The Observer's first paragraph....

[70's Mike]

Well I'm not an architect, but surely we could have done better. Personally I would have prefered the stands nearer the pitch creating a similar feeling as at the Dell.

 

Rupert had the chance to start a new era in a unique stadium,tailor made for us and tailored to our needs. He didn't have the vision to pull it off, nor would I have been able to, however, I wasn't paid to do so.

 

back to the old problem , Money, the club was funded by a back door takeover built on sand rather than the wealth of the owners.

It was seen as an earner rather than away to invest/get enjoyment from spending their money.

[Thedelldays]

back to the old problem , Money, the club was funded by a back door takeover built on sand rather than the wealth of the owners.

It was seen as an earner rather than away to invest/get enjoyment from spending their money.

to be honest, how many takeovers in the 90's were NOT seen as earners..?

 

you had the exceptions then, jack walker and the guy at boro but they were/are life long die hards...

[70's Mike]

to be honest, how many takeovers in the 90's were NOT seen as earners..?

 

you had the exceptions then, jack walker and the guy at boro but they were/are life long die hards...

 

 

how many takeovers were there ?

especially how many were there where the ownership never really changed , the club was a vehicle for a few to get rich quick and then hope we stayed up so that Sky could fund the business

[NI76]

Agreed. The atmosphere is still decent at SMS, and was quite good when we were in the Prem.

 

All I can say, and I don't mean any offence at all by this, is that you must be one of the younger generation of fans who have never experienced decent atmospheres in proper football grounds with a bit of character (The Dell, Baseball Ground, Roker Park etc etc).

 

The atmosphere at St Mary's is woeful. I'm only 36 but fully accept that I sound like a "grumpy old man everything was better in my day" type!

[Thedelldays]

All I can say, and I don't mean any offence at all by this, is that you must be one of the younger generation of fans who have never experienced decent atmospheres in proper football grounds with a bit of character (The Dell, Baseball Ground, Roker Park etc etc).

 

The atmosphere at St Mary's is woeful. I'm only 36 but fully accept that I sound like a "grumpy old man everything was better in my day" type!

 

 

during those times it was the norm to smash someones face in too

[eelpie]

if you think reading has a a terrific atmosphere then you are wrong

 

 

no one moaned about SMS when we lost 2 home games all season (man u and liverpool)

 

something I never saw at the dell

 

I have been there several times and the atmosphere gendered by the home fans and ours at The Madjeskii is far more exciting than at SMS. And the evidence is that Reading have clearly benefited far more from playing in their stadium than we have by playing in SMS. At SMS it's the opposition that benefits. Not that The Madjeski is the issue. (It is just an example of a better design, which incidentally generates income from it's built-in hotel). The issue is that RL missed a trick in not seeking fans opinions as to what sort of stadium they wanted after The Dell.

[Thedelldays]

I have been there several times and the atmosphere gendered by the home fans and ours at The Madjeskii is far more exciting than at SMS. And the evidence is that Reading have clearly benefited far more from playing in their stadium than we have by playing in SMS. At SMS it's the opposition that benefits. Not that The Madjeski is the issue. (It is just an example of a better design, which incidentally generates income from it's built-in hotel). The issue is that RL missed a trick in not seeking fans opinions as to what sort of stadium they wanted after The Dell.

maybe the league positions are the defining factor...

 

I have no doubt that should we be 3rd and in the hunt for auto promotion, sms would be rocking most weeks...

Edited 22 March, 2009 by Thedelldays

[wild-saint]

All I can say, and I don't mean any offence at all by this, is that you must be one of the younger generation of fans who have never experienced decent atmospheres in proper football grounds with a bit of character (The Dell, Baseball Ground, Roker Park etc etc).

 

The atmosphere at St Mary's is woeful. I'm only 36 but fully accept that I sound like a "grumpy old man everything was better in my day" type!

 

The dell was special but no different to any other tiny ground filled to the rafters. SMS has had its moments when full and the team has played well.

 

The problem is the successful times the article refers to was a different era that hadnt been tainted by the vast amounts of money on offer by sky and the smaller teams could compete at a much closer level.

 

WE moved to SMS after all the cash had filled the premership, we were already on a spiral downhill at the dell struggling to survive year on year.

 

Look at our attendances now and we average 16k this year, the reality has hit and leaves the fans that truely are obssessed by football to follow thier team through thinner

 

Like it or not the fans that no longer attend SMS whatever reasons they give are the floating fans who will go when were winning and wane when were not.

 

The real problem is if we dont level out will the core fans start to dwindle further? probably if we get relegated probably not if we dont.

 

Personally im just obsessed and can think of nothing id rather do on a saturday afternoon with my boy that to watch my team attempt to recreate the beautiful game, usually badly regardless of the division.

[david in sweden]

I dont buy this "blaming SMS" crap.

 

Everything was in place in the summer of 2003 to finally move up to the next level.

 

Then Rupert Lowe sold Wayne Bridge.

 

 

 

It has to be Rupert Lowe's fault, I mean ...who else is there to blame ?

 

If he hadn't built SMS in the first place ...we'd still have that invinceable

fortress ..THE DELL and the 15,000 who currently attend home games would all have a seat of their own ...and we'd probably still be in the Premiership!

 

What other explanation can there be ?

[NI76]

during those times it was the norm to smash someones face in too

 

You obviously move in different circles to me because I can honeslty say that in all my time following Saints in the 80's and 90's away from home (and I was a snotty teenager during some of this period) the only truuble I was ever involved in was at Liverpool when some locals had a go at us.

[SaintRobbie]

......and failed to properly invest

 

...and paid dividends to shareholders instead of pumping back in to the club to ensure Premiership status.

[SaintRobbie]

To be honest - we'd be in the CCC or League 1 now under Lowe regardless of which stadium we found ourselves.

[PaulSaint]

If you take the most successful English club in the last 20 years (Man U) and study their make up you get this:

 

A) Stable management e.g. SAF in charge since the mid eighties.

B) Investment e.g. US Owner, Brand Marketing & 70k+ crowds

C) Ambitious Board - Check (more trophies than a big game hunter who uses an RPG)

D) Buy 2 or 3 quality internationals every year & mix with the good youth players coming through?

 

Now look at us:

 

A) 17 since the mid eighties.

B) Board who only take & 10-30k crowds

C) Lowe & Wilde = Nothing

D) We sell anyone who is good, regardless of age, within the first year of their SFC Careers!

 

We have reaped what we have sown, just surprised this season hasnt come sooner to be honest!

 

Sod the stupid experiments, just try to act more like Man U & we will become good again?

Edited 22 March, 2009 by PaulSaint
Error

[ooohTerryHurlock]

Quantity and no quality. Then when you have changes at managerial level and playing style some who were playing get dropped and others come in, that unsettles the team dynamic and as football is a team game leads to a spiral.

33 players all cost money because a manager wanted to obtain them. When the manager goes and the new guy wants to be rid of players that haven't been getting a game, nobody wants them and you get no money back for them, in fact you often pay them to go away.

 

Sure we needed to back WGS, sure we needed to move on and failed dismally to grasp that nettle, but at the same time we spent a LOT of the money we DID have on rubbish....

It is a culmination of errors by many people, not just one person (although he made more than the rest put together of course)

 

.... But we generated a lot of money too!

[ooohTerryHurlock]

I have been there several times and the atmosphere gendered by the home fans and ours at The Madjeskii is far more exciting than at SMS. And the evidence is that Reading have clearly benefited far more from playing in their stadium than we have by playing in SMS. At SMS it's the opposition that benefits. Not that The Madjeski is the issue. (It is just an example of a better design, which incidentally generates income from it's built-in hotel). The issue is that RL missed a trick in not seeking fans opinions as to what sort of stadium they wanted after The Dell.

 

To be fair to RL - his first aim was Stoneham that would have been more sustainable as it had Business/retail associated - it also had an athletic track - but wth most things it was too complicated to get sorted and we ended with hobsons choice - Personally I would have liked us to redevelop the dell site - like West ham have done but alas it wasn't to be but SMS is ok when it is full - it does get going.

[Channon's Sideburns]

To be fair to RL - his first aim was Stoneham that would have been more sustainable as it had Business/retail associated - it also had an athletic track - but wth most things it was too complicated to get sorted and we ended with hobsons choice - Personally I would have liked us to redevelop the dell site - like West ham have done but alas it wasn't to be but SMS is ok when it is full - it does get going.

 

Yes...but didn't we lose Stoneham because Rupert got too greedy and wanted Retail on the site??

[CB Fry]

I have been there several times and the atmosphere gendered by the home fans and ours at The Madjeskii is far more exciting than at SMS. And the evidence is that Reading have clearly benefited far more from playing in their stadium than we have by playing in SMS. At SMS it's the opposition that benefits. Not that The Madjeski is the issue. (It is just an example of a better design, which incidentally generates income from it's built-in hotel). The issue is that RL missed a trick in not seeking fans opinions as to what sort of stadium they wanted after The Dell.

 

 

Would Rupert have been flooded with demands for a soulless stadium in a retail park nowhere from the city the club is supposed to represent that takes stupid amounts of time to get to and out of?

 

Oh, and the true Saints fans want assurances you'll build a revenue generating hotel on the side of it to? That's what all "football people" would want, if only evil old Rupert had asked. "Stand up if you want a hotel"

 

Oh to have a stadium like that notorious hotbed of blood guts and glory football passion, that well known cauldron of hell for visiting teams....The Madjeski, sponsored by Waitrose.

 

 

At the end of the day its the gentrification of football, the all seater stadia and the "family" focus that has changed the atmosphere at clubs up and down the country. "Fans being asked what type of stadium they wanted to move to" wouldn't have changed a thing.

Edited 22 March, 2009 by CB Fry

[Mower]

This simple modal verb tells it all. This whole argument is predicated on supposition. In fact it is based on a negative action; a non-action; nothing. It is not about an action that Lowe undertook; it is about something that he didn't do. He also didn't go around alpine saint's house and brutally rape him before distinguishing his life forever and p*ssing on his bruised and twisted corpse, but we don't make suppositions for what positive effect this may have on Saints had he done this. Because we simply don't know.

 

 

Can I nominate this as "post of the week"? First class reading entertainment.

[skintsaint]

Anyone remember the thread talking about expanding SMS as it was selling out each week?....happy days

 

If we had stayed in the PL and done that I reckon we would be looking at regular top 7 finishes....

[Saint in Paradise]

Yes...but didn't we lose Stoneham because Rupert got too greedy and wanted Retail on the site??

 

Another reason why people think Mr Lowe is more interested in making money than running

a Foottball Team.

[Frank's cousin]

There is some element of truth in the Dell thing - but its less to do with the stadium itself and more to do with IMHO what it means for players... and our own expectations. When at the Dell, we had crap facilities, and a modest image...thi meant we tended to attract and hold on to players who 'did' want to be there, a combination of home growns and older journeyment pros who had found a home, amongst fans who often valued graft, and dedication and loyalty above out and out ability (Le Tiss excluded). As a result we were a side greater than the sum of its parts and thus the strength of character to withstand the onslaughts of sides with far greater resources.

 

When we moved, we were seen as a good/average premiership side with new modern facilities etc, exactly the type of club that was big enough to atrract maybe a classier player, but players who would have or could have gone to any number opf similar clubs, rather tha 'chosing' to be here - provided we paid enough of a wedge. That and the manager merry-go-round and we lost that spirit of 'heart on sleave' that Dell gave to players.

[OldNick]

Well I'm not an architect, but surely we could have done better. Personally I would have prefered the stands nearer the pitch creating a similar feeling as at the Dell.

 

Rupert had the chance to start a new era in a unique stadium,tailor made for us and tailored to our needs. He didn't have the vision to pull it off, nor would I have been able to, however, I wasn't paid to do so.

Well you cant have the stands nearer thepitch as it is against the law when you build a new ground. You have to have room to drive ambulances around in case of a major incident.

[OldNick]

This is a brilliant bit of pot stirring by DH. this site has been slow and Duncan has thrown in a hand grenade and then walkewd away Lol. Well done Duncan it has livened the site up

[Legod Third Coming]

Agree. The board of SFC showed a shocking level of ambition after the FA Cup final and 8th-placed finish. They decided to do nothing through a combination of not wanting to leave their comfort zone and not wanting their power-base diluted by inward investment.

 

The club is paying a heavy price for that summer of lunacy..

 

For once I agree - almost.

 

What Lowe did was showed that he will not invest in flair players (he did after all sanction £4m for Delap) nor in two/three quality players (Malbranque comes to mind) at the behest of the manager.

 

He prefers to spread his risk - supposedly...

 

Given that throughout the 90s, one player delivered us what precious little success we had, I find this approach totally and utterly bewildering.

[OldNick]

I love the 'We want to stay at the Dell with our 15000 crowds and also compete'. A fan on the board LOl.

The stadium was not why we went down, and I like the 3 managers in 1 season bit, LC was here 6 months and he had the same.

We were on the slide when GS was here, I know many will not like this but the finger needs alos to be pointed at WGS. He allowed the club to drift when he failed to buy the better players.Buying Mccann, surely we he had a better selection to choses from?

That is when the rot set in and we had a massive squad of grafters, no violinsts.

I agree we could have spent 10m on a couple of players but only if we could have rid ourselves of some of the other dross. We released for free Kevin Davies who under the right directioon has turned into the player that was always there but never correctly utilised.

Do fans really believe we could have kept Bridge??? he was going to Chelsea who were going to pay him what was then massive wages and the chance to win medals.

There are many factors to our demise, some of it can be pointed at the fans at their impatience, a lot can be pointed at RL and I believe the most at the players who did not have the balls to pull us through.

It was not down to the stadium as the atmosphere during the Norwich home game in the relegation saeason was as dramitic as I can recall and then add the derbies and it shows it is not the stadium.

[Legod Third Coming]

I love the 'We want to stay at the Dell with our 15000 crowds and also compete'. A fan on the board LOl.

The stadium was not why we went down, and I like the 3 managers in 1 season bit, LC was here 6 months and he had the same.

We were on the slide when GS was here, I know many will not like this but the finger needs alos to be pointed at WGS. He allowed the club to drift when he failed to buy the better players.Buying Mccann, surely we he had a better selection to choses from?

That is when the rot set in and we had a massive squad of grafters, no violinsts.

I agree we could have spent 10m on a couple of players but only if we could have rid ourselves of some of the other dross. We released for free Kevin Davies who under the right directioon has turned into the player that was always there but never correctly utilised.

Do fans really believe we could have kept Bridge??? he was going to Chelsea who were going to pay him what was then massive wages and the chance to win medals.

There are many factors to our demise, some of it can be pointed at the fans at their impatience, a lot can be pointed at RL and I believe the most at the players who did not have the balls to pull us through.

It was not down to the stadium as the atmosphere during the Norwich home game in the relegation saeason was as dramitic as I can recall and then add the derbies and it shows it is not the stadium.

 

Er, didn't WGS want to buy Drogba and Malbranque and someone else decided we didn't want/need them??

 

Or did I dream all that?

[ottery st mary]

This is a brilliant bit of pot stirring by DH. this site has been slow and Duncan has thrown in a hand grenade and then walkewd away Lol. Well done Duncan it has livened the site up

 

But you can be sure Ruperts Wallflowers will be at hand to catch the grenade

in attempt to do the Good Lords work.:smt049

[Victor]

Well you cant have the stands nearer thepitch as it is against the law when you build a new ground. You have to have room to drive ambulances around in case of a major incident.

 

Against WHICH law? I am an architect so would be very interested if you could point me in the direction of this legislation as it is essential for me to know, ignorance being no defence in the eye's of the law.

 

I suspect, however, that you are guessing from a position of ignorance, and anyway, in SMS's case ... 3 ambulances side by side?

 

I am sure it would be possible to argue with Building Control that if there were a situation where ambulances needed to enter the stadium that the game would be halted and the ambulances could drive on the pitch.

[OldNick]

Er, didn't WGS want to buy Drogba and Malbranque and someone else decided we didn't want/need them??

 

Or did I dream all that?

i think you will find that Drogba was stopped by him not having played enough internationals, Adebayour was not taken if I rememeber correctly as WGS did not like his attitude. There was also talk of Defoe coming. Edited 23 March, 2009 by OldNick
didnt wish it to be a debate aqbout WGS

[OldNick]

Against WHICH law? I am an architect so would be very interested if you could point me in the direction of this legislation as it is essential for me to know, ignorance being no defence in the eye's of the law.

 

I suspect, however, that you are guessing from a position of ignorance, and anyway, in SMS's case ... 3 ambulances side by side?

 

I am sure it would be possible to argue with Building Control that if there were a situation where ambulances needed to enter the stadium that the game would be halted and the ambulances could drive on the pitch.

If you are an architect for football stadiums you would know. I am not an architect and i know that is the reason as i asked the question when the staium was mooted, 'why could we not have the stands nearer the pitch' and that was the reply i got.

If you remember the stadiums were going up after the Heysel Hillsborigh Valley Parade disasters and so the stadiums were designed with that in mind.

It would have been cheaper to have built the stadium with the stands closer to the pitch i would have thought but you may be able to tell us more on that one.

[OldNick]

But you can be sure Ruperts Wallflowers will be at hand to catch the grenade

in attempt to do the Good Lords work.:smt049

Into the valley of death they rode...

[INFLUENCED.COM]

we tended to attract and hold on to players who 'did' want to be there' date=' a combination of home growns and older journeyment pros who had found a home, amongst fans who often valued graft, and dedication and loyalty above out and out ability.[/quote']

 

Good shout FC, this imo is where the problem remains, pro players now are mercenaries who do the minimum necessary and fail to do that at times, when was the last time we bought in a player who pulled his nuts out whilst wearing the shirt ? Svensson(pulled alot more I know but) we have a battler in Gillett and would like to see that fight in all, BWP, 8K a week just looks uninterested and sadly there are more that seem to share that attitude, as we take pride in our work so should they

[Rebel]

the move to St Mary's was thr right thing for SFC - beyond a doubt.

 

the problem is where the extra money it generated went.

 

In 2003 we were something like the 10th largest club in England based on attendance over the season and something like 7th in terms of revenue due the the FA Cup run

 

we qualified for the UEFA Cup, appeared in an FA cup final but then failed to take the step forward

 

Bridge was always going to leave for Chelseas and the money - but we simply failed to replace him or strengthen the team

 

a total failure to sieze the day

 

we should and could have replaced Bridge with Konchesky and Malbranque

 

instead we bought McCann and Phillips

 

in Lowes first reign we spent as much on players as we made on selling them - we failed to invest in the team time and time again

 

and yet over that 10 year period our revenue was roughly £50 million more than our wage bill - so where did it all go

 

we didn't pay off the stadium as at least £23 million was still to pay when he left

 

so where and what did it go on?

[Channon's Sideburns]

There is some element of truth in the Dell thing - but its less to do with the stadium itself and more to do with IMHO what it means for players... and our own expectations. When at the Dell, we had crap facilities, and a modest image...thi meant we tended to attract and hold on to players who 'did' want to be there, a combination of home growns and older journeyment pros who had found a home, amongst fans who often valued graft, and dedication and loyalty above out and out ability (Le Tiss excluded). As a result we were a side greater than the sum of its parts and thus the strength of character to withstand the onslaughts of sides with far greater resources.

 

When we moved, we were seen as a good/average premiership side with new modern facilities etc, exactly the type of club that was big enough to atrract maybe a classier player, but players who would have or could have gone to any number opf similar clubs, rather tha 'chosing' to be here - provided we paid enough of a wedge. That and the manager merry-go-round and we lost that spirit of 'heart on sleave' that Dell gave to players.

 

 

Frank you are spot on with that.

 

I felt that once we moved to SMS we ended up signing more of the 'mercenaries' than we did before....Kevin Phillips anyone...?

 

Still hate that b@stard for what he said after he left - if he didn't want to come here he had that choice - take a leaf out of Super Kelv's book, and switch off the phone.

 

I'm glad his wife put it about. Typical small man syndrome.

[Victor]

If you are an architect for football stadiums you would know. I am not an architect and i know that is the reason as i asked the question when the staium was mooted, 'why could we not have the stands nearer the pitch' and that was the reply i got.

If you remember the stadiums were going up after the Heysel Hillsborigh Valley Parade disasters and so the stadiums were designed with that in mind.

It would have been cheaper to have built the stadium with the stands closer to the pitch i would have thought but you may be able to tell us more on that one.

 

 

Oh. I see, you took the answer the club gave. My guess is they knew you wouldn't know better so gave you a bland, unsubstantiated reply that you gratefully accepted without question.

 

 

More fool you.

[Legod Third Coming]

Oh. I see, you took the answer the club gave. My guess is they knew you wouldn't know better so gave you a bland, unsubstantiated reply that you gratefully accepted without question.

 

More fool you.

 

Which is taken directly from the Rupert Lowe business management handbook as we know...

[OldNick]

Oh. I see, you took the answer the club gave. My guess is they knew you wouldn't know better so gave you a bland, unsubstantiated reply that you gratefully accepted without question.

 

 

More fool you.

So you are categorically stating as an architect that there are not regulations about the distance from the playing surface to the stands for safety reasons?

[Thedelldays]

i just love it when rupert gets knocked for SMS...

 

he got us a new (lovely) stadium that is a UEFA 4 star rating right in the heart of the city and a stones throw (litterally) from where the club was formed..

 

when new grounds arfe built these days, the history of the club etc tends to go out the window...look at what everton are going to have to do...

[aintforever]

The Dell did give the players more of an advantage than SMS, you cannot deny that opposition players hated playing there. But the financial advantage of SMS has to outweigh that , but only in the Prem.

[Frank's cousin]

brought a nostalgic but rueful smile to my face.

 

"Samson drew strength from his mane of hair. Andrew Ridgeley got rich on George Michael's good looks and song writing ability. As for Southampton, well they had The Dell, that antiquated yet charismatic corner of Hampshire where others, including Sir Alex Ferguson among them, feared to tread. So long as The Dell was around, then Southampton were more than just an average team. They would win the FA Cup, qualify regularly for Europe and finished 2nd in the league to Liverpool in 1984. It was, in a nutshell, their power source. Then they moved. Bar a visit to the Millennium Stadium to face Arsenal in 2003, it's been pretty much downhill all the way since". - Spencer Vignes. 22/03/09

 

TBF - this does not factor in that it was more possible for a club with a ground like the Dell to have a modicom of success in an era where gates were shareed and bigger clubs did not get the lion's share of TV revenue making the gap bwteen the haves and have nots so vast.... and the majority of any successes came BEFORE the premierleague came about. That may have given us greater revenues, but it also brought about the ever increasing gap in revenues between those clubs with greater commercial (TV) support globally and the others...Sure As I posted above, the Dell meant we attracted real football people who wanted to be at the club, not the mercenaries of today that feck off the moment a better offer comes along, or a chance of a short cut to success with another club...

[aintforever]

Sure As I posted above' date=' the Dell meant we attracted real football people who wanted to be at the club, not the mercenaries of today that feck off the moment a better offer comes along, or a chance of a short cut to success with another club...[/quote']

 

The thing is that 99% of footballers today are mercenaries that feck off the moment a better offer comes along. Players can earn silly money today and the best players will want to earn the most money.

 

We failed because we the rediculous wage structure meant we couldn't sign any decent free transfers, good players and managers would leave like **** off a shovel and we ended up with a bloated squad of ****e.

[OldNick]

Which is taken directly from the Rupert Lowe business management handbook as we know...

I do hope that is not a swipe at me LTC as the statement made by Victor MAY be found wanting.I will bow to him being an architect and is correct. I doubt that somebody worth his salt wouldn't come on here and show up his professional knowledge by making such sweeping statements without being 100% correct.

[OldNick]

The thing is that 99% of footballers today are mercenaries that feck off the moment a better offer comes along. Players can earn silly money today and the best players will want to earn the most money.

 

We failed because we the rediculous wage structure meant we couldn't sign any decent free transfers, good players and managers would leave like **** off a shovel and we ended up with a bloated squad of ****e.

I have become cynical of it as well. I doubt there are many on here who once they had played for the club of their dreams would not then move on to earn a kings ransome.

[Frank's cousin]

The thing is that 99% of footballers today are mercenaries that feck off the moment a better offer comes along. Players can earn silly money today and the best players will want to earn the most money.

 

We failed because we the rediculous wage structure meant we couldn't sign any decent free transfers, good players and managers would leave like **** off a shovel and we ended up with a bloated squad of ****e.

 

But how could we afford more than 26 mil a year on wages at teh time? Sure we could have increased the individual ceiling, but that wouldhave opened another can of worms with more playesr wanting a slice and cost go up... I think given it was runmoured that Beats basic was about 20k a week, but with bonuses etc this averaged over 30K a week in 2003, i hardly think that was 'stingy'...

[aintforever]

But how could we afford more than 26 mil a year on wages at teh time? Sure we could have increased the individual ceiling' date=' but that wouldhave opened another can of worms with more playesr wanting a slice and cost go up... I think given it was runmoured that Beats basic was about 20k a week, but with bonuses etc this averaged over 30K a week in 2003, i hardly think that was 'stingy'...[/quote']

 

But we were paying £2mill for rubbish like Ormerod whilst Bolton were picking up JJ Okocha for free. Players will always want to earn as much as they can regardless of what their team mates are on. Do you really think all the Bolton players earned what Okocha did?

 

And do you really think Alladice would have stayed at Bolton for as long as he did if he was forced to only sign players on 10K a week?

Edited 23 March, 2009 by aintforever

[Thedelldays]

But we were paying £2mill for rubbish like Ormerod whilst Bolton were picking up JJ Okocha for free. Players will always want to earn as much as they can regardless of what their team mates are on. Do you really think all the Bolton players earned what Okocha did?

as for okocha...

 

already on another thread fans are moaning that players are mercenaries...which okocha was just that....

 

bolton spent a farking fortune

[Legod Third Coming]

I do hope that is not a swipe at me LTC as the statement made by Victor MAY be found wanting.I will bow to him being an architect and is correct. I doubt that somebody worth his salt wouldn't come on here and show up his professional knowledge by making such sweeping statements without being 100% correct.

 

No Nick, more a reflection of RL's views towards fans - tell them something completely short of detail on the basis that they are, by and large, incompetent and unintelligent...

 

In my, limited, dealings with the man I have found him arrogant and of the opinion that football fans are not the broad-church of society but instead are made up of a different breed to those who 'lead' - forgetting that many of us run successful businesses with excellent relationship with all manner of humankind!

[Legod Third Coming]

But how could we afford more than 26 mil a year on wages at teh time? Sure we could have increased the individual ceiling' date=' but that wouldhave opened another can of worms with more playesr wanting a slice and cost go up... I think given it was runmoured that Beats basic was about 20k a week, but with bonuses etc this averaged over 30K a week in 2003, i hardly think that was 'stingy'...[/quote']

 

It is not easy FC, but the total ceiling catered for too big a squad.

 

Better to pay 20 players a million each than 30 players two thirds of the same...

 

This is Rupert's biggest issue - paying money to attract talent.

 

And yet it is (like it or not) the basis of most (if not all) genuinely successful football clubs - much as it is at the heart of most succesful businesses.

 

The best people in any industry command the highest wages.

[aintforever]

as for okocha...

 

already on another thread fans are moaning that players are mercenaries...which okocha was just that....

 

bolton spent a farking fortune

 

I wouldn't know what Bolton's accounts look like but they are a smaller club than us in a ****ty part of the country but are still in the Prem.

 

My point is that setting a wage ceiling of say 10k will mean that you can not sign ANY decent free transfer, which means you have to pay a fee for average players who are willing to earn peanuts.

 

We failed to adapt after the bosman ruling, we should have accepted that virtually all footballers are merceneries and had a flexible wage structure.

[krissyboy31]

But how could we afford more than 26 mil a year on wages at teh time? Sure we could have increased the individual ceiling' date=' but that wouldhave opened another can of worms with more playesr wanting a slice and cost go up... I think given it was runmoured that Beats basic was about 20k a week, but with bonuses etc this averaged over 30K a week in 2003, i hardly think that was 'stingy'...[/quote']

 

And this comes back to what StL said about where we want to be. In all clubs in all leagues world-wide, there is a pecking order and the better and more valuable the player, the more (quite correctly) they can command in sallary. Now at that time Beats, Bridge, Svensson and Niemi were our best players and therefore should have been paid most. Sign better players, then you pay them more. Simple! Lowe put a ceiling that meant that we would never even tread water, let alone improve.

 

IMO Lowe has never got over the fact that sport, in general, and football, in particular, does not follow the rules of just about any other business, in that the employees (the players and manager) are paid more and in some cases 4 or 5 times more than the Chairman or CEO.

Edited 23 March, 2009 by krissyboy31