jonah Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Then compounded it by promoting within....... Oh yes, of course... slight difference though in that Wotte had previously interviewed to be the manager, so not just a "lazy" promotion of a completely new-to-management 1st team coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 I think it's called being balanced, something you fail to be. If I said that ASDA were selling rotten apples you would blame Lowe. Dont be ridiculous. Any you lecture me about "balance"........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Dont be ridiculous. Any you lecture me about "balance"........ Yes, I exaggerated a point to make a point. Do you get my point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 10 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Yes, I exaggerated a point to make a point. Do you get my point? dont hold your breath ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 I personally though of him as the best thing since sliced bread after last season when he rescused a team of fat, unfit, lazy demotivated money-grubbing waankers from relegation with no money and only 13 games left, actually.. Firstly, if you believe he had no money then blame the chairman at the time who shipped out Rasiak and Skacel on loan and then tied the purse-strings. But of course in fact we did get 5 loan players in - Wright (thanks to Webster), and then Pearce, Pericard, Lucketti and Perry. Not a hugely succesful set of old-timers there really - 4 new defenders and we still got tonked 5-0 at Hull - clearly NP still struggled despite changing half the team. Maybe that's why Leicester fans' response to his appointment was "muted" rather than "alpinesque"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 I personally though of him as the best thing since sliced bread after last season when he rescused a team of fat, unfit, lazy demotivated money-grubbing waankers from relegation with no money and only 13 games left, actually.. That is not what you said when he was appointed and also for quite some time during up to end of the season. I have looked up the results during his tenure. To show balance I have not entered his first 5 games in charge as you have to let him get his message across and let his oideas start to show. The last 8 crucial games of last season NP's side accumalated 9 points. We won 2 lost 3 and drew 3. i know people will say that these figures are distorted as i have taken out his first 5 games (not including Plymouth home where he didnt pick side) . 5 games is more time than fans on here in general have afforded to Wotte by the way. First 5 games accumalated 7 points 4 draws and 1 win. If you stand back and look at the results they are fairly average and the last 8 games show a poor return especially as 2 of the games were gimmes Cardiff away who were looking to the FA cup final (lost 1-0) and Burnley hime who had nothing to play for (lost 1-0) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 It's the same people every time who like to beat Pearson with a stick. He kept Saints up full stop. Personally I don't care how he did it but he did. IF Wotte does the same then great but the odds are seriously stacked against him. This thread may be dressed up a little but it's no more than a Lowe vs Crouch thread - as many on here seem to be. Actually I'll retract that comment, it's an anti-Crouch thread as stated by the original poster. It's going round and round with the same myopic view points from the same posters. I'd be quite happy if Wotte has a record of only 4 losses in 14 games - would you?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 That is not what you said when he was appointed and also for quite some time during up to end of the season. I have looked up the results during his tenure. To show balance I have not entered his first 5 games in charge as you have to let him get his message across and let his oideas start to show. The last 8 crucial games of last season NP's side accumalated 9 points. We won 2 lost 3 and drew 3. i know people will say that these figures are distorted as i have taken out his first 5 games (not including Plymouth home where he didnt pick side) . 5 games is more time than fans on here in general have afforded to Wotte by the way. First 5 games accumalated 7 points 4 draws and 1 win. If you stand back and look at the results they are fairly average and the last 8 games show a poor return especially as 2 of the games were gimmes Cardiff away who were looking to the FA cup final (lost 1-0) and Burnley hime who had nothing to play for (lost 1-0) Where as West Brom away, Bristol City and Sheff Utd were easy games. If we had been getting 9 points from 8 games this season we would be on 36 points now. That would put us 10th from bottom. Yet you think that wasn't good enough, well look at the tables now Nick and tell me what a great decision our great leader has made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 It's the same people every time who like to beat Pearson with a stick. He kept Saints up full stop. Personally I don't care how he did it but he did. IF Wotte does the same then great but the odds are seriously stacked against him. This thread may be dressed up a little but it's no more than a Lowe vs Crouch thread - as many on here seem to be. Actually I'll retract that comment, it's an anti-Crouch thread as stated by the original poster. It's going round and round with the same myopic view points from the same posters. I'd be quite happy if Wotte has a record of only 4 losses in 14 games - would you?! Yes I would, but the damage has been done and left Wotte in a lot more trouble than last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 It's the same people every time who like to beat Pearson with a stick. He kept Saints up full stop. Personally I don't care how he did it but he did. IF Wotte does the same then great but the odds are seriously stacked against him. This thread may be dressed up a little but it's no more than a Lowe vs Crouch thread - as many on here seem to be. Actually I'll retract that comment, it's an anti-Crouch thread as stated by the original poster. It's going round and round with the same myopic view points from the same posters. I'd be quite happy if Wotte has a record of only 4 losses in 14 games - would you?!If fans gave him 5 games before judging it would be fair. NP is a manager both sides of the fence would be happy to have been stuck with.Some think he is magnificent others think he was just ok. His results to me put him in the just OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Where as West Brom away, Bristol City and Sheff Utd were easy games. If we had been getting 9 points from 8 games this season we would be on 36 points now. That would put us 10th from bottom. Yet you think that wasn't good enough, well look at the tables now Nick and tell me what a great decision our great leader has made. RL has made a massive mistake and again did not get a manager in with CCC experience something I condemn him for.Wotte is not my choice but if as i hear he is in fact instilling a togetherness and tactics and dare i say it a fighting spirit (not the right words if the fan thing is true) then why not give him a few games before dissing him? ps the jersey friendly game was called off if anyone is interested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 I'd be quite happy if Wotte has a record of only 4 losses in 14 games - would you?! Well obviously that would depend on what the other 10 results were. That's why league positions are determined by points, not by number of defeats. Given he has a weaker squad and the drama-queens out in force against the club again, I would say matching NP's points-per-game record would be a reasonable achievement - ie. NP got 16/14, so Wotte's ppg would mean getting 20 or 21 from his 18 matches. That would give us 46 or 47 points - probably not enough to stay up. So Wotte will probably have to do better than NP, with worse players, to keep us up this year. Thank goodness he has the support of the fans eh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Well obviously that would depend on what the other 10 results were. That's why league positions are determined by points, not by number of defeats. Given he has a weaker squad and the drama-queens out in force against the club again, I would say matching NP's points-per-game record would be a reasonable achievement - ie. NP got 16/14, so Wotte's ppg would mean getting 20 or 21 from his 18 matches. That would give us 46 or 47 points - probably not enough to stay up. So Wotte will probably have to do better than NP, with worse players, to keep us up this year. Thank goodness he has the support of the fans eh... That's right Jonah. It's all the fault of the fans..... You haven't been chatting to Mr Illingsworth have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 If fans gave him 5 games before judging it would be fair. NP is a manager both sides of the fence would be happy to have been stuck with.Some think he is magnificent others think he was just ok. His results to me put him in the just OK. Yet some sensed given another season he would have kept us up again, maybe not magnificent, but right now (and at the beginning of the season) most fans would happily have settled for just OK. But his results now at Leicester have proved what many at the end of the season thought he was capable of. As you would say Nick, his results would now put him in the magnificent bracket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Well obviously that would depend on what the other 10 results were. That's why league positions are determined by points, not by number of defeats. Given he has a weaker squad and the drama-queens out in force against the club again, I would say matching NP's points-per-game record would be a reasonable achievement - ie. NP got 16/14, so Wotte's ppg would mean getting 20 or 21 from his 18 matches. That would give us 46 or 47 points - probably not enough to stay up. So Wotte will probably have to do better than NP, with worse players, to keep us up this year. Thank goodness he has the support of the fans eh... Surely this thread is about Crouch (and Pearson) and not Wotte but I don't disagree with any of the points you have made. I am not against Wotte by any stretch although I'm not too enamered with his attempts to play the political game or some of his comments ('we are very confident after Tuesday's game') but as per Pearson I don't really care what he does if we stay up. That's all he can be measured on. Let's not forget that he cannot be divorced from the results prior to him coming on board as he was part of the 'team'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Paul Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Yes I would, but the damage has been done and left Wotte in a lot more trouble than last season. Wasn't Wotte part of the Management team that did the damage. He's on record saying it was his idea to give Dyer a new contract. This shows he was involved with the first team squad and deciding who was a part of it. They came as a pair, so he must take some blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Well obviously that would depend on what the other 10 results were. That's why league positions are determined by points, not by number of defeats. Given he has a weaker squad and the drama-queens out in force against the club again, I would say matching NP's points-per-game record would be a reasonable achievement - ie. NP got 16/14, so Wotte's ppg would mean getting 20 or 21 from his 18 matches. That would give us 46 or 47 points - probably not enough to stay up. So Wotte will probably have to do better than NP, with worse players, to keep us up this year. Thank goodness he has the support of the fans eh... I agree, Wotte will have to do better than Pearson, but if he does do as well as Pearson and we go down, the question should be why was he not given the job to begin with ? It wont be Wotte that the fans will blame, if he gets us back to where we were heading with Pearson. It will be Lowe for appointing JP ahead of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 As you would say Nick, his results would now put him in the magnificent bracket.Wotte has had 3 games, that is all.NP may have done better than Jan , his home results particularily, away Im not sure. NP is being creamed over (It went quiet about him on here when Leicester had a little poor patch when they slipped a few games) on his performance at Leicester.if you look at his results here they were onl;y average and we only got 9 points in the last 8 crucial matches.that is not very good considering he had by then had a few loans in and his influence should have been instilled.I still ould have preferred him to stay but it was not to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Well obviously that would depend on what the other 10 results were. That's why league positions are determined by points, not by number of defeats. Given he has a weaker squad and the drama-queens out in force against the club again, I would say matching NP's points-per-game record would be a reasonable achievement - ie. NP got 16/14, so Wotte's ppg would mean getting 20 or 21 from his 18 matches. That would give us 46 or 47 points - probably not enough to stay up. So Wotte will probably have to do better than NP, with worse players, to keep us up this year. Thank goodness he has the support of the fans eh... I agree with a deal of what you say here but with regards to your last sentence, the reason that Wotte does not have the fans support is because they (and I'm typing from my POV) believe that he is at least partly culpable for the dire performance we have seen in the first half of the season. He and JP came as a pair, they were introduced together and hailed as two parts of Rupert's revolutionary, continental style coaching set-up. It matters not that he has tried to distance himself from that since he took over, he is tarred with the same brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 That is not what you said when he was appointed and also for quite some time during up to end of the season. There you go with you false accusations again... I was non-plussed by his appointment, so f**king what ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 It's the same people every time who like to beat Pearson with a stick. He kept Saints up full stop. Personally I don't care how he did it but he did. IF Wotte does the same then great but the odds are seriously stacked against him. This thread may be dressed up a little but it's no more than a Lowe vs Crouch thread - as many on here seem to be. Actually I'll retract that comment, it's an anti-Crouch thread as stated by the original poster. It's going round and round with the same myopic view points from the same posters. I'd be quite happy if Wotte has a record of only 4 losses in 14 games - would you?! Agree with all your points, especially the bold one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Well obviously that would depend on what the other 10 results were. That's why league positions are determined by points, not by number of defeats. Given he has a weaker squad and the drama-queens out in force against the club again, I would say matching NP's points-per-game record would be a reasonable achievement - ie. NP got 16/14, so Wotte's ppg would mean getting 20 or 21 from his 18 matches. That would give us 46 or 47 points - probably not enough to stay up. So Wotte will probably have to do better than NP, with worse players, to keep us up this year. Thank goodness he has the support of the fans eh... Tell me jonah, where exactly were you between the summer of 2006 and January 2009 ? You were never on here, that's for sure. How come you only show up when Lowe is in danger of being out-on-his-arse ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Wotte has had 3 games, that is all.NP may have done better than Jan , his home results particularily, away Im not sure. NP is being creamed over (It went quiet about him on here when Leicester had a little poor patch when they slipped a few games) on his performance at Leicester.if you look at his results here they were onl;y average and we only got 9 points in the last 8 crucial matches.that is not very good considering he had by then had a few loans in and his influence should have been instilled.I still ould have preferred him to stay but it was not to be. Why measure his last 8 games ? Why not his last 5 ? That is when his influence looked to have been installed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Wotte has had 3 games, that is all.. I'm not criticising Wotte. He will be judged at the end of the season in the same manner that I did with Pearson. But like Pearson, my first thoughts are its a bad mistake but will be happy to be proved wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Why measure his last 8 games ? Why not his last 5 ? That is when his influence looked to have been installed.That is fine his last 5 games. He won 2 drew 2 lost 1. So you will give Wotte 9 games to let him instill his ideas on the team? i dont actually care fro Wotte or know how good he will be but as he has our fate as a club in his hands then i will try and defend the club as if he is indeed a wrong choice it will effect us all.However good NP turns out to be helps us not 1 jot. I looked at the 3 games you wished me to cull and it made me chuckle. the 0-0 home to Cov Hull away 0-5 and Cardiff away 0-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 That's right Jonah. It's all the fault of the fans..... Thank God today's fans weren't around in the early 70s - the cheap option of an ex-guardsman as manager, part-time unqualified chairmen lording it up on their Scottish estates, relegation from the top flight, 2 years struggling in Division 2, dodgy share transactions, failure to deliver a new stadium... no doubt today's fans would have hounded out TB, JC and LM within a fortnight back then and we wouldn't have had the 8 years of success that occurred during our 124 year existence. [cut-and-paste response for missing the point: "How can you compare RL to...."] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 I agree, Wotte will have to do better than Pearson, but if he does do as well as Pearson and we go down, the question should be why was he not given the job to begin with ? It wont be Wotte that the fans will blame, if he gets us back to where we were heading with Pearson. It will be Lowe for appointing JP ahead of him. I don't doubt there will have to be blame apportioned, and I don't doubt it will ignore the financial mess we started the season with. I also don't doubt it will all be RL's fault. I don't think it's right, I think it's totally blinkered, but I don't doubt it for one minute! How could it ever *not* be RL's fault? As usual, nobody even mentions MW who is chairman of SFC - surely the football direction is his remit, not RL's? FWIW I actually think NP would probably have done about the same as JP. I think the football would have been less pretty, but I don't imagine anyone would have complained. That last bit was a joke ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 As usual, nobody even mentions MW who is chairman of SFC - surely the football direction is his remit, not RL's? In all fairness I think it has been widely debated that MW is just as, if not more, 'responsible' for where we are firstly because of his bed-hopping and secondly for his role as Chairman of the Football Board. However, I think there is widespread suspicion as to exactly what powers MW actually has in this role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 How come you only show up when Lowe is in danger of being out-on-his-arse ? Did the Austrians only start heavily drinking schnapps after you arrived Alpine? Again, you look at things the wrong way round - it's not a question of being pro-Lowe, it's a question of being anti- things that destroy SFC. Hence why I tried to warn about Wilde for several months... by the time he took power there was nothing else anyone could do other than wait for the implosion. Sadly, the "Anyone-But-Lowe" brigade have learnt absolutely nothing and are on the march again - I have no problem with Lowe leaving the club for good, provided there is somebody better to take over. Wilde was not better, nor were Hone, Hoos, Oldknow, Dulieu, Trant, Crouch, Corbett or McMenemy, despite the claims of the drama-queens and failed bean-counters on here that it was easy to simply "hire a CEO" to do the job (ho ho). Anyway, this thread is about the question of why Crouch failed to back his own judgement by offering NP a proper contract which extended beyond 14 games... I've yet to see a coherent response to that other than it was either because he had no faith in him and it was a complete gamble, or that there was another underlying reason such as lack of support from Barclays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Did the Austrians only start heavily drinking schnapps after you arrived Alpine? Again, you look at things the wrong way round - it's not a question of being pro-Lowe, it's a question of being anti- things that destroy SFC. Hence why I tried to warn about Wilde for several months... by the time he took power there was nothing else anyone could do other than wait for the implosion. Sadly, the "Anyone-But-Lowe" brigade have learnt absolutely nothing and are on the march again - I have no problem with Lowe leaving the club for good, provided there is somebody better to take over. Wilde was not better, nor were Hone, Hoos, Oldknow, Dulieu, Trant, Crouch, Corbett or McMenemy, despite the claims of the drama-queens and failed bean-counters on here that it was easy to simply "hire a CEO" to do the job (ho ho). Anyway, this thread is about the question of why Crouch failed to back his own judgement by offering NP a proper contract which extended beyond 14 games... I've yet to see a coherent response to that other than it was either because he had no faith in him and it was a complete gamble, or that there was another underlying reason such as lack of support from Barclays. You should read all the responses and not just the ones you wish to include. Some very feasable answers and explanations if you look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Thank God today's fans weren't around in the early 70s - the cheap option of an ex-guardsman as manager, part-time unqualified chairmen lording it up on their Scottish estates, relegation from the top flight, 2 years struggling in Division 2, dodgy share transactions, failure to deliver a new stadium... no doubt today's fans would have hounded out TB, JC and LM within a fortnight back then and we wouldn't have had the 8 years of success that occurred during our 124 year existence. [cut-and-paste response for missing the point: "How can you compare RL to...."] That's right Jonah, it all the fault of the fans..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Did the Austrians only start heavily drinking schnapps after you arrived Alpine? Again, you look at things the wrong way round - it's not a question of being pro-Lowe, it's a question of being anti- things that destroy SFC. Hence why I tried to warn about Wilde for several months... by the time he took power there was nothing else anyone could do other than wait for the implosion. Sadly, the "Anyone-But-Lowe" brigade have learnt absolutely nothing and are on the march again - I have no problem with Lowe leaving the club for good, provided there is somebody better to take over. Wilde was not better, nor were Hone, Hoos, Oldknow, Dulieu, Trant, Crouch, Corbett or McMenemy, despite the claims of the drama-queens and failed bean-counters on here that it was easy to simply "hire a CEO" to do the job (ho ho). Anyway, this thread is about the question of why Crouch failed to back his own judgement by offering NP a proper contract which extended beyond 14 games... I've yet to see a coherent response to that other than it was either because he had no faith in him and it was a complete gamble, or that there was another underlying reason such as lack of support from Barclays. Yet you were in the anyone but Crouch camp were you not ? Lowe hasn't done any better either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Anyway, this thread is about the question of why Crouch failed to back his own judgement by offering NP a proper contract which extended beyond 14 games... I've yet to see a coherent response to that other than it was either because he had no faith in him and it was a complete gamble, or that there was another underlying reason such as lack of support from Barclays. In that case I suggest you take another look as there are several posts which cover exactly that. They are there to be read if you want to that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 In that case I suggest you take another look as there are several posts which cover exactly that. They are there to be read if you want to that is. Well obviously I don't consider them "coherent" - saying NP had an 18 month contract is nonsense given there was no mutuality of obligation beyond the 14 games - it could be terminated for no reason, even if we stayed up. He could have had a 250 year contract if that clause was in there. Trying to claim it was due to the EGM is incoherent too given that was called after the contract was signed. It was not a rolling contract as rolling contracts have notice periods. So sorry but I've seen no coherent explanation of why NP wasn't tied down by Crouch - in fact, NP's termination clause is just as weird, I assume he asked for that to match our own one... so we have a conditionless, no-notice break-clause after 14 games, he has a conditionless, no-notice break clause after 14 games. It's a 14 game contract, end of story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Anyway, this thread is about the question of why Crouch failed to back his own judgement by offering NP a proper contract which extended beyond 14 games... I've yet to see a coherent response to that other than it was either because he had no faith in him and it was a complete gamble, or that there was another underlying reason such as lack of support from Barclays. As someone else pointed out, if we had given NP a long contract and he failed to be up to the task, we would have had to pay compensation which we couldn't afford. It has been said that Pearson was offered the job util the end of the season and if he kept us up he would have had it extended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Firstly, if you believe he had no money then blame the chairman at the time who shipped out Rasiak and Skacel on loan and then tied the purse-strings. But of course in fact we did get 5 loan players in - Wright (thanks to Webster), and then Pearce, Pericard, Lucketti and Perry. Not a hugely succesful set of old-timers there really - 4 new defenders and we still got tonked 5-0 at Hull - clearly NP still struggled despite changing half the team. Maybe that's why Leicester fans' response to his appointment was "muted" rather than "alpinesque"? Look, if you're going to talk football, don't spout rubbish; check your facts before you make statements. The team that played Hull was Poke, Ostlund, Powell, Viafara, Thomas, Licka (62 Gillett) Euell, Safri, Vignal, McGoldrick (46 Pericard) John (70 Wright) I don't see any mention of Pearce, Lucketti or Perry there, do you? And a rookie goallie until presumably that was Richard Wright that came on for John after 70 minutes. How do you rate Powell and Thomas as CBs? I don't think much of either of them personally. And you talk as if it was some sort of disgrace playing Hull and losing like that, when Hull went up soon after and are holding their own in the Premiership and beating the top teams too. When Pearson got Perry and Lucketti into the defence with Wright behind them, we became one of the hardest teams to beat, suffering only three losses under him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Bit academic though, isnt it ? We know that he went for the cheap "malleable" option, meanwhile Pearson is just about the hottest young prospect in the country. One could try to argue about hindsight making it easy to wise after the event, but then we all know Lowe has made truly shiite tight-fisted ego-driven decisions like this before... LOL I could see the long list of Prem and CCC clubs lining up for his services when we let such a hot prospect go. We were a team that made the playoffs the season before, got screwed up with random GB decissions for the 1st half of the season, left with no confidence while under Dodd & Gorman and barly survived while under Pearson. The club that came and took pearson on was a club that to be fair shouldnt have been in a relegation scrap the same as us and kept most of there team in league 1. Some of there players are borderline Prem players and they are probably capable to achieving promotion with my pet lizard managing them. On top of that Mandertvv@t is willing to put money into a club that he owns completly so its hardly fair to compare them with anything going on with us. Due to the complete arse way our club is owned there is no 1 rich person that can decide to inject money into it without it turning into a point scoring excersize. Pearson may or may not have done better than JP (IMO I think he would have) but I dont see any evidence that suggests we would be in much better situation as we are in now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Look, if you're going to talk football, don't spout rubbish; check your facts before you make statements. The team that played Hull was Poke, Ostlund, Powell, Viafara, Thomas, Licka (62 Gillett) Euell, Safri, Vignal, McGoldrick (46 Pericard) John (70 Wright) I don't see any mention of Pearce, Lucketti or Perry there, do you? And a rookie goallie until presumably that was Richard Wright that came on for John after 70 minutes. How do you rate Powell and Thomas as CBs? I don't think much of either of them personally. And you talk as if it was some sort of disgrace playing Hull and losing like that, when Hull went up soon after and are holding their own in the Premiership and beating the top teams too. When Pearson got Perry and Lucketti into the defence with Wright behind them, we became one of the hardest teams to beat, suffering only three losses under him. I agree it was a poor result during the keeper crisis.i will say we had up to that point a few saying drop Davis and play Poke, lol. I notice he took off John and put on Wright.Hull were scoffed at on here it is only now that fans see they werent not that bad, of course when we beat them under GB they were rubbish as we can only beat rubbish in some fans opinions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Look, if you're going to talk football, don't spout rubbish; check your facts before you make statements. The team that played Hull was Poke, Ostlund, Powell, Viafara, Thomas, Licka (62 Gillett) Euell, Safri, Vignal, McGoldrick (46 Pericard) John (70 Wright) I don't see any mention of Pearce, Lucketti or Perry there, do you? And a rookie goallie until presumably that was Richard Wright that came on for John after 70 minutes. How do you rate Powell and Thomas as CBs? I don't think much of either of them personally. And you talk as if it was some sort of disgrace playing Hull and losing like that, when Hull went up soon after and are holding their own in the Premiership and beating the top teams too. When Pearson got Perry and Lucketti into the defence with Wright behind them, we became one of the hardest teams to beat, suffering only three losses under him. Its good to see Jonah try and talk football matters, but I think finances are his strong point. Pearce was signed by JP not Pearson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 As someone else pointed out, if we had given NP a long contract and he failed to be up to the task, we would have had to pay compensation which we couldn't afford. It has been said that Pearson was offered the job util the end of the season and if he kept us up he would have had it extended. I think that 1 of the points Jonah is making is that reason is all well and good but it is also the same reason that is a stick to beat RL with. Not backing his managers in the past has been something that he has been guilty of and slated for on numerous occasions yet when Crouch does the same thing its accepted as the right thing to do? Im not saying RL was right to make any of his decissions but I agree that when any of the chairmen/shareholders make a decission the same as any of the other ones then they should all be judged with the same reasoning and thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 I agree it was a poor result during the keeper crisis.i will say we had up to that point a few saying drop Davis and play Poke, lol. I notice he took off John and put on Wright.Hull were scoffed at on here it is only now that fans see they werent not that bad, of course when we beat Hull, GB was rubbish and Scotland have now collected are rubbish. Fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Fixed it for you.Slick thanks for the jest, I cannot throw stones but I suspect you will be pulled up as you put 'are' instead of 'our' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Its good to see Jonah try and talk football matters, but I think finances are his strong point. Pearce was signed by JP not Pearson. Maybe the excitement of having Britain's "hottest young prospect" in charge made you forget NP's first signing: http://www.skysports.com/football/player/0,19754,11681_6743,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 I think that 1 of the points Jonah is making is that reason is all well and good but it is also the same reason that is a stick to beat RL with. Not backing his managers in the past has been something that he has been guilty of and slated for on numerous occasions yet when Crouch does the same thing its accepted as the right thing to do? Im not saying RL was right to make any of his decissions but I agree that when any of the chairmen/shareholders make a decission the same as any of the other ones then they should all be judged with the same reasoning and thinking. Not backing his managers( presume you mean financially) and picking the wrong managers are two totally different subjects. Crouch may well have been cautious about offering Pearson a long contract at the start and rightly so, we have seen to many wrong managers appointed in recent years. On this occasion I think he got the right appointment and would have preferred to see him continue. Lowe picked JP and was clearly the wrong appointment again. The buck stops with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Maybe the excitement of having Britain's "hottest young prospect" in charge made you forget NP's first signing: http://www.skysports.com/football/player/0,19754,11681_6743,00.html Blimey West ham paid over 2mil for him!!!! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Maybe the excitement of having Britain's "hottest young prospect" in charge made you forget NP's first signing: http://www.skysports.com/football/player/0,19754,11681_6743,00.html Feck me I got confused with the Reading lad. You can have that one Jonah. Thats 1 v 1 now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Slick thanks for the jest, I cannot throw stones but I suspect you will be pulled up as you put 'are' instead of 'our' Or maybe 'expect' rather than 'suspect'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Maybe the excitement of having Britain's "hottest young prospect" in charge made you forget NP's first signing: http://www.skysports.com/football/player/0,19754,11681_6743,00.html I had forgot about him as well, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Or maybe 'expect' rather than 'suspect'. No Im happy with my first wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 10 February, 2009 Share Posted 10 February, 2009 Not backing his managers( presume you mean financially) and picking the wrong managers are two totally different subjects. Crouch may well have been cautious about offering Pearson a long contract at the start and rightly so, we have seen to many wrong managers appointed in recent years. On this occasion I think he got the right appointment and would have preferred to see him continue. Lowe picked JP and was clearly the wrong appointment again. The buck stops with him. No I dont mean financially as in transfers but as in contracts. I dont know but I doubt there was any big pay-offs for Wigley, Gray and even Sturrock as i would have thought all of there contracts would have been small and with get out's built in. Yet at the time Lowe was hounded for not backing his man with decent contracts and supporting them. Like I said before, I am not saying it is right but they are all similar situations yet get treated differently because of who made the decissions, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now