Was Lowe a lot closer to being right than we give him credit for?

[Verbal Kint]

Factually incorrect points and the rest taken out of context of today's environment. BTW where is Salz now? May as well compare how successful Lowe was in 2002-03 with Crouch's tenure.

 

Average attendance for the 11 games prior to Crouch's reappointment in Dec 2007

 

20,585

 

 

Average attendance for the 12 games under Crouch from Dec 2007 to May 2008

 

21867

 

 

 

If you're going to make such claims, then at least check they stand up to scrutiny.

 

 

I'd like an apology please Nineteen. When you're ready...

 

As for the rest of your response... completely laughable. You luvvies continue to blame the fans for our problems, just like Rupert, and you fail to understand one very simple thing: The customer is always right. Without fans coming through the turnstiles, there is no revenue stream and the business fails. It's that simple for football at this level. All Rupert has done since he came back is drive fans away, be it from his mere presence or the fact the football this season has been overpriced and dire.

 

Crowds WOULD have been higher this season if Pearson and Leon had stayed, and, just to repeat myself as i know this to be true, Barclays were more than satisfied with the plan of action Leon and Salz put to them, and were prepared to support them fully in carrying it out.

 

It must be very depressing being Lowe, having all these visionary ideas about how football should develop, only to see them fail spectacularly one by one.

[Channon's Sideburns]

So in summary.

 

We finished last season with a team that had a mix of youth and experience.

 

We started this season with a team that had youth.

 

We are now trying to stay up based on a team based on a mix of youth and experience.

 

I'd say that's a very big backtrack....

 

So why did we get rid of Pearson again??????

[stthrobber]

Whilst I accept that the 'Total Young Guns Football' experiment was an unmitigated disaster, I cannot but help think back to pre-season when many on here appeared to be in favour of it. Not only were people saying that we were going to survive in the league, but the lads could even be looking at a play off position.

 

Was that you - and are you now all posting in hindsight?

 

I voiced my concerns at the start of the season, though in all fairness, when JP arrived he was saying that the team would be made up with a mixture of youth and experience, but the reality was that experience went on loan and the team was almost entirely made up from youth.

 

Completely and utterly the wrong strategy.

[team-saint]

So in summary.

 

We finished last season with a team that had a mix of youth and experience.

 

We started this season with a team that had youth.

 

We are now trying to stay up based on a team based on a mix of youth and experience.

 

I'd say that's a very big backtrack....

 

So why did we get rid of Pearson again??????

 

yep

 

and we started last season with a rubbish defence which we fixed under pearson

 

and we started this season with a rubbish defence which we have now fixed

 

if we do stay up then i hope wotte gets us properly prepared for next season because otherwise it will just be this season and last season all over again

[um pahars]

Whilst I accept that the 'Total Young Guns Football' experiment was an unmitigated disaster, I cannot but help think back to pre-season when many on here appeared to be in favour of it. Not only were people saying that we were going to survive in the league, but the lads could even be looking at a play off position.

 

Was that you - and are you now all posting in hindsight?

 

Although I can see where you're coming from, I do think that's a little unfair.

 

At the start of almost every season fans up and down the country go into the new season with a degree of optimism, almost blind faith if you want, but that's what being an irrational fan is all about.

 

I'm sure supporters had their concerns, but you want it to work and you hope that this is the one season where it all comes off.

[Micky]

Although I can see where you're coming from, I do think that's a little unfair.

 

At the start of almost every season fans up and down the country go into the new season with a degree of optimism, almost blind faith if you want, but that's what being an irrational fan is all about.

 

I'm sure supporters had their concerns, but you want it to work and you hope that this is the one season where it all comes off.

 

It was an honest, open and forthright question UP. I'm not knocking people for it and I agree with you - at the start of the season I had us down for automatic promotion and an FA Cup win - I dream just as much as the rest of us.

 

But it just seems a little biggotted now to rubbish those exponents of the experiment - having seen it fail - when in reality, many on here were probably optimistic and supporters of it when it was announced.

 

My only real critisism would be the amount of time the failing experiment was allowed to run - before common sence, normal football and hence, 'normal service' was resumed.

[docker-p]

There are some interesting parallels between us and Charlton and lot of the problems were instigated by unnecessary fan unrest that upset the stability of both clubs.

 

There he goes again:smt048

 

Nineteen and Sid can't help themselves from blaming the fans. LMFAO.

"Why if it weren't for those meddling fans...."

[trousers]

Dear Trousers,

Please stick to the caption competitions cos when it comes to the more serious threads you are just 'pants' !

All IMHO you understand !

You may have a fair point there! Maggie Philbin's hopping mad at me too.

[Frank's cousin]

I'd like an apology please Nineteen. When you're ready...

 

As for the rest of your response... completely laughable. You luvvies continue to blame the fans for our problems, just like Rupert, and you fail to understand one very simple thing: The customer is always right. Without fans coming through the turnstiles, there is no revenue stream and the business fails. It's that simple for football at this level. All Rupert has done since he came back is drive fans away, be it from his mere presence or the fact the football this season has been overpriced and dire.

 

Crowds WOULD have been higher this season if Pearson and Leon had stayed, and, just to repeat myself as i know this to be true, Barclays were more than satisfied with the plan of action Leon and Salz put to them, and were prepared to support them fully in carrying it out.

 

It must be very depressing being Lowe, having all these visionary ideas about how football should develop, only to see them fail spectacularly one by one.

 

I dont think its a question of blaming fans - its not BLAME, but an inevitable fact that reduced attendence = reduced revenue. Now WHY there is a reduced attendence is a different matter, but for whatever reason a reduction in income is the result which does effect the balance sheet. There are good reasons for the decline - the main one being CCC instead of Prem football. the second being the lack of sucess in the CCC and a distant third who the chairnman is. I also think that attendence will go up for the last 5-6 home games which will drag up the average as fans start to come back for the relegation fight - same as they did last season when the home gate goes up and swells teh average - the reality is whatever political milegae some like to make of it, the run in is traditionally always going to provide bigger gates.

 

To say crowds WOULD have been higher is speculation - I suggest they would ahve been higher had we had more success under ANY combination - thats the nature of the more casual fan (and thats not meant as a derogatory term) - they go more if they see value and entertainment for cost of a ticket. We aint had a lot this year so crowds have shrunk - had we had a good start and progressed we would have seen crowds go up. Had we had the same dismal ryun we would ahve seen the same reduction had Pearson and CRouch been here - whatever some may like to think the politics does not have as large an effect as the propoganda merchents like to think - because ultimately, it is about football and about supporting saints IF we can afford it and IF the results are reasonable.

 

I have not sen a Barclays staement about eon's plan - I guess or have you - but when was that ever a problem hey? so who knows, and we dont even know WHAT leaons plan was as he has not communicated it publically - or are you ITK? ;-)

 

I am sure it is depressing being Rupert LOwe, seeing your plans fail - my guess would be it would be depressing for anyone who was in that situation tried new things and failed. We can pontificate about our superior knowledge, foresight and vision all we like, but that is the beauty of being a fan, and not in the boardroom trying to satisfy 20000 differing opinions - Sure Lowe in his own world has tried a fair few things that seem to go against the grain of he 'logic of football' - he has tried to go against what is the perceived wisdom and established approaches as dictated by the football 'old guard' ...and most have failed - makes him look like an arse sure, some no doubt thought of due to his 'prudet nature' but when was the last time there was ever any progress in something without challenges to the the perceived wisdoms?

 

If you love saints, what would have given you greater pride that say seeing the kids actually do the business? or had the SCW thing worked and that scientific approach given us the advantage which was then adopted elsewhere? Thats the reason for my POV n all that, not supporting Lowe, but liking the idea of challenging the old school, the old ways of brown envelopes and paper bags, and the continual 'it must be done this way' - There is no shame in failure of new ideas, I would suggest the biggest shame is in being too scared to try them.

 

Fans are naturally sceptical, afterall a wrong move can and often does have diasterous consequences as we have seen under Lowe. We are also desperate to avoid the 'p!ss take' that inevitably follows public failure, especially when there is a latent prejudice agianst the 'hockey classes in football' - but is that not simply narrow minded?

 

Lowe has tried loads and failed loads and sure there is plenty a reason for justifying he should now move on as we have not benn able to make these mad ideas work - time and again - but I dont see why we should be embarrassed or ashamed the club tried them. Its only our own fragile egos that cant cope with poor results that are damaged.

 

The anger is only there because we are afraid of failure - be honest, how much of our anger at poor form and poor results is about how we perceive our club in relation to others, how we worry about what those blue few or other clubs think of us? We should be proud of this club whatever happens and whatever some nutter in teh board room does, tries or fails at, because there IS alot of truth in th fact that its better to have tried and failed than to be too scared to give it a go.

[docker-p]

I dont think its a question of blaming fans - its not BLAME, but an inevitable fact that reduced attendence = reduced revenue. Now WHY there is a reduced attendence is a different matter, but for whatever reason a reduction in income is the result which does effect the balance sheet. There are good reasons for the decline - the main one being CCC instead of Prem football. the second being the lack of sucess in the CCC and a distant third who the chairnman is. I also think that attendence will go up for the last 5-6 home games which will drag up the average as fans start to come back for the relegation fight - same as they did last season when the home gate goes up and swells teh average - the reality is whatever political milegae some like to make of it, the run in is traditionally always going to provide bigger gates.

 

To say crowds WOULD have been higher is speculation - I suggest they would ahve been higher had we had more success under ANY combination - thats the nature of the more casual fan (and thats not meant as a derogatory term) - they go more if they see value and entertainment for cost of a ticket. We aint had a lot this year so crowds have shrunk - had we had a good start and progressed we would have seen crowds go up. Had we had the same dismal ryun we would ahve seen the same reduction had Pearson and CRouch been here - whatever some may like to think the politics does not have as large an effect as the propoganda merchents like to think - because ultimately, it is about football and about supporting saints IF we can afford it and IF the results are reasonable.

 

I have not sen a Barclays staement about eon's plan - I guess or have you - but when was that ever a problem hey? so who knows, and we dont even know WHAT leaons plan was as he has not communicated it publically - or are you ITK? ;-)

 

I am sure it is depressing being Rupert LOwe, seeing your plans fail - my guess would be it would be depressing for anyone who was in that situation tried new things and failed. We can pontificate about our superior knowledge, foresight and vision all we like, but that is the beauty of being a fan, and not in the boardroom trying to satisfy 20000 differing opinions - Sure Lowe in his own world has tried a fair few things that seem to go against the grain of he 'logic of football' - he has tried to go against what is the perceived wisdom and established approaches as dictated by the football 'old guard' ...and most have failed - makes him look like an arse sure, some no doubt thought of due to his 'prudet nature' but when was the last time there was ever any progress in something without challenges to the the perceived wisdoms?

 

If you love saints, what would have given you greater pride that say seeing the kids actually do the business? or had the SCW thing worked and that scientific approach given us the advantage which was then adopted elsewhere? Thats the reason for my POV n all that, not supporting Lowe, but liking the idea of challenging the old school, the old ways of brown envelopes and paper bags, and the continual 'it must be done this way' - There is no shame in failure of new ideas, I would suggest the biggest shame is in being too scared to try them.

 

Fans are naturally sceptical, afterall a wrong move can and often does have diasterous consequences as we have seen under Lowe. We are also desperate to avoid the 'p!ss take' that inevitably follows public failure, especially when there is a latent prejudice agianst the 'hockey classes in football' - but is that not simply narrow minded?

 

Lowe has tried loads and failed loads and sure there is plenty a reason for justifying he should now move on as we have not benn able to make these mad ideas work - time and again - but I dont see why we should be embarrassed or ashamed the club tried them. Its only our own fragile egos that cant cope with poor results that are damaged.

 

The anger is only there because we are afraid of failure - be honest, how much of our anger at poor form and poor results is about how we perceive our club in relation to others, how we worry about what those blue few or other clubs think of us? We should be proud of this club whatever happens and whatever some nutter in teh board room does, tries or fails at, because there IS alot of truth in th fact that its better to have tried and failed than to be too scared to give it a go.

Do you know what, I think i prefer posts from that **** NinteenCanteen, at least he has a position.

I regret spending so much time reading so much fence sitting 'look at me I'm balanced' bullsh1t.

On the scale of things, even in good times we are not a Man U, Liverpool etc etc, all we have is pride in what we are, and when that is diluted by some cv*t called Lowe, I expect people to be p*ssed off

[alpine_saint]

several youth players have had their careers put back.

 

Several older players wasted half a season being paid to play x-box.

 

We spunked money on more bad loans than fred goodwin.

 

We will probably end up in league one.

 

But yes, there were positives from the poortvliet fiasco - remind me what they were again??

 

lol

[alpine_saint]

So in summary.

 

We finished last season with a team that had a mix of youth and experience.

 

We started this season with a team that had youth.

 

We are now trying to stay up based on a team based on a mix of youth and experience.

 

I'd say that's a very big backtrack....

 

So why did we get rid of Pearson again??????

 

Because the Chairman is a childish egotistical t**t who did like the fact that Pearson wasnt "his man"

[alpine_saint]

Do you know what, I think i prefer posts from that **** NinteenCanteen, at least he has a position.

I regret spending so much time reading so much fence sitting 'look at me I'm balanced' bullsh1t.

On the scale of things, even in good times we are not a Man U, Liverpool etc etc, all we have is pride in what we are, and when that is diluted by some cv*t called Lowe, I expect people to be p*ssed off

 

Post of the Year.

 

I am glad that someone else finds FC's posts a complete waste of server space that say....NOTHING

[Frank's cousin]

Post of the Year.

 

I am glad that someone else finds FC's posts a complete waste of server space that say....NOTHING

 

NOT surprised you would rear your ugly head... LOL, another fantastic contribution. Recognizing the irony in your statement, from one whose one liners of self opinionated 'wit' is predominent is obviously way beyond you intellect. Does make me laugh though how blinkered you and the 'docker' are if you cant see past your hatred to accept how something can be viewed differently to your own narrow minded opinions and prejudices. Anyone with half a brain will be able to clearly see the difference between supporting a principle and supporting Lowe. I only support Saints.

 

You lot seem determined to try and get me to say 'I suport Lowe' - which is clearly a bizzare need, would it make you feel better? Gone on then, I'll humour you, I suport Lowe, see easy to say, easy to write, but sadly not actually true, but when has fact or truth interfered with your opinions...

Edited 2 March, 2009 by Frank's cousin

[alpine_saint]

NOT surprised you would rear your ugly head... LOL, another fantastic contribution. Recognizing the irony in your statement, from one whose one liners of self opinionated 'wit' is predominent is obviously way beyond you intellect. Does make me laugh though how blinkered you and the 'docker' are if you cant see past your hatred to accept how something can be viewed differently to your own narrow minded opinions and prejudices. Anyone with half a brain will be able to clearly see the difference between supporting a principle and supporting Lowe. I only support Saints.

 

You lot seem determined to try and get me to say 'I suport Lowe' - which is clearly a bizzare need, would it make you feel better? Gone on then, I'll humour you, I suport Lowe, see easy to say, easy to write, but sadly not actually true, but when has fact or truth interfered with your opinions...

 

I dont hate you at all, FC, I would just hate to get into a face-to-face conversation with you.

 

Life is too short..

[Frank's cousin]

I dont hate you at all, FC, I would just hate to get into a face-to-face conversation with you.

 

Life is too short..

 

And I dont hate you Alpine, I even respect the fact that you have your opinions and are committed to them. I just cant fathom out why you dont want to accept that I can be critical of Lowe, want him replaced, but not be so full of hatred for him or in some cases can understand why and what he is up to...even if I dont agree with it... for me thats not a difficult position to justify.

 

Apologies for the rude rant, we all lose it now and again and its Monday morning....

 

PS. I actually think a conversation with you and a few beers would be quite fun - we might not agree, but the best debate and conversations over a beer are usually with folk who you dont agree with!

[trousers]

Ok....one more stab at 'making a serious point' from me, then it's back to inane drivel.....

 

Imagine this hypothetical quote being attributable to Rupert Lowe this time last year when he was hatching a plan for his return to the helm:

 

"I'm going to get back in contact with Wotte with a view to installing him as head-coach when I return. I also want to see an injection of youth into the team. Ideally this would be a 50/50 split with some of the senior players but I've got a feeling the bank may force my hand here somewhat. Let's see how things pan out."

 

In other words, that plan is more or less where we are now, which most people seem relatively happy with.

 

How do people know that Lowe didn't start out with a perfectly rational plan - i.e. a strong character in Wotte as head coach and a blend of youth and experience - but pre-season events conspired to turn the plan into what we saw in the first half of the season?

 

In other words, 'someone' convinced him to bring in a 'weaker' head coach (Wotte himself? van der Waals? Someone else?) and the bank scuppered his original plan to blend youth and seniors.

 

I think we're mainly all in agreement that it took far Lowe too long to act and sort out the problems that were building up in the first half of the season but how can people know for sure that he didn't start off his thinking from the stance I alluded to in the hypothetical quote above? Or, there again, perhaps people think it's irrelevant what he was thinking from the outset as it's immaterial now?

 

Don't get me wrong (yet again... ), I feel it's just as likely that he didn't start from a more rational position compared to where we ended up, but I've not seen any tangible evidence that we can rule it out. (Yes, I know there is plenty of circumstancial evidence but that's not my point)

 

So, in summary, the question is: Could Lowe have started out with a more rational plan than he ended up with?

 

Ok, that's it from me. Back into Ken Dodd mode from here on in.

Edited 2 March, 2009 by trousers

[Gingeletiss]

Ok....one more stab at 'making a serious point' from me, then it's back to inane drivel.....

 

Imagine this hypothetical quote being attributable to Rupert Lowe this time last year when he was hatching a plan for his return to the helm:

 

"I'm going to get back in contact with Wotte with a view to installing him as head-coach when I return. I also want to see an injection of youth into the team. Ideally this would be a 50/50 split with some of the senior players but I've got a feeling the bank may force my hand here somewhat. Let's see how things pan out."

 

In other words, that plan is more or less where we are now, which most people seem relatively happy with.

 

How do people know that Lowe didn't start out with a perfectly rational plan - i.e. a strong character in Wotte as head coach and a blend of youth and experience - but pre-season events conspired to turn the plan into what we saw in the first half of the season?

 

In other words, 'someone' convinced him to bring in a 'weaker' head coach (Wotte himself? van der Waals? Someone else?) and the bank scuppered his original plan to blend youth and seniors.

 

I think we're mainly all in agreement that it took far Lowe too long to act and sort out the problems that were building up in the first half of the season but how can people know for sure that he didn't start off his thinking from the stance I alluded to in the hypothetical quote above? Or, there again, perhaps people think it's irrelevant what he was thinking from the outset as it's immaterial now?

 

Don't get me wrong (yet again... ), I feel it's just as likely that he didn't start from a more rational position compared to where we ended up, but I've not seen any tangible evidence that we can rule it out. (Yes, I know there is plenty of circumstancial evidence but that's not my point)

 

So, in summary, the question is: Could Lowe have started out with a more rational plan than he ended up with?

 

Ok, that's it from me. Back into Ken Dodd mode from here on in.

 

Answer.........Imagine a Hypothetical situation, where Lowe takes over, and see's a strong manager in place, with a team consisting of a good blend of youth and experience............then informs the fan base, that in his opinion, we are all set for the new season.

 

Easy game to play, this;);)

[Pancake]

What a dumb-ass post.

 

Especially singling me out even though the same thing has been said by at least 10 other posters.

 

Tit.

 

Nice of your to start signing your posts Alpine.

[sadoldgit]

At the end of the day, whatever Lowe does is "wrong", that is the law. Even when he gets things right someone else gets the credit.

 

We are told he is not a "football man" yet he has been running this club longer than some posters here have been supporting the club.

 

Like every other CEO/Chairman/Whatever he is, he makes decisions and like every other person he gets some wrong.

 

Given the original financial situation I see the logic of off loading the high earners to help reduce the cost base. That means either playing the youth or brining in cheaper options.

 

I also see the logic of brining in a coaching set up who are doing this already.

 

In retrospect it would have been better to have uased Wotte and the first team coach and JP as his side kick. Sadly, amongst Lowe's others faults, he doesn't have a crystal ball.

 

I am sure the Charlton fans wish their Board had a crystal ball too.

 

Lowe's biggest job this season was to keep us out of administration and so far so good on that front. Yep, things are cr*p, but they could be a lot worse. If we manage to stay up and solvent he will have done okay this year.

 

Even if he drops dead today, the new guy will have to work with the same constraints.

[sadoldgit]

Nice of your to start signing your posts Alpine.

 

LOL, nice one.

[Frank's cousin]

Do you know what, I think i prefer posts from that **** NinteenCanteen, at least he has a position.

I regret spending so much time reading so much fence sitting 'look at me I'm balanced' bullsh1t.

On the scale of things, even in good times we are not a Man U, Liverpool etc etc, all we have is pride in what we are, and when that is diluted by some cv*t called Lowe, I expect people to be p*ssed off

 

Missed the point docker, its about having pride DESPITE which nutter is in the boardroom and NOT letting them dilute that. I am just as P!ssed off about reults as everyone else, but I dont feel embarrassed that we have such an inconsistent bloke in the boardroom, nor that he has tried 'unusual' approached which have failed - its bizzare for sure, but it does not effect how I feel about the club.

[rallyboy]

My understanding is that Lowe hasn't changed anything other than eventually giving in to the inevitable when the first dutchman failed horrifically.

He then appointed a cheap alternative and the frustration was that nothing changed....

However, protests/uproar/boycotts, and a couple of games in, Wotte realised that the missing 12,000 fans and the patient 12,000 fans were all calling for a change of style.

This he delivered, and here we are, in a long tunnel with a little dot of light.

 

Though with the upcoming fixtures the table is likely to get worse in the next ten days so hold tight for a bumpy ride.

Wotte looks like he is on track, let's give him time even though we don't have much of it, he and the players have earned it.

 

But the board hasn't, so let's not pretend that there was a masterplan all along.

[Snowballs2]

NOT surprised you would rear your ugly head... LOL, another fantastic contribution. Recognizing the irony in your statement, from one whose one liners of self opinionated 'wit' is predominent is obviously way beyond you intellect. Does make me laugh though how blinkered you and the 'docker' are if you cant see past your hatred to accept how something can be viewed differently to your own narrow minded opinions and prejudices. Anyone with half a brain will be able to clearly see the difference between supporting a principle and supporting Lowe. I only support Saints.

 

You lot seem determined to try and get me to say 'I suport Lowe' - which is clearly a bizzare need, would it make you feel better? Gone on then, I'll humour you, I suport Lowe, see easy to say, easy to write, but sadly not actually true, but when has fact or truth interfered with your opinions...

 

 

I think you are wrong just look back at your contributions and tell me that most are not over verbose, the truth is they are far too long for most of us to bother reading.

[Gingeletiss]

At the end of the day, whatever (Most of) what Lowe does is "wrong", that is the law. Even when he gets things right someone else gets the credit. (When he gets it wrong, someone else gets the blame).

 

We are told he is not a "football man" yet he has been running this club(In the main...Badly) longer than some posters here have been supporting the club.

 

Like every other CEO/Chairman/Whatever he is, he makes decisions and like every other person he gets some (Most) wrong.

 

Given the original financial situation (Caused by himself) I see the logic of off loading the high earners to help reduce the cost base. That means either playing the youth or brining in cheaper options. (And of course, loosing thousands of fans of the gate).

 

I also see the logic of brining in a coaching set up who are doing this already.

 

In retrospect it would have been better to have uased Wotte and the first team coach and JP as his side kick. Sadly, amongst Lowe's others faults, he doesn't have a crystal ball. (He dosn't need one, surely....I thought he was the font of all knowledge)

 

I am sure the Charlton fans wish their Board had a crystal ball too.

 

Lowe's biggest job this season was to keep us out of administration (a situation he was largely responsible for) and so far so good on that front. Yep, things are cr*p, but they could be a lot worse.(Could they...oh yeh of course.......we could have no club in a few months) If we manage to stay up and solvent he will have done okay this year.

 

Even if he drops dead today, the new guy will have to work with the same constraints.

 

SOG..........you must really love this guy, is he your Dad perchance??. I've added a few 'Alternatives'

[JohnnyFartPants]

SOG..........you must really love this guy, is he your Dad perchance??. I've added a few 'Alternatives'

 

I see sadoldgit every week when we go to collect our wages from Rupert, honestly.

[OldNick]

Average attendance for the 11 games prior to Crouch's reappointment in Dec 2007

 

20,585

 

 

Average attendance for the 12 games under Crouch from Dec 2007 to May 2008

 

21867

 

 

 

If you're going to make such claims, then at least check they stand up to scrutiny.

Um why have you put only 11 games prior to LCs appointment and 12 games afer.Surely he had more games than that last season as i thought NP was in charge for 13-14 games

[Scummer]

Um why have you put only 11 games prior to LCs appointment and 12 games afer.Surely he had more games than that last season as i thought NP was in charge for 13-14 games

 

Read it again nickh, and think about what you are saying.

[OldNick]

Read it again nickh, and think about what you are saying.

Sorry still dont get it,I havent read the whoe thread though

[eelpie]

We're all very quick to criticise Lowe on here (and justifyably so in many cases) but IF Wotte and the team he is now building proves to be a winning formular then, in reality, Lowe wasn't a million miles away from getting things right, was he?

 

Lowe had two choices (given he was already committed to the Dutch experiment) Wotte or Poortvliet in charge. With hindsight he made totally the wrong decision. And ten of the players who started the match on Saturday were at Saints at the beginning of the season.

 

How wrong can you be?

[Scummer]

Sorry still dont get it,I havent read the whoe thread though

 

There are only 23 home games in a season.

 

Not much point looking at the average attendances of away games.

[OldNick]

There are only 23 home games in a season.

 

Not much point looking at the average attendances of away games.

Thanks Scummer didnt pick that.

[Micky]

Nice of your to start signing your posts Alpine.

 

Made me chuckle....!

[Frank's cousin]

I think you are wrong just look back at your contributions and tell me that most are not over verbose, the truth is they are far too long for most of us to bother reading.

 

Some are long sure enough, but I just go with the flow... if too long for you, no need to read wont be offended ;-)

[Nineteen Canteen]

Average attendance for the 11 games prior to Crouch's reappointment in Dec 2007

 

20,585

 

 

Average attendance for the 12 games under Crouch from Dec 2007 to May 2008

 

21867

 

 

 

If you're going to make such claims, then at least check they stand up to scrutiny.

 

Firstly, it's interesting your own scrutiny didn't pick up the error that crowds were around the 14,000 mark under Lowe when the average is significantly higher this season. Also when I did some analysis on this a few weeks ago so as not to big up the numbers under Lowe I took out the two obvious spikes of the Forest and Man U games to reflect a more typical crowd. Did you remove the Sheff Utd game to reflect a more typical number?

 

A few posts ago I asked could we assess Lowe's performance in today's world you must have overlooked that. In a recession as bad as many of us have ever seen, with rising unemployment and the number of house repossessions on the up and those numbers barely scratching the surface at the momenet of the real underlying problems of people who have 'cashed in' on equity release deals it is likely crowd numbers would fall even if MLT was chairman. Clearly we also have the stay aways who have the spending power but out of pure prejudice against Lowe or those plastics who simply refuse to watch anything but premier league as the Man U fans so painfully and insightfully sang in our honour. 'You're only here to see Utd' which was so sweet and painful at the sametime to those of us who regularly attend home games.

 

Anyway. I digress and to play by your rules I won't attempt to balance out the spikes in attendances and the average attendance this season for the 20 games under Lowe has been 17,156 and that includes the ever popular early season Carling Cup fixture that draws lower attendances across the board than some pre-season friendlies. Doubt Crouchie had too many of those in his 12 games.

 

Interestingly, crowd numbers have increased since our first home win of the season against Norwich proving once again people choose to paint their own picture of negativity. Using the popular art of rounding attendances have only fallen below 14,500 on 4 occassions this season and 2 of those can be written off against the 'Lets can the Carling Cup' and the closure of the south's transport network due to some snow flurries.

 

All in all not bad in an environment not conducive to rising attendances and with the vocal minority trying to whip up a storm of anti-lowe rhetoric that can only help to satisfy their self fulfilling negative agendas. In other words you get what you wish for and there is a pandemic on here at the moment that reads like a desperate bunch of extremists who are on the cusp of losing sight of their dream. What is their dream? A pancea for all that ails this club and the panic is setting in over any suggested reversal in fortune as they know relegation and administration will only see the ultimate demise of Lowe and further destroy his diminishing wealth and the club's ultimate remedy.

 

Once again though they fail to see the big picture that only by keeping the enemy close and growing stronger along with them can you have any prospect of making yourself something worth fighting for (investing in). Or put it another way if you were a commodity would you prefer to be on the shelf in Poundland or Harrods?

 

If money wasn't an issue Lowe would haven't gone the Dutch youth route but he realised on a limited budget he had to try something different to find an angle to compete and it didn't pay off. Sometimes you need to fail to experience success and make sure you have a fall back option and that is what is happening now but the financial spectre looms large regardless of on the field success due to falling revenue streams and credit squeezing. Lowe deserves credit for getting us this far and getting in league with his enemy, well that was inspired. In turn I suggest those who remain prejudiced against Lowe if you want a club to support today and one that can be worthy of significant investment in the future then back Lowe and support the club. The best way to rid this club of Lowe is to help him achieve a good price for his shares and he won't do that if you refuse to support the club and continue with your moaning and whinging. Its false optimism to think an anti-Lowe agenda can bring rewards it will only bring heartache and disappointment.

[sidthesquid]

Lowe had two choices (given he was already committed to the Dutch experiment) Wotte or Poortvliet in charge. With hindsight he made totally the wrong decision. And ten of the players who started the match on Saturday were at Saints at the beginning of the season.

 

How wrong can you be?

 

Hindsight is a very special thing, isn't it? Think back a year - Davis, most reviled man in Southampton, closely followed by Euell, Skacel was a traitor who wanted out to get to the Euros, Saga couldn't hit a barn door with a banjo & the youngsters weren't even getting a look in

[Nineteen Canteen]

Ok....one more stab at 'making a serious point' from me, then it's back to inane drivel.....

 

Imagine this hypothetical quote being attributable to Rupert Lowe this time last year when he was hatching a plan for his return to the helm:

 

"I'm going to get back in contact with Wotte with a view to installing him as head-coach when I return. I also want to see an injection of youth into the team. Ideally this would be a 50/50 split with some of the senior players but I've got a feeling the bank may force my hand here somewhat. Let's see how things pan out."

 

In other words, that plan is more or less where we are now, which most people seem relatively happy with.

 

How do people know that Lowe didn't start out with a perfectly rational plan - i.e. a strong character in Wotte as head coach and a blend of youth and experience - but pre-season events conspired to turn the plan into what we saw in the first half of the season?

 

In other words, 'someone' convinced him to bring in a 'weaker' head coach (Wotte himself? van der Waals? Someone else?) and the bank scuppered his original plan to blend youth and seniors.

 

I think we're mainly all in agreement that it took far Lowe too long to act and sort out the problems that were building up in the first half of the season but how can people know for sure that he didn't start off his thinking from the stance I alluded to in the hypothetical quote above? Or, there again, perhaps people think it's irrelevant what he was thinking from the outset as it's immaterial now?

 

Don't get me wrong (yet again... ), I feel it's just as likely that he didn't start from a more rational position compared to where we ended up, but I've not seen any tangible evidence that we can rule it out. (Yes, I know there is plenty of circumstancial evidence but that's not my point)

 

So, in summary, the question is: Could Lowe have started out with a more rational plan than he ended up with?

 

Ok, that's it from me. Back into Ken Dodd mode from here on in.

 

Trousers, I am beginning to see you in a different light. Alternatively, Wotte knew the financial situation with far more senior players having to be loaned out and didn't want the job until that improved to your 50/50 scenario. Hypothetically, Wotte with more to lose on his CV, may have welcomed the opportunity to assess life in the CCC from the relative comfort of the Reserves/Academy. That forced Lowe to go seriously cheap and the comments attributed to JP about Wotte post his resignation may also suggest there is something in your theory that we could prove Lowe is a tactician of almost Churchillian proportions.

 

Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer. Keep those matches away from that blue touch paper.

[SW11_Saint]

Or Wotte, simply didn't want the first team job as he has stated many times and prefers to work in the background. Perhaps Lowe deserves credit for bringing him in the first place and knowing he had a ready made fall back plan. Then credit for persuading Wotte to step into the limelight and take the manager's job in a no lose situation as a result the JP gamble not coming off. Clever or lucky? It could be the smartest thing he has ever done if he managed to get him at this club to do the job that Wotte didn't know he wanted!

I think this lauding of Lowe as some sort of strategic genius for simply replacing a (yet another) failed manager with one of the backroom staff is ludicrous. It happens often in football, rarely with much success - certainly not where Saints are concerned. Let's hope Wotte can be the exception to the rule, but let's not attempt to turn this into some form of strategic work of wonder by Lowe - he simply turned to the only other internal option open to him. If we stay up, we'll be happy - but Lowe will still be judged on his appointment of Poortvliet, and failure to act sooner when things were going so badly awry.

[70's Mike]

Firstly, it's interesting your own scrutiny didn't pick up the error that crowds were around the 14,000 mark under Lowe when the average is significantly higher this season. Also when I did some analysis on this a few weeks ago so as not to big up the numbers under Lowe I took out the two obvious spikes of the Forest and Man U games to reflect a more typical crowd. Did you remove the Sheff Utd game to reflect a more typical number?

 

A few posts ago I asked could we assess Lowe's performance in today's world you must have overlooked that. In a recession as bad as many of us have ever seen, with rising unemployment and the number of house repossessions on the up and those numbers barely scratching the surface at the momenet of the real underlying problems of people who have 'cashed in' on equity release deals it is likely crowd numbers would fall even if MLT was chairman. Clearly we also have the stay aways who have the spending power but out of pure prejudice against Lowe or those plastics who simply refuse to watch anything but premier league as the Man U fans so painfully and insightfully sang in our honour. 'You're only here to see Utd' which was so sweet and painful at the sametime to those of us who regularly attend home games.

 

Anyway. I digress and to play by your rules I won't attempt to balance out the spikes in attendances and the average attendance this season for the 20 games under Lowe has been 17,156 and that includes the ever popular early season Carling Cup fixture that draws lower attendances across the board than some pre-season friendlies. Doubt Crouchie had too many of those in his 12 games.

 

Interestingly, crowd numbers have increased since our first home win of the season against Norwich proving once again people choose to paint their own picture of negativity. Using the popular art of rounding attendances have only fallen below 14,500 on 4 occassions this season and 2 of those can be written off against the 'Lets can the Carling Cup' and the closure of the south's transport network due to some snow flurries.

 

All in all not bad in an environment not conducive to rising attendances and with the vocal minority trying to whip up a storm of anti-lowe rhetoric that can only help to satisfy their self fulfilling negative agendas. In other words you get what you wish for and there is a pandemic on here at the moment that reads like a desperate bunch of extremists who are on the cusp of losing sight of their dream. What is their dream? A pancea for all that ails this club and the panic is setting in over any suggested reversal in fortune as they know relegation and administration will only see the ultimate demise of Lowe and further destroy his diminishing wealth and the club's ultimate remedy.

 

Once again though they fail to see the big picture that only by keeping the enemy close and growing stronger along with them can you have any prospect of making yourself something worth fighting for (investing in). Or put it another way if you were a commodity would you prefer to be on the shelf in Poundland or Harrods?

 

If money wasn't an issue Lowe would haven't gone the Dutch youth route but he realised on a limited budget he had to try something different to find an angle to compete and it didn't pay off. Sometimes you need to fail to experience success and make sure you have a fall back option and that is what is happening now but the financial spectre looms large regardless of on the field success due to falling revenue streams and credit squeezing. Lowe deserves credit for getting us this far and getting in league with his enemy, well that was inspired. In turn I suggest those who remain prejudiced against Lowe if you want a club to support today and one that can be worthy of significant investment in the future then back Lowe and support the club. The best way to rid this club of Lowe is to help him achieve a good price for his shares and he won't do that if you refuse to support the club and continue with your moaning and whinging. Its false optimism to think an anti-Lowe agenda can bring rewards it will only bring heartache and disappointment.

 

Still the customers fault then

[Whitey Grandad]

Hindsight is a very special thing, isn't it? Think back a year - Davis, most reviled man in Southampton, closely followed by Euell, Skacel was a traitor who wanted out to get to the Euros, Saga couldn't hit a barn door with a banjo & the youngsters weren't even getting a look in

That was certainly not my opinion at the time, and it has not changed since.

[SW11_Saint]

Answer.........Imagine a Hypothetical situation, where Lowe takes over, and see's a strong manager in place, with a team consisting of a good blend of youth and experience............then informs the fan base, that in his opinion, we are all set for the new season.

 

Easy game to play, this;);)

In fact, how do we know that Lowe didn't actually insist that we appoint Guus Hiddink, and wanted to play a mixture of world superstars, experienced pro's and youth players. It was the Bank that forced him down a different route using alternate Dutch resources.

 

My God... I'm starting to see Lowe in a (hypothetical) new light too - he's a genius!!!

[Nineteen Canteen]

There are only 23 home games in a season.

 

Not much point looking at the average attendances of away games.

 

No but he probably missed out the FA Cup ties v. Bury and Leicester. Pity because the Bury game I think attracted a big crowd.

 

Interesting though that under Crouch's watch the average attendance levelled off to around 20k from a 25k attendance (from memory) for the first game last season. Lowe is averaging around 17k dropped off from a first attendance of 18,925.

 

Taking Crouch's average of 20k to the first game of this season we could argue Lowe has cost us 1,000 supporters and then a combination of results and economic environment we have lost another 1,800. What is Crouch's excuses for a drop off double that of Lowe?

[trousers]

Trousers, I am beginning to see you in a different light.

 

It's probably something to do with these rose tinted glasses that someone gave me at the weekend.....

[Nineteen Canteen]

I think this lauding of Lowe as some sort of strategic genius for simply replacing a (yet another) failed manager with one of the backroom staff is ludicrous. It happens often in football, rarely with much success - certainly not where Saints are concerned. Let's hope Wotte can be the exception to the rule, but let's not attempt to turn this into some form of strategic work of wonder by Lowe - he simply turned to the only other internal option open to him. If we stay up, we'll be happy - but Lowe will still be judged on his appointment of Poortvliet, and failure to act sooner when things were going so badly awry.

 

Ludricrous? How do you know this wasn't his fall back option? Sensible succession planning that any business implements isn't it? Appoint JP without a back up now that would have been ludricrous. How else shall we spin it?

[sidthesquid]

That was certainly not my opinion at the time, and it has not changed since.

 

Does that mean you were happy with last season & the personnel present?

[SW11_Saint]

Firstly, it's interesting your own scrutiny didn't pick up the error that crowds were around the 14,000 mark under Lowe when the average is significantly higher this season. Also when I did some analysis on this a few weeks ago so as not to big up the numbers under Lowe I took out the two obvious spikes of the Forest and Man U games to reflect a more typical crowd. Did you remove the Sheff Utd game to reflect a more typical number?

....

 

Once again though they fail to see the big picture that only by keeping the enemy close and growing stronger along with them can you have any prospect of making yourself something worth fighting for (investing in). Or put it another way if you were a commodity would you prefer to be on the shelf in Poundland or Harrods?

 

If money wasn't an issue Lowe would haven't gone the Dutch youth route but he realised on a limited budget he had to try something different to find an angle to compete and it didn't pay off. Sometimes you need to fail to experience success and make sure you have a fall back option and that is what is happening now but the financial spectre looms large regardless of on the field success due to falling revenue streams and credit squeezing. Lowe deserves credit for getting us this far and getting in league with his enemy, well that was inspired. In turn I suggest those who remain prejudiced against Lowe if you want a club to support today and one that can be worthy of significant investment in the future then back Lowe and support the club. The best way to rid this club of Lowe is to help him achieve a good price for his shares and he won't do that if you refuse to support the club and continue with your moaning and whinging. Its false optimism to think an anti-Lowe agenda can bring rewards it will only bring heartache and disappointment.

Lordy... I've never seen so many words used to make such a minor point.

 

All this proves to me is that we have some of the most loyal fans in the country - still turning up week on week, despite the dross we have been served up and the calamatous stewardship of the club by sucessive boards. Nothing more than that.

 

As for the point about supporting Lowe as a way of ridding the club of him... "Born and bred in the briar patch. I was born and bred in the briar patch!"

[Window Cleaner]

I see a lot of comparison of attendances in the previous posts.

 

I think though that what must be analysed is the revenue that those attendances actually produced. Last season's "matchday revenue" was just7.9 million £. Obviously I've no idea whatsoever what makes that up but if you look at on a white/black spectrum it means that the average bum on a seat paid

about £14 for the privilege. Whether there were a lot of freebies and promotional prices just couldn't say.

[SW11_Saint]

Ludricrous? How do you know this wasn't his fall back option? Sensible succession planning that any business implements isn't it? Appoint JP without a back up now that would have been ludricrous. How else shall we spin it?

Appointing a "back room boy" is hardly a revolutionary fall-back plan now is it?!

 

Start Gray? Steve Wigley? Been done before - you seem to be dressing up the appointment of Wotte as some incredible feat of strategic planning. Where else was he going to turn??

 

All we have done now is do what the fans were screaming out for in the first place - play the better experienced players (including those immediately farmed out on loan by Lowe) and blend in the youth. It was hardly rocket science if you know football, but that was never part of Rupert's strategy.

 

PS "spin it" - you said it, not me

[SW11_Saint]

No but he probably missed out the FA Cup ties v. Bury and Leicester. Pity because the Bury game I think attracted a big crowd.

 

Interesting though that under Crouch's watch the average attendance levelled off to around 20k from a 25k attendance (from memory) for the first game last season. Lowe is averaging around 17k dropped off from a first attendance of 18,925.

 

Taking Crouch's average of 20k to the first game of this season we could argue Lowe has cost us 1,000 supporters and then a combination of results and economic environment we have lost another 1,800. What is Crouch's excuses for a drop off double that of Lowe?

Ah stats, don't you love em! Still leaves the obvious point though, that under Crouch (using your figures) we were getting 20k+ gates, while under Lowe we're down at 17k or less. In absolute terms - given our league positions are similar - we were 17.6% better off gate-wise under Crouch. Agreed?

[OldNick]

I dont think RL is a master tachtician or the best thing since sliced bread.He has made some blunders.Keeping Jan too long as bad as many. He has got the balance financially right IMO and whether LC or RL attract more fans is unquantifyable.

Good performances and winning put extra bumms on seats. Whether the atmosphere is better with a lot more fans Im fast realising is not necessarily so either.

The crowd against PNE and Cardiff were in the main very supportive and real hardcore get behind the team fans that made the day that much more enjoyable.Having the plasic 'turn up when we are winning' lot and im not so sure that they are so understanding or forgiving if the team have an off day.