"Lowe understood to have led Barclays to consider protecting bank staff at weekend"

[SaintRobbie]

Getting put out of business over one quarter of a percent of an overdraft is pathetic. I do blame Barclays as much as anyone else in this fiasco.

 

Strange isnt it - unless you realise the bloke running it is clueless, divisive and his very association is detering buyers, investors and fans from attending.

 

I think Barclays have been very astute - bourne out by the fact that Lowe and Wilde have been so critical of them. Sounds like they were just waiting for the opportunity, Lowe bounced some cheques and hey presto... FREEDOM!

Edited 4 April, 2009 by SaintRobbie

[OldNick]

the Trust actually put it to the vote on whether to back Wilde or Lowe or Crouch

 

its members overwhelmingly voted in Wilde's favour

 

the Trust at the time publicly stated that Wilde and Crouch should work together

 

I don't think anyone thought that Wilde and the people he brought in would spend money that they/we didn't have - and that's what got us in this mess

 

Hone, Wilde and Lowe are all as guilty of this mess

 

do you think Barclays would have called it a day on the Club if Crouch, Lawrie Mac and Pearson were at the helm? - I don't!

Rebel if you read the bit in the Times that has been posted up they would have made us goners quicker if we had not taken the correct measures straight away.Unlike some fans on here barclays dont care that we worship a managerwho only won 3 in 17 games they worry if they are going to get their money back.To them we are a little zit on a face full of acne, they squeezed us when the boil was receeding.

[Cabrone]

Barclays didn't get us relegated from the prem - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't alienate the fan base - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't appoint the Gray, Wigley and Portaloo - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't tell SFC to get rid of a great manager in Pearson - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't tell SFC to blow a load of cash on catering and radio stations - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't tell SFC to loan out Rasiak, John and Saga and spend the much needed cash on some untried French kid - Lowe did.

 

I could go on even further but he's now gone so what's the point.

 

Lowe totally failed and the fact that he's lashing out at everyone else except himself leads me to believe that he is becoming mentally unstable.

 

If we do get a decent buyer and Lowe is banished for ever then I will raise a quiet glass to Barclays for finally ridding us of this idiot. Someone finally had the guts to stand up to him and call him out for his utter lack of business acumen.

[Guided Missile]

the Trust actually put it to the vote on whether to back Wilde or Lowe or Crouch

 

its members overwhelmingly voted in Wilde's favour

 

the Trust at the time publicly stated that Wilde and Crouch should work together

The main problem was that the Saints Trust was only representing a few hundred, out of touch, impressionable Lowe haters who believed that every Saints' fan thought like them. Easily manipulated by Wilde and quickly betrayed by him, many of them now congratulate Barclays for pulling the plug, when, if it was destroying the club they wanted, they should be thanking Wilde and his wasteful spending spree.

 

Why does the Trust now issue a rallying cry, when a year ago, with their messiah Wilde returning as chairman, it may have made a difference and avoided the inevitable relegation we now face?

 

Simple, really. Following a class inspired agenda that included a deliberate destruction of 94% of the club, to get rid of the 6% they hated, the majority of Saints fans realised what the Trust stood for. Now the damage has been done, all that is left is a battle to save face, while a few dreamers fight over the corpse....

[alpine_saint]

Barclays didn't get us relegated from the prem - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't alienate the fan base - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't appoint the Gray, Wigley and Portaloo - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't tell SFC to get rid of a great manager in Pearson - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't tell SFC to blow a load of cash on catering and radio stations - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't tell SFC to loan out Rasiak, John and Saga and spend the much needed cash on some untried French kid - Lowe did.

 

I could go on even further but he's now gone so what's the point.

 

Lowe totally failed and the fact that he's lashing out at everyone else except himself leads me to believe that he is becoming mentally unstable.

 

If we do get a decent buyer and Lowe is banished for ever then I will raise a quiet glass to Barclays for finally ridding us of this idiot. Someone finally had the guts to stand up to him and call him out for his utter lack of business acumen.

 

Spot on. My compliments, sir.

[um pahars]

The main problem was that the Saints Trust was only representing a few hundred, out of touch, impressionable Lowe haters who believed that every Saints' fan thought like them. Easily manipulated by Wilde and quickly betrayed by him, many of them now congratulate Barclays for pulling the plug, when, if it was destroying the club they wanted, they should be thanking Wilde and his wasteful spending spree.

 

Why does the Trust now issue a rallying cry, when a year ago, with their messiah Wilde returning as chairman, it may have made a difference and avoided the inevitable relegation we now face?

 

Simple, really. Following a class inspired agenda that included a deliberate destruction of 94% of the club, to get rid of the 6% they hated, the majority of Saints fans realised what the Trust stood for. Now the damage has been done, all that is left is a battle to save face, while a few dreamers fight over the corpse....

 

Behave yourself and move on.

[SaintRobbie]

Behave yourself and move on.

 

+1..

[OldNick]

Barclays didn't get us relegated from the prem - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't alienate the fan base - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't appoint the Gray, Wigley and Portaloo - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't tell SFC to get rid of a great manager in Pearson - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't tell SFC to blow a load of cash on catering and radio stations - Lowe did.

Barclays didn't tell SFC to loan out Rasiak, John and Saga and spend the much needed cash on some untried French kid - Lowe did.

 

I could go on even further but he's now gone so what's the point.

 

Lowe totally failed and the fact that he's lashing out at everyone else except himself leads me to believe that he is becoming mentally unstable.

 

If we do get a decent buyer and Lowe is banished for ever then I will raise a quiet glass to Barclays for finally ridding us of this idiot. Someone finally had the guts to stand up to him and call him out for his utter lack of business acumen.

I wish I lved in such a simple world that you obviously do.

[John B]

I wish I lved in such a simple world that you obviously do.

 

No you dont

 

Surely you dont want toappear a moron do you?

[OldNick]

No you dont

 

Surely you dont want toappear a moron do you?

good point...although to many on here. Lol

[Gingeletiss]

I wish I lved in such a simple world that you obviously do.

 

You do nick........you do;)

[alpine_saint]

No you dont

 

Surely you dont want toappear a moron do you?

 

What do you think his stubborn persistent support of Lowe, even now, is making him look like then ???

[Cabrone]

I wish I lved in such a simple world that you obviously do.

 

Go back to sleep NickH.

[sotonist]

Strange isnt it - unless you realise the bloke running it is clueless, divisive and his very association is detering buyers, investors and fans from attending.

 

I think Barclays have been very astute - bourne out by the fact that Lowe and Wilde have been so critical of them. Sounds like they were just waiting for the opportunity, Lowe bounced some cheques and hey presto... FREEDOM!

 

freedom at the expense of a 24 day deadline.

[spain saint]

freedom at the expense of a 24 day deadline.

 

I think he meant freedom for Barclays???

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Aviva must love Barclays. Liquidating the Holding company surely means a sale of the stadium at a value equivalent to the future income it can yield? And that's going to be way short of book value - and more importantly the amount Aviva are owed and against which I am guessing they have the stadium as security? You owe the bank £10,000 you have a problem. You owe the bank £10M they have a problem.

[St. Jason]

Rebel if you read the bit in the Times that has been posted up they would have made us goners quicker if we had not taken the correct measures straight away.Unlike some fans on here barclays dont care that we worship a managerwho only won 3 in 17 games they worry if they are going to get their money back.To them we are a little zit on a face full of acne, they squeezed us when the boil was receeding.

 

 

Think the question's here are though Nick,

 

A. do you believe we'd be in the bottom 3 under Crouch, Lawrie and Pearson?

B. do you believe we'd be loosing at home to teams like Doncaster, Forrest, Charlton under Pearson?

C. do you believe we'd be averaging crowds of 17k under Crouch, Lawrie and Pearson?

D. do you believe Crouch & Lawrie would of taken money out of the club like Lowe and Cowen?

 

If like me you answer 'no' to these questions then why do you think the bank would of withdrew its funding? Surely with the increased revenue from gate reciepts due to better football, better league standing and no Lowe the bank would of been happy, we'd of been within our agreed overdraft and everyones happy, no??

[ottery st mary]

I have spoken to my mate outside Barclays and he says it is with great regret that we chose the Lowe route over the Crouch method....I said you going in mate..He replied , " No, I bank at Nat West."

 

Sorry...Look forward Ottery and grow up...serious debate going on here.

[jonah]

A. do you believe we'd be in the bottom 3 under Crouch, Lawrie and Pearson?

 

Well obviously we don't know. But we do know that there's a fair chance we'd be more in debt and therefore either we'd have had the overdraft already called in by Barclays head office, or even worse players scrapping it out.

 

B. do you believe we'd be loosing at home to teams like Doncaster, Forrest, Charlton under Pearson?

 

Who knows, I don't think the football results are actually the main issue at the moment unfortunately. And what is wrong with Doncaster? They are a good team, do you think we should *expect* to beat them because of their name? Maybe we'd have beaten them under Pearson, maybe we'd have lost at Preston, Reading, Ipswich, Barnsley and Derby - after all, he didn't manage any away wins whilst in charge did he?

 

C. do you believe we'd be averaging crowds of 17k under Crouch, Lawrie and Pearson?

 

Yes - have you seen Leicester's gates?

 

D. do you believe Crouch & Lawrie would of taken money out of the club like Lowe and Cowen?

 

This question, and I apologise for the rudeness, is stupid. Lowe and Cowen worked as the CEOs - Crouch was a chairman and Lawrie charged the club more to turn up in hospitality than Lowe & Cowen have charged to run the whole club this season. Crouch employed Hoos and others to do the execs role - nobody was doing it for free.

 

As for Crouch and Lawrie passing round the begging bowl on Saturday, Lawrie is one of those who cashed in his free shares and charged £75k pa to turn up on Saturdays, and Crouch has spent 2 years boasting about having £2m to invest. How much have they stumped up I wonder? As for the others who cashed in their shares to support Wilde, I wonder how much Wiseman, Hunt and Gordon have paid?? Not a penny I should think.

 

[And the worst thing of all in terms of timing is that this is coincides with half term - this place will worse than usual]

[ottery st mary]

Well obviously we don't know. But we do know that there's a fair chance we'd be more in debt and therefore either we'd have had the overdraft already called in by Barclays head office, or even worse players scrapping it out.

 

 

 

Who knows, I don't think the football results are actually the main issue at the moment unfortunately. And what is wrong with Doncaster? They are a good team, do you think we should *expect* to beat them because of their name? Maybe we'd have beaten them under Pearson, maybe we'd have lost at Preston, Reading, Ipswich, Barnsley and Derby - after all, he didn't manage any away wins whilst in charge did he?

 

 

Yes - have you seen Leicester's gates?

 

 

 

This question, and I apologise for the rudeness, is stupid. Lowe and Cowen worked as the CEOs - Crouch was a chairman and Lawrie charged the club more to turn up in hospitality than Lowe & Cowen have charged to run the whole club this season. Crouch employed Hoos and others to do the execs role - nobody was doing it for free.

 

As for Crouch and Lawrie passing round the begging bowl on Saturday, Lawrie is one of those who cashed in his free shares and charged £75k pa to turn up on Saturdays, and Crouch has spent 2 years boasting about having £2m to invest. How much have they stumped up I wonder? As for the others who cashed in their shares to support Wilde, I wonder how much Wiseman, Hunt and Gordon have paid?? Not a penny I should think.

 

[And the worst thing of all in terms of timing is that this is coincides with half term - this place will worse than usual]

 

 

How long you got for half term nipper? Meet you up the common and don't forget to bring your conkers mush:D

[OldNick]

Think the question's here are though Nick,

 

A. do you believe we'd be in the bottom 3 under Crouch, Lawrie and Pearson?

B. do you believe we'd be loosing at home to teams like Doncaster, Forrest, Charlton under Pearson?

C. do you believe we'd be averaging crowds of 17k under Crouch, Lawrie and Pearson?

D. do you believe Crouch & Lawrie would of taken money out of the club like Lowe and Cowen?

 

If like me you answer 'no' to these questions then why do you think the bank would of withdrew its funding? Surely with the increased revenue from gate reciepts due to better football, better league standing and no Lowe the bank would of been happy, we'd of been within our agreed overdraft and everyones happy, no??

A.) Yes if the results he achieved were the same as hisstrike rate lasty season.Forget not LC had taken a knife to the squad like we had to he would be working with less quality.

b) Yes if we played like we did against burnley home, Coventry home, Cardiff ,Hull away, but no if we played like we did against BC and SU home.

c)Yes if we were doing so badly (I dont believe you go to watch the directors box) no if we were doing well

d) LC not sure , LM most definately(that 1 you will never convince me otherwise)

[St. Jason]

A.) Yes if the results he achieved were the same as hisstrike rate lasty season.Forget not LC had taken a knife to the squad like we had to he would be working with less quality.

b) Yes if we played like we did against burnley home, Coventry home, Cardiff ,Hull away, but no if we played like we did against BC and SU home.

c)Yes if we were doing so badly (I dont believe you go to watch the directors box) no if we were doing well

d) LC not sure , LM most definately(that 1 you will never convince me otherwise)

 

Nick in answer to your points mate -

 

A. Pearson came into a club with something like 13 games left, the team had just been knocked out of the cup to league 1 Bristol, we were a club in free fall. In my opinion given a full pre-season he'd of done a whole lot better than Jan. These are not idiots we are talking about, Crouch is a very succesful business man, he knows who to cut his cloth as the poor men and women at LPE will testify having had to take reduncy. Pearson spoke to his entire squad when he took over, he told them there would be no time for the youth at the time because of the seriousness of the situation, but their time would come. (not rumour, i know 3 of the reserves)

 

B. see answer for A, given a full pre-season i honestly do believe we'd be better of than under Jan.

 

C. see answer A & B

 

D. I agree about Lawrie, i know he's taken money in the past, but, and i do believe its a big but, I also feel given the seriousness of our problems niether he or Crouch would of taken anything from the club!

 

The bottom line is though Nick, Lowe's was not the only route we could have taken, I honestly believe that if we'd stuck with Pearson and Crouch we'd be in a much better posistion on and of the pitch!

[St. Jason]

Originally Posted by St. Jason

A. do you believe we'd be in the bottom 3 under Crouch, Lawrie and Pearson?

 

Well obviously we don't know. But we do know that there's a fair chance we'd be more in debt and therefore either we'd have had the overdraft already called in by Barclays head office, or even worse players scrapping called in by Barclays head office, or even worse players scrapping it out.

 

So let me get this straight then Jonah, we don't know where we'd be under Crouch and Pearson in the league BUT we do know we'd be in more debt and the overdraft already called in!!!!!!!

 

Brilliantly impartial!!!!

[dubai_phil]

The bottom line is though Nick, Lowe's was not the only route we could have taken, I honestly believe that if we'd stuck with Pearson and Crouch we'd be in a much better posistion on and of the pitch!

 

Think history shows that if we had stuck with anybody EXCEPT JP we'd have been in a much better position on and off the pitch.

 

Too much inexperience..

 

It can be argued that Lowe may have handled the finances better than anyone else, (not withstanding the divided fan base) but what has killed us was his stupid decision to have not only inexperienced PLAYERS but also an INEXPERIENCED manager.

 

And even IF people want to keep banging the "he was all we could afford" drum, there were many EXPERIENCED people out there who could have come in and worked for similar salaries to JP. Just they were never even considered, and many of them TRIED to apply

[jonah]

So let me get this straight then Jonah, we don't know where we'd be under Crouch and Pearson in the league BUT we do know we'd be in more debt and the overdraft already called in!!!!!!!

 

Brilliantly impartial!!!!

 

But as you alluded to in your reply to nickh, you thought LC and LM would not take money out of the club when it was in trouble. Well I hate to point it out but we were in dire trouble last season, it's just that those "in charge" had their heads in the sand and did nothing about it. Did LM stop his ambassadors pay when LC became chairman? No, hence it's a fair assumption that they weren't cutting their cloth as much as they needed to - after all, paying Lawrie £75k pa for shaking hands is not really top of the priority list when facing administration due to reckless overspending.

 

So, did LC not really understand how bad things were, or did he and LM not care enough to cut back all the costs as soon as possible?

[um pahars]

Think history shows that if we had stuck with anybody EXCEPT JP we'd have been in a much better position on and off the pitch.

 

Too much inexperience..

 

It can be argued that Lowe may have handled the finances better than anyone else, (not withstanding the divided fan base) but what has killed us was his stupid decision to have not only inexperienced PLAYERS but also an INEXPERIENCED manager.

 

And even IF people want to keep banging the "he was all we could afford" drum, there were many EXPERIENCED people out there who could have come in and worked for similar salaries to JP. Just they were never even considered, and many of them TRIED to apply

 

Absolutely.

 

The most important person at any football club is the manager. Our insistence for going down the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up with an inexperienced (and hopeless) manager backfired massively. From then onwards it was game over with a losing team (particulalry at home) ensuring attendances were too low with a corresponding drop in revenue.

 

We ended up in a viscous circle as opposed to a potential virtuous circle had we built on the relatively stronger position we had with Pearson in charge (who whilst no world beater, showed what he could do in his short stint here and has proved again at Leicester).

[St Paul]

But as you alluded to in your reply to nickh, you thought LC and LM would not take money out of the club when it was in trouble. Well I hate to point it out but we were in dire trouble last season, it's just that those "in charge" had their heads in the sand and did nothing about it. Did LM stop his ambassadors pay when LC became chairman? No, hence it's a fair assumption that they weren't cutting their cloth as much as they needed to - after all, paying Lawrie £75k pa for shaking hands is not really top of the priority list when facing administration due to reckless overspending.

 

So, did LC not really understand how bad things were, or did he and LM not care enough to cut back all the costs as soon as possible?

 

Didn't Lowe and Wilde ask Lawrie to stay on. So they must have thought he was worth the expenses he was paid. Or is it ok for Lowe to pay him expenses, but not Crouch?

 

Did Lowe and Cowan receive their money last month?

[um pahars]

Didn't Lowe and Wilde ask Lawrie to stay on. So they must have thought he was worth the expenses he was paid. Or is it ok for Lowe to pay him expenses, but not Crouch?

 

Very good spot.

 

Here's some words from the Echo regarding this:

 

 

 

He was appointed a director on the football board and given a three-year contract to run the Ambassadors Club and to try and attract back corporate hospitality customers who had walked away from the club.

 

Lowe and Wilde wanted him to continue in his contracted ambassadorial role but McMenemy, who played a key role in the appointment of Nigel Pearson, felt it would be hypocritical of him to do so and has resigned from the post, with his contract officially cancelled at the end of its second year, which falls next month.

 

Football board chairman Wilde confirmed the club's position and said they will now look for a figurehead to take over from McMenemy.

 

"We were happy to have Lawrie for the other season on his contract and not only potentially just that but if it went well to renew it as well," he said.

 

 

 

Personally, I remain to be convinced that it was value for money (although Andy Oldknow was adamant it was self financing and sales had been pushed up by this initiative), but I'm not sure it can be used as a stick to beat Crouch with when Lowe and Wilde were apparently happy to continue with the arrangement (and even be up for extending it). Just some more double standards on here though I suppose.

Edited 6 April, 2009 by um pahars

[St. Jason]

Well obviously we don't know. But we do know that there's a fair chance we'd be more in debt and therefore either we'd have had the overdraft already called in by Barclays head office, or even worse players scrapping it out.

 

 

 

Who knows, I don't think the football results are actually the main issue at the moment unfortunately. And what is wrong with Doncaster? They are a good team, do you think we should *expect* to beat them because of their name? Maybe we'd have beaten them under Pearson, maybe we'd have lost at Preston, Reading, Ipswich, Barnsley and Derby - after all, he didn't manage any away wins whilst in charge did he?

 

 

 

Yes - have you seen Leicester's gates?

 

 

 

This question, and I apologise for the rudeness, is stupid. Lowe and Cowen worked as the CEOs - Crouch was a chairman and Lawrie charged the club more to turn up in hospitality than Lowe & Cowen have charged to run the whole club this season. Crouch employed Hoos and others to do the execs role - nobody was doing it for free.

 

As for Crouch and Lawrie passing round the begging bowl on Saturday, Lawrie is one of those who cashed in his free shares and charged £75k pa to turn up on Saturdays, and Crouch has spent 2 years boasting about having £2m to invest. How much have they stumped up I wonder? As for the others who cashed in their shares to support Wilde, I wonder how much Wiseman, Hunt and Gordon have paid?? Not a penny I should think.

 

[And the worst thing of all in terms of timing is that this is coincides with half term - this place will worse than usual]

 

Didn't Lowe and Wilde ask Lawrie to stay on. So they must have thought he was worth the expenses he was paid. Or is it ok for Lowe to pay him expenses, but not Crouch?

 

Did Lowe and Cowan receive their money last month?

 

 

Thats how I remember things St. Paul, no doubt Jonah will have a different slant on it though!

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10154

[SW11_Saint]

The main problem was that the Saints Trust was only representing a few hundred, out of touch, impressionable Lowe haters who believed that every Saints' fan thought like them. Easily manipulated by Wilde and quickly betrayed by him, many of them now congratulate Barclays for pulling the plug, when, if it was destroying the club they wanted, they should be thanking Wilde and his wasteful spending spree.

 

Why does the Trust now issue a rallying cry, when a year ago, with their messiah Wilde returning as chairman, it may have made a difference and avoided the inevitable relegation we now face?

 

Simple, really. Following a class inspired agenda that included a deliberate destruction of 94% of the club, to get rid of the 6% they hated, the majority of Saints fans realised what the Trust stood for. Now the damage has been done, all that is left is a battle to save face, while a few dreamers fight over the corpse....

GM - he's gone. Get over it. Have a good cry if that helps, but he's gone.

 

Time to move on...

[John B]

Absolutely.

 

The most important person at any football club is the manager. Our insistence for going down the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up with an inexperienced (and hopeless) manager backfired massively. From then onwards it was game over with a losing team (particulalry at home) ensuring attendances were too low with a corresponding drop in revenue.

 

We ended up in a viscous circle as opposed to a potential virtuous circle had we built on the relatively stronger position we had with Pearson in charge (who whilst no world beater, showed what he could do in his short stint here and has proved again at Leicester).

 

I agree it used to be the manager but is it today when they have little chance in building a team for the future before being sacked.

 

 

Successful managers need successful goalscorers and Fryatt is successful at Leicester

 

 

 

 

Burley I suppose had a go but his choice of player proved poor same as his choice at Ipswich

Edited 6 April, 2009 by John B

[sidthesquid]

Absolutely.

 

The most important person at any football club is the manager. Our insistence for going down the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up with an inexperienced (and hopeless) manager backfired massively. From then onwards it was game over with a losing team (particulalry at home) ensuring attendances were too low with a corresponding drop in revenue.

 

We ended up in a viscous circle as opposed to a potential virtuous circle had we built on the relatively stronger position we had with Pearson in charge (who whilst no world beater, showed what he could do in his short stint here and has proved again at Leicester).

 

As I always think of you as Um Pedant, because you pick up on every tiny inaccuracy in anyone else statement, could I ask what a viscous circle is? It sounds nasty.

[sidthesquid]

Also, three things that really, really irritate me on this site - 1) the people that claim that Nigel Pearson is the greatest living Englishman 2) That Leon Crouch was not to blame for anything, ever & 3) that Lowe was responsible for everything that ever went wrong anywhere, ever.

For what it's worth I thought Pearson was okay as manager, Crouch meant well, and Rupert is a rosy-cheeked twot who had to go, but it is so boring trying to engage in debate with prejudiced people with closed minds & it always makes me end up defending the indefensible (ie Rupert) because I get wound up by other people's bigotry

[SW11_Saint]

As I always think of you as Um Pedant, because you pick up on every tiny inaccuracy in anyone else statement, could I ask what a viscous circle is? It sounds nasty.

It is similar to a vicious circle, but just more transparent. That is, the appointment of JP was clearly ridiculous, as all could see (bar our 'revolutionary board' of course).

[SW11_Saint]

Also, three things that really, really irritate me on this site - 1) the people that claim that Nigel Pearson is the greatest living Englishman 2) That Leon Crouch was not to blame for anything, ever & 3) that Lowe was responsible for everything that ever went wrong anywhere, ever.

For what it's worth I thought Pearson was okay as manager, Crouch meant well, and Rupert is a rosy-cheeked twot who had to go, but it is so boring trying to engage in debate with prejudiced people with closed minds & it always makes me end up defending the indefensible (ie Rupert) because I get wound up by other people's bigotry

There endeth the sermon (we hope!).

 

For the record I think most on this board agree with all of what you say, it's those (in power) who refuse to accept ANY responsibilty who rile people.

[um pahars]

Also, three things that really, really irritate me on this site - 1) the people that claim that Nigel Pearson is the greatest living Englishman 2) That Leon Crouch was not to blame for anything, ever & 3) that Lowe was responsible for everything that ever went wrong anywhere, ever.

For what it's worth I thought Pearson was okay as manager, Crouch meant well, and Rupert is a rosy-cheeked twot who had to go, but it is so boring trying to engage in debate with prejudiced people with closed minds & it always makes me end up defending the indefensible (ie Rupert) because I get wound up by other people's bigotry

 

As SW11 points out, I think the vast majority of people on here

 

(a) don't think Pearson is the greatest (but maybe a better bet than Poortvliet),

 

(b) don't think Crouch is not to blame for anything (many, including himself have admitted he ccked up over some things)

 

© don't think Lowe is to blame for everything

 

Although things get heated on here, the vast majority of people are fairly balanced in their views, although as is the case in everyday life, those at either extreme seem to attract the most attention.

[St. Jason]

As SW11 points out, I think the vast majority of people on here

 

(a) don't think Pearson is the greatest (but maybe a better bet than Poortvliet),

 

(b) don't think Crouch is not to blame for anything (many, including himself have admitted he ccked up over some things)

 

© don't think Lowe is to blame for everything

 

Although things get heated on here, the vast majority of people are fairly balanced in their views, although as is the case in everyday life, those at either extreme seem to attract the most attention.

 

I agree with some but not all -

 

A. Agree, never said Pearson was the greatest but 100% deserved this season to prove himself, and a much safer bet than Jan.

 

B. Don't really see what Crouch is to blame for. He backed Wilde but Wilde has/had a personal fortune, had a plan, a manifesto etc, why would he not believe him. He appointed Dodd & Gorman, saw it wasn't working, moved them on and appointed Pearson!

 

C. Agree, not everything, just most of it, Sturrock, Wigley, Redknapp, relegation!