saintwarwick Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 IF so.. when why do people say he would need to bring othe coaches..? Other people seem to think because we employed Poortvliet he was a cheap option but because we employed two other coaches this would offset what could of been used to secure the services of Pearson. What they are not taking into consideration is a new coach will need his own backroom staff, Pearson had his backroom staff which cost money but if he wanted to change it that would of cost money as well. I think we all know Poortvliet cost peanuts, it doesn't take the brains of a bishop to work out that his backroom staff will be equally low(e) paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 cos they forgot we already had some? And they were working for free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Anyoe who seriously believes that we could not have afforded Pearson if Lowe had wanted to is a retard. Lowe planned JP to come in weeks before the end of the season. Ask barcelona saint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Yes, they were called Dodd and Gorman and probably cost more than the dutch trio. which you have no idea of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Other people seem to think because we employed Poortvliet he was a cheap option but because we employed two other coaches this would offset what could of been used to secure the services of Pearson. What they are not taking into consideration is a new coach will need his own backroom staff, Pearson had his backroom staff which cost money but if he wanted to change it that would of cost money as well. I think we all know Poortvliet cost peanuts, it doesn't take the brains of a bishop to work out that his backroom staff will be equally low(e) paid. Would tend to agree with most, if not all of your post. That said - if you pay 'peanuts' you know what your gonna get..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totton Red Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 "The Saints Trust offfers fans a central point to rally round, the aim of the Trust is to encourage fans ownership in the Club, although you dont need to be a shareholder to join, I have said this many times, but if every season ticket holder and member had ticked the box on the season ticket renewal forms last season and joined the Trust" Sorry if I have been out of the loop but what does this statement mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 which you have no idea of... And neither do you...hth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Anyoe who seriously believes that we could not have afforded Pearson if Lowe had wanted to is a retard. Lowe planned JP to come in weeks before the end of the season. Ask barcelona saint. Lowe deliberately demanded a ridiculous pay cut that he knew Pearson would not accept so that it looked like he was the one preventing a deal. Its a crying shame that Pearson didnt have a decent contract; he would have had an open-and-shut case for constructive dismissal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Anyoe who seriously believes that we could not have afforded Pearson if Lowe had wanted to is a retard. Lowe planned JP to come in weeks before the end of the season. Ask barcelona saint. Lowe deliberately demanded a ridiculous pay cut that he knew Pearson would not accept so that it looked like he was the one preventing a deal. Its a crying shame that Pearson didnt have a decent contract; he would have had an open-and-shut case for constructive dismissal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Lowe deliberately demanded a ridiculous pay cut that he knew Pearson would not accept so that it looked like he was the one preventing a deal. Its a crying shame that Pearson didnt have a decent contract; he would have had an open-and-shut case for constructive dismissal. They did not get to talk about money!!!!!!!!! The line they were trying to spin after he was sacked was that Pearson would have cost too much due to his playing staff requirements. An assumption/propaganda story that is out of kilter with Pearson's previous statements, and something not being borne out at Leicester where last night the majority of his team were youngsters. Anyone who thinks Pearson was sacked because he would have cost too much is not in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Lowe deliberately demanded a ridiculous pay cut that he knew Pearson would not accept so that it looked like he was the one preventing a deal. Its a crying shame that Pearson didnt have a decent contract; he would have had an open-and-shut case for constructive dismissal. They did not get to talk about money!!!!!!!!! The line they were trying to spin after he was sacked was that Pearson would have cost too much due to his playing staff requirements. An assumption/propaganda story that is out of kilter with Pearson's previous statements, and something not being borne out at Leicester where last night the majority of his team were youngsters. Anyone who thinks Pearson was sacked because he would have cost too much is not in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 And neither do you...hth i know...but im not making statements about who cost what... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 And neither do you...hth i know...but im not making statements about who cost what... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brmbrm Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 How much would an extra 10 points be worth? Or 20? Or 30? Cheap management = underachievement = false economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brmbrm Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 How much would an extra 10 points be worth? Or 20? Or 30? Cheap management = underachievement = false economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Johnson Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 (edited) To be fair the current manager and board room set up is having a far more detrimental affect on the team... The team have been sh1te for the majority of this season. We are 2nd from bottom with no signs of hitting ANY form. Lowe created the problem, came back 'supposedly' to stop the rot and has made it worse. Not shouting for Lowe's removal will not affect the team - in fact they scored once it kicked off. In my view they need to have a kick up the arse, I've had it with the excuses - I think most of them know someone will apologise for them. Explain that one then. Sorry Dan that is complete hogwash - there has been total support in the stadium for the manager and team for 12 out of the 14 games - on 2 occasions there has been Lowe out chants maybe 3 but at one they got drowned out. Has the constant support in the other games seen us win? I do not believe anyone at the ground on Saturday wanted us relegated or to lose. What happend on Saturday was the final straw that broke the camels back for many supporters due to frustration at forwards and midfield that couldnt hit a cows arse with a banjo and a manager that is so far out of his depth its criminal. Would there of been any fights if we had a successful manager and team? Were we fighting in the Strachan era...of course not and nor have we on many occasions during Lowes stay but many are now fed up with his abysmal management where everything he touches turns to ****e. As mention chaps, for me that's just my point of view, I can of course complete understand yours, and for what it’s worth I think Lowe needs to go ASAP. Most now blame Jan for the poor performances on the pitch, yet when we lose to teams like Forest or Doncaster, why is the hatred aimed at Lowe during the game, and not Jan, who ultimately is making the decisions? RON, I think the comparisons to infighting under other manager era's is a little unjust, I'm not saying Jan isn't out of his depth, but Strachan & co who you refer to had allot more to work with. Channon's Sideburns, I'm not sticking up for Lowe in anyway, so please don’t accuse me of being a Lowe Luvvie, I personally think he came back to try & bring financial stability to the club, by doing so he has gambled with the footballing side by taking a punt on Jan which hasn’t paid off. However I believe his sole intention was to stop us going into administration, which so far, he has managed all bit it at the cost of footballing results. Due to the deep financial trouble we were in though, maybe this was to be expected? You pay peanuts, you get monkeys? Weston Super Saint, Complete agree, the only good thing about this club at the moment is arguably the fans. When we start fighting against each other, the club has lost everything. I don’t rate Lowe, but I try and clarify why at times I stick up for him, so that those who are fundamentally against Lowe can maybe at least understand at times why there are still Lowe supports out there, and if that goes some way to stopping the infighting then I will continue to do that. Edited 20 January, 2009 by Dan Johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 I think in this case Nick is spot on. Many fans blind bitterness towards Lowe, lead them to believe he is the ONLY reason we are in the mess we're in... When he's not the ONLY reason. I'm also convinced that many are now so infatuated with removing Lowe, that they don’t care that these protests could be having a detrimental effect on the team, and by protesting against the team during matches if it contributes to us going down, they don’t really care any more... as long as it results in Lowe leaving. The infighting on Saturday proved that for me. I think NI has been spot on for a long time. When you look at his position over Wilde, investment and the point he keeps repeating throughout the years for the major share holders to work together to sort our problems out. Then you have all these other muppets who backed Wilde to the hilt, ploughed into the magic investment like they had already won the pools. Conveniently forgetting these previous sound decisions as if they had no part in them. What I particularly liked was how NI when presented with the inside information on the Fulthorpe proposals, laid it out in basic form without bias. A monumental investment scheme with St Mary's at the hub. Why, because being attached to the stadium would ease plans through (already no problem as their existed a council white paper specifically for this) and the fact you would have 25,000 football fans passing through on match days. Compare that with all the shiete we had from other "informed" sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 i think nick takes a more balanced view like a lot of the posters on here ,but upsets the posters who take a more extreme view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 i think nick takes a more balanced view like a lot of the posters on here ,but upsets the posters who take a more extreme view I dont always agree with him but in principle he is spot on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 i think nick takes a more balanced view like a lot of the posters on here ,but upsets the posters who take a more extreme view I totally agree with you....Can I join your team fellas..please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 i know...but im not making statements about who cost what]/b]... And neither am I but it helps to keep a balanced view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 We have brought in 14 PLAYERS now since the end of last season, including spending a million odd on Scheiderlin - you are clearly wrong on both counts, there was scope to do things differently and to keep Pearson. And we have despatched with 14 players, contracts were either terminated, players retired or sold and players loaned out. (Rasiak, John, Lundekvam, Powell, Licka, Viafara, Safri, Davies, Dyer, Makin, Poke,Ostland, Wright Idiakez), and that doesn't include the loan signings (Hamill, Richard Wright, Vignal, Luketti) all who were on a lot higher wages than the current crop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 And we have despatched with 14 players, contracts were either terminated, players retired or sold and players loaned out. (Rasiak, John, Lundekvam, Powell, Licka, Viafara, Safri, Davies, Dyer, Makin, Poke,Ostland, Wright Idiakez), and that doesn't include the loan signings (Hamill, Richard Wright, Vignal, Luketti) all who were on a lot higher wages than the current crop. and Morgan cost 750euro and not the stated million plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 I actually concur with a lot of NI's article - There have been a number of contributors towards the unholy mess we find ourselves - So much so I wonder what the hell we as a club did in a former life to warrant the attention of such a disparate and motley bunch of reprobates we have had the misfortune to be saddled with... Lowe - Totally divisive figure who has made one mistake too many.. Wilde - Blithering idiot prone to panic attacks and discharging his duty of responsibility. Crouch - Out of his depth. Two managers who had crucial times did not give a toss ( Step forward George and Harry). And a plethora of "helpful" and "supposed wealthy" fans who quoted much and delivered nothing. I fear now that relegation is inevitable and with it the spectre of administration bringing with it the possibility that the rest of the division will have a 30 points head start on us, and the bugger is that I cannot see where salvation will come from. Miserable, miserable times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fos1 Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 I really think Nick should be asking his members how they feel about the situation at the club, not saying how he feels personally ! He is chairman of The Trust so members should be balloted as to the way forward for the Trust. I have heard that they have called a meeting before the Swansea game in The King Alfred !! Nothing like moving quickly !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 I actually concur with a lot of NI's article - There have been a number of contributors towards the unholy mess we find ourselves - So much so I wonder what the hell we as a club did in a former life to warrant the attention of such a disparate and motley bunch of reprobates we have had the misfortune to be saddled with... Lowe - Totally divisive figure who has made one mistake too many.. Wilde - Blithering idiot prone to panic attacks and discharging his duty of responsibility. Crouch - Out of his depth. Two managers who had crucial times did not give a toss ( Step forward George and Harry). And a plethora of "helpful" and "supposed wealthy" fans who quoted much and delivered nothing. I fear now that relegation is inevitable and with it the spectre of administration bringing with it the possibility that the rest of the division will have a 30 points head start on us, and the bugger is that I cannot see where salvation will come from. Miserable, miserable times... Evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 I really think Nick should be asking his members how they feel about the situation at the club, not saying how he feels personally ! He is chairman of The Trust so members should be balloted as to the way forward for the Trust. I have heard that they have called a meeting before the Swansea game in The King Alfred !! Nothing like moving quickly !!!!! While it would be great if they could mobilise quicker, would you not agree that next Saturday is probably the time when the highest number of fans/Trust members will be in the area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Evidence? The evidence is one near miss at a play-off final and survival in the CCC as well as putting in some crap execs who at least found a takeover deal which would potentially have seen us in Coventry's position right now.... not much evidence of outright failure. I dont think Crouch is out of his depth. It depends on what you require from a leader at a football club. All he has to do is provide desire. He is a fan and does that in spades. He passionately desires Saints success. With a CEO to run the club - fueled by desire - you never know what might happen; survival again perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Evidence? In my opinion, this time last year we were sinking at an equally alarming rate with D&G given the helm until the end of the season where most could see they were not up to it. Belatedly Crouch appointed Pearson which I give him credit for but it was almost too late to save the day. Additionally our finances were exceptionally parlous with a whole plethora of overpaid and underperforming players, but Crouch other than the badly handled loans of Skacel and Rasiak (where there was no time to bring in replacements) seemed to want to keep his fingers crossed and hope for the "expected financial backing to arrive" rather than take the bull by the horns and reduce our wage bill to a more safe level. Crouch is no doubt a good bloke and his heart is in the right place, but he does not now, nor will he ever convince me that he can successfully run a football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 While it would be great if they could mobilise quicker, would you not agree that next Saturday is probably the time when the highest number of fans/Trust members will be in the area? Depends what your intention is. If it is to remove Lowe/JP quickly and install a man to use the last remaining weeks of the transfer window to reinforce and shape a winning team then it might be too late. If your intention is to let things go and see how things develop (slim change of a result at Norwich for example, time for Lowe to spin some more propaganda etc) before asking what the point of change is this close to the end of the transfer window, then its fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fos1 Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 While it would be great if they could mobilise quicker, would you not agree that next Saturday is probably the time when the highest number of fans/Trust members will be in the area? Steve most people these days can be contacted by other means, and to wait two weeks could be too late !! Its not next Saturday but the following one !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torbay Saint Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Three o'clock and still no news. I would be nice for the Club to keep the fans 'in the loop' even if it was just a denial of the story. It is the same with Wotton and Hockaday (supposedly leaving). I maybe wrong, but has it ever been confirmed on the OS that Safri left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Three o'clock and still no news. I would be nice for the Club to keep the fans 'in the loop' even if it was just a denial of the story. It is the same with Wotton and Hockaday (supposedly leaving). I maybe wrong, but has it ever been confirmed on the OS that Safri left? No point if it is true is there. "Yes it's true, though nothing has been decided yet, just wanted you all to know." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Steve most people these days can be contacted by other means, and to wait two weeks could be too late !! Its not next Saturday but the following one !! It is "next" Saturday on the basis that it's after "this" Saturday. The Trust have e-mail addresses on their database, I'm sure they're capable of putting them to use if they deem it necessary. If you think it's so desperate that they have to organise something for yesterday, why not contact Nick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 In my opinion, this time last year we were sinking at an equally alarming rate with D&G given the helm until the end of the season where most could see they were not up to it. Belatedly Crouch appointed Pearson which I give him credit for but it was almost too late to save the day. Almost but we stayed up which was my objective after Burey left. Additionally our finances were exceptionally parlous with a whole plethora of overpaid and underperforming players, but Crouch other than the badly handled loans of Skacel and Rasiak (where there was no time to bring in replacements) seemed to want to keep his fingers crossed and hope for the "expected financial backing to arrive" rather than take the bull by the horns and reduce our wage bill to a more safe level. Again, there are many reports which say that Crouch had the backing of the board AND that he had a financial plan. There is no evidence during the time that he was in power to suggest that he seemed to keep his fingers crossed. Crouch is no doubt a good bloke and his heart is in the right place, but he does not now, nor will he ever convince me that he can successfully run a football club. Again I ask you why. With Pearson and Crouch at the helm this season I firmly believe we would be mid-table (and certainly not in the position we are in now.) That would be a success IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Again I ask you why. With Pearson and Crouch at the helm this season I firmly believe we would be mid-table (and certainly not in the position we are in now.) That would be a success IMO. Fair enough, but how would we have held on to the more experienced players - eg who would have paid for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Fair enough' date=' but how would we have held on to the more experienced players - eg who would have paid for them?[/quote'] We spent money on new players (wages, agents fees, loan fees), new coaches etc etc etc. It wasn't a fortune, but that's not to say it couldn't have been spent wiser and perhaps over a smaller number of players who would have contributed more than the 13 or so we did bring in. Maybe one or two could have been kept on and one or two others added to the squad (how much has Darren Moore cost Barnsley???). And then there is the existing players and youngsters we already had on the books. Pearson has shown no aversion to using youngsters at Leicester and using them well (Take out Howard and Oakley who are older than me :wink: then also Dyer who is over the hill at 26 and his team's ages last night were : 23, 21, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 22). IMHO, I think Pearson would have got more out of these players already on our books. And then of course there's the one part of the equation which many seem to overlook. A united Club from the start of the season and success on the pitch would have ensured that many more thousands would have come throught the gate, generating income that as well as reducing our debt couls also have been used to strengthen and improve the side. A virtuous circle as opposed to the vicious one we now find ourselves in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 We spent money on new players (wages, agents fees, loan fees), new coaches etc etc etc. It wasn't a fortune, but that's not to say it couldn't have been spent wiser and perhaps over a smaller number of players who would have contributed more than the 13 or so we did bring in. Maybe one or two could have been kept on and one or two others added to the squad (how much has Darren Moore cost Barnsley???). And then there is the existing players and youngsters we already had on the books. Pearson has shown no aversion to using youngsters at Leicester and using them well (Take out Howard and Oakley who are older than me :wink: then also Dyer who is over the hill at 26 and his team's ages last night were : 23, 21, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 22). IMHO, I think Pearson would have got more out of these players already on our books. And then of course there's the one part of the equation which many seem to overlook. A united Club from the start of the season and success on the pitch would have ensured that many more thousands would have come throught the gate, generating income that as well as reducing our debt couls also have been used to strengthen and improve the side. A virtuous circle as opposed to the vicious one we now find ourselves in. Had Pearson managed to emulate his Division 1 form and not repeat his form he showed with us last season, then yes, it may have United us. If things started off as they went with him last season then we would still have Lowe here and people would still remember why they want to moan. (rightfully.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Had Pearson managed to emulate his Division 1 form and not repeat his form he showed with us last season, then yes, it may have United us. If things started off as they went with him last season then we would still have Lowe here and people would still remember why they want to moan. (rightfully.) You mean his paltry 1.23 points per game? Which would put us 8 places higher than now, with 34 points? Yes, I think that would unite us. And please stop repeating that lie that Pearson was let go because Saints couldn't afford him. Listen to Um Pahars: They did not get to talk about money!!!!!!!!! The line they were trying to spin after he was sacked was that Pearson would have cost too much due to his playing staff requirements. An assumption/propaganda story that is out of kilter with Pearson's previous statements, and something not being borne out at Leicester where last night the majority of his team were youngsters. Anyone who thinks Pearson was sacked because he would have cost too much is not in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Had Pearson managed to emulate his Division 1 form and not repeat his form he showed with us last season, then yes, it may have United us. If things started off as they went with him last season then we would still have Lowe here and people would still remember why they want to moan. (rightfully.) If you take out the Plymouth game where he arrived the day before (or on that day depending on who you talk to), then his record was 16 points from 13 games. Not play off stuff, but certainly not relegation material either. This was without a pre season, after inheriting a team that was sinking (lost 4 out of the previous 5 games) etc etc etc. His initial record was to lose none of his first 5 games (he only lost 3 out of 13). His form was mid table stuff. Last season over 46 games, his 13 game form would have had us 14th/15th This season after 28 games, his 13 game form waould have us 14th/15th I think would have been good enough to keep the fans on side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 if only points per game works like that..pearson would have had a far weaker squad etc..so we would never no.. if he was THAT good..why did he go to league 1 for a job...why not the CCC..or the prem..? im sure we would be better under him but that does not say much really...I could do better than jan at the mo and how we are not cut adrift at the bottom with the circus we have as a first team is beyond me.. what really annoys me is when people use leicesters current position as a reason to bash lowe....they SHOULD be top of the league with what they have available.. to put it into perspective..ian holloway is riddiculed on here by almost everyone if mentioned as a possible manager...YET he has won league 1 (like pearson will do) with FAR LESS available to him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 if only points per game works like that..pearson would have had a far weaker squad etc..so we would never no.. if he was THAT good..why did he go to league 1 for a job...why not the CCC..or the prem..? im sure we would be better under him but that does not say much really...I could do better than jan at the mo and how we are not cut adrift at the bottom with the circus we have as a first team is beyond me.. what really annoys me is when people use leicesters current position as a reason to bash lowe....they SHOULD be top of the league with what they have available.. to put it into perspective..ian holloway is riddiculed on here by almost everyone if mentioned as a possible manager...YET he has won league 1 (like pearson will do) with FAR LESS available to him... I'm not saying Pearson was some special manager, and IMHO he still had to prove himself. I was merely responding to JohnnyFartPants post who suggested his form with us last season was poor. It was average, mid tableish, certainly not play off stuff, but certainly not relegation either. With regards going to Leicester, I think that has more to do with Leicester's potential more than their current position. They are "bigger" than many in the Championship and even the Premiership (a bit like us in that we are down at the moment, our potential is much bigger than Preston, Barnsley, Blackpool, Plymouth, Swansea etc - no disrespect to them of course). I'm interested about this claim that he should be doing well considering the resources etc, as firstly many teams have found it hard to bounce straight back up and secondly I havent followed Leicester's progress much, but noticed last night that apart from 3 older players the rest were pretty inexperienced youngsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 I'm not saying Pearson was some special manager, and IMHO he still had to prove himself. I was merely responding to JohnnyFartPants post who suggested his form with us last season was poor. It was average, mid tableish, certainly not play off stuff, but certainly not relegation either. With regards going to Leicester, I think that has more to do with Leicester's potential more than their current position. They are "bigger" than many in the Championship and even the Premiership (a bit like us in that we are down at the moment, our potential is much bigger than Preston, Barnsley, Blackpool, Plymouth, Swansea etc - no disrespect to them of course). I'm interested about this claim that he should be doing well considering the resources etc, as firstly many teams have found it hard to bounce straight back up and secondly I havent followed Leicester's progress much, but noticed last night that apart from 3 older players the rest were pretty inexperienced youngsters. just because a team might not bouce straight back up..it does not mean they should not be doing the business...we should have gone up in our first two season down..why? as we have far more at our disposal than most in the league we are in.. leicester litterally blow half the division away with who they can bring in and what they have available... does that mean divine right to success - no does that mean they SHOULD do the business - a betting man would say yes like I said..I dont think we would be in the bottom 2 with pearson here..but also, that does not say much as somehow, with jan and this stupid set up, we are not cut adrift and two wins would throw us up the table a fair few places...but the way some go on about him is rather OTT.. again like I said, the likes of ian holloway won that league with far less at his disposal..yet fans on here laugh at him but love pearson and sturrock (who both have achieved less in the football league than holloway) (im not saying we should have holloway, just putting it in to perspective) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 just because a team might not bouce straight back up..it does not mean they should not be doing the business...we should have gone up in our first two season down..why? as we have far more at our disposal than most in the league we are in.. leicester litterally blow half the division away with who they can bring in and what they have available... does that mean divine right to success - no does that mean they SHOULD do the business - a betting man would say yes like I said..I dont think we would be in the bottom 2 with pearson here..but also, that does not say much as somehow, with jan and this stupid set up, we are not cut adrift and two wins would throw us up the table a fair few places...but the way some go on about him is rather OTT.. again like I said, the likes of ian holloway won that league with far less at his disposal..yet fans on here laugh at him but love pearson and sturrock (who both have achieved less in the football league than holloway) (im not saying we should have holloway, just putting it in to perspective) I certainly think you should start with an advantage. However, that would also have to be tempered by the fact that when teams are relegated it often takes them a while to regroup. As Derby found out this season, losing becomes a habit. And as you say, it still has to be delivered. I haven't followed Leicester's progress much, so have no idea if they have bought players, lost players or whatever, but I don't get the impression they have gone mental and spent loads and looking at their team last night it looked like a load of youngsters gelling well. (PS I'd have Holloway over Jan!!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 20 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 January, 2009 I really think Nick should be asking his members how they feel about the situation at the club, not saying how he feels personally ! He is chairman of The Trust so members should be balloted as to the way forward for the Trust. I have heard that they have called a meeting before the Swansea game in The King Alfred !! Nothing like moving quickly !!!!! It's a start i suppose and what can be said is that by calling AND ACTIVELY PUBLICISING the meeting it'll stir things up a bit just prior to the next home game. I'm still concerned about Nick though because from reading his articles i cannot believe he'd represent the views of fans and ST members properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 It's a start i suppose and what can be said is that by calling AND ACTIVELY PUBLICISING the meeting it'll stir things up a bit just prior to the next home game. I'm still concerned about Nick though because from reading his articles i cannot believe he'd represent the views of fans and ST members properly. Are you a Trust member? if not why not join and have your say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 20 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Are you a Trust member? if not why not join and have your say? It's a waste of time at present. I may join if they start saying the right things though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 It's a waste of time at present. I may join if they start saying the right things though. But that's like not bothering to vote in an election and moaning about who get's elected? If enough people with the same views as you joined then you would have a greater say surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 20 January, 2009 Share Posted 20 January, 2009 Is it just my imagination or did the now deified Nigel Pearson get a right old kicking on this site last season? And weren't people less than impressed, even after our get-lucky escape on the last day with him as manager. Just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 20 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 20 January, 2009 But that's like not bothering to vote in an election and moaning about who get's elected? If enough people with the same views as you joined then you would have a greater say surely? You do make sense but from a personal point of view i'd rather wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now