Saints couldn't afford Pearson - it all sounds very familiar..

[eelpie]

'arry used to sat that Jim roasted the team when they were doing badly. Lowe appointed nice guys who the players really did not respect. Yes, it was another disastrous mistake to waste money appointing the rugby theorist in preference to Jim. I do believe that from this time Redknapp felt he was just keeping Clive Woodward's seat warm, and from then on he just wanted out.

 

Why wasn't there a saviour around to buy up shares, call an EGM and oust Lowe? Oh...

[GreenTreeFrog]

The point is, as you well know, Lowe said Smith was removed to reduce costs (he then appointed SCW). Pearson was removed to cut cost too. Would you say Lowe lied both times?

 

 

But Pearson was not removed to ‘cut costs’ at least not in the simplistic sense you mean (managers wages). The comparison of manager’s wages is way overblown on here and was not mentioned as a main factor in the Lowe/Wilde decision. If you go back to the unveiling conference you will hear Lowe say that, with success bonuses, JP/Woote would be on more money than Pearson was on.

 

I think it is fairly obvious that Lowe was not a great fan of Pearson, and to be fair Pearson’s record was not so good that he made himself indispensable once Lowe took over the reins. Regardless of that I expect Lowe would have dispensed with Pearson even if the finances had not been quite so tight. It's fairly obvious that Lowe is hardly going to claim the only reason we had to let Pearson go was becasue we could not afford him, then follow that up with the comment we would actually be paying more to the Dutch pair, if they achieved the success bonuses built in to their contract. The main reason they gave at the time (for appointing JP/Wotte) was that they were already used to working in the new ‘continental structure’ that saints were now going to adopt ‘partly for financial reasons.’

 

Um Pahars, and others, have argued that Pearson could have fitted into that structure very well, and have quote mined in an attempt to prove this point. It would be hard to argue that Pearson definitely would not have fitted in, but both Lowe and Wilde said the Dutch pair's year's of experience working in such set ups was the big factor in appointing them rather than sticking with Pearson. They even said he and 'any other traditonal British manager' would be hampered by such a scheme.

 

Maybe they were totally wrong in that assumption, but the point is the decision was based on saving money overall (or rather ‘losing less money’) by adopting a new continental scheme, and was never about saving money on managers wages as is often claimed on here.

[Frank's cousin]

But Pearson was not removed to ‘cut costs’ at least not in the simplistic sense you mean (managers wages). The comparison of manager’s wages is way overblown on here and was not mentioned as a main factor in the Lowe/Wilde decision. If you go back to the unveiling conference you will hear Lowe say that, with success bonuses, JP/Woote would be on more money than Pearson was on.

 

I think it is fairly obvious that Lowe was not a great fan of Pearson, and to be fair Pearson’s record was not so good that he made himself indispensable once Lowe took over the reins. Regardless of that I expect Lowe would have dispensed with Pearson even if the finances had not been quite so tight. It's fairly obvious that Lowe is hardly going to claim the only reason we had to let Pearson go was becasue we could not afford him, then follow that up with the comment we would actually be paying more to the Dutch pair, if they achieved the success bonuses built in to their contract. The main reason they gave at the time (for appointing JP/Wotte) was that they were already used to working in the new ‘continental structure’ that saints were now going to adopt ‘partly for financial reasons.’

 

Um Pahars, and others, have argued that Pearson could have fitted into that structure very well, and have quote mined in an attempt to prove this point. It would be hard to argue that Pearson definitely would not have fitted in, but both Lowe and Wilde said the Dutch pair's year's of experience working in such set ups was the big factor in appointing them rather than sticking with Pearson. They even said he and 'any other traditonal British manager' would be hampered by such a scheme.

 

Maybe they were totally wrong in that assumption, but the point is the decision was based on saving money overall (or rather ‘losing less money’) by adopting a new continental scheme, and was never about saving money on managers wages as is often claimed on here.

 

Thanks for putting that across so well. If everyone was totally honest - its really just about results. JP/Wotte DID initially show promise in the way the lids were playing and I was genuinely hopeful and perhaps in hindsight naive that the results would come as the young side gained experience... this was hope was built NOT on somehow wanting Lowe to be vindicated, but purely because like many, I was enjoying the fact that we were at least TRYING to play in a style that was appealing and easy on the eye - for some of us at least we get enjoyment from that style, even if tinged with a bitter aftertaste of going home with no points.

 

Had those results come, it would only be a handful of diehard antiLowers that would would still be going on about Pearson, but because they did not, those 'gifted with foresight' naturally as oppposed to benefitting from hidsight, now use the comparisons to try and undermine the decisions of Lowe.

 

Pearson has without doubt shown promise since joining Leicester and he kept us up. But thats life and history and I dont think its relevent anymore - apart from as a LOwe beating stick that is...

[Gemmel]

Pearson has without doubt shown promise since joining Leicester and he kept us up. But thats life and history and I dont think its relevent anymore - apart from as a LOwe beating stick that is...

 

I'm not sure how you can say it's not relevant FC. I'm tired of all the lowe bashing as well, but this is probably the most fundemental part of this awful season. Lowe replaced Pearson with his own choices, beleiving they would be the better option, perform better, get more out of the kids etc and as we stare relegation and administration down the barrell, that looks very much like an awful decision and the single biggest contribution to our downfall. His judgement is flawed and given the fact that so many fans could see the danger in what he was doing, but he couldn't and carried on regardless, means he has to take full responsibility for it.

[Frank's cousin]

I'm not sure how you can say it's not relevant FC. I'm tired of all the lowe bashing as well, but this is probably the most fundemental part of this awful season. Lowe replaced Pearson with his own choices, beleiving they would be the better option, perform better, get more out of the kids etc and as we stare relegation and administration down the barrell, that looks very much like an awful decision and the single biggest contribution to our downfall. His judgement is flawed and given the fact that so many fans could see the danger in what he was doing, but he couldn't and carried on regardless, means he has to take full responsibility for it.

 

Yup he does, no argument from me there - he made his decisons and he has to live with the consequences - All I and some of the others have been trying to say, is that despite misgivings from amny, there were no doubt reasons that were not all daft and in some cases quite logical for making them. Does that make Lowe evil?

[eelpie]

I'm not sure how you can say it's not relevant FC. I'm tired of all the lowe bashing as well, but this is probably the most fundemental part of this awful season. Lowe replaced Pearson with his own choices, beleiving they would be the better option, perform better, get more out of the kids etc and as we stare relegation and administration down the barrell, that looks very much like an awful decision and the single biggest contribution to our downfall. His judgement is flawed and given the fact that so many fans could see the danger in what he was doing, but he couldn't and carried on regardless, means he has to take full responsibility for it.

 

The buck stops with Lowe. But he will always blame the fans and every other reason other than himself for the poor results and the reasons he had to keep changing managers so often etc, etc

[Gemmel]

Does that make Lowe evil?

 

No of course not, but i still can't work out what the logic, (other than "Rupes knows best") really was.

 

But as you say it's done now and we've got what we've got with 8 games to play. If the worst does happen, i don't think lowe will be around long enough to debate the whys and wherefores and we will just have to pick up the pieces and move on.

 

One thing i really hope that comes out of all of this is that we can go back to being fans of football and not fighting amoungst ourselves as to who the best shareholder is. I am as guilty as anyone, but it seems to have gone on for years and i don't know if other clubs have the same battles between themselves, but i can help but think that were cheating the next generation of fans, who have grown up with all this crap.

[saint1977]

Yup he does' date=' no argument from me there - he made his decisons and he has to live with the consequences - All I and some of the others have been trying to say, is that despite misgivings from amny, there were no doubt reasons that were not all daft and in some cases quite logical for making them. Does that make Lowe evil?[/quote']

 

I've never thought he was evil Frank. Misguided, a poor communicator and a bit mad yes but he's had some good times we've all enjoyed as well. Now have a look at the events of 1996 and the obscene profits Askham, Wiseman, Richards and chums all made on such a pathetic, poxy "investment" and what was allegedly done to George Bowyer. Now that was evil!

[saint1977]

No of course not, but i still can't work out what the logic, (other than "Rupes knows best") really was.

 

But as you say it's done now and we've got what we've got with 8 games to play. If the worst does happen, i don't think lowe will be around long enough to debate the whys and wherefores and we will just have to pick up the pieces and move on.

 

One thing i really hope that comes out of all of this is that we can go back to being fans of football and not fighting amoungst ourselves as to who the best shareholder is. I am as guilty as anyone, but it seems to have gone on for years and i don't know if other clubs have the same battles between themselves, but i can help but think that were cheating the next generation of fans, who have grown up with all this crap.

 

Top post. I want the focus back on the football and I'm sick of Rupert, Mike, Leon, Lawrie and plenty of others just f@cking squabbling and coming out with garbage whilst Rome burns to a cinder.

[pingpong]

way i heard at the time was that HR thought smith was past it and wanted to get rid, and lowe did him a favour by doing HR's dirty work (in an attempt to build some bridges between Lowe and HR).

[ottery st mary]

way i heard at the time was that HR thought smith was past it and wanted to get rid, and lowe did him a favour by doing HR's dirty work (in an attempt to build some bridges between Lowe and HR).

 

Arry told me to tell you this totally not true and the sort of work on behalf of Rupert on this forum...Time to get your Ra Ra skirt me thinks.:smt049

#