3rd week of March

[Window Cleaner]

As far as I can see, up until relegation, although controversial,

 

 

 

Well not if you count Gray,Wadsworth,Wigley,Delgado and putting Dave Jones on garden leave he wasn't.On selling players agreed, he was doing a reasonable job.

[Frank's cousin]

Well not if you count Gray,Wadsworth,Wigley,Delgado and putting Dave Jones on garden leave he wasn't.On selling players agreed, he was doing a reasonable job.

 

Thing is with those issues you mention, an good argument can be made from both sides of the divide, rwarding loyalty v employing inexperience, proven international player v not a manager selection, and the Dave Jones thing was a very difficult situation, and hardly one expected to be experienced in dealing with especially in such a business with the high media profile of football... There are those that will never acknowledge anything positive about Lowes time here because of the prejudice and issues with teh reverse takeover, for teh rest of us, it really comes down to HOW you judge these things, and from which perspective - The cop out is actually taking one side or the other in this case, as its difficult to except both POVs, but nonetheless both can be equally valid.

[Window Cleaner]

Thing is with those issues you mention' date=' an good argument can be made from both sides of the divide, rwarding loyalty v employing inexperience, proven international player v not a manager selection, and the Dave Jones thing was a very difficult situation, and hardly one expected to be experienced in dealing with especially in such a business with the high media profile of football... There are those that will never acknowledge anything positive about Lowes time here because of the prejudice and issues with teh reverse takeover, for teh rest of us, it really comes down to HOW you judge these things, and from which perspective - The cop out is actually taking one side or the other in this case, as its difficult to except both POVs, but nonetheless both can be equally valid.[/quote']

 

I will certainly never acknowledge that either Gray or Wigley were "good management" they were the cheapest possible option in Lowe's corner shop approach to football management.They both cost us a lot of money for which the shareholders never held him responsible.Not surprising because a lot of shareholders seem to have ceased to exist or can't be found.Lowe profits from that strange situation at every occasion.One can only draw one's own conclusions .

But now we need corner shop management, nay market barrow management and we have to put up with him for the time being, default of a better option.

[Frank's cousin]

I will certainly never acknowledge that either Gray or Wigley were "good management" they were the cheapest possible option in Lowe's corner shop approach to football management.They both cost us a lot of money for which the shareholders never held him responsible.Not surprising because a lot of shareholders seem to have ceased to exist or can't be found.Lowe profits from that strange situation at every occasion.One can only draw one's own conclusions .

But now we need corner shop management, nay market barrow management and we have to put up with him for the time being, default of a better option.

 

I appreciate what you are saying, as afterall, be could hardly be accused of having grandiose ambitions under Lowe... I do still think that we should be 'prudent' because overspending in football is always a disaster waiting to happen. I agree Wigley was bewildering given the lessons that should have been learnt from Gray, but it MIGHT have been necessary because of the payout required for Sturrock...again a perplexing situation.. should Lowe have stuck by him and not with the players, or with the likes of Beattie? Hindsight suggests Sturrock as Beattie fecked off the moment he could go. As to the other shareholders - are they not equally culpable then, if not more so? I think its because the shareholders see the issues from a finance perspective first taht they see Lowe as teh best of options avaialble at this time, possibly for no other reason?

[um pahars]

I agree Wigley was bewildering given the lessons that should have been learnt from Gray' date=' but it MIGHT have been necessary because of the payout required for Sturrock...[/quote']

 

As someone else has pointed out, you continually come across as an apologist for Lowe.

 

You ask for even handedness from others in assessing his tenure and yet you yourself fail to adopt the same approach when faced with one of his biggest mistakes, a mistake that ultimately cost us our place at the top table and tens of millions in the bank!!!!!!!!

 

It might have been necessary because of the payout required for Sturrock. Don't make me fcking laugh.

 

Of all the excuses for appointing Wigley, that has to be the most pathetic I have heard so far.

[Frank's cousin]

As someone else has pointed out, you continually come across as an apologist for Lowe.

 

You ask for even handedness from others in assessing his tenure and yet you yourself fail to adopt the same approach when faced with one of his biggest mistakes, a mistake that ultimately cost us our place at the top table and tens of millions in the bank!!!!!!!!

 

It might have been necessary because of the payout required for Sturrock. Don't make me fcking laugh.

 

Of all the excuses for appointing Wigley, that has to be the most pathetic I have heard so far.

 

Jeez UP.... cant you see the irony in your statement? presenting a POSSIBILTY as to WHY someone MIGHT have made a mistake IS NOT APOLOGISING FOR THEM, but merly presenting the alternative so that BOTH sides get an airing - that would in my definition be even handedness... its even in teh SAME feckin sentence wher teh mistake is acknowledged and criticised FFS..... why do you seem to WANT to push me into a particular position? IF I wanted Lowe and nothing but Lowe, I would feckin well say so, I hardly think you can believe I am a shrinking violet as far as expressing my opinin goes.... jeez...

[um pahars]

As to the other shareholders - are they not equally culpable then' date=' if not more so? I think its because the shareholders see the issues from a finance perspective first taht they see Lowe as teh best of options avaialble at this time, possibly for no other reason?[/quote']

 

I think all those in Lowe's cabal (e.g. Askham, Richards, Cowen, Marland etc) and others who support him (e.g. Wilde) are just as culpable, as it is their continual support of him that leaves him in such a vital position.

 

If they did not support him in his role of CEO, then he wouldn't be able to make the cck ups he has in recent years.

 

Just because they think he is the best man for the job does not mean automatically mean he is indeed the best man for the job, and IMHO, recent events have shown that it is not only his day to day decision making that has been found wanting, but that also their support of him is just as misjudged.

 

I fear that some stick by him out of some perverse sense of loyalty (e.g. Cowen, Askhma & Richards), whilst others because it suits their personal agenda and position (e.g. Wilde).

 

I'm not overly confident that their concern for the welfare of the Club is the overriding reason for supporting him, because quite frankly if it was, then they should be out there seeking a more competent CEO and a more unifying Chairman.

Edited 20 March, 2009 by um pahars

[Frank's cousin]

I think all those in Lowe's cabal (e.g. Askham, Richards, Cowen, Marland etc) and others who support him (e.g. Wilde) are just as culpable as it is their continual support of him that leaves him free to be in such a vital position.

 

If they did not support him in his role of CEO, then he wouldn't be able to make th cck ups he has in recent years.

 

Just because they think he is the best man for the job, does not mean he is the best man for the job, and IMHO recent events has sown that not only his day to day decision making has been found wanting, but also their support of him is just as misjudged.

 

I fear that some stick by him out of some perverse sense of loyalty (e.g. Cowen, Askhma & Richards), whilst others because it suits their personal agenda and position (e.g. Wilde).

 

I'm not overly confident that their concern for the Club is the overriding reason for supporting him is the welfare of the Club (because quite frankly if it was, then they should be out there seeking a more competent CEO and a more unifying Chairman).

 

NOthing in the above is wrong if they are judging him on your criteria, but I suspect they are judging purely on the how much progress is being made in avoiding admin... and on that score, I have no idea, I have no idea as to the state before he cmae back and no idea if he has made an improvement or not...

[Channon's Sideburns]

I think all those in Lowe's cabal (e.g. Askham, Richards, Cowen, Marland etc) and others who support him (e.g. Wilde) are just as culpable as it is their continual support of him that leaves him free to be in such a vital position.

 

If they did not support him in his role of CEO, then he wouldn't be able to make th cck ups he has in recent years.

 

Just because they think he is the best man for the job, does not mean he is the best man for the job, and IMHO recent events has sown that not only his day to day decision making has been found wanting, but also their support of him is just as misjudged.

 

I fear that some stick by him out of some perverse sense of loyalty (e.g. Cowen, Askhma & Richards), whilst others because it suits their personal agenda and position (e.g. Wilde).

 

I'm not overly confident that their concern for the Club is the overriding reason for supporting him is the welfare of the Club (because quite frankly if it was, then they should be out there seeking a more competent CEO and a more unifying Chairman).

 

Agree wholeheartedly Um...and for that reason I have purchased two tickets for EuroMillions tonight...

 

£27M Jackpot - get behind the CS Takeover guys - we're going old school....I might even get the Albion Band back for half-time.

 

...and Jack Fleet.

[um pahars]

presenting a POSSIBILTY as to WHY someone MIGHT have made a mistake IS NOT APOLOGISING FOR THEM' date=' but merly presenting the alternative so that BOTH sides get an airing - that would in my definition be even handedness...[/quote']

 

There's presenting a possibility as to why he went with Wigley and then there's just plain stupidity, and the idea that maybe he went with Wigley because of the amount of money paid out to Sturrock in termination payments is La La Land stuff.

 

Perhaps you don't even realise it, but you try to blame away even the most obvious of Lowe's cck ups.

[Window Cleaner]

There's presenting a possibility as to why he went with Wigley and then there's just plain stupidity, and the idea that maybe he went with Wigley because of the amount of money paid out to Sturrock in termination payments is La La Land stuff.

 

Perhaps you don't even realise it, but you try to blame away even the most obvious of Lowe's cck ups.

 

I thought Gray was more serious actually. A whole pre-season to look around, saw some good men apparently (Moyes,Harryetc etc) and then dealt them away for a boot boy who couldn't handle the job so we let him 'choose' another complete no hoper to help him out. Total cost?? somewhere in the region of 2.2 million (far more than Moyes "own men" would have cost). Plus we f**ked up on Delgado and his mate,some would say on Delap as well under that regime.

Even if Gray didn't sign Delgado and Chala in the right hands thy may have been worth something and not 5 + million just tipped down an Ecudorian

drain.

To me "the right man for the job" cost Saints nigh on 10 million quid give or take a tenner, it was just chronic incompetence that led to all the problems that followed.

 

After Gray we got who? Hoddle, was he available in the summer of Gray?

[um pahars]

I thought Gray was more serious actually. A whole pre-season to look around, saw some good men apparently (Moyes,Harryetc etc) and then dealt them away for a boot boy who couldn't handle the job so we let him 'choose' another complete no hoper to help him out. Total cost?? somewhere in the region of 2.2 million (far more than Moyes "own men" would have cost). Plus we f**ked up on Delgado and his mate,some would say on Delap as well under that regime.

Even if Gray didn't sign Delgado and Chala in the right hands thy may have been worth something and not 5 + million just tipped down an Ecudorian

drain.

To me "the right man for the job" cost Saints nigh on 10 million quid give or take a tenner, it was just chronic incompetence that led to all the problems that followed.

 

After Gray we got who? Hoddle, was he available in the summer of Gray?

 

Hear what you're saying, but I felt Wigley was just so much worse, not least because of how Gray panned out. Even though Lowe stumbled around all summer (but still signed Anders without a manager!!), I couls almost forgive him for going down the continuity route just this once.

 

However, IMHO the appointment of Wigley was a total cck up from day one, with even the OS running round trying to find out exactly whether he was permanent or not, PLC Board Members not knowing about it, briefings about the management structure not being finalised etc etc etc.

 

It just beggared belief that we would jeopardise our Premiership future with such an appointment (but of course it might have been done because we were skint after paying off Sturrock;)).

[alpine_saint]

This post just about sums you up

 

The inability to read and understand what is posted and respond appropriately, nowher have i excused anyone or anything, no where have I stated that the unrealistic expectations where excusable, and I never even mentioned attendance in this thread so why bring it up? Alpine I suggest you get yourself a new set of glasses because you are obviously struggling to READ what is said - you just prejudice your response based on what you want to believe I posted - you really are obsessed.

 

Rallyboy has a completely different opinion to me as is obvious, but he asks a genuine rational question which I can respect, so I have given my reply to HIS post. Respect though for other opinions seems beyond you....

 

Whatever. You bore me shiitless with your tedious wearing down of anyone who dares criticise your precious regime with calls for "balance" when you are one of the most self-opinionated people on this site. Espeically as what you write is nowhere near the balanced moral high-ground you keep claiming for yourself.

 

I cant be bothered to read your tripe any more..

[Frank's cousin]

There's presenting a possibility as to why he went with Wigley and then there's just plain stupidity, and the idea that maybe he went with Wigley because of the amount of money paid out to Sturrock in termination payments is La La Land stuff.

 

Perhaps you don't even realise it, but you try to blame away even the most obvious of Lowe's cck ups.

 

And you have become so blinkered that you see Lowe defence in anything that is not Lowe criticism... thats utter fantasy... if you cant even entertain a possibilty or accept that you know FECK all about the actual reason why wigley was chosen, but are quite happy to pretend that you do, it shows its you thats lost semblence of rationalilty....

[Frank's cousin]

Whatever. You bore me shiitless with your tedious wearing down of anyone who dares criticise your precious regime with calls for "balance" when you are one of the most self-opinionated people on this site. Espeically as what you write is nowhere near the balanced moral high-ground you keep claiming for yourself.

 

I cant be bothered to read your tripe any more..

 

Good, because that way you wont trouble me with your mindless, infantile and quite frankly idiotic drivel and I in exasperation wont feel the need tio rpond, which should save a bit of time....

[Frank's cousin]

but of course it might have been done because we were skint after paying off Sturrock;)).

 

You really are a patronizing ...... and once again illustrating your ignorance of what was being said...go ahead read it again this time engaging brain first and you might see that nowhere does it say he was given the job because we were skint, but that that could be a fcator - after all we know Lowe sticks to his budgets - its called a subtle but important difference which I would have thought someone of your so obvious intelligence would have understood?

[um pahars]

but it MIGHT have been necessary because of the payout required for Sturrock...

 

OK Frank, it might have been necessary because of the payout required for Sturrock, of course it might have, yep sure thing, OK, righty-O, roger, fair do's, etc etc etc, but it could also have been because aliens had landed and taken over Lowe's thought processes, or maybe the Queen Mother blackmailed Lowe into the appointment or maybe even that Wigley is really Lowe's love child.

 

I'm sure we could come up with a million and one excuses for why Lowe appointed Wigley, before we get to, perhaps he thought Wigley would make the step up, but sadly he was misguided in his judgement.

 

But you keep coming up with excuses for why it wasn't Lowe's mistake for appointing Wigley without full approval of his PLC Board.

[alpine_saint]

OK Frank, it might have been necessary because of the payout required for Sturrock, of course it might have, yep sure thing, OK, righty-O, roger, fair do's, etc etc etc, but it could also have been because aliens had landed and taken over Lowe's thought processes, or maybe the Queen Mother blackmailed Lowe into the appointment or maybe even that Wigley is really Lowe's love child.

 

I'm sure we could come up with a million and one excuses for why Lowe appointed Wigley, before we get to, perhaps he thought Wigley would make the step up, but sadly he was misguided in his judgement.

 

But you keep coming up with excuses for why it wasn't Lowe's mistake for appointing Wigley without full approval of his PLC Board.

 

Steve, why are you bothering ? Lowe has never done anything wrong in Franky-World, didnt you know ???

[rallyboy]

cheers for the 'Frank' answer FC, it is possible to see other points of view.

 

 

My main concern is that Rupert has lost the fanbase and that makes him damaged goods.

He has lost me, I don't trust him, and I think he has demonstrated very poor business skills.

The business cannot move forward with him at the helm, I think he has unrealistic views on how much the club is worth, I suspect he would ask potential investors to jump through hoops and they will look at it and wonder how the man who has driven the business to the brink has the cheek to make demands.

He may well be keeping us out of administration, a situation that he has at least half the responsibility for, but at what cost? We are on life support, slipping away with every day.

I still think he doesn't understand that what goes on out there on the pitch is hugely influential on the rest of the business, he seems to think they are different depts.

He has chased away 10,000 off the gate, and saved the cost of three stewards.

I also think his judgement has shown to be flawed too many times.

Partner this with the disdain he has demonstrated to his customers and what are you left with?

A once great club heading for the third tier under his watch, and if that occurs then he will have to accept the blame.

Accusing Crouch of mismanagement may have some truth, but when you have a whole year to turn it round and you fail this miserably?

 

The simple thing is that we don't always know the exact state of affairs or who has been to blame on some occasions, BUT what we all saw ages ago was the flawed dutch experiment that ran on six months too long.

That has been his most recent public mistake, and finances cannot be the reason - are Doncaster etc richer than us? Can we not compete with Swansea and Barnsley?

The mistakes are stacking up.

 

Is it wise to loan out your best striker to one of your relegation rivals? No, it would be money better spent paying him not to score the goals that could relegate you and cost you further income. That was mental.

The last thing the bank wants us to do is go down, they will lose the lot, why have they allowed it to get to this?

Too many poor decisions, often things that fans could identify as incredibly obvious mistakes.

 

 

Rupert has turned us into a small club, Wilde and the rest have fiddled as it all burned around them, and if the boys have a bad day in Blackpool we could get even smaller by 5pm tomorrow.

 

coyr

[Frank's cousin]

Rally , and thank you for your reasoned response. I do see what you saying and that is part of the problem ;-) I think if viewed fairly, there is evidence to support BOTH sides of the coin, but frequently that view of mine, that you can provide a pretty solid case for both sides, is viewed as 'pro Lowe', as you can probably see form some of the above posts.

 

I also think in part its because in football, its very much about the here and now. The negatives get far more coverage and focus when things are going bad and thats fair enough, but its when there is a complete refusal to acknowledge possible alternative reasons for decsions that i get frustrated, afterall, surely thats the point of discussion?

 

Lowe will NEVER be ANYONES idea of the perfect chairman, but I have just tried to concentrate on those traits that IMHO should be part of the makeup of ANY chairman, particularly the control of the purse strings -(equated by some as 'lacking ambition') which is always an unpopular position amongst fans. And I will say again (especially for Alpine) that this is NOT supporting the man, but the approach. Its true I dont go on and on about his failings or mistakes, because others do that in far greater number, so I just feel that its important to point out what positives there have been - IMHO it just helps put it all in perspective and hopefully more objective?

 

I dont know where the answers lie to our predicament, the simple solution that most would advocate of getting rid of all three, is due to the circumstances of the shareholdings unlikely, so what is the best option under the circumstances? Some advocate CRouch, but he seemed too intent on the popular vote and took his eye of the financial ball, Wilde seems... er... no idea, possibly sees commercial opportunities, but the current economic climate has messed up those options for foreseeable...that leaves Lowe.... its easy to say 'be gone' but we know he wont simply walk away, and has the brass neck to ride out the fan protest and dislike, we know his mistakes, we know his effect on fans, but we also know he will fight to the last to stave off admin at whatever cost... some will say thats the problem, that he is more focussed on that than what is happening on the pitch...which is a fair enough POV, but it also depends on what you believe admin would do to us and thus the relative importance of making sure we dont go there whatever the cost. Admitedly this is complicated by none of us really knowing the TRUE extent of the financial mess/problems and therefore whether it has all been necessary or whether we could have been less concerned at the start of season + it will have played into Lowe's hands to put in place his long held desire to see the continental system at saints - and thats another debate - is that a good or bad system?

 

I have no problem with those who want rid. But, if having a discussion on pros, cons, reasons, rationale, possibilities, strategies and why, how etc, it seems only fair to at least present them all, but when you do, its considered 'luvviedom'. Needless to say the strength of the defensiveness I come up against from some, suggests a classic 'me think the lady(ies) doth protest to much' ;-)

 

Thanks for the response.

Edited 23 March, 2009 by Frank's cousin

[Smirking_Saint]

I appreciate what the whole Gray, Wigley arguement is but it is purely a Lowe **** up, having met Gray he is a great guy and having been coached by him he is a brilliant coach, both times unfortunately i feel we lost good members of staff and yeah they did not perform well at that level but what did anybody expect ?? Problem was he was not ready.

 

I also believe that the real reason Gray left (although agreed results were not great) was the falling out over Delgado. He did not want to sign him, he wanted to sign Forlan who was then available for 750k and probably a better option.

 

I feel these two appointments were the beginnings of Lowe wanting a puppet.

[Channon's Sideburns]

 

I also believe that the real reason Gray left (although agreed results were not great) was the falling out over Delgado. He did not want to sign him, he wanted to sign Forlan who was then available for 750k and probably a better option.

 

How strange. Rupert overiding his 'head coach' on the assessment of footballers - especially when his coach has actually played the game professionally?

[Frank's cousin]

I appreciate what the whole Gray, Wigley arguement is but it is purely a Lowe **** up, having met Gray he is a great guy and having been coached by him he is a brilliant coach, both times unfortunately i feel we lost good members of staff and yeah they did not perform well at that level but what did anybody expect ?? Problem was he was not ready.

 

I also believe that the real reason Gray left (although agreed results were not great) was the falling out over Delgado. He did not want to sign him, he wanted to sign Forlan who was then available for 750k and probably a better option.

 

I feel these two appointments were the beginnings of Lowe wanting a puppet.

 

I dont think puppet is the right word... but would certainly agree LOwe is not a fan of the old school approach where managers have control of the purse strings... I also believe his 'vision' was to move away from thw traditional approach, build a coaching TEAM under an SCW type thereby by making it less reliant on a single figure, - especially after seeing both Hoddle and Strachan leave.... Whatever we think about this - and most will probably say he was truely deluded to think it 'would work in the English game' - I can understand some aspects of it... there is a something daft about a situation that makes it so easy for good managers to leave the moment a bigger club come in AFTER they have spent money on players - only for the next one to come in and spend alover again, wanting his 'own' squad - TYhe impact that a manager leaving can have on a club that is not large enough to hold onto a good one if someone bigger comes along is huge and so I can see logic in wanting a system that places less importance on a single individual ... OK so everyone says it wont work... why though? Is it because the managers themselves dont want it that way? Is it that theplayers wont respond to if there is no dominating figure in charge? Yes and Yes to those two, which is why i think he went for unknowns and wanted to start it with the kids who are less set in the 'tradional ways'... just a theory naturally but I think it could be an alternative to the simple 'yes man' or 'puppet' whitout any rational reason why that would be good thing in Lowe's eyes...

[Smirking_Saint]

I find myself agreeing with what you just said FC, however i like the word puppet as i feel it adequately sums it up.

 

The problem is somebody believing they can do better then those that have lived in the professional game.

[Frank's cousin]

I find myself agreeing with what you just said FC, however i like the word puppet as i feel it adequately sums it up.

 

The problem is somebody believing they can do better then those that have lived in the professional game.

 

I would agree with that, but part of me, and ts difficult to admit on here as football fans generally do tend to be very traditional in their approach ;-) really likes the idea of somebody shaking teh game up,and rattling a few of these old school types, the secret envelopes - (now replaced by monies to agents that then find their way back to secret accounts) - etc, the system of contracts that make it so difficult to build something anymore, because the best are poached the moment there is any promise shown - and that includes managers - Maybe thats why I have been more receptive towards lOwe than others, He has made huge mistakes, and sure his rationale for what I described (if its anyway close to the mark) will have been driven in no small part by his ego, but its the idea that appealed to me.

 

As a fan there is nothing more frustrating than just when you see a group of youngsters or older players enjoying a late devlopment spurt, starting to gain success and build something, for it to be wrecked by biger clubs poaching your players and managers - yes we know its part of the game, but its worse now that it used to be as its also fuelled by the cash the bigger clubs have to spend and playesr agents fuelling the greed.

 

In effect if you could bring about a system at your club that was less relient on a single coach, but had a network of specialists all working together, and instill this new thinking in young players as they come up through the ranks so they are receptive to it, - local kids who stand a better chance of being loyal and part of something, coupled with a conveyor belt of youngsters that means ready made replacements when and if some of the better satrs inevitably go... I have to say that as a theory is one that appeals to me, and I can see why Lowe might have thought like that especially after losing strachen, Hoddel and bridge etc - we may say he let Bridge go for the cash, but i do think we would have struggled to hold on to him even if we had doubled his wages... + the idea of an Ajax style cash cow conveyorbelt supplementing the revenues etc would have had a big appeal to the bloke.

 

This is all speculation, but i have to admit, if there was a way of changing the lack of continuity in both coaching and playing staff that is beyond ou control, i would be well up for it.... the problem seems to be that Lowe is picking the wrong people at the wrong time to give this any chance of success....

[Channon's Sideburns]

I think though Frank that in THEORY and on paper Lowe's ideas are workable.

 

In practice, its never going to work and here's why.

 

If you utilise a 'conveyor belt' approach - you first of all have to INVEST in your academy (which you can only do if you have the money).

 

You only have the money if:

a) you are in the Prem;

b) you have a Chairman putting the money in (hahahaha!)

 

Anything below that means you are chasing your tail because when you sell one half-decent player, there aren't any left on the conveyor belt good enough to move up.

 

Lowe's idea could only come to fruition WITH PREM MONEY. He is, and always has been a one-trick pony with the financial backing of being in the top league.

 

Why? Because in the CCC crowds are dwindling because the football on offer from our team is DIRE.

 

The CORE requirement of a football club is to be successful on the playing and the business side.

 

LOWE HAS PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE OF BEING SUCCESSFUL AT EITHER.

 

Business in his last stretch? Hmmm let's see - relegation which cost us millions in lost revenue, a war chest which didnt exist (what a surprise).

[St. Jason]

If the deadline passes then fair play to Rupes for sorting the finances out as there aint a doubt in my mind we would be in admin now if Crouch had still been at the helm....

 

Why????

 

Mr. Lowe has only copied Mr. Crouch's blueprint for cost cutting. Mr. Crouch ahd loaned out our high earning players, he'd put the corner closures in place and had agreed the statergy with the bank. Please, please, please explain why we'd already be in admin under Crouch?