Genuine question to marchers

[SaintBobby]

Okay lets try this one.

 

Lowe goes but we have no money

 

Lowe stays and we get £35m to spend

 

In which scenario do you HONESTLY think we shall survive in?

 

Lowe wasn't here last year was he? How did we do? Any better? How would we had done if Crouch had £35m to spend?

 

These sort of hypotheticals are utterly bizarre.

 

It's like saying to a voter who says "I'm going to vote Conservative, I've had enough of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party"...."Ok, but suppose Gordon Brown suddenly came up with £1000bn of free money to divide between the population and it also turned out that David Cameron was a serial rapist".....One imagines the response would be "Ah well, then I might change my mind and vote Labour".

 

If Lowe is suddenly able to produce £35m to reduce the debt, acquire new players etc. then the number of people calling for his head will diminish enormously. No doubt wounds run so deep that a good number of people will continue to feel personal animus towards him, will be sceptical about if the money is real etc. But it would be a game-changing moment.

 

The point is that a good number of people have reached the conclusion that Lowe is supremely unlikely to pull such a rabbit from a hat - or even that he isn't really trying to or capable of doing so.

 

That is NOT a wholly unreasonable or hysterical conclusion based on the evidence presently available. Rupert Lowe's previous behaviour IS relevant. NOT because it can be magically undone, but because it provides an indication of what we might fairly expect him to do - or not do - in future. New facts might emerge at any time to change or alter this analysis. But until they do, the anti-Lowe protestors are wholly justified in sticking to their guns.

[SFC Forever]

Ah but my question was specificaly about if he hadn't turned it around and we were still in the cr*p league position wise.

 

I didn't make myself clear with my first reply.

It wouldn't have happened in real life or hypothetically. Lowe came in and flexed his muscles to show who was in charge. Quite what he has got on the others I have no idea.

That said in answer to your question, yes but Crouch wouldn't have let Pearson go anyway so the question is irrelevant.

[SFC Forever]

If the board were serious about keeping our heads above water both onfield and off why bring back the leech?

If the board still think he is the man to lead us to the promised land then they need to explain exactly why.

And if they can't they have all got to go.

[Nineteen Canteen]

No because Crouch would have not trumpeted the revolutionary new coaching policy and would have signed some older pros rather than playing mostly the kids, especially the defense which we neglected until January. That will prove crucial IMO. Crouch would also have listened to the fans and communicated effectively with them so it would never have got to that point.

 

Hypo, Crouch is guilty of bigging himself and his policies as much as Lowe or any other person in high office - it kind of goes with the territory. We only need to look at Crouch's short reign to find many examples of how he delivered news with unsubstantiated fanfares. Dodd and Gorman were the best for the club and we still had top 6 as our aim at the time according to Crouch.

 

Burley neglected the defence that I'm informed even the likes of Alpine Saint identified in the close season and yet Crouch was right behind Burley until the Scottish FA did the job Crouch should have done as soon as he took on the role and remove Burley from the club as he like JP had plainly lost sight of what he trying to achieve and resources available.

 

Crouch's problem is he listens to the fans to much and communicates hope and promises that he cannot deliver. Last January we were told no players would leave the club for financial reasons then goodbye Rasiak and Skacel at the eleventh hour and Crouch didn't come out and communicate the bad news then did he? No he left to Hoos, so both Crouch and Lowe can hide when it suits them. How long did Crouch keep informing us that investment would be forthcoming and he forgot that after a while if he dangled the carrot to much the abused donkey would get wise and give up.

 

Crouch had some good ideas but he didn't act on them and his biggest crime IMO was that like all us fans he was largely deluded as to what we were capable off and the more level headed would not have assessed our chances last January as the play offs. Crouch is all talk and Lowe whether we like it or not is less talk and more do. Admittedly he has made some mistakes but unless you have a plan in the first place and act on it you don't have a plan that can go wrong and Wotte so far looks like a decent Plan B along with bringing Svensson into the coaching role, one of the most decent blokes ever to pull on a Saints shirt and for that reason alone we should be more supportive of the entire regime. Would Pearson have bought in Svennson to his set up given the way he treated Dodd reducing him to nothing more than a drinks dispenser.

 

In the absence of significant investment, £2m or £6m isn't going to help much beyond this season so it remains we have two options Crouch or Lowe. I am not a plant a Lowe Luvvie or even Lord Marland (Idiots who suggest that have a serious problem with reality btw) I am simply a fan who fwiw feels we are better of with Lowe at the helm avoiding administration and getting us out of this hole and if that means relegation so be it, just like last year but this time we will go down with a plan to rebuild and come back as oppose to simply waiting and hoping tomorrow is not another false dawn with regard to investors or we send non-executives directors out to millionaires playgrounds to hassle the neighbours/friends of potential suitors. If we look that desperate we will get shafted and I trust Lowe to act in the club's best interests as I'm sure Crouch would but IMO he simply wouldn't be as good or would be even worse depending whether you see your glass as half full or half empty.

 

Lets face it their petulant behaviour at the AGM doesn't make you proud to be a Saint when Chairman and ex-chairman act like something out of Tom Brown's Schooldays but just like Brown or Cameron we are not exactly spoilt for choice but we need someone and for nothing else I admire Lowe for having the balls to come back.

 

That's the problem with Lowe out protests, if it means Crouch is back in, as he didn't have fan wide support either. De-personalise the protest and campaign for radical change then I think you may have more fans onside but not before you have a plan as to how that chnage will look and be implemented. The focus is wrong and the Japanese will tell you that for any successful task, project or demonstration 95% of that success is in the planning and talk is cheap.

 

Its all about personal choice and both sides need to respect each other but parading emotive banners like the lady displaying her banner - Tradegy, OAP gives up season ticket after 40 years. Seriously, what is tragic about that apart from the fact she has let her blind prejudice and ill considered thoughts about the future cloud her judgement. She has exercised her freedom of choice under her own free will not to renew her season ticket, nothing tragic about that, unless she has been forced to financially because of the rise in fuel costs the cold snap and decreasing value of her pension and return on investments then that is tragic.

 

I appreciate I have gone somewhat off topic but for some reason I am not wanted as a full member and my offer of a fiver has been turned down as I do not wish to open a Paypal account because of the risk of fraud that someone in my family very nearly got caught. So I'm afraid I have to hijack threads to cover what i want to say because of my limited posts.

 

Ultimately, though why I won't join the anti-Lowe lobby is why did these protests not start either last May or at the first game of the season. If you hate him so much and he is so divisive why did you let him back in your front door so easily? Are you not guilty of after timing like Crouch and now its a struggle (it was always going to be and we were told that) you want to knee jerk against somebody who rightly or wrongly is doing the best with what he has at his disposal and sticking to his plan to survive in the CCC and avoid administration. Have we failed yet? Stop the panic and stop wasting energy and back this club like true supporters.

[saintwarwick]

You didn't and don't rate Pearson, who had a higher win ratio than Portaloo with no pre-season, no settling in period just straight in at the deep end, the same Pearson who sits 10 points clear at the top of his table. What would he have to do for you to rate him??

 

Slightly different scenario, Pearson had us in a relegation spot after 45 games and whilst we survived after the last game it meant Leicester, who were in the relegation scrap with us, were relegated. They have however managed to keep the same squad if not strengthing it but we have had to cut costs meaning losing high earners and playing lots of kids. If Pearson was still here he may have done better with the cost cutting that has had to happen but it's something we will never know. One thing we cannot do and that is compare Leicester with our situation now.

[saintwarwick]

Pearson turned a season around.

 

This question is utterly pathetic.

 

When, on the last day of the season from whence he took us?

[Nineteen Canteen]

Slightly different scenario, Pearson had us in a relegation spot after 45 games and whilst we survived after the last game it meant Leicester, who were in the relegation scrap with us, were relegated. They have however managed to keep the same squad if not strengthing it but we have had to cut costs meaning losing high earners and playing lots of kids. If Pearson was still here he may have done better with the cost cutting that has had to happen but it's something we will never know. One thing we cannot do and that is compare Leicester with our situation now.

 

Absolutley spot on and Pearsosn showed little evidence of utilising the pool of youth talent he had available to him and from memory I think he only used lallana and Gillett in bit part roles and Lallana when it was nearly too late and Surman at left back was as bizarre a mangerial decision as any of Burley's or JP's strangest.

 

Richard Wright saved this club and Pearson did not get him because he thought we were weak in the goalkeeping front he got him when he was forced to because of injuries to all 3 of our keepers. Had that freak event not occured and freak is the only way to describe it, would Pearson have saved us? No, because Wright for some reason (he hasn't repeated it at Ipswich this season) was simply world class and events outside Pearson's control or influence led to him coming to the club. We were very lucky just like JP early on this season was very unlucky with some results.

 

Finally, Pearson is doing well at leicester but he has financial backing and the Leicester fans have kept the faith if we get relegated our crowds will fall below 10,000 IMO and with a fanbase as fickle and unsupportive as that we deserve all we get at times. We survived and yet Leicester a team of comparable size and many other teams in their area demanding the attention of the football going public it is ironic our gates plummet whilst theirs remain strong.

 

In hindsight perhaps Crouch and Pearson's biggest crime was to somewhat fortuitously keep us up and prolong the agony for all of us. Relegation last year would have been the end imo and we would be in administartion and who knows would be in charge but we woudln't now have this ridiculously and shabby in fighting and bad mouthing of everyone trying to save this club how they see fit.

 

Good post Warwick but facts are there to be twisted and manipulated for some.

[Mole]

When, on the last day of the season from whence he took us?

 

Let's be honest though, if Burley had still been at the club we'd have been dead and burried before the final day. Pearson inheritted a thoroughly demoralised squad - made worse by the dodd/gorman debacle - and he did the job. Given a whole summer to work with the players i don't think there's many who would argue he'd have done a better job than Portvliet under the exact same constraints.

[um pahars]

They have however managed to keep the same squad if not strengthing it but we have had to cut costs meaning losing high earners and playing lots of kids. .

 

You may want to have a rethink about what Pearson has at his disposal and it is also worth noting that just because a team gets relegated, it doesn't automatically mean they will bounce back (as we found out to our cost!!).

 

Here was his team from recently when people were moaning that he would only play older players who would have cost a fortune.

 

When you consider the number of loanees, frees and youngsters then maybe you might want to reconsider your view that he is using the same players as last season.

 

 

Here's his side today:

 

4 loanees

 

11 of the squad are 23 or under (7 are 20 or under)

 

Martin - 23 (on loan)

Gilbert - 21 (on loan)

Morrison - 20 (new in)

Hobbs - 20 (on loan)

Berner - 31 (new in)

Oakley - 31

Andy King - 20

Cleverley - 19 (on loan)

Dyer - 26 (new in)

Fryatt - 22

Howard - 32

 

Subs:

Pentney - No age or data (but young)

Chambers - 18

Gradel - 21

Mattock - 18

Dickov - 134

[Nineteen Canteen]

Let's be honest though, if Burley had still been at the club we'd have been dead and burried before the final day. Pearson inheritted a thoroughly demoralised squad - made worse by the dodd/gorman debacle - and he did the job. Given a whole summer to work with the players i don't think there's many who would argue he'd have done a better job than Portvliet under the exact same constraints.

 

Pearson's downfall was that he didn't mix youth into a demoralised squad enough and therefore the evidence suggested he was as big a risk as JP and would have pushed to keep players we could not afford. Warnock showed at Palace last season how you can motivate under-performing senior players by bringing in young players to take their place but Pearson did not choose to play that card and that cost him his job more than anything else IMO.

[belgrave]

Absolutley spot on and Pearsosn showed little evidence of utilising the pool of youth talent he had available to him and from memory I think he only used lallana and Gillett in bit part roles and Lallana when it was nearly too late and Surman at left back was as bizarre a mangerial decision as any of Burley's or JP's strangest.

 

Richard Wright saved this club and Pearson did not get him because he thought we were weak in the goalkeeping front he got him when he was forced to because of injuries to all 3 of our keepers. Had that freak event not occured and freak is the only way to describe it, would Pearson have saved us? No, because Wright for some reason (he hasn't repeated it at Ipswich this season) was simply world class and events outside Pearson's control or influence led to him coming to the club. We were very lucky just like JP early on this season was very unlucky with some results.

 

Finally, Pearson is doing well at leicester but he has financial backing and the Leicester fans have kept the faith if we get relegated our crowds will fall below 10,000 IMO and with a fanbase as fickle and unsupportive as that we deserve all we get at times. We survived and yet Leicester a team of comparable size and many other teams in their area demanding the attention of the football going public it is ironic our gates plummet whilst theirs remain strong.

 

In hindsight perhaps Crouch and Pearson's biggest crime was to somewhat fortuitously keep us up and prolong the agony for all of us. Relegation last year would have been the end imo and we would be in administartion and who knows would be in charge but we woudln't now have this ridiculously and shabby in fighting and bad mouthing of everyone trying to save this club how they see fit.

 

Good post Warwick but facts are there to be twisted and manipulated for some.

 

Silly post. It's a results business. Pearson produced the "keep us up" result. To have done a worst job than the current brigade, Pearson would have had to have us bottom right now, with 14K crowds. Might have happened, but more likely not.

 

Pearson, prior to joining us also impressed under Allerdyce at Bolton and Newcastle.

 

Pearson, is also, undoubtedly a bright and articulate person. If you are not bright you will not hack it as a manager in this day and age.

 

Pearson has not had bucket loads to spend at Leicester. And you tend not to get to the top of any league by luck alone. You also tend not to drift towards the bottom by luck alone.

 

The Leicester team seemed slightly younger than ours (Dickov and Oakley excepted) last time I looked.

 

So what was the gist of your post ? "Pearson was lucky, JP was unlucky, and the Leicester crowd are doing it ?"

 

Results business as somebody once said...

[um pahars]

The Leicester team seemed slightly younger than ours (Dickov and Oakley excepted) last time I looked.

 

As I posted above, Pearson has shown by his deeds that he is not averse to playing youngsters, nor wheeling and dealing on a small budget.

 

It was pretty obvious that he would be up for such a strategy, particularly when you look back to see he said the following not long after taking over:

 

 

On youth:

 

"A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club.

 

 

On working with limited funds

 

"It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that.

 

Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill.

 

We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players.

 

Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too."

 

 

On youth again, but how the relegation fight must be a priority

 

It cannot be my priority at the moment but it will get my total support in terms of fitting in with the philosophy of the club.

 

I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it.

 

If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees."

 

 

Those that claim Pearson was only interested in big name players earning big name wages couldn't be more wrong, particularly when you look at his words and deeds in this area.

[Mole]

Pearson's downfall was that he didn't mix youth into a demoralised squad enough and therefore the evidence suggested he was as big a risk as JP and would have pushed to keep players we could not afford. Warnock showed at Palace last season how you can motivate under-performing senior players by bringing in young players to take their place but Pearson did not choose to play that card and that cost him his job more than anything else IMO.

 

Nah i think Lowe had already lined up Portvliet before he came back. Pearson never stood a chance because he was Crouchs man and Lowe couldn't tolerate that.

[St. Jason]

Slightly different scenario, Pearson had us in a relegation spot after 45 games and whilst we survived after the last game it meant Leicester, who were in the relegation scrap with us, were relegated. They have however managed to keep the same squad if not strengthing it but we have had to cut costs meaning losing high earners and playing lots of kids. If Pearson was still here he may have done better with the cost cutting that has had to happen but it's something we will never know. One thing we cannot do and that is compare Leicester with our situation now.

 

 

Are you sure Pearson had 45 games, sure it was only about 13, could be wrong but i'm sure it was no where near 45!

 

Looking at the situation as it stands with Saints now, did we really need to let ALL the higher earners go? Did we really need to play all the kids? Again I could be wrong but looking at the team news for tonight only James had never played a senior game before this new "revolutionary set up" took over!!

 

Note: I wasn't comparing Saints and Leiscter, i was asking what Pearson needed to do to impress the poster?

[St. Jason]

Pearson's downfall was that he didn't mix youth into a demoralised squad enough and therefore the evidence suggested he was as big a risk as JP and would have pushed to keep players we could not afford. Warnock showed at Palace last season how you can motivate under-performing senior players by bringing in young players to take their place but Pearson did not choose to play that card and that cost him his job more than anything else IMO.

 

How can that be Pearsons downfall? How is supposed to know what the youth are capable of, he took over mid-season, he had 13 games left to keep us up. I can imagine the responce from you lot if we'd gone down and he'd used all the youth. Pearson played Lika, not youth but a player over looked by Burley, Pearson also played Llanana. He been part of the youth/u21 set up with England, newcastle and west brom, I see nothing to suggest Pearson wouldn't have mixed youth and experience this term!

 

The final 13 games of last season was 100% not the time to experiment, maybe a pre-season like jp had could of proved different?

[St. Jason]

As I posted above, Pearson has shown by his deeds that he is not averse to playing youngsters, nor wheeling and dealing on a small budget.

 

It was pretty obvious that he would be up for such a strategy, particularly when you look back to see he said the following not long after taking over:

 

 

On youth:

 

"A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club.

 

 

On working with limited funds

 

"It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that.

 

Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill.

 

We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players.

 

Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too."

 

 

On youth again, but how the relegation fight must be a priority

 

It cannot be my priority at the moment but it will get my total support in terms of fitting in with the philosophy of the club.

 

I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it.

 

If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees."

 

 

Those that claim Pearson was only interested in big name players earning big name wages couldn't be more wrong, particularly when you look at his words and deeds in this area.

 

 

Well done mate, excellent research, funny how this thread has come to an abrupt end though isn't it. No further comment from Nineteencanteen or Saintwarick, strange. Also strange is NineteenCanteens post count!

[saint1977]

Pearson's downfall was that he didn't mix youth into a demoralised squad enough and therefore the evidence suggested he was as big a risk as JP and would have pushed to keep players we could not afford. Warnock showed at Palace last season how you can motivate under-performing senior players by bringing in young players to take their place but Pearson did not choose to play that card and that cost him his job more than anything else IMO.

 

Football is a "results business" - where have we heard that before? How many of our so-called "super" young players have performed or been motivated this season? Hmmm, that could be because we've had 2 clowns in charge appointed by Mike Wilde and Rupert Lowe! Who is top of League 1 by quite some distance Sundance, care to remind us? Care to remind us of who they are managed by again?

 

Football is a results business and it's about time Rupert, Mike, Askham, Withers and other hangers on cleared off ASAP on that basis.