If Crouch believed in Pearson....

[Saint Fan CaM]

This highlights one of the problems we have at our club.

 

It doesnt matter what Lowe does as even if he does everything right many fans still see him as the problem.

 

This time last season we had Pearson who made our squad run around allot more than we had seen for any of the matches previously. We liked that and he got out support even though the results were not any better than the rest of the season.

 

This time this season we dont have Lowe we have Wotte who has got our squad running around allot more than we have seen for any of the matches previously. We dont like this as the results are not magically better than we have ever seen before and because Wotte is Lowe's choice.

 

I dont actually see Wotte as a manager to get excited about but then neither did I get excited about Pearson. But the least some of us could do is give the same level of support/leway to either manager?

 

Utter nonsense. IF Agent Lowe had managed to introduce his vision and it had of worked he would have got a lot of support and it would have silenced his critics. I actually believe the supporters have been tremendously generous actually of what has been a disastrous season so far, with ANOTHER sacked Manager (coach) for the squad to contend with - it has only been very recently when Wotte has proven he has nothing different to offer that the real unrest has started.

 

Pearson inherited a mess of a squad - pulled together a team that eventually started performing and kept us in the CCC.

 

Wotte has inherited a mess of a squad, but has done nothing different that I can see to achieve better results - NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Therefore, we can all expect to see loss after loss and relegation to L1. It's not rocket science!

[Ponty]

Well your'e rumour is complete garbage. Of course crouch would have kept pearson on. He came out and told lowe to keep him on. What the hell are you on about? If crouch had given pearson a longer contract, then lowe would have come in and paid him off and the club would have lost more money. Wake up for heavens sake ponty.

Blimey, twice in my post I said the rumour was unsubstantiated and that I'd never been able to find any truth in it personally. I'm wide awake thanks.

[Frank's cousin]

I can answer this question i think

 

When an EGM has been called i don't think people in control are allowed to make decisions like appointing a new manager etc.. I could be wrong but with other businesses if i remember right that is how it goes. Because the guy who is about to be kicked out could be spiteful and screw up the company because of being removed.

 

On the other question i know for 100% fact that Pearson was informed by Crouch that if he kept us up he would be given the job full time. I know that because when i spoke to Pearson in the summer i asked him that. Plus Crouch has since repeated it on the radio, Mary said it on the radio the other day and even Pearson himself said it on the radio during his farewell interview. So i think we can say it is fact that if the old regime remained he would of stayed. Didn't Mary even say the other day she still keeps in contact with him?

 

Fair enough points, but had we gone down, would Crouch have kept him on? - The purpose of this discussion really was to illustrate how easy it is now for CRouch to say, yes I would have done this differently, that differently etc, especially when we see how well Pearson is now doing - and how miserably the dutch dou have done to date, but would Leon have kept him had we gone down and he was making that decision... because at the time it would have beed a gamble to, yet LC and MC are making mileage out of it now.

 

Yes its all ifs buts and maybes, but if you are going to use this as a point of attack - especially as it appeals to the fans, then its only fair to question it.

[Plumstead_Saint]

I can answer this question i think

 

When an EGM has been called i don't think people in control are allowed to make decisions like appointing a new manager etc.. I could be wrong but with other businesses if i remember right that is how it goes. Because the guy who is about to be kicked out could be spiteful and screw up the company because of being removed.

 

On the other question i know for 100% fact that Pearson was informed by Crouch that if he kept us up he would be given the job full time. I know that because when i spoke to Pearson in the summer i asked him that. Plus Crouch has since repeated it on the radio, Mary said it on the radio the other day and even Pearson himself said it on the radio during his farewell interview. So i think we can say it is fact that if the old regime remained he would of stayed. Didn't Mary even say the other day she still keeps in contact with him?

Spot on.

I think that answers FC's question pretty well.

[Wes Tender]

Quite... I believe Crouch acted very responsibly and as I would have expected him to... but as you probably guessed' date=' that was kind of the point. When previous regimes have appointed managers untried or otherwise, there has been a lot of critism about the so called lack of faith resulting in rolling or short trem contracts for managers... 'if you believe its right...why not back it up' etc, but more importantly, it highlights that CRouch like the rest of us had NO idea how Pearson would pan out - [b']it would ahve been fantastic had we known he would begin to develop very rapidly into a strong figure at this level, and I do think had even Lowe known how well he is currently doing, it would haev swayed hisopinion, but no one had teh benefit of hindsight at that time...

 

Your reply is sensible regarding Crouch's appointment of Pearson and we are in broad agreement that to have given Pearson a long term contract until he had proved himself would have been poor business practice and foolhardy.

 

However, look at what Lowe subsequently did. He dismissed Pearson and appointed two complete non-entities, neither experienced in this division or in British football at any level.

 

So who showed the better business accumen, Crouch or Lowe? When Dodd and Gorman proved to be useless, Crouch was decisive and terminated their contracts and appointed Pearson. When JP proved useless, look at how much time Lowe afforded him and then he goes and appoints his equally out of his depth assistant when we are already at the stage whereby the majority of subscribers to this forum believe that it is already too late to turn things around barring a miracle.

 

Lowe would have been in a win/win situation keeping on Pearson. Had Pearson succeeded in keeping us up, Lowe would get most of the credit and could have stated that although Pearson had only just kept us up, he had seen something in his character that appealed to him. Had Pearson been a failure by Christmas, he could have sacked him, blamed him as Crouch's appointee and then played games with his inept Dutch pals.

 

Lowe proved by his inability to follow this reasoning that he is nowhere near as canny a businessmen as some would have us believe.

[saintjay77]

Utter nonsense. IF Agent Lowe had managed to introduce his vision and it had of worked he would have got a lot of support and it would have silenced his critics. I actually believe the supporters have been tremendously generous actually of what has been a disastrous season so far, with ANOTHER sacked Manager (coach) for the squad to contend with - it has only been very recently when Wotte has proven he has nothing different to offer that the real unrest has started.

 

Pearson inherited a mess of a squad - pulled together a team that eventually started performing and kept us in the CCC.

 

Wotte has inherited a mess of a squad, but has done nothing different that I can see to achieve better results - NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Therefore, we can all expect to see loss after loss and relegation to L1. It's not rocket science!

 

Again someone is not looking at things objectivly.

 

you say Pearson inherited a mess of a squad and so has Wotte. Pearson pulled together a team that eventually started performing? How many times did that team perform may I ask? How many times did it not? How many games has Wotte had with the same Support Pearson had?

 

you say nothing has changed but you havnt given Wotte as much of a chance as Pearson had. I said before that I dont think Wotte is anything special but neither was pearson.

 

It just points out that if Crouch does something then its the right thing to do and gets support yet if Lowe does something it is straight away at a disadvantage.

 

I agree that lowe got off fairly lightly when he returned and a number of peopl gave him the benifit of doubt to a certain extent but to be fair Crouch made the same mistakes Lowe did and some yet is supported by most just because he is against Lowe.

[alpine_saint]

Your reply is sensible regarding Crouch's appointment of Pearson and we are in broad agreement that to have given Pearson a long term contract until he had proved himself would have been poor business practice and foolhardy.

 

However, look at what Lowe subsequently did. He dismissed Pearson and appointed two complete non-entities, neither experienced in this division or in British football at any level.

 

So who showed the better business accumen, Crouch or Lowe? When Dodd and Gorman proved to be useless, Crouch was decisive and terminated their contracts and appointed Pearson. When JP proved useless, look at how much time Lowe afforded him and then he goes and appoints his equally out of his depth assistant when we are already at the stage whereby the majority of subscribers to this forum believe that it is already too late to turn things around barring a miracle.

 

Lowe would have been in a win/win situation keeping on Pearson. Had Pearson succeeded in keeping us up, Lowe would get most of the credit and could have stated that although Pearson had only just kept us up, he had seen something in his character that appealed to him. Had Pearson been a failure by Christmas, he could have sacked him, blamed him as Crouch's appointee and then played games with his inept Dutch pals.

 

Lowe proved by his inability to follow this reasoning that he is nowhere near as canny a businessmen as some would have us believe.

 

 

Great post.

 

Lowe has failed the club, us, AND himself. This was possibly his most crass ego-fulled decision EVER.

 

Never let it be said again that this man is an astute businessman.

[saintjay77]

Your reply is sensible regarding Crouch's appointment of Pearson and we are in broad agreement that to have given Pearson a long term contract until he had proved himself would have been poor business practice and foolhardy.

 

However, look at what Lowe subsequently did. He dismissed Pearson and appointed two complete non-entities, neither experienced in this division or in British football at any level.

 

So who showed the better business accumen, Crouch or Lowe? When Dodd and Gorman proved to be useless, Crouch was decisive and terminated their contracts and appointed Pearson. When JP proved useless, look at how much time Lowe afforded him and then he goes and appoints his equally out of his depth assistant when we are already at the stage whereby the majority of subscribers to this forum believe that it is already too late to turn things around barring a miracle.

 

Lowe would have been in a win/win situation keeping on Pearson. Had Pearson succeeded in keeping us up, Lowe would get most of the credit and could have stated that although Pearson had only just kept us up, he had seen something in his character that appealed to him. Had Pearson been a failure by Christmas, he could have sacked him, blamed him as Crouch's appointee and then played games with his inept Dutch pals.

 

Lowe proved by his inability to follow this reasoning that he is nowhere near as canny a businessmen as some would have us believe.

 

Dont think many will find anything to disagree with on these points and most would have been more than happy if Lowe had kept pearson on.

 

Something that is not discussed though is the level of finacial dificulty we were supposed to be at while under crouch/wilde/lowe. It is impossible to know which rumour is gen and which ones are not but the basic OD rumour was that it had risen to 6mil while Crouch was in charge and it appears its back down to 4.5mil with lowe and wilde back.

 

I know we only really care about what happens on the pitch but I very much doubt those at barkleys care much about us getting 3 points and a load of happy fans. Long run sure they want SMS to be full and us to be able to service our debt but short term i would have thought getting cash in is there only worry and it is something that the current mob appear to be doing well enough.

 

I just think the picture is allot bigger than some of the debates we all manage to have on here and think there is more reason that we do not see as to why the egotistical pr1ck is back and running the show.

[Frank's cousin]

Your reply is sensible regarding Crouch's appointment of Pearson and we are in broad agreement that to have given Pearson a long term contract until he had proved himself would have been poor business practice and foolhardy.

 

However, look at what Lowe subsequently did. He dismissed Pearson and appointed two complete non-entities, neither experienced in this division or in British football at any level.

 

So who showed the better business accumen, Crouch or Lowe? When Dodd and Gorman proved to be useless, Crouch was decisive and terminated their contracts and appointed Pearson. When JP proved useless, look at how much time Lowe afforded him and then he goes and appoints his equally out of his depth assistant when we are already at the stage whereby the majority of subscribers to this forum believe that it is already too late to turn things around barring a miracle.

 

Lowe would have been in a win/win situation keeping on Pearson. Had Pearson succeeded in keeping us up, Lowe would get most of the credit and could have stated that although Pearson had only just kept us up, he had seen something in his character that appealed to him. Had Pearson been a failure by Christmas, he could have sacked him, blamed him as Crouch's appointee and then played games with his inept Dutch pals.

 

Lowe proved by his inability to follow this reasoning that he is nowhere near as canny a businessmen as some would have us believe.

 

I agree it is perplexing why Lowe failed to see the winwin benefit in this case... and cheers for the decent reponse .... I would like to hear what Lowe has to say about the matter - sadly he will avoid this issue.

 

It was a stupid error of judgemnet for which he must surely carry the can.... so he must have had a huge amount of faith in the wotte experiement - I would love to know on what basis - I think Wotte was always the choice, with JP brought in because lowe might have assumed we would be more receptive to him given his playing history.

 

But does Lowe's feck up, justify MC and LC making mileage out of the Pearson thing, given that at the time it would have been a very risky policy as well to keep in on - would they be using it if Leicester were mid to lower table and struggling?

[Foxstone]

Great post.

 

Lowe has failed the club, us, AND himself. This was possibly his most crass ego-fulled decision EVER.

 

Never let it be said again that this man is an astute businessman.

 

 

I think Lowe is an astute businessman..

 

But that astuteness does not run into a fecking clue as to how to successfully run a football club..

 

The same goes for the other two amigos too...

 

There is a world of difference in being a City Financial Man/Pig Farmer, A manufacturer of piston rings and a property developer/weasel - And knowing how to operate a football club in todays multi-media world.

 

And what we have done to deserve such underwhelming "expertise" in running our club is nothing short of heart-breaking !

[eelpie]

y.

 

But does Lowe's feck up, justify MC and LC making mileage out of the Pearson thing, given that at the time it would have been a very risky policy as well to keep in on - would they be using it if Leicester were mid to lower table and struggling?

 

Around 80% of us agree that Lowe should have continued Pearson's appointment. No-one knows what any outcome is to be. But overwhelming common sense has not prevailed.

[lordswoodsaints]

i think it was probably more of 'if you keep us up i will reward you at the end of the season' type of deal but crouch wasnt able to do that because lowe and wilde took control.

it could have even been something to do with the fact that crouch thought he had a takeover deal in the bag and they informed him that they wanted their own man?

 

who knows?.....we never will.

[Wes Tender]

I think Lowe is an astute businessman..

 

But that astuteness does not run into a fecking clue as to how to successfully run a football club..

 

The same goes for the other two amigos too...

 

There is a world of difference in being a City Financial Man/Pig Farmer, A manufacturer of piston rings and a property developer/weasel - And knowing how to operate a football club in todays multi-media world.

 

And what we have done to deserve such underwhelming "expertise" in running our club is nothing short of heart-breaking !

 

I agree with you on this. But fundamentally if a businessman was really astute, they would recognise the differences in a sports related or entertainment based business and either place on the board somebody who had significant experience in that direction, or else they would pay a consultant to advise them.

[saintjay77]

I agree with you on this. But fundamentally if a businessman was really astute, they would recognise the differences in a sports related or entertainment based business and either place on the board somebody who had significant experience in that direction, or else they would pay a consultant to advise them.

 

If you had over 10 years running such a business would you really employ someone else to do it or to advise you? Not saying that makes him the right man for the job but in his position I doubt you would hand over the reigns of a job you thought you are more than capable of doing.

[Foxstone]

I agree with you on this. But fundamentally if a businessman was really astute, they would recognise the differences in a sports related or entertainment based business and either place on the board somebody who had significant experience in that direction, or else they would pay a consultant to advise them.

 

Absolutely right !

 

But sadly our underwhelming guardians are too blind or pig-headed to recognise this preferring to keep all their toys to themselves.

 

My fervent hope is that one of our seemingly many wealthy supporters ( who have previously been long on words but short on actions), will at last reach the end of their tether and contrive to rescue this club and its long suffering supporters from this ridiculous situation.

 

Salz, Davies, Bransgrove even Craig David .... Are you reading !

[alpine_saint]

I think Lowe is an astute businessman..

 

But that astuteness does not run into a fecking clue as to how to successfully run a football club..

 

The same goes for the other two amigos too...

 

There is a world of difference in being a City Financial Man/Pig Farmer, A manufacturer of piston rings and a property developer/weasel - And knowing how to operate a football club in todays multi-media world.

 

And what we have done to deserve such underwhelming "expertise" in running our club is nothing short of heart-breaking !

 

Isnt part of being "astute" meaning you know when you are hopelessly out of your depth ???

[offix]

 

(There is again the misconception on another thread that Pearson was sacked....by Lowe, when he simply did not have his contract renewed....)

 

LOL. Are you really seriously trying to make that semantics distinction? Very funny (or if you're serious. really sad!)

[Foxstone]

Isnt part of being "astute" meaning you know when you are hopelessly out of your depth ???

 

 

I think you and I share a similar understanding of the definition...

 

But there are some otherwise astute businessmen who are either so confident, pig headed, or indeed convinced in their own ability that they refuse to see themselves out of their depth, or perhaps they want the position and power so much that they turn a blind eye to their short-comings too...

 

Whatever, we have the misfortune to be saddled with a whole raft of them.

[Frank's cousin]

LOL. Are you really seriously trying to make that semantics distinction? Very funny (or if you're serious. really sad!)

 

the 'problem' is that a majority of fans dont distinguish between the two and before long it will be come so engrained as another 'truth' - there are hundreds of these 'simply wrong' statemnets amde in haste that become the excepted belief amongst fans - it is important to make albeit subtle distinctions...unless if serves the purpose/agenda naturally.....

[krissyboy31]

I think you and I share a similar understanding of the definition...

 

But there are some otherwise astute businessmen who are either so confident, pig headed, or indeed convinced in their own ability that they refuse to see themselves out of their depth, or perhaps they want the position and power so much that they turn a blind eye to their short-comings too...

 

Whatever, we have the misfortune to be saddled with a whole raft of them.

 

Yes but in most walks of life they are accountable to the shareholders and if they fail, they are sacked, voted off or given a golden handshake. The problem we have is that most of the people empowered to do this at SLH, are all dependant on Lowe for their own positions and these turkeys aren't about to become Christmas Dinner.

[JohnnyFartPants]

LOL. Are you really seriously trying to make that semantics distinction? Very funny (or if you're serious. really sad!)

 

It isn't semantics really. It is just a more accurate description of events. Pearson wasn't sacked because he was offered further employment. The wages were not of his liking so he decided to seek work elsewhere. That is the facts of it, so therefore not a sacking. It is impossible to find out what he was offered to stay but unless it can be proved to be an underhand move where by Lowe later paid a higher wage for the Dutch experiment then it cannot be assumed that the cloth was artificially trimmed in order to make Pearson decide to leave, which seems to be the implication you are making.

[krissyboy31]

It isn't semantics really. It is just a more accurate description of events. Pearson wasn't sacked because he was offered further employment. The wages were not of his liking so he decided to seek work elsewhere. That is the facts of it, so therefore not a sacking. It is impossible to find out what he was offered to stay but unless it can be proved to be an underhand move where by Lowe later paid a higher wage for the Dutch experiment then it cannot be assumed that the cloth was artificially trimmed in order to make Pearson decide to leave, which seems to be the implication you are making.

 

How do you know that? Unless I have missed it and you can enlighten me of where the evidence is? I would suggest those are indeed anything but the FACTS!!

[JohnnyFartPants]

How do you know that? Unless I have missed it and you can enlighten me of where the evidence is? I would suggest those are indeed anything but the FACTS!!

 

It was a message announced by the football club. Pearson was free to dispute it and give his version of accounts but didn't. I think to be honest if something is publically said and not challenged then we have to accept it as the truth. Either that or conjour up conspiracies as to why Pearson couldn't possibly counter lies made on his behalf.

[Give it to Ron]

It isn't semantics really. It is just a more accurate description of events. Pearson wasn't sacked because he was offered further employment. The wages were not of his liking so he decided to seek work elsewhere. That is the facts of it, so therefore not a sacking. It is impossible to find out what he was offered to stay but unless it can be proved to be an underhand move where by Lowe later paid a higher wage for the Dutch experiment then it cannot be assumed that the cloth was artificially trimmed in order to make Pearson decide to leave, which seems to be the implication you are making.

 

That is complete re-writing of what happened according to Mary Corbett interview last week and I think she probably know more about this than you.

Pearson was never told he had been sacked/replaced/contract terminated - his agent called him the day after his interview and asked Pearson why he not told him the contract was not being renewed - Pearson did not know and only got a text from Lowe the following day telling him if he wanted to talk about the reasons why he was being replaced then to call loveable old rosey cheeks. The agent had read that the 2 Dutch guys were coming in via the internet.

[krissyboy31]

It was a message announced by the football club. Pearson was free to dispute it and give his version of accounts but didn't. I think to be honest if something is publically said and not challenged then we have to accept it as the truth. Either that or conjour up conspiracies as to why Pearson couldn't possibly counter lies made on his behalf.

 

The club never said anything of the sort. The official line was that his contract had not been renewed!

[saintjay77]

It was a message announced by the football club. Pearson was free to dispute it and give his version of accounts but didn't. I think to be honest if something is publically said and not challenged then we have to accept it as the truth. Either that or conjour up conspiracies as to why Pearson couldn't possibly counter lies made on his behalf.

 

I thought that pearson had agreed to stay on under Lowe and was surprised to find out that Lowe went elsewhere.

 

The point is though that there was an option to bail out of Pearsons contract and it was taken. If he was sacked then his contract would have been terminated and paid up in full.

 

So IMO he wasnt sacked as is liked to be believed.

 

Did Dodd and Gorman get sacked or was there another get out on that one?

[JohnnyFartPants]

The club never said anything of the sort. The official line was that his contract had not been renewed!

 

I am convinced I read that he was interviewed and offered a revamped contract and that he chose not to accept it. This was before the Dutch thing all kicked off.

[JohnnyFartPants]

I thought that pearson had agreed to stay on under Lowe and was surprised to find out that Lowe went elsewhere.

 

The point is though that there was an option to bail out of Pearsons contract and it was taken. If he was sacked then his contract would have been terminated and paid up in full.

 

So IMO he wasnt sacked as is liked to be believed.

 

Did Dodd and Gorman get sacked or was there another get out on that one?

 

I thought they were just in caretaker manager mode and the most official it ever got was the words "we want it long term" being mentioned. I could be wrong.

[saintjay77]

I thought they were just in caretaker manager mode and the most official it ever got was the words "we want it long term" being mentioned. I could be wrong.

 

ah fair enough was just wondering tis all

[Scummer]

I thought they were just in caretaker manager mode and the most official it ever got was the words "we want it long term" being mentioned. I could be wrong.

 

Yeah I'm pretty sure they were never 'appointed'. Definitely no press conference etc, I always saw them as caretakers.

[Window Cleaner]

ah fair enough was just wondering tis all

 

Nah we were bullsh*tted about them,and their "impact from day 1.

Crouch and McMenemy fooked up, you've got to accept that.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-512867/Saints-faith-Gorman-Dodd.html

[krissyboy31]

I am convinced I read that he was interviewed and offered a revamped contract and that he chose not to accept it. This was before the Dutch thing all kicked off.

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10167

 

Lowe had these two lined up all along. It states that NP's contract will not be renewed when it RUNS OUT next month.

Edited 9 February, 2009 by krissyboy31

[Give it to Ron]

Nah we were bullsh*tted about them,and their "impact from day 1.

Crouch and McMenemy fooked up, you've got to accept that.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-512867/Saints-faith-Gorman-Dodd.html

 

Yep dead right its not as if the club didn't have any history to look back on is it Gray, Wigley.

We would never ever do that again would be.....hold on though....

[gibbons]

How do you know that? Unless I have missed it and you can enlighten me of where the evidence is? I would suggest those are indeed anything but the FACTS!!

 

FACTS,An EGM was called by Lowe meaning no contracts could be enhanced untill this was resolved,NP at the end of his contract(that was short term) said to the board Lowe and Wilde he was open to the club offering him the job full time on re-negotiated terms,he was met with SORRY the vacancy is filled . These are facts.

Also after this was said NP is not the type to throw mud in anyones direction,he wished and wishes the club well,

[Scummer]

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10167

 

Lowe had these two lined up all along.

 

Jeez it's cringeworthy to read that now. I think they seriously believed that the youth were going to do well in this league.

[Window Cleaner]

Yep dead right its not as if the club didn't have any history to look back on is it Gray, Wigley.

We would never ever do that again would be.....hold on though....

 

We do seem to have a penchant for making bad managerial decisions though.

It can only be because we're such cheapskates,can't see any other reason.

Do not forget Moyes turned us down because the transfer budget was laughable.

[krissyboy31]

FACTS,An EGM was called by Lowe meaning no contracts could be enhanced untill this was resolved,NP at the end of his contract(that was short term) said to the board Lowe and Wilde he was open to the club offering him the job full time on re-negotiated terms,he was met with SORRY the vacancy is filled . These are facts.

Also after this was said NP is not the type to throw mud in anyones direction,he wished and wishes the club well,

 

But that is completely different to what JFP was saying.

[JohnnyFartPants]

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10167

 

Lowe had these two lined up all along. It states that NP's contract will not be renewed when it RUNS OUT next month.

 

Well it clears up that he wasn't sacked too. I am convinced I read somewhere that he couldn't agree terms though, but either way, he wasn't sacked.

[Give it to Ron]

It can only be because we're such cheapskates,can't see any other reason.

Do not forget Moyes turned us down because the transfer budget was laughable.

 

Spot on about the cheapskates thing and the reason we are where we are 4 times now and still we never ever learn.

I thought Moyes never came because he could not bring in his own trainers as we did not want to get rid of Rofe etc that was the story I heard?

[eelpie]

That is complete re-writing of what happened according to Mary Corbett interview last week and I think she probably know more about this than you.

Pearson was never told he had been sacked/replaced/contract terminated - his agent called him the day after his interview and asked Pearson why he not told him the contract was not being renewed - Pearson did not know and only got a text from Lowe the following day telling him if he wanted to talk about the reasons why he was being replaced then to call loveable old rosey cheeks. The agent had read that the 2 Dutch guys were coming in via the internet.

 

lol. Even Poortvliet's own club heard by the internet.

Lowe is a very devious man. What he wants he expects. F**k everyone else. Including us.

[Window Cleaner]

Spot on about the cheapskates thing and the reason we are where we are 4 times now and still we never ever learn.

I thought Moyes never came because he could not bring in his own trainers as we did not want to get rid of Rofe etc that was the story I heard?

 

I thought he wanted 10 million for transfers and Rupert laughed at him.

Probably just urban myth though.

There was a guy who always used to insist that we were run like a corner shop...probably gave up in the end.

[offix]

the 'problem' is that a majority of fans dont distinguish between the two and before long it will be come so engrained as another 'truth' - there are hundreds of these 'simply wrong' statemnets amde in haste that become the excepted belief amongst fans - it is important to make albeit subtle distinctions...unless if serves the purpose/agenda naturally.....

 

So you seriously do believe that there is a difference in practical terms? Not taking a renewal option on a contract and firing are really two wholly different things to you? The effect is not the same?

[krissyboy31]

At the time of the EGM. NP was fully expecting to be staying at Southampton and was already making plans for the new season. The national press had rumours that Lowe had lined up a replacement, if he managed to wrestle power back from Crouch (although the name being bandied about was Hoddle). NP had Crouch's 100% backing and when Crouch knew that he was on his way out made a statement that he hoped that Lowe would keep him on as manager. I suspect it was Crouch's backing, more than anything, that sealed Lowe's decision to get rid of him.

[Window Cleaner]

I suspect it was Crouch's backing, more than anything, that sealed Lowe's decision to get rid of him.

 

 

That and the 320K salary he's purported to have asked for.

[gibbons]

After the clowns we have had this year would of been cheap at double the price....what price relegation....what price 15,000 home games.....what price saints fans smiling...

[um pahars]

That and the 320K salary he's purported to have asked for.

 

Purported being the operative word, because money was not discussed with regards Pearson and Lowe.

 

And I don't think you'll find any of the mischief makers putting their names to such claims. I'm ceratainly aware that some people in the current set up put out tittle tattle about Pearson and I'm also aware that Peardon was furious about it and was just itching for them to go public with their spurious claims, something they never did.

 

And even if it was, then what price for a decent manager???

 

I think we've found out once again that going cheap is a false economy.

 

Pearson was no uber manager, but pitched against the total fcking disaster that was Jan Poortvliet, then all of a sudden he looks a much more brighter prospect.

 

If the insinuation of this thread is that Crouch should have tied up Pearson to enusre we retained him, then what this thread actually does is just highlight Lowe's incompetence even further, as Pearson was more than willing to stay on.

[Window Cleaner]

After the clowns we have had this year would of been cheap at double the price....what price relegation....what price 15,000 home games.....what price saints fans smiling...

 

Far far less than a "manager" at 320K per annum unfortunately.

We were cost cutting, he wasn't having any of it. End of.

If he'd have agreed to work for 100K/annum no doubt he'd still be here.

The board don't give a toss about the fans just now, they HAVE to cut costs, if people don't turn up to watch us that's just part of the collateral damage.

 

We will have cut our salary mass by over 50% (wait and see) anything that stopped us doing that was surplus to requirements.I don't like it any more than anyone else but there was no other solution.The STs were disastrously low

and financial backers aren't particulary interested in would bes or might haves.

We were already 4K down on STs alone, that costing the club nigh on 2 million in guaranteed revenue. The crowd downturn was to be expected in any case.Not so much perhaps but people were bitterly disappointed in our last season's showing.

[gibbons]

Far far less than a "manager" at 320K per annum unfortunately.

We were cost cutting, he wasn't having any of it. End of.

If he'd have agreed to work for 100K/annum no doubt he'd still be here.

The board don't give a toss about the fans just now, they HAVE to cut costs, if people don't turn up to watch us that's just part of the collateral damage.

 

We will have cut our salary mass by over 50% (wait and see) anything that stopped us doing that was surplus to requirements.I don't like it any more than anyone else but there was no other solution.The STs were disastrously low

and financial backers aren't particulary interested in would bes or might haves.

We were already 4K down on STs alone, that costing the club nigh on 2 million in guaranteed revenue. The crowd downturn was to be expected in any case.Not so much perhaps but people were bitterly disappointed in our last season's showing.

 

He was told the vacancy was filled:the clowns were contacted in march:please see sence:

[um pahars]

We were cost cutting, he wasn't having any of it. End of.

 

Who wasn't having any of it, and with regards what???

 

If you mean Pearson and his salary, then you're wide of the mark as there were never any negotiations with reagrds his salary between Lowe and Pearson.

 

He was more than willing to stay, he was more than willing to be flexible, but he never stood a chance as he was a dead man walking from the minuite Wilde and Lowe teamed up together, as they had already lined up the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up,

 

If you mean he wasn't willing to play ball with regards youngsters and maybe loans, then once again it doesn't stack up. Prior to being given the elbow by Lowe, Pearson was well aware of the financial constraints he had to work under.

 

He had publicly spoken about the need to be cautious with regards money.

 

And his endeavours at Leicester this season show he is not averse to working with youngsters and loanees.

 

I'm afraid your "end of" is anything but that.

Edited 9 February, 2009 by um pahars

[Window Cleaner]

Anyway whilst we're on the subject of Pearson here's a juicy one.

Some are saying that Southgate will be sacked soon and that Pearson will replace him. Wonder how they'd feel about that a Leicester.