time and didn't do a huge amount with us to boost his CV.

 

Was hard to judge him one way or the other given than he had only been here for three months or so, but he met his short term targets and there was a semblance of "normality" during his short tenure (with hindsight he's proved a decent enough manager with Leicester though). Not sure he would have been able to keep the wolves from the door with a promotion though!!;

 

Response was more directed towards Turkish who was doubtful anyone would have taken such a basket case of a job.

[The Kraken]

Much as I feel that this has been done to death, I see that unless the revisionists are pulled up on their innacurate musings, history will eventually come to see the Lowe era as being not as bad as it really was for the club.

The problem with your post, Wes, is that you seem to want to only see it in black and white. Anyone who suggests Lowe was great for the club is barking mad. But by the same token, anyone who can't recognise that he did do a number of things that benefitted the club greatly, well they're equally as blinkered IMO. Lowe made many mistakes, some of them very costly, and he was exceptionally well financially rewarded from his time with us. But the fact remains that he did do a number of things which still benefit the club to this very day. So I'm able to view his tenure with a fair degree of balance, and treat the upside of it with the downside.

[aintforever]

Was Pearson all that great with us, though? Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing but fondness for the guy, and the club was a bit of a basket case during his time with us. But he brought in a few high earners on loan to bail us out and we still needed a last day hurrah to stay in the division. I think he did ok for us and wouldn't judge him solely on his time with Saints, but he was a relatively new and untested manager at the time and didn't do a huge amount with us to boost his CV.

 

We would have had a better chance of staying up with Pearson than trying to play total football with Jan Poortvleit.

[Turkish]

Nigel Pearson??

 

Loads of expensive loans, kept us up on the last day of the season with a better squad than he'd have has the following season. Can't see how he'd have kept us up given his performance the previous season.

[The Kraken]

Was hard to judge him one way or the other given than he had only been here for three months or so, but he met his short term targets and there was a semblance of "normality" during his short tenure (with hindsight he's proved a decent enough manager with Leicester though). Not sure he would have been able to keep the wolves from the door with a promotion though!!;

 

Response was more directed towards Turkish who was doubtful anyone would have taken such a basket case of a job.

Yeah, that's a fair assessment. As I said though, the Pearson of that time was very inexperienced as a manager and he really cut his teeth with us, prior to that he'd had a brief time with Carlisle where it can hardly be said he was any form of success (he presided over their last day staying up with Jimmy Glass scoring), he left the club after that and then was a coach and some time caretaker manager before arriving at our doors. He's gone on to be a decent manager, no doubt, but I can't say he'd proven that before coming to us by any stretch.

[shurlock]

We would have had a better chance of staying up with Pearson than trying to play total football with Jan Poortvleit.

 

Agree - been following Pearson closely at Leicester. We would have stood a much better chance of staying up with him - he wouldn't have thrown a ton of youngsters in at the same time and, at the very least, would have made us much harder to beat.

 

Wotte added a bit of steel when he took full control; but that would have have happened a lot earlier with Pearson in charge.

Edited 26 January, 2014 by shurlock

[Turkish]

But sadly during that era, any club who were relegated from the top flight almost certainly then booked themselves in for a visit from the administrators not long after, with only those lucky to have or find a sugar daddy (or quickly repromoted) escaping this fate.

 

 

Almost as certain as night follows day, the fall out from relegation required a huge restructure, large amounts of investment or a date with administration.

 

 

And contrary to your claim above plenty of clubs went in to administration (with almost every other relegated club in that period only avoiding administration by having a sugar daddy to bankroll them through the initial years).

 

 

Without outside investment to tide us over or quick repromotion, then I'm afraid administration was nigh on inevitable, another symptom of the initial relegation from the top flight.

 

 

All three (or was it four or even five) of the various management teams that were at the helm in the Championship failed in their attempts to get us promoted, failed in attempts to bring in cash to tide us over, and failed to balance the books (and I criticised every one of the various permutations that failed, although Mr Crouch gets some serious latitude for sticking his hand in his pocket in our darkest days and bringing us the closest to washing our face).

 

 

But we'll ever know if it was a certainty if Lowe had stayed, because he was ousted by someone who sucked a lot of people in with his using of Keith Legg as his fall guy.

 

What we do know for a fact is that the guy who ousted him spent millions we didn't have, promised investment that never came and when all else failed went back to Lowe to clear up his mess. That was the reason we went into administration.

 

Lowe made a lot of mistakes and I've said several times he was to blame for the 2005 relegation, saying administration was guaranteed under him pure speculation as it came 4 years after the premier league relegation and having gone through a succession of other chairmen who spent a fortune In that time.

[um pahars]

Loads of expensive loans, kept us up on the last day of the season with a better squad than he'd have has the following season. Can't see how he'd have kept us up given his performance the previous season.

 

But now you've changed tack from (a) who would have taken the job? to (b) would he have kept us up?

 

One answer to (a) is quite simply Pearson, but as for (b) no one knows.

[um pahars]

Agree - been following Pearson closely at Leicester. We would have stood a much better chance of staying up with him - he wouldn't have thrown a ton of youngsters in at the same time and, at the very least, would have made us much harder to beat.

 

if you go back to his early teams at Leicester in the third tier they were heavily populated with youngsters and players coming through the youth set up (plus a few youngsters loaned in).

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?8760-Nigel-Pearson-He-only-plays-old-carthorses-who-are-expensive!&highlight=Leicester#.UuUVxjLfWSM

[Turkish]

But now you've changed tack from (a) who would have taken the job? to (b) would he have kept us up?

 

One answer to (a) is quite simply Pearson, but as for (b) no one knows.

 

So one manager who might we've kept us up but equally might not have, excellent work.

[Wes Tender]

The problem with your post, Wes, is that you seem to want to only see it in black and white. Anyone who suggests Lowe was great for the club is barking mad. But by the same token, anyone who can't recognise that he did do a number of things that benefitted the club greatly, well they're equally as blinkered IMO. Lowe made many mistakes, some of them very costly, and he was exceptionally well financially rewarded from his time with us. But the fact remains that he did do a number of things which still benefit the club to this very day. So I'm able to view his tenure with a fair degree of balance, and treat the upside of it with the downside.

 

I see it as it was. The method of his arrival here has no justification, as it was a deliberate ploy to enrich the Old Board members. The shades of grey people will attempt to justify it by pointing to the benefits they perceive of us then becoming a PLC, but it doesn't excuse the unethical nature of Lowe's arrival and the greed incentive that brought it about. It certainly didn't bring much in the way of investment, which was always lacking throughout his tenure.

 

Lowe is given credit for gaining us St Mary's, but I merely point out that Stoneham appeared to be the only option at the time and he cocked-it up. Is it too black and white to credit Southampton City Council for saving his bacon?

 

The good things he did for the club? Well, the catering was supposed to be good and of course we had our own radio station. We avoided relegation on many occasions, but credit for that could be laid at Le Tissier's door. Whether the new manager every year could be classified as a plus or a minus, I don't know. The position achieved under Strachan was definitely a plus, but then his leaving and the lack of investment to cement our position was a minus. There was the "tell Lowe" email address, I suppose. That might have been a plus, had he taken any notice of it.

 

Other plusses? I'm struggling frankly and in any event, the minuses weigh the scales far more heavily.