When can Ruperts Dutch experiment be considered a failure?

[RinNY]

It depends how you define success. As I see it, the so-called "Dutch experiment" had three goals: to cut costs and save the club from administration; to blood the youngsters and build a team based on our academy players; and to stay in the CCC, avoiding relegation, while aims 1 and 2 were being met.

 

Obviously, we have been blooding the youngsters and building a team, but with very mixed, and too often poor, results at present in spite of some very good play. Obviously we still do not know whether we will manage to avoid either administration or relegation or both. So I don't see how anyone (anyone who isn't blinded by prejudice for or against the Lowe/Wilde axis, that is) can pronounce success or failure at present. What one can say is that after a bright start, things started to look bad under Poortvliet as too many results went the wrong way, and our inability to score goals, especially at home, was killing us. Poortvliet having to go was obviously a partial failure of the "experiment". But the final verdict will not and cannot be given untul season's end: if we are still solvent, still in the CCC, and have the beginnings of a settled side with youngsters establishing themselves, we'll have success. If not, failure. Simple!

[Whitey Grandad]

Of course it's a failure. Goal difference of -18, only one win at home, 3 points behind the drop line, pathetic crowds, boring football - it's about as clear a definition of failure as I have ever seen.

[NickG]

#

 

Nick you are laughable. Next time you log onto the beeb, have a look at where we are in the league

 

read the f ing post -said management appointment is a failure??!!