Crouch on radio today

[OldNick]

Crouch agreed to it so did Pearson.

good job they did. I wish we could kick the person who recommended that big useless lump from Stoke to Pearson and Crouch

[Guan 2.0]

But equally faulty is the mistaken reasoning that some spout that we were in that position because Pearson had failed to get better results . Our position at the end of the season was as a result of points gained or dropped in every match of the season.Therefore that must take account of the position inherited by him from matches where either Burley or Dodd and Gorman were in charge before him.

 

What? That wasn't the argument being made by the poster who was talking about it, and you well know it. As it is my final allotted post of the day I will try and explain this once more

 

OUR FATE WAS OUT OF OUR HANDS ON THE FINAL DAY, AND IF LEICESTER HAD WON WE WOULD HAVE BEEN RELEGATED.

 

There, very simple. And seeing as you want Pearsons reputation to be judged on his time here, and not on the season overall, or the factors before it, it is worth reminding everyone that whilst we were not in the relegation zone, by the end of his tenure, we were in it on the final day, and not in a position to keep ourselves up on the last day on our resluts alone. Hmm.

[St Paul]

What? That wasn't the argument being made by the poster who was talking about it, and you well know it. As it is my final allotted post of the day I will try and explain this once more

 

OUR FATE WAS OUT OF OUR HANDS ON THE FINAL DAY, AND IF LEICESTER HAD WON WE WOULD HAVE BEEN RELEGATED.

 

.

 

Why waste your last post on something you know nothing about?

 

Had Leicester won Coventry would have gone down, you plum..........

[OldNick]

What? That wasn't the argument being made by the poster who was talking about it, and you well know it. As it is my final allotted post of the day I will try and explain this once more

 

OUR FATE WAS OUT OF OUR HANDS ON THE FINAL DAY, AND IF LEICESTER HAD WON WE WOULD HAVE BEEN RELEGATED.

 

There, very simple. And seeing as you want Pearsons reputation to be judged on his time here, and not on the season overall, or the factors before it, it is worth reminding everyone that whilst we were not in the relegation zone, by the end of his tenure, we were in it on the final day, and not in a position to keep ourselves up on the last day on our resluts alone. Hmm.

Guan that is not quite correct.Had Leicester won and the other results stayed the same Coventry would have gone down.

Your point is correct though.

As for Wes , yes it is down to points gained the whole season, but when Gb left we were closer to play off than relegation, when G&D left we were closer to the relegation places and when NP left we were only 20 minutes away.NP is not the messiah, he is a useful manager who is guiding a very good squad out of L1. He inherited a squad that was too good to go down and it was a travesty it happened.He is now cutting his teeth in L1 and doing a very decent job of it.

The soul of our club has been ripped out, Leicestrer have a sugar daddy who has absorbed a 14.5 m loss (their 2nd time of being saved, what is it about teams who play in blue) and so it is near impossible to fight the unrest the financial mire and the board squabbling.there is only one way for us and NP would I doubt been able to arrest the slide.

We need hope, fight and desire.Killer may give some of that in the dressing room, with Wottes tactical brain ,I hope, to get us moving upwards.

[Wes Tender]

What? That wasn't the argument being made by the poster who was talking about it, and you well know it. As it is my final allotted post of the day I will try and explain this once more

 

OUR FATE WAS OUT OF OUR HANDS ON THE FINAL DAY, AND IF LEICESTER HAD WON WE WOULD HAVE BEEN RELEGATED.

 

There, very simple. And seeing as you want Pearsons reputation to be judged on his time here, and not on the season overall, or the factors before it, it is worth reminding everyone that whilst we were not in the relegation zone, by the end of his tenure, we were in it on the final day, and not in a position to keep ourselves up on the last day on our resluts alone. Hmm.

 

Read again the first three words of my post...

 

But equally faulty...

 

Of course it wasn't the argument being made made by the other poster. The word "equally" is suggestive that I am making another point entirely. And as you say, well I know it. As usual, I am perfectly well aware what I am saying.

 

I am also aware that although not actually in the relegation zone when he came, he did inherit a downward trend when he arrived and had to do without the first, second and third choice goallie, Rasiak and Scacel out on loan, a leaky defence, a team lacking confidence after Burley's departure and Dodd and Gorman's brief tenure. So instead of your assertion that I want Pearson's tenure to be judged in isolation from the factors before it, that is not strictly true either. If his performance is judged in the light of what he inherited from before he arrived and other factors are taken into account regarding poor squad morale, lack of fitness, injuries, players out on loan and replacements he made having to gel quickly, then most would say that he did a good job in a limited and difficult situation.

 

If you want to argue it further, pay your fiver, or else attempt to read what is said more carefully.

[Tamesaint]

Is nineteen canteen a reincarnation of Sundance or Scooby?

 

He is Sundance Beast. Sundance Beast was Flashman at the Charge. Flashman at the charge was the Fourth Bear.

 

How do I know???

 

Because some of us were the recipients of a rather unpleasant PM from him which told us.

[Snowballs2]

He is Sundance Beast. Sundance Beast was Flashman at the Charge. Flashman at the charge was the Fourth Bear.

 

How do I know???

 

Because some of us were the recipients of a rather unpleasant PM from him which told us.

 

 

 

Another one for my ignore list, thanks for the info

[CanadaSaint]

He is Sundance Beast. Sundance Beast was Flashman at the Charge. Flashman at the charge was the Fourth Bear.

 

How do I know???

 

Because some of us were the recipients of a rather unpleasant PM from him which told us.

 

I hate this constant name changing sh*t.

 

The profile thing should have some kind of genealogy section so we can keep track of the people who need to change their names because they've shot their own credibility in the arse (not just Sundance/Flashman/Fourth Bear/whatever the frick).

 

Hard to do, though, what with changing IPs.

[trousers]

Wes Tender, since when under Crouch did we average gates of 25k? Even under the resurgent performances masterminded by Pearson, gates did not increase dramatically until the last game of the season when all the 'real' supporters came along to 'celebrate'. No doubt many of these fans will be demonstarting on Saturday but unable to buy a ticket for the game.

 

Pearson was responsible for some poor signings and got lucky with Wright who would not have graced our team had we very unusually been without our 3 first team keepers. What would Pearson have done under the constraints imposed on JV.

 

The unity under Crouch was already begining to crack to such a degree that the anti-Lowe feeling wasn't as evident as it is now. Pearson may in the long term prove to be a good manager but the real test of any manager is one who can act with no money at all and perhaps that's why some Scottish managers are so revered. The likes of Coyle, Jimmy Calderwood and Levene all come to mind before we talk about the likes of Ferguson and Moyes - but there are exceptions to the rules as we have found to our cost. There was plenty of evidence to suggest that had Pearson stayed he would have been found out just like Ince.

 

It is a bit rich Crouch spouting off and making some wildly unsupportive claims and even with his £2m or £6m we would be unlikely to be much higher than we are now and no doubt with a team of overpaid journeyman and under utilised as opposed to overly untilised youth resource. Balance in the team is needed but evidence suggests neither has or would have achieved it.

 

The poisionous atmosphere is unpleasant and very damaging we all know that but what do we hope to achieve. Oust Lowe and Wilde for Crouch? Is that the answer? As an intelligent poster are you seriously saying that you would prefer Crouch in charge with his overblown fan friendly rhetoric pulling the wool over the fan's eyes as the club really does sink under his overblown hopes and expectations?

 

I'm accused of being many things but I simply believe given the alternatives Lowe remains the only solution worthy of our support because he won't let populist and unproven views deviate the board from making decsions with the long term interests of the club at heart. Crouch's recent behaviour can at best be described as childish and his approach is the business equivalent of ADHT in my opinion and his desire to be a solution and liked by all will bring this club to its knees quicker than any divisive atmosphere generated by the fans against Lowe.

 

Ultimately, a credible solution that will unite the fans will, we hope, come to the fore but in the meantime jumping out of the frying pan into the fire is absolutely insane and if nothing else continuity under Lowe is what this club needs than a well off but not rich enough fan memorable only for his false claims and overseer of our greatest but self inflicted escape.

 

Our creditors are going to want to see continuity unless they can see real benefits of any change in personnel and I ask everyone to be honest, if you are a senior manager at Barclays are you going to be able to make a case for Crouch over Lowe to your shareholders and board? Another 10k??!! on the gate? Even if you can support that, will it help to blow it on some meal ticket, pension boosting wage for players of the likes of Euell or Idiakez?

 

Demonstrate by all means but I hope you all have a plan other than pinning your hopes on the likes of Crouch and McMenemy. IMO you'll be heading for oblivion fuelled by a load of fan-friendly empty promises and rhetoric and I prefer to be told as it is and when it is necessary. Lowe tells us as it is and I prefer my facts unbellished and heavilly loaded with realism than with talks of play-offs and all on the strength of appointing a management team made up of a manager of 6 months experience at Eastleigh and a scout.

 

Phew. What an exhausting read....were you disappointed to see Jan speed off?

[Mole]

Another one for my ignore list, thanks for the info

 

I told you last week, but obviously you weren't paying attention.

[Snowballs2]

I told you last week, but obviously you weren't paying attention.

 

 

Does that mean 1000 lines "I must pay attention"/ Or can I stay after school with the lovely lady Gym mistress?

[Big Bad Bob]

He is Sundance Beast. Sundance Beast was Flashman at the Charge. Flashman at the charge was the Fourth Bear.

 

How do I know???

 

Because some of us were the recipients of a rather unpleasant PM from him which told us.

 

Are you sure Flashman at the Charge? He had a completely different posting style!!

[Greenridge]

He is Sundance Beast. Sundance Beast was Flashman at the Charge. Flashman at the charge was the Fourth Bear.

 

How do I know???

 

Because some of us were the recipients of a rather unpleasant PM from him which told us.

 

Firefighter as well I believe amongst others. The guy's a wind-up merchant and is easily identifiable as when backed into a corner he let's fly with personal attacks. We've seen it time and time again (DW's mother et al). Strangely he seems to do more harm than good to the pro-Lowe cause.

[OldNick]

Are you sure Flashman at the Charge? He had a completely different posting style!!

I dont believe he is Flashman at the charge.I had many run ins with him and there is no way the style of these postings are by the same person.

NC is a very eloquent poster and does not (at present) turn into a rabid frenzy when he gets abuse unlike Flashman.

[OldNick]

Firefighter as well I believe amongst others. The guy's a wind-up merchant and is easily identifiable as when backed into a corner he let's fly with personal attacks. We've seen it time and time again (DW's mother et al). Strangely he seems to do more harm than good to the pro-Lowe cause.

Sundance is not NC IMHO

[sadoldgit]

One of the most sensible posts I have read on here lately IMO and totally concur.

I asked the other day for a Luvvie to name one thing that he has done since his return that has been successful and the silence was deafening.

Ok maybe that we actually haven't gone into admin yet but is that more to do with aviva/Barclays not wanting to pull the plug?

The thing that angers me most was loaning Stern John and then bringing the likes of Gasmi who is no better than anything else we have at the club and is very, very lightweight and added to Pulis, Robertson, Pekhart is absurd.

 

How do you define success? For me this season it would be staying out of administration and avoiding relegation. If he does that, sorted. For all we know he might have had a great deal of success in keeping the club afloat. Some say we would already be in administration if he and Cowan had not returned. True of not I don't know. If brining through the kids was an aim of the club then that too has happened so you could say in some perverse way that was a success.

 

Whatever.

 

If the club does not go into admin. in February as suggested here and if Wotte manages to turn things round on the pitch, I won't be complaining.

[OldNick]

How do you define success? For me this season it would be staying out of administration and avoiding relegation. If he does that, sorted. For all we know he might have had a great deal of success in keeping the club afloat. Some say we would already be in administration if he and Cowan had not returned. True of not I don't know. If brining through the kids was an aim of the club then that too has happened so you could say in some perverse way that was a success.

 

Whatever.

 

If the club does not go into admin. in February as suggested here and if Wotte manages to turn things round on the pitch, I won't be complaining.

To be fair even the more anti RL fans would take that and many would hold their hands up and say fair play.I think the anti RL' the more understanding RL posters and even the ones in the middle are not out to score points,all they want is us to stay up get back to a stable financial position and then go from there.It is fear of relegation and the trip into oblivion that is feeding this unrest

[Greenridge]

Sundance is not NC IMHO

 

See post #207. NC is playing nicely at the moment but it will only be a matter of time before his true colours are shown.....just as they were in every other one of his alter ego's.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

If the club does not go into admin. in February as suggested here and if Wotte manages to turn things round on the pitch, I won't be complaining.

 

Agree, just sad that this is the level of our expectation now, that said, for many years avoiding relegation was 'success'

[OldNick]

See post #207. NC is playing nicely at the moment but it will only be a matter of time before his true colours are shown.....just as they were in every other one of his alter ego's.

Greenridge, Im not saying Flashman was not theo thers .I believe at present he is not NC. I had too many petulent, hissy fit posts from Flashman to believe that NC is the same poster.The posts are far too edcated, I would expect they cme from closer to RL's circle, not as in a pr plant but just a a supportive collegue (not friend)

[trousers]

Phew. What an exhausting read....were you disappointed to see Jan speed off?

 

Well, I though that was quite clever, even if I say so myself....

[St. Jason]

The best policy was loads of low paid loanees, yes. Especially as it meant we could loan out the high earners. I think the idea was that in the worst case scenario, we can trim the wage bill now, and if all works, we can sell in January, if all fails, we can call them back. Either way, until January we will have saved money with an option for change should we need it, and we need it!! Some would call that shrewd.

 

.

 

 

Shrewd, are you for real??

 

That was not the best policy, how can loaning/buying in 15 players when 10 don't get in the team. Surely it would be better to sign 5 players on better wages that actualy inhance the team? You can still loan out your high earners to cut cost's but make your signings better, remember it about QUALITY not QUANTITY that makes the team better. You'd of thought if anyone Lowe would of learnt this, sh1t oh yea, Lowe has nothing to learn, he is a football God!

 

Ps. do you really believe he loaned out Rasiak, John, Saganoski and Dyer out so he could call them back if in the sh1t? He would of sold them all if someone made an other, come on Johnny!

[St. Jason]

Do I want someone addressing the finances, however tough those choices are, to somebody saying, "I would have sorted it all out by now" with no method or clarity as to how this would have been acheived, which would end in the club no longer existing.

 

.

 

 

I have an issue with this Johnny.

 

Crouch came in and loaned out Rasiak and Rudi straight away as he knew Wilde had over spent and the wage bill was to high.

 

Lowe has openly said that "closing the corners was already agreed by the last regime" ie Crouch had put this policy in place.

 

He'd had an agreement/plan to cut costs in place with Barclays and the note holder, please explain where and why you feel Crouch would not "of made tha hard decisions" and "had no plan".

 

I'm one for open debate, and your opinion is as valid as mine (its obviously wrong :-) but please state why you feel Crouch wouldn't of acted. Don't forget one of Lowe's favourite sayings is "if your in debt to the bank, it is the bank that runs you" with this in mind surely Crouch would of been under the same instruction as Lowe?

[Weston Saint]

I take issue with the Rasiak/Skacel loans being a deliberate attempt to reduce the wage bill.

 

Rasiak was looking to move to enhance his chances of being included in the Poland Squad for the Europeans. Bolton came in with a loan offer we could not refuse according to Hoos. They were not actively looking to ship him out from the way it looks.

 

Hoos asked Skacel if he was happy with Saints and he confirmed he was. Hoos then said he was disapointed Skacel changed his mind and asked for the loan move.

 

However Davies was already on loan with a buy option when Crouch came back to power. All Crouch did was exercise that option on what, at that time, appreaed a good buy. He had a previous injury history but looked to have got over it. Just our's and Crouch's luck...he gets a long term injury again!

 

Crouch was looking to cut costs and I am informed Deloittes and some of Crouch's advisors had drawn up a survival document that Barclays seemed to approve. Whether it would have worked is debatable. I wonder how much of Lowes strategy was based on that document. A fair bit I suspect. Closing the corners was certainly one of them. Getting rid of Pearson certainly was not!

[St. Jason]

Just that NP was getting all the credit for his signing when it was GB's goalkeeping coach who sounded him out and got him here, apart from that it was NP's superb talent spotting.

 

Thats because ultimately it is the managers choice.

 

Your argument is rediculous, thats what scouts are for, by your argument no manager should have any credit for any signing as ultimately its a scout that has spotted said player!!!

 

Let me help you, this is the way it should and does work

 

Scout to manager "i'e seen this lad playing for west ham"

 

Manager to scout "ok, let me know when he's playing again, we'll have a look"

 

Manager to chairman "been to see this lad at west ham, he looks good, see what you can do, i'd love him here"

 

Chairman to manager "here you go, all signed sealed and delivered for"

 

or

 

Lowe to manager "I know you wanted W but i found x y & z abd in total they cost less than your W"

[OldNick]

Thats because ultimately it is the managers choice.

 

Your argument is rediculous, thats what scouts are for, by your argument no manager should have any credit for any signing as ultimately its a scout that has spotted said player!!!

 

Let me help you, this is the way it should and does work

 

Scout to manager "i'e seen this lad playing for west ham"

 

Manager to scout "ok, let me know when he's playing again, we'll have a look"

 

Manager to chairman "been to see this lad at west ham, he looks good, see what you can do, i'd love him here"

 

Chairman to manager "here you go, all signed sealed and delivered for"

 

or

 

Lowe to manager "I know you wanted W but i found x y & z abd in total they cost less than your W"

that can be the case. The credit is given to NP as though the was a magician.

It was Webster who told NP he could get him when we had a keeper crisis.NP went along with it and the chairman sorted out the rest.That is good teamwork but it was not NP's talent spotting.

[St. Jason]

that can be the case. The credit is given to NP as though the was a magician.

It was Webster who told NP he could get him when we had a keeper crisis.NP went along with it and the chairman sorted out the rest.That is good teamwork but it was not NP's talent spotting.

 

In a nut shell Nick, good team work, coaches, scouts, manager, chairman and fans all pulling together and moving in the right direction.

[slickmick]

that can be the case. The credit is given to NP as though the was a magician.

It was Webster who told NP he could get him when we had a keeper crisis.NP went along with it and the chairman sorted out the rest.That is good teamwork but it was not NP's talent spotting.

 

Difference is Nick,

The manager is the one that says he does or doesn't like those that are recommended to him, so for that part he takes the credit.

Do you think Pearson would have wanted Pullis, Gasmi, Smith or the Guernsey Sunday league player ?

Now if Pearson had not taken Websters advice, then he could have been critiscised.

[slickmick]

In a nut shell Nick, good team work, coaches, scouts, manager, chairman and fans all pulling together and moving in the right direction.

 

Exactly, the moment you have someone that thinks they know it all and wont take advice is the day you are in trouble.....oh.

[OldNick]

Difference is Nick,

The manager is the one that says he does or doesn't like those that are recommended to him, so for that part he takes the credit.

Do you think Pearson would have wanted Pullis, Gasmi, Smith or the Guernsey Sunday league player ?

Now if Pearson had not taken Websters advice, then he could have been critiscised.

That is fair.

[St. Jason]

That is fair.

 

Don't start agreeing with us Nick or i'm off :-)

[OldNick]

Don't start agreeing with us Nick or i'm off :-)

Yeah but you know I dont mean it

[Fowllyd]

Greenridge, Im not saying Flashman was not theo thers .I believe at present he is not NC. I had too many petulent, hissy fit posts from Flashman to believe that NC is the same poster.The posts are far too edcated, I would expect they cme from closer to RL's circle, not as in a pr plant but just a a supportive collegue (not friend)

 

Seriously? Looking at Nineteen Canteen's posts, he's so obviously Sundance (and earlier incarnations) that it almost hurts. The portentous, patronising style, the prolixity - and the downright nastiness above all else. I remember seeing his first few posts, in which he laid into Um Pahars and others (though mostly Um) and thinking that this was clearly the recently-banned Sundance back with a new alias. Let's face it, he has plenty of previous in all these areas.

 

As for educated, well... His use of English is poor, and I'm not talking mere typos here - he constructs sentences badly and makes many grammatical mistakes. Furthermore, he can't hold a decent line of argument, as shown by Wes Tender's dismantling of one of his posts earlier in this thread. Personally, I'm not overly bothered by the grammatical stuff (though his readiness to slate others for similar mistakes does grate somewhat), but to describe his posts as educated is well wide of the mark.

 

Incidentally, the reason you had hissy-fit posts from Flashman would, I'm sure, have been down to your support for Burley at a time when Flashman had a view which was directly opposed. Look at a few of his posts aimed at fellow posters in the short time he's been with us and you'll see plenty of resemblances to Flashdance Bear.

[Wade Garrett]

Who gives 2 f*cks who Nineteen Canteen is?

 

He's full of sh*t. Can we leave it there.

[Julian H. Cope]

Who gives 2 f*cks who Nineteen Canteen is?

 

He's full of sh*t. Can we leave it there.

 

A very eloquent post.

 

I'm Nineteen Canteen.

[Viking Warrior]

The thing is SFC76 /stanley what everelse you call yourself

 

"I told you last week, but obviously you weren't paying attention"

 

The reason we don't pay attention to what you say is down to the fact you post nothing but bile and venom on this site.

 

Oh your still on my ignore list, the reason I saw your post was somebody had cut and pasted it in their post.

[Mole]

The thing is SFC76 /stanley what everelse you call yourself

 

"I told you last week, but obviously you weren't paying attention"

 

The reason we don't pay attention to what you say is down to the fact you post nothing but bile and venom on this site.

 

Oh your still on my ignore list, the reason I saw your post was somebody had cut and pasted it in their post.

 

"We"?

 

I think snowballs can speak for himself.

[Snowballs2]

"We"?

 

I think snowballs can speak for himself.

 

 

Now what have I done wrong ?