Crouch- What exactly did he do wrong?

[Verbal Kint]

That doesn't excuse Crouch's behaviour though.

 

The AGM is the one time of the year when a shareholder gets to air his views on the direction the club is heading. So what if we got angry and shouted? As a 10% shareholder who has put more money into this club than Lowe has in 10 years, and having seen his plan for next year ditched for this dutch **** instead, i think he had every right to be angry

[stevegrant]

on SISU..im still waiting for cov to go tits up....like the ITKs said on here..

The Coventry deal with SISU is structured totally differently to the offer they were making with SFC.

 

As far as I can see, the only reason it was rejected by Lowe, Wilde and Crouch was because it was going to dilute their shareholdings, so none of them would be in control anymore.

 

Since then, the "control" thing isn't even the issue anymore, IMO. It is simply a case of wanting to get one over on at least one of the other two. Lowe and Wilde want to keep putting Crouch down as much as possible, and Crouch wants to exact revenge on the pair of them for forcing him out in the summer. The lot of them are ****ing pathetic.

[fos1]

I was there, as you know. I know what I saw.

 

You can twist it to suit your own agenda as much as you like, but I know what I saw. While many others in the room may have agreed with what was being said and applauded accordingly, they weren't standing and cheering. 20-30 people were stood at various points, and they all left when the vote was taken.

 

 

Sorry, but that's crap. Why didn't the lot of you want to hear what he had to say, particularly if you felt sorry for him/thought he was out of his depth? You could have put Lowe on the spot, but you chose to walk out and not listen, because you'd already made your judgement before even giving the bloke a chance to put his opinions across.

 

 

That I do agree with, and have said so in the past. That doesn't excuse Crouch's behaviour though.

 

 

 

I am twisting nothing Steve, I would say 98% of the room stood up when asked if they had no confidence in Lowe

 

My only agenda Steve as you well know is to remove Lowe once and for all from our football club before he takes us further down the leagues

 

Perhaps you should come off the fence before its too late !!

 

You might say thats crap Steve but I personally did not wish to listen to a man who has not got a clue what he is doing and is completely out of his depth and I know for a fact is only allowed to do what Lowe tells him

 

I believe Crouch had a right Steve to be angry after spending his hard earned money on shares and Lowe blowing it on this stupid Dutch experiment !!

 

I wonder if you would have just sat and took that rubbish that Lowe was spouting if it was you that had spent the money !!

 

Wake up Steve Lowe has to go

[fos1]

The AGM is the one time of the year when a shareholder gets to air his views on the direction the club is heading. So what if we got angry and shouted? As a 10% shareholder who has put more money into this club than Lowe has in 10 years, and having seen his plan for next year ditched for this dutch **** instead, i think he had every right to be angry

 

Spot on, every right to be angry after spending his money and having to listen to the rubbish that Lowe was spouting. Lowe set the tone for the AGM when the first thing he did was read a supportive letter out from his mum !!!!

[Weston Saint]

I think that's an erroneous statement. some have been well loved and respected.

John Corbett and George Reader were certainly anything but crap

Alan Woodford did a good job too

[Stu Man Do]

So Crouch puts our top scorer out on loan and it's fine because he "knew the problems", but Lowe does the same and it's not on? Cracking logic there.

 

I think the difference is that last year we still had a proven and consistent scorer in Stern John last year. The loans of the likes of Rasiak and John whilst leaving us with untested DMG or the failures that were Robertson and Pekhart is where Lowe is getting slated.

[fos1]

I think the difference is that last year we still had a proven and consistent scorer in Stern John last year. The loans of the likes of Rasiak and John whilst leaving us with untested DMG or the failures that were Robertson and Pekhart is where Lowe is getting slated.

 

Steve please see my reply also, on thread 23 that you dont seem to have replied to?

[alpine_saint]

So Crouch puts our top scorer out on loan and it's fine because he "knew the problems", but Lowe does the same and it's not on? Cracking logic there.

 

Oh, because it ended there with Lowe, didnt it ?

 

How much did we get for our Man of The Season again ?

 

You are beginning to sound as bad as Illingsworth. I especially liked your comment about Crouch's behaviour at the AGM, considering Lowe set out to turn that into the farce it became.

[stevegrant]

Perhaps you should come off the fence before its too late !!

Which part of "I want them all to have no further part in SFC" suggests I'm sat on the fence?

 

You might say thats crap Steve but I personally did not wish to listen to a man who has not got a clue what he is doing and is completely out of his depth and I know for a fact is only allowed to do what Lowe tells him

A "fact" according to that ever-reliable source, Leon Crouch. As he's not got an axe to grind at all, has he?

 

I believe Crouch had a right Steve to be angry after spending his hard earned money on shares and Lowe blowing it on this stupid Dutch experiment !!

Nobody held a gun to his head and forced him to pay way over the odds to buy those shares. Perhaps if he hadn't alienated himself from both Lowe and Wilde, they might not have felt the need to rock the boat in the summer.

 

I wonder if you would have just sat and took that rubbish that Lowe was spouting if it was you that had spent the money !!

I wouldn't have paid a 20% premium on shares in a football club, so it's a fairly moot point.

 

Wake up Steve Lowe has to go

I don't think I've suggested otherwise. All I've suggested is that Crouch, in my personal opinion, is not someone I would want to see replacing him.

[Thedelldays]

thing is alps..the likes of me and you can get angry and what difference does it make to lowe and co...NOTHING...crouch would have better TO ALL OF US to lay out where lowe has gone wrong and tell us all what HE would differently to make this better...he had the captive audience with fans, share holders and local media...

 

instead..he walked out...

[alpine_saint]

thing is alps..the likes of me and you can get angry and what difference does it make to lowe and co...NOTHING...crouch would have better TO ALL OF US to lay out where lowe has gone wrong and tell us all what HE would differently to make this better...he had the captive audience with fans, share holders and local media...

 

instead..he walked out...

 

I disagree that Crouch has more power than us - for as long as Wilde is allied with the Lavender Hill Mob, he is completely impotent.

 

THE FANS HAVE THE POWER. STOP ATTENDING HOME MATCHES. Barclays wil have Lowe out in no time.

[fos1]

I don't think I've suggested otherwise. All I've suggested is that Crouch, in my personal opinion, is not someone I would want to see replacing him.

 

So you are saying you would rather continue with Wilde and Lowe and this stupid dutch idea!! Steve you are really are losing my respect, because if this continues we are not only going to be relegated we are also guranteed to go into administration, if you are happy for this to happen then carry on with your views, you will then get what you sew !!!

[saintedwill]

I was extremely piissed when he put Rasiak and Skacel out on loan on the last day of the trasnfer window a year ago, but compared to utter stinking f**k-up that Lowe and Wilde have presided over since, that now seems like a bagatelle.

 

It seems to me Crouuch knew the problems and had a plan which would have taken us down a similar cost-saving route with more conventional and successful footballing philosophy, attendances would have been more stable, the losses less, the cost-cutting required less and the club would not have been staring relegation and administration in the face.

 

So Crouch puts our top scorer out on loan and it's fine because he "knew the problems", but Lowe does the same and it's not on? Cracking logic there.

 

It is really when you think about it. Making a mistake can be seen as stupid, but watching someone make a mistake and then repeating it is top level idiocy.

 

If you saw someone scold their arm, would you empty the contents of a boiling kettle on yours?

[stevegrant]

So you are saying you would rather continue with Wilde and Lowe and this stupid dutch idea!!

Show me where I've said that. You're making up an opinion that simply doesn't exist.

 

I don't really know how much more emphatic I can say this:

 

I WANT ALL THREE OF THEM, THAT IS RUPERT LOWE, MICHAEL WILDE AND LEON CROUCH, TO HAVE NO PART IN RUNNING SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB.

 

Has that cleared up the confusion that you seem to be having, or are you going to try and twist those words into something else as well?

 

Steve you are really are losing my respect

Why, because I'm not backing your mate?

 

If you're not going to actually listen to the words I'm saying and only take in the words I'm not saying, I couldn't give a stuff.

 

because if this continues we are not only going to be relegated we are also guranteed to go into administration, if you are happy for this to happen then carry on with your views, you will then get what you sew !!!

Ah, so it's my fault now? Excellent.

 

I'm well aware of what relegation is likely to bring, and to be honest we'll probably be there even if we stay up at this rate. Once again it comes back to you completely failing to read the ACTUAL words that I've written. Just because I don't think Leon Crouch is the right man to take SFC forward, that doesn't mean I think Rupert Lowe and/or Michael Wilde are. In fact, I've said on this website numerous times (that bit in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS above being another of them) that I believe someone else needs to come in, but it needs to be a complete outsider, in my opinion.

[saint_stevo]

i want a chairman i dont really know what they look like, someone who acts like Randy Lerner.

 

There is no need for a Chairman to be in the foreground the whole time.

[aintforever]

The Coventry deal with SISU is structured totally differently to the offer they were making with SFC.

 

As far as I can see, the only reason it was rejected by Lowe, Wilde and Crouch was because it was going to dilute their shareholdings, so none of them would be in control anymore.

 

Since then, the "control" thing isn't even the issue anymore, IMO. It is simply a case of wanting to get one over on at least one of the other two. Lowe and Wilde want to keep putting Crouch down as much as possible, and Crouch wants to exact revenge on the pair of them for forcing him out in the summer. The lot of them are ****ing pathetic.

 

I agree they are pathetic, but not as pathetic as the gimps on here who thought they were rejecting the SISU deal for the good of the club.

 

"it's right for Coventry but not for us" was a ****** many came out with, now a few months later we probably face being in a worse position than Coventry ever were.

[fos1]

Show me where I've said that. You're making up an opinion that simply doesn't exist.

 

I don't really know how much more emphatic I can say this:

 

I WANT ALL THREE OF THEM, THAT IS RUPERT LOWE, MICHAEL WILDE AND LEON CROUCH, TO HAVE NO PART IN RUNNING SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB.

 

Has that cleared up the confusion that you seem to be having, or are you going to try and twist those words into something else as well?

 

 

Why, because I'm not backing your mate?

 

If you're not going to actually listen to the words I'm saying and only take in the words I'm not saying, I couldn't give a stuff.

 

 

Ah, so it's my fault now? Excellent.

 

I'm well aware of what relegation is likely to bring, and to be honest we'll probably be there even if we stay up at this rate. Once again it comes back to you completely failing to read the ACTUAL words that I've written. Just because I don't think Leon Crouch is the right man to take SFC forward, that doesn't mean I think Rupert Lowe and/or Michael Wilde are. In fact, I've said on this website numerous times (that bit in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS above being another of them) that I believe someone else needs to come in, but it needs to be a complete outsider, in my opinion.

 

Steve you really do need to wake up and smell the coffee, you say you want all three gone, so who do you suggest then? out of the three of them only one person I believe should be in control even if it is only until the end of the season to get us out of this mess that Lowe and Wilde have caused.

Also only one of them will put up personal money to save our club all Lowe has ever done is take money out !! as you well know.

If its a case of us going to the wall or Crouch saving us and putting an English manager in place who has contacts in the English game, and it allows us to bring some loan signings in to help us climb the league, then yes I am 100% behind him and I know I am not the only one !!

For you to turn around and say about mates and you dont give a stuff I really expected better of you Steve thought you were probaly above all that rubbish but eh never mind !!!

[stevegrant]

Steve you really do need to wake up and smell the coffee, you say you want all three gone, so who do you suggest then?

I don't know. Preferably someone with no connection whatsoever to the three of them, someone with experience of dealing with getting its fan/customer base back onside after slumping sales and big losses. They don't even need to have any sort of connection with SFC, in fact in terms of having a clear head, it would probably be beneficial if they had no vested interest on that front.

 

out of the three of them only one person I believe should be in control even if it is only until the end of the season to get us out of this mess that Lowe and Wilde have caused.

That's your opinion, I disagree.

 

Also only one of them will put up personal money to save our club all Lowe has ever done is take money out !! as you well know.

Not strictly true. Stadium rights issue. A figure equal to a year's salary or so, but still, factually accurate.

 

And if Crouch is going to put money in, fine. You and others have been telling me and everyone else that he's said he's willing to put money into the club for months, and yet we're still here having the same arguments. If he's going to do it, get on with it, because time's not exactly on our side. If Lowe and/or Wilde are putting some sort of block on it (quite how they'd do that, I've no idea, given that Barclays are in control in reality), go above their heads and ask Barclays to issue an ultimatum to the board.

 

I see absolutely no logical reason why Lowe and/or Wilde would (or could) reject the opportunity for serious investment regardless of who the provider is, unless there are strings attached that make it unworkable. But we don't get told of those strings, do we?

 

For you to turn around and say about mates and you dont give a stuff I really expected better of you Steve thought you were probaly above all that rubbish but eh never mind !!!

Well if you're going to resort to exactly the same, with "I'm losing respect for you because you don't agree with me", I see it as entirely fair game to respond in kind, or do I not have a right of reply anymore?

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Given that he is in a position of relative power, he needs to be able to control his temper and emotions in that sort of situation. With the situation the club is in, whoever is in charge needs to keep their emotions intact, and I'm afraid he spectacularly failed to do so there.

 

He was supported by a number of people there, but that's to be expected. He was against Lowe. Anybody who said anything remotely against Lowe got a cheer and a standing ovation from the same 20-30 people.

 

The most notable thing to me from the AGM was that he - and most of the aforementioned 20-30 people, including Lawrie McMenemy - chose not to a) vote, meaning the figures were massively skewed in Lowe's favour, and b) stay and listen to what Jan Poortvliet had to say. To me, that says they were all more interested in just having a go at Lowe than actually caring about what's going on on the pitch and at the training ground.

 

 

Having being invited to attend an AGM pre meet* with all the people you are criticising Steve, I have to say you are - for once 100% wrong. Yes there was anti Lowe sentiments expressed but there was also a real larger concern at the plight of our club. Remember these people are all fans too, who go to matches whether or not they are current or ex board members. (Lowe, I seem to remember was an infrequent visitor).

 

* present along with myself, Ian Gordon, Brian Hunt, Lawrie and Anne McMenemy, Patrick Trant, Mary Corbett, Mark Dennis and a few others.

 

At that pre-AGM meeting there was no talk of walk outs or not voting whatsoever, you are very wrong to suggest it, - in fact Leon handed out a briefing sheet (which I have) with lots of questions on it of a footballing nature as well as financial, and the intention was to stay to the end. Lowe however set the tone with the letter reading and his subsequent pompous attitude. For me the last straw was the facetious answer he made to Mrs McMenemy which was uncalled for. Much as I am not LM's biggest fan I am sure he would not have treated Mrs Lowe with such contempt.

 

Steve, it is obvious you have no time for Crouch and yes he has made mistakes for which he should take blames (siding with Wilde, bad PR and Dodd/Gorman) but you seem content to apportion as much blame on him as you do Lowe, which considering how much time each man has been in real power at the club is disingenious and imo unfair.

 

I usually respect your opinion but this time I sincerely believe your opinion to be very wrong and dare I say it based on ignorance.

 

Finally you talk about Crouch losing his temper - yes he did get angry but Lowe's behaviour/language to hundreds of people who have ever opposed him is a helluva lot worse. You have - fairly - accused me of being too pro-Crouch in the past but today you have shown your true colours and I am disappointed to say the least.

Regards Duncan

[aintforever]

Dodd and Gorman turned out to be ****e but it's a bit harsh to criticise Crouch over it, he only let them take charge of 4-5 games after Burley did a runner.

 

It made sense to give them a crack at no extra cost while a new manager was being found.

 

The only thing Crouch has done wrong is believe Wilde's lies about investment.

Edited 20 January, 2009 by aintforever

[stevegrant]

Having being invited to attend an AGM pre meet* with all the people you are criticising Steve, I have to say you are - for once 100% wrong. Yes there was anti Lowe sentiments expressed but there was also a real larger concern at the plight of our club. Remember these people are all fans too, who go to matches whether or not they are current or ex board members. (Lowe, I seem to remember was an infrequent visitor).

 

* present along with myself, Ian Gordon, Brian Hunt, Lawrie and Anne McMenemy, Patrick Trant, Mary Corbett, Mark Dennis and a few others.

 

At that pre-AGM meeting there was no talk of walk outs or not voting whatsoever, you are very wrong to suggest it, - in fact Leon handed out a briefing sheet (which I have) with lots of questions on it of a footballing nature as well as financial, and the intention was to stay to the end.

I never once suggested it was pre-planned to walk out and to cause a scene, but the fact of the matter is that it happened. Leon lost his rag (which, while understandable, only served to give what little moral high ground there was available to Lowe) and then didn't even vote to show that there is a significant percentage of the shareholders who would have (I presume) voted against the re-election of the board members.

 

Lowe however set the tone with the letter reading and his subsequent pompous attitude. For me the last straw was the facetious answer he made to Mrs McMenemy which was uncalled for. Much as I am not LM's biggest fan I am sure he would not have treated Mrs Lowe with such contempt.

I agree that Lowe set the tone and it was poor form to say the least, and the modicum of respect I had for him in terms of at least having the balls to turn up (unlike Wilde) was gone in an instant with that letter. The response to the photo was plain stupid, which I don't think is a criticism he's often labelled with.

 

Why couldn't Crouch and McMenemy keep their composure and act with dignity? That would have ensured that they had all of the moral high ground, and would have gained even more support, and if they'd stayed to vote, they'd have shown the numerical opposition as well.

 

Steve, it is obvious you have no time for Crouch and yes he has made mistakes for which he should take blames (siding with Wilde, bad PR and Dodd/Gorman) but you seem content to apportion as much blame on him as you do Lowe, which considering how much time each man has been in real power at the club is disingenious and imo unfair.

I hold the three of them culpable for the state we're in. Ultimately, I don't see what difference it makes who is more culpable than the other, as they've all had a hand in the situation, and often their culpability has come from their actions when they've NOT been sat in the boardroom.

 

I usually respect your opinion but this time I sincerely believe your opinion to be very wrong and dare I say it based on ignorance.

I think that's slightly unfair, mainly on the basis that I, and the vast majority on here, aren't privy to a hell of a lot of the behind-the-scenes goings-on unlike yourself. I only have limited information with which to go on, and I don't make a judgement based upon information that isn't available.

 

Finally you talk about Crouch losing his temper - yes he did get angry but Lowe's behaviour/language to hundreds of people who have ever opposed him is a helluva lot worse.

We're getting into the "two wrongs don't make a right" situation here, I feel.

 

You have - fairly - accused me of being too pro-Crouch in the past but today you have shown your true colours and I am disappointed to say the least.

Regards Duncan

The only colours I have are red and white, I call it as I see it based on the information I have, as I'm sure you can appreciate. As I said, I'm certainly not on Lowe's side, I'm not on Wilde's side, and I'm not on Crouch's side. I want what's best for SFC, like all of us on here. I suspect we just have different ideas as to how that is achieved, which isn't unhealthy. It would be pretty boring if we all agreed all the time, after all.

[Snowballs2]

As much as we may not like it, we may be forced to be "managed" by one of the 3 Aigos, of those 3 Crouch...IMO..would do the least damage, probably go some way to re uniting supporters, and put in a manager or coach who knows the English game.

To say that none of the three are acceptable is a little crazy since it is unlikely that anyone in their right mind will want to buy us at the moment.

Therefore the least dangerous option is Crouch.

[cambsaint]

He made one absolutely massive mistake..........

 

He didn't make it impossible for Lowest to return as chairman!!

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Steve, I used to read your posts because I thought they were well-balanced and neutral and who is neutral these days?

 

When you earlier criticised Pearson because under him we finished below 13th (the position when he took over) I lost some respect for you. You know darn well he took over a club in serial decline and in the end did well to keep us up and yet you use a cheap and biased statistic.

 

You have (perhaps unintentionally) fallen off the fence today, but at least we know what side you chose to fall - what took you so long? No problems because most on here have long declared their allegiances one way or the other (can't still work out FC mind you) and now, I think you have. Perhaps it was even a sub-conscious moment.

Edited 20 January, 2009 by Fitzhugh Fella

[Joesaint]

At least he is a fan, with no takeover I'd want him back.

[aintforever]

The bottom line is I think you can trust Crouch to do what he thinks is best for the club.

[stevegrant]

When you earlier criticised Pearson because under him we finished below 13th (the position when he took over) I lost some respect for you. You know darn well he took over a club in serial decline and in the end did well to keep us up and yet you use a cheap and biased statistic.

He took over a team in decline (I suspect because the vast majority of the players were Burley players and were disappointed to see him leave, and possibly also something Dodd/Gorman did? The difference between Burley's team and D/G's team was quite frightening), I totally accept that, although I dare say at the time most fans would have been absolutely horrified if they were presented with the scenario that we would go into the final game against a team chasing a play-off place needing to win and rely on other results.

 

To that extent, while I was naturally delighted and relieved at the end of it all that we'd stayed up, on reflection, if someone had suggested when Burley left that our next manager would keep us up on the final day in those circumstances, I'd have been pretty concerned. At that stage, merely "keeping us in the division" wasn't the target. Leon Crouch, as chairman, said that the play-offs were still the target in January.

 

I don't think I "criticised" Pearson, per se, my comments were more a statement that I don't think he was quite the "saviour" that he's been hailed by some. When he was appointed, while it was somewhat out of left-field, I thought it could prove inspired. He said the right things and appeared to have that air of authority about him, for whatever reason (I always put more weight of the blame for results on the players - they're the ones who are out on the pitch, not the manager, chairman, tea lady or whoever) the results, in general, weren't forthcoming. They were good enough in the end, predictably against the better teams in the division, such is the way it seems to have always been with SFC, but bloody hell it was close.

 

Whether he'd have done better with the current crop than Poortvliet, we can only speculate. There is no right answer, despite what many people think. The two situations simply cannot be compared objectively because of the substantially different circumstances. FWIW, I'd have been perfectly happy for Pearson to continue, but it wasn't to be.

 

Incidentally, just think, if Richard Wright hadn't made that point-blank save from Matt Kilgallon with the score at 1-0 against Sheffield United, we'd probably be playing League One football right now, and I can't see that many people would be too complimentary of his time in charge in those circumstances. Such are the fine margins the game deals in these days, one save - which the keeper has admitted he knew very little about - has made a manager a hero in the eyes of many.

[Gemmel]

He took over a team in decline (I suspect because the vast majority of the players were Burley players and were disappointed to see him leave, and possibly also something Dodd/Gorman did? The difference between Burley's team and D/G's team was quite frightening), I totally accept that, although I dare say at the time most fans would have been absolutely horrified if they were presented with the scenario that we would go into the final game against a team chasing a play-off place needing to win and rely on other results.

 

To that extent, while I was naturally delighted and relieved at the end of it all that we'd stayed up, on reflection, if someone had suggested when Burley left that our next manager would keep us up on the final day in those circumstances, I'd have been pretty concerned. At that stage, merely "keeping us in the division" wasn't the target. Leon Crouch, as chairman, said that the play-offs were still the target in January.

 

I don't think I "criticised" Pearson, per se, my comments were more a statement that I don't think he was quite the "saviour" that he's been hailed by some. When he was appointed, while it was somewhat out of left-field, I thought it could prove inspired. He said the right things and appeared to have that air of authority about him, for whatever reason (I always put more weight of the blame for results on the players - they're the ones who are out on the pitch, not the manager, chairman, tea lady or whoever) the results, in general, weren't forthcoming. They were good enough in the end, predictably against the better teams in the division, such is the way it seems to have always been with SFC, but bloody hell it was close.

 

Whether he'd have done better with the current crop than Poortvliet, we can only speculate. There is no right answer, despite what many people think. The two situations simply cannot be compared objectively because of the substantially different circumstances. FWIW, I'd have been perfectly happy for Pearson to continue, but it wasn't to be.

 

Incidentally, just think, if Richard Wright hadn't made that point-blank save from Matt Kilgallon with the score at 1-0 against Sheffield United, we'd probably be playing League One football right now, and I can't see that many people would be too complimentary of his time in charge in those circumstances. Such are the fine margins the game deals in these days, one save - which the keeper has admitted he knew very little about - has made a manager a hero in the eyes of many.

 

Steve you are one of the few people on here i actually know. I also know you are Saints through and through with no agenda except to see Saints do the best they can, but what you have written is too simplistic.

For my money we were a completely different team under Pearson than Burley (And all to the good).....and we still had our nightmare matches, but the last two games were two very astute tactical games. Wrights point blank save or our command of the game before they scored....swings and roundabouts.

 

Whatever your position, i just cant see how anybody with so much passion for the club can sit on the fence (Pro or Anti) when the club is in such turmoil.

[stevegrant]

Whatever your position, i just cant see how anybody with so much passion for the club can sit on the fence (Pro or Anti) when the club is in such turmoil.

Again, I'm not sitting on the fence on this issue, I've been quite clear with my position. I want the lot of them out, their petty squabbling has been pathetic. Airing dirty laundry in public only serves to highlight that people don't feel they can argue/negotiate in private, so a clean sweep is, in my opinion, required to even begin to sort the mess out.

 

If that includes doing away with Poortvliet, Wotte et al as well, so be it. I won't lose a great deal of sleep over that.

[alpine_saint]

He took over a team in decline (I suspect because the vast majority of the players were Burley players and were disappointed to see him leave, and possibly also something Dodd/Gorman did? The difference between Burley's team and D/G's team was quite frightening), I totally accept that, although I dare say at the time most fans would have been absolutely horrified if they were presented with the scenario that we would go into the final game against a team chasing a play-off place needing to win and rely on other results.

 

To that extent, while I was naturally delighted and relieved at the end of it all that we'd stayed up, on reflection, if someone had suggested when Burley left that our next manager would keep us up on the final day in those circumstances, I'd have been pretty concerned. At that stage, merely "keeping us in the division" wasn't the target. Leon Crouch, as chairman, said that the play-offs were still the target in January.

 

I don't think I "criticised" Pearson, per se, my comments were more a statement that I don't think he was quite the "saviour" that he's been hailed by some. When he was appointed, while it was somewhat out of left-field, I thought it could prove inspired. He said the right things and appeared to have that air of authority about him, for whatever reason (I always put more weight of the blame for results on the players - they're the ones who are out on the pitch, not the manager, chairman, tea lady or whoever) the results, in general, weren't forthcoming. They were good enough in the end, predictably against the better teams in the division, such is the way it seems to have always been with SFC, but bloody hell it was close.

 

Whether he'd have done better with the current crop than Poortvliet, we can only speculate. There is no right answer, despite what many people think. The two situations simply cannot be compared objectively because of the substantially different circumstances. FWIW, I'd have been perfectly happy for Pearson to continue, but it wasn't to be.

 

Incidentally, just think, if Richard Wright hadn't made that point-blank save from Matt Kilgallon with the score at 1-0 against Sheffield United, we'd probably be playing League One football right now, and I can't see that many people would be too complimentary of his time in charge in those circumstances. Such are the fine margins the game deals in these days, one save - which the keeper has admitted he knew very little about - has made a manager a hero in the eyes of many.

 

Christ, what a load of revisionist drivel. So everything was hunky-dory until Burley left ? Riiight....

 

We were going backwards last season under Burley (he had completely lost interest and now, it seems to have been disclosed, there had been "words" with the CEO of the time about his personal life), and Dodd and Gorman magnified the problems with their complete ineptitude once the honeymoon period wore off, and we had just lost two of our key players on loan to balance the books, but Pearson came in and with no money and no time managed to forge a team of demotivated and disinterested individuals into a unit, with the help of a couple of the best loans this club has made in years, into a team that stopped shipping goals (he built a better defence in 2 weeks than Burley did in 18months or JP has in 6 months) and in all but 3 cases came away from the game with at least a point.

 

He had an almost impossible job, but pulled it off. I couldnt give a flying f**k how close it was. If he hadnt come in we were down. Even under Burley. Simple as that.

 

I really felt we had the wherewithall for a modest campaign this season, with a united boardroom and united stands.

 

But that twaat Lowe had other plans...

Edited 21 January, 2009 by alpine_saint

[chivvy1664]

plus we didnt have a dutch second division manager then either.

[aintforever]

Christ, what a load of revisionist drivel. So everything was hunky-dory until Burley left ? Riiight....

 

We were going backwards last season under Burley (he had completely lost interest and now, it seems to have been disclosed, there had been "words" with the CEO of the time about his personal life), and Dodd and Gorman magnified the problems with their complete ineptitude once the honeymoon period wore off, and we had just lost two of our key players on loan to balance the books, but Pearson came in and with no money and no time managed to forge a team of demotivated and disinterested individuals into a unit, with the help of a couple of the best loans this club has made in years, into a team that stopped shipping goals (he built a better defence in 2 weeks than Burley did in 18months or JP has in 6 months) and in all but 3 cases came away from the game with at least a point.

 

He had an almost impossible job, but pulled it off. I couldnt give a flying f**k how close it was. If he hadnt come in we were down. Even under Burley. Simple as that.

 

I really felt we had the wherewithall for a modest campaign this season, with a united boardroom and united stands.

 

But that twaat Lowe had other plans...

 

Exactly, it was obvious Pearson had potential, the job he took on was a very hard job (as Dodd and Gorman showed) he had zero time to build his own team, he was basically fire-fighting. What he achieved as a relative rookie was very good.

 

Another thing that is overlooked is the fact that his fixtures were not easy, particularly having to get results at West Brom away and Sheffield Utd at home.

[Saint Bones]

He didnt make a series of shirts....

 

 

"Crouch in fear - Saints are here" or something to that effect

[alpine_saint]

Exactly, it was obvious Pearson had potential, the job he took on was a very hard job (as Dodd and Gorman showed) he had zero time to build his own team, he was basically fire-fighting. What he achieved as a relative rookie was very good.

 

Another thing that is overlooked is the fact that his fixtures were not easy, particularly having to get results at West Brom away and Sheffield Utd at home.

 

He also got a win against Bristol City and the worst defeat was against the fairytale turn-around-from-awful-to-promotion-team at the height of their form.

 

But let's not let the facts get in the way, eh ???

[Summers]

I am twisting nothing Steve, I would say 98% of the room stood up when asked if they had no confidence in Lowe

 

Where were you sat? I can understand if you were in the middle and you're not seeing the back, but I was at the back near Steve and would say that at most, 50-60ish people stood up, (remember at the back, you can see EVERYONE!) and there was at LEAST 200 there. so to me thats only about 25-30% But hey, if we were both in the room and see things differently, what can you do eh?!

[Bucks Saint]

He also got a win against Bristol City and the worst defeat was against the fairytale turn-around-from-awful-to-promotion-team at the height of their form.

 

But let's not let the facts get in the way, eh ???

 

And I had just finished slating him for taking Saga and John off at WBA away, when Lallana scored (to which Pearson celebrated like he had a 5 year contract). Top man

[Weston Saint]

I am going to nail my colours to this thread.

 

I consider Steve Grant has posted some sensible well balanced comments. He is not sitting on the wall. He is not on the wall. He, like me, wants none of the old brigade in charge now (Lowe/Wilde) or in the future (Crouch) What is wrong with that!

 

For my part Lowe/Wilde are destroying our club. Despite Crouch being a supporter I consider he would do an equally bad job given the resourses. That would be a disasterous change for change sake.

[Big Bad Bob]

I am going to nail my colours to this thread.

 

I consider Steve Grant has posted some sensible well balanced comments. He is not sitting on the wall. He is not on the wall. He, like me, wants none of the old brigade in charge now (Lowe/Wilde) or in the future (Crouch) What is wrong with that!

 

For my part Lowe/Wilde are destroying our club. Despite Crouch being a supporter I consider he would do an equally bad job given the resourses. That would be a disasterous change for change sake.

 

and for once, Weston, a post of yours that I can agree with wholeheatedly and without reservation.

 

I find Duncan's niching of Steve endemic of this forum currently and quite sad.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

I am going to nail my colours to this thread.

 

I consider Steve Grant has posted some sensible well balanced comments. He is not sitting on the wall. He is not on the wall. He, like me, wants none of the old brigade in charge now (Lowe/Wilde) or in the future (Crouch) What is wrong with that!

 

For my part Lowe/Wilde are destroying our club. Despite Crouch being a supporter I consider he would do an equally bad job given the resourses. That would be a disasterous change for change sake.

 

You base your decision on Crouch despite him being in the hot seat for a mere 6 months compared to Lowe's 10 years plus? Hardly fair Ron.

 

"Whats wrong with that"? Well the trouble is - there is simply no one else for you and Steve to nail your colours to....... which means in reality (that is what Steve is not getting) we have to make our unpalatable choice on one out of the 3.

 

Saying you want them all gone is just p*ssing against the wind and a'int going to happen for a good while.

[alpine_saint]

I am going to nail my colours to this thread.

 

I consider Steve Grant has posted some sensible well balanced comments. He is not sitting on the wall. He is not on the wall. He, like me, wants none of the old brigade in charge now (Lowe/Wilde) or in the future (Crouch) What is wrong with that!

 

For my part Lowe/Wilde are destroying our club. Despite Crouch being a supporter I consider he would do an equally bad job given the resourses. That would be a disasterous change for change sake.

 

Who would you PREFER to have assuming that having shot of all three is completely unrealistic ?

 

For me, that question is obvious.

 

I'd rather the club went down and into oblivion unified, kicking and screaming against fate, rather than kicking and screaming against fellow fans like last Saturday afternoon.......

[Fitzhugh Fella]

and for once, Weston, a post of yours that I can agree with wholeheatedly and without reservation.

 

I find Duncan's niching of Steve endemic of this forum currently and quite sad.

 

 

BBB I don't quite understand what you are saying here but I am guessing you find my criticism of Steve heretical? To be frank I find quite a lot of whats going on at my club sad these days and the fact that even normally friendly fans are falling out pretty sad as well. However when Lowe returned I did say that would happen.

[Weston Saint]

and for once, Weston, a post of yours that I can agree with wholeheatedly and without reservation.

 

I find Duncan's niching of Steve endemic of this forum currently and quite sad.

It was not aimed at Duncan though Bob, he is a good friend of mine and we are regularly in touch and although we do not fully agree on everything we have one common aim, to see and do what is best for SFC.

 

I just found a number of posters on here were wrongly accusing Steve of sitting on the fence or siding more towards Lowe when, if you read all of his comments, was not the case.

[Big Bad Bob]

You base your decision on Crouch despite him being in the hot seat for a mere 6 months compared to Lowe's 10 years plus? Hardly fair Ron.

 

"Whats wrong with that"? Well the trouble is - there is simply no one else for you and Steve to nail your colours to....... which means in reality (that is what Steve is not getting) we have to make our unpalatable choice on one out of the 3.

 

Saying you want them all gone is just p*ssing against the wind and a'int going to happen for a good while.

 

But Crouch was 'in charge' of SFC for 2 years, whilst Wilde was the figurehead Crouch was with him making the same decisions.

 

You say getting rid of the three is unrealistic, I also maintain that getting rid of Lowe is just as unrealistic and just as plausible

 

Say Crouch does manage to persuade enough people to change sides and support him, he still has to call an EGM. How long did that take before hand, 3 months??

 

In that time RL has the chance to go around and reconvert people back to his way of thinking.

 

So EGM end of season. Lowe gone to be replaced by Crouch who changes the whole thing around again!!

 

Meanwhile he still has RL ****ing in form the outside. (causing just as much dissension as LC is doing now)!

 

If the Dutch experiment fails we will be relegated and fall into admin, all 3 gone.

 

So, if we can't get rid of all 3, CAN'T THEY START TO WORK TOGETHER LIKE ****ING ADULTS WHO CARE ABOUT THE CLUB THEY ARE ALL DESTROYING WITH THEIR PETTY, CHILDISH BEHAVIOUR??

[Big Bad Bob]

BBB I don't quite understand what you are saying here but I am guessing you find my criticism of Steve heretical? To be frank I find quite a lot of whats going on at my club sad these days and the fact that even normally friendly fans are falling out pretty sad as well. However when Lowe returned I did say that would happen.

 

Duncan, the whole thing is sad I agree.

 

It's not just you, it's the feeling on here, if you don't slag off Lowe then you support him?

 

Where does that come from?

[Big Bad Bob]

It was not aimed at Duncan though Bob, he is a good friend of mine and we are regularly in touch and although we do not fully agree on everything we have one common aim, to see and do what is best for SFC.

 

I just found a number of posters on here were wrongly accusing Steve of sitting on the fence or siding more towards Lowe when, if you read all of his comments, was not the case.

 

I know it wasn't aimed at Duncan it was just an example of the way the forum (and to some extent the fan base) is going.

 

Steve is being slated because he doesn't want any of them, that is taking as being a [sic] Luvvie stance!!

[Weston Saint]

You base your decision on Crouch despite him being in the hot seat for a mere 6 months compared to Lowe's 10 years plus? Hardly fair Ron.

 

"Whats wrong with that"? Well the trouble is - there is simply no one else for you and Steve to nail your colours to....... which means in reality (that is what Steve is not getting) we have to make our unpalatable choice on one out of the 3.

 

Saying you want them all gone is just p*ssing against the wind and a'int going to happen for a good while.

 

Duncan, I am not going to get into a debate on this, it has been aired enough in the past.

 

My point was not to take sides but try to get posters to read Steve's posts with a balanced eye.

 

This is not a dig at Crouch. He has his atributes, I am sure. I have met the man briefly. This is not a support for Lowe either. You know my views on Wilde.

 

I am going to keep futher counsel to myself on this thread. I think it is for the best.

[Summers]

Who would you PREFER to have assuming that having shot of all three is completely unrealistic ?

 

For me, that question is obvious.

 

I'd rather the club went down and into oblivion unified, kicking and screaming against fate, rather than kicking and screaming against fellow fans like last Saturday afternoon.......

 

F*ck me, Never thought I'd ever agree with you!

[bungle]

Christ, what a load of revisionist drivel. So everything was hunky-dory until Burley left ? Riiight....

 

We were going backwards last season under Burley (he had completely lost interest and now, it seems to have been disclosed, there had been "words" with the CEO of the time about his personal life), and Dodd and Gorman magnified the problems with their complete ineptitude once the honeymoon period wore off, and we had just lost two of our key players on loan to balance the books, but Pearson came in and with no money and no time managed to forge a team of demotivated and disinterested individuals into a unit, with the help of a couple of the best loans this club has made in years, into a team that stopped shipping goals (he built a better defence in 2 weeks than Burley did in 18months or JP has in 6 months) and in all but 3 cases came away from the game with at least a point.

 

He had an almost impossible job, but pulled it off. I couldnt give a flying f**k how close it was. If he hadnt come in we were down. Even under Burley. Simple as that.

 

I really felt we had the wherewithall for a modest campaign this season, with a united boardroom and united stands.

 

But that twaat Lowe had other plans...

 

It is only you who rewrites and fabricates history to suit your agenda. When Burley left we were mid-table, and we would not have fallen away as we did under Dodd and Gorman. Unfortunately, your analysis is as much fiction as Alice in Wonderland. One day hopefully you will finally shut up.

[fos1]

You base your decision on Crouch despite him being in the hot seat for a mere 6 months compared to Lowe's 10 years plus? Hardly fair Ron.

 

"Whats wrong with that"? Well the trouble is - there is simply no one else for you and Steve to nail your colours to....... which means in reality (that is what Steve is not getting) we have to make our unpalatable choice on one out of the 3.

 

Saying you want them all gone is just p*ssing against the wind and a'int going to happen for a good while.

 

100% CORRECT NO OTHER CHOICE AT CURRENT TIME, we either back change ie bring Crouch in or stay as we are with Lowe and Wilde and the Dutch idiot, if that happens then we go down and into administration I know which one I would prefer !!

[Summers]

 

So, if we can't get rid of all 3, CAN'T THEY START TO WORK TOGETHER LIKE ****ING ADULTS WHO CARE ABOUT THE CLUB THEY ARE ALL DESTROYING WITH THEIR PETTY, CHILDISH BEHAVIOUR??

 

Another bit of sense. If these people can't work together, then we could be ****ed.

 

What would happen, say, if Leon turned up tomorrow with £2m and said, right, this is for you, on the one proviso that you give me a place with you guys on the board and that we can forget our squabbles and all three of us can make the decisions between us what is right for the club. All three of us have made little f*ck ups along the way, why can't we all work together to restore this great club, then squabble over it as soon as it is safe?

 

Or, MW to finally put a million or two in which Crouch sticks to his promises and puts the same in, just to stave off administration?

 

Sadly, the likelyhood of this happening is little to none, but its the prefect scenario IMO

 

Chris