Lord Duckhunter Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 It didn't help us at all on the pitch, but it was that or Barclay's pulling the plug. It has been well documented that we had to cut our overdraft by a third in one hit If the banks had as much faith in Lowe as some seem to have, and they were telling Lowe to reduce costs, which his supporters claim he has. Why on earth did they pull the plug now? Why did they bounce 3 cheques after he claims they agreed to honour them. Surely if Lowe was doing such a good job it would have been in their interests to hold out for another couple of months. In those 2 months Seson Ticket (which is gate money upfront) money would come in. Some high wage earners were out of contract and others could be sold early summer. Surely they would have waited to see what league we'd be in before pulling the plug. Personally it looks to me like they lost faith in Lowe, didn't think he'd kept his promises, or thought he was a block to investment and any chance of them getting their money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Even if one accepts we needed a cheaper manager (which I don't) - why on earth appoint Poortvliet? Can you honestly say that any person in the world, other than Lowe, would make such a mental decision? If we needed a manager to do the job for peanuts there were better options than that. Clearly we needed to try and reduce wages and take some difficult decisions, but to trot out the turgid "no choice" nonsense again just illustrates timid thinking. Worse, it shows people who bought Barnum Lowe lock stock and barrel. If I cannot afford a car to get to work, I can have a serious think about: walking a bike train bus lift from a pal hiking What I don't do is go up in my attic and build a machine to fly there with balsa wood and marmite. And that is Lowe - a total innovator with no grip of reality and less of football. Lowe coming back did NOTHING for our finances that you and me could not have done. What did he do about: better relationships with shareholders increasing revenue through the gates bringing shareholders together to help fund us through our difficulties attracting investment - ever??? Answer - nothing, zip, nada, niet, big fat zero - only just dwarved by his big fat ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Pearson was supposedly on £250k, Poortvliet maybe £50k. No way was that the disparity, and that's even before you throw in Wotte as well (and maybe even Kim Van Der Secrecy). But even if it was, then just for arguments sake I would either have thought (a) paying more for a decent manager would be a priority (i.e. success puts bums on seats), and (b) that there was no reason to go for such an inexperienced, untried and untested Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. To suggest that we only booted out Pearson and got in Poortvliet because we were skint is incredulous (and that's even before we stat ripping your salary disparity apart LOL). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Worse, it shows people who bought Barnum Lowe lock stock and barrel. If I cannot afford a car to get to work, I can have a serious think about: walking a bike train bus lift from a pal hiking What I don't do is go up in my attic and build a machine to fly there with balsa wood and marmite. And that is Lowe - a total innovator with no grip of reality and less of football. Lowe coming back did NOTHING for our finances that you and me could not have done. What did he do about: better relationships with shareholders increasing revenue through the gates bringing shareholders together to help fund us through our difficulties attracting investment - ever??? Answer - nothing, zip, nada, niet, big fat zero - only just dwarved by his big fat ego. Post of the year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 No way was that the disparity, and that's even before you throw in Wotte as well (and maybe even Kim Van Der Secrecy). But even if it was, then just for arguments sake I would either have thought (a) paying more for a decent manager would be a priority (i.e. success puts bums on seats), and (b) that there was no reason to go for such an inexperienced, untried and untested Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. To suggest that we only booted out Pearson and got in Poortvliet because we were skint is incredulous (and that's even before we stat ripping your salary disparity apart LOL). Was thinking about that the other day - I can't believe how easily the media let that go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Even if one accepts we needed a cheaper manager (which I don't) - why on earth appoint Poortvliet? Can you honestly say that any person in the world, other than Lowe, would make such a mental decision? If we needed a manager to do the job for peanuts there were better options than that. Clearly we needed to try and reduce wages and take some difficult decisions, but to trot out the turgid "no choice" nonsense again just illustrates timid thinking. I am still not convinced that Pearson didn't go because he didn't like the look of what was on offer & I believe Lowe appointed Poortvliet because he thought he would do a good job on a shoestring using 'the boysh'. I accept it failed, but I think that was the reasoning behind it. It was not 'no choice', but it was certainly limited choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 If the banks had as much faith in Lowe as some seem to have, and they were telling Lowe to reduce costs, which his supporters claim he has. Why on earth did they pull the plug now? Why did they bounce 3 cheques after he claims they agreed to honour them. Surely if Lowe was doing such a good job it would have been in their interests to hold out for another couple of months. In those 2 months Seson Ticket (which is gate money upfront) money would come in. Some high wage earners were out of contract and others could be sold early summer. Surely they would have waited to see what league we'd be in before pulling the plug. Personally it looks to me like they lost faith in Lowe, didn't think he'd kept his promises, or thought he was a block to investment and any chance of them getting their money back. He clearly was told to cut costs dramatically - even Crouch acknowledged that - & to some extent he did. Why Barclay's pulled the plug now is an interesting question - maybe they did lose faith, but whatever reason the timing was odd. But then that's banks for - they always have been & always wuill be a bunch of c**ts in it for themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Some of the papers suggest that the blame begins with Mike Wilde back in 2005/06 for thinking he knew how to run a football club, and later with Leon Crouch for much the same reason, although to be fair to both of them, they did act in good faith. Its just that they were wrong. As someone else said, this club was run for years by former merchant bankers who understood business, and had the team punching above its weight for years. When the fans turned on them because they wanted someone to blame, the end game started. Its interesting that there are still people on here blaming Lowe, despite the fact that he was only back in charge for 9 months and faced with impossible odds following the Barclay's squeeze on credit. Unfortunately, it was this mindless attitude by too many Saints fans over several years that encourage Wilde in the first place. Had Wilde and Crouch stuck with Lowe in 2005, things would certainly not have come to this and it wouldn't do any harm for a few fans to begin to realise what a mistake they made with their campaigns. The only happy ones will be those who wanted Lowe out at any price, in which case we willl now have to see what price we have to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamesaint Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Some of the papers suggest that the blame begins with Mike Wilde back in 2005/06 for thinking he knew how to run a football club, and later with Leon Crouch for much the same reason, although to be fair to both of them, they did act in good faith. Its just that they were wrong. As someone else said, this club was run for years by former merchant bankers who understood business, and had the team punching above its weight for years. When the fans turned on them because they wanted someone to blame, the end game started. Its interesting that there are still people on here blaming Lowe, despite the fact that he was only back in charge for 9 months and faced with impossible odds following the Barclay's squeeze on credit. Unfortunately, it was this mindless attitude by too many Saints fans over several years that encourage Wilde in the first place. Had Wilde and Crouch stuck with Lowe in 2005, things would certainly not have come to this and it wouldn't do any harm for a few fans to begin to realise what a mistake they made with their campaigns. The only happy ones will be those who wanted Lowe out at any price, in which case we willl now have to see what price we have to pay. Are you sure Professor?? Are there actually people on this forum who blame Lowe??? Blow me down with a feather. No wonder you are a Professor with insight like that!! Mind you. Professors often have a reputation for being unworldly. This does seem to confirm it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Some of the papers suggest that the blame begins with Mike Wilde back in 2005/06 for thinking he knew how to run a football club, and later with Leon Crouch for much the same reason, although to be fair to both of them, they did act in good faith. Its just that they were wrong. As someone else said, this club was run for years by former merchant bankers who understood business, and had the team punching above its weight for years. When the fans turned on them because they wanted someone to blame, the end game started. Its interesting that there are still people on here blaming Lowe, despite the fact that he was only back in charge for 9 months and faced with impossible odds following the Barclay's squeeze on credit. Unfortunately, it was this mindless attitude by too many Saints fans over several years that encourage Wilde in the first place. Had Wilde and Crouch stuck with Lowe in 2005, things would certainly not have come to this and it wouldn't do any harm for a few fans to begin to realise what a mistake they made with their campaigns. The only happy ones will be those who wanted Lowe out at any price, in which case we willl now have to see what price we have to pay. FFS!!! Blame the fans again!!, This complete nonsense! If you think that the fans at SMS exert pressure, try St James Park, or Eastlands or Villa Park. Do you think that Lowe did anything because of fan-pressure. He was on a loser before he came back because his record post 2003. I am not going to list them because they have been done to death on here - just like the ridiculous "Blame the Fans For Everything" mantra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HILL HEAD SAINT Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Littles article is awful but we have to accept we are not as a popular club that many have thought we were.There will be few tears for us.I expect many clubs resent us for sending them down when we survived by the skin of our teeth over the years. The fan not understanding about the need for financial stability is correct though. We need a team of players who are not special but a good unit.We have produced too many stand out players over the last few years that have been taken from us. Teams who have done well but made of journeymen but a solid team have done better as they dont have the heart torn out of it every season. you still here nick thought you would be with your hero lowe on some sunny beach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Wayman Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 I thought Hodgson knew what he was about but Lallana? £650k will be over the odds for a useless t*ss*r like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Some of the papers suggest that the blame begins with Mike Wilde back in 2005/06 for thinking he knew how to run a football club, and later with Leon Crouch for much the same reason, although to be fair to both of them, they did act in good faith. Its just that they were wrong. As someone else said, this club was run for years by former merchant bankers who understood business, and had the team punching above its weight for years. When the fans turned on them because they wanted someone to blame, the end game started. Its interesting that there are still people on here blaming Lowe, despite the fact that he was only back in charge for 9 months and faced with impossible odds following the Barclay's squeeze on credit. Unfortunately, it was this mindless attitude by too many Saints fans over several years that encourage Wilde in the first place. Had Wilde and Crouch stuck with Lowe in 2005, things would certainly not have come to this and it wouldn't do any harm for a few fans to begin to realise what a mistake they made with their campaigns. The only happy ones will be those who wanted Lowe out at any price, in which case we willl now have to see what price we have to pay. Prof, I bet pigs fly in your world don't they? Lowe CHOSE to come back, no one other than Wilde invited him. We didn't want him back. More importantly, Barclays (remember the ones who pulled the plug) didn't ask for him to come back and unseat Crouch... The Execs who spent the money we didn't have were EMPLOYED BY WILDE - Lowe's bed buddy (how strange no mention anymore of their wonderful working relationship). I didn't ever want Lowe out at any price, in fact I attended both Marches with Askham and Richards in my sights, as those were the ones backing up Rupert's harebrained ideas. Lowe's methods led us into Admin - history and experience will show that. He DIDN'T have to remove Pearson, he DIDN'T have to employ Poortvliet..but as we all know.... RUPERT KNOWS BEST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Some of the papers suggest that the blame begins with Mike Wilde back in 2005/06 for thinking he knew how to run a football club, and later with Leon Crouch for much the same reason, although to be fair to both of them, they did act in good faith. Its just that they were wrong. As someone else said, this club was run for years by former merchant bankers who understood business, and had the team punching above its weight for years. When the fans turned on them because they wanted someone to blame, the end game started. Its interesting that there are still people on here blaming Lowe, despite the fact that he was only back in charge for 9 months and faced with impossible odds following the Barclay's squeeze on credit. Unfortunately, it was this mindless attitude by too many Saints fans over several years that encourage Wilde in the first place. Had Wilde and Crouch stuck with Lowe in 2005, things would certainly not have come to this and it wouldn't do any harm for a few fans to begin to realise what a mistake they made with their campaigns. The only happy ones will be those who wanted Lowe out at any price, in which case we willl now have to see what price we have to pay. prof.....I think they meant Merchant Wonkers but got the spelling wrong..like me......But then you know the correct spelling for people like Madoc, Sandford Goodwin and other willy wonkers like Rupert.....Yes prof let us move on and leave your old boy network where it belongs:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Prof, I bet pigs fly in your world don't they? Lowe CHOSE to come back, no one other than Wilde invited him. We didn't want him back. More importantly, Barclays (remember the ones who pulled the plug) didn't ask for him to come back and unseat Crouch... The Execs who spent the money we didn't have were EMPLOYED BY WILDE - Lowe's bed buddy (how strange no mention anymore of their wonderful working relationship). I didn't ever want Lowe out at any price, in fact I attended both Marches with Askham and Richards in my sights, as those were the ones backing up Rupert's harebrained ideas. Lowe's methods led us into Admin - history and experience will show that. He DIDN'T have to remove Pearson, he DIDN'T have to employ Poortvliet..but as we all know.... RUPERT KNOWS BEST. We're all entitled to our opinions, but in my experience opinions are stronger if based on evidence, not on conjecture. We know that replacing Pearson was part of the cost-cutting as was the youth policy. We don't know whether Pearson would have worked for lower wages, or whether he would have run the club on the terms required to reduce the costs. Working with no money is certainly not the way he is having to do the job at Leicester. Ergo, its not possible to say whether Lowe HAD to remove Pearson. As for Poortvleit, like all managers, its easier to judge them after the event, ask Dowie, Micky Adams, Jewell, Ince or any of the other unemployed managers, all judged to have failed, but most capable and just as likely to suceed with another club in due course, just as JP might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 No way was that the disparity, and that's even before you throw in Wotte as well (and maybe even Kim Van Der Secrecy). But even if it was, then just for arguments sake I would either have thought (a) paying more for a decent manager would be a priority (i.e. success puts bums on seats), and (b) that there was no reason to go for such an inexperienced, untried and untested Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. To suggest that we only booted out Pearson and got in Poortvliet because we were skint is incredulous (and that's even before we stat ripping your salary disparity apart LOL). Surely Lowe should have noted last season that, despite a possible relegation, the fans were behind the team, a sort of 'feelgood factor' existed. Boosted by the obvious euphoria at the final game he should really have looked at the potential. But no. He had to do it his way. I have no proof other than this feeling that Pearson did not have his contract extended/renewed whatever because it did not fit in with Lowe's spiteful plan. Don't get me wrong, I think he had this plan brewing for a long time. The icing on the cake was the spiteful move of passing over Pearson and removing LC's man. I do think that for that action we have paid dearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonToo Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 ... and just as likely to suceed with another club in due course, just as JP might. Are you serious? JP is an old ex-pro fom the backwaters of Dutch non-league football who demonstrated zero ability to manage and motivate a CCC side while he was here. As crazy an appointment as you are likely to find anywhere and matched only perhaps by the wonder management duo of Clive Woodward and the ball juggler. Even you, Professor, must wonder if Lowe belongs on another planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 I am still not convinced that Pearson didn't go because he didn't like the look of what was on offer Well you better wake up and get in the real world. Pearson was more than happy to stay and he was more than happy to work under the financial constraints he knew would be applied. Lowe decided to curtail the arrangment because he thought he knew best with regards installing the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. You'd have to be blind or a total idiot to try and suggest Pearson turned Lowe down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 To all those who claim that Lowe has cut cost I have only two words to say: Morgan Schneiderlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 We're all entitled to our opinions, but in my experience opinions are stronger if based on evidence, not on conjecture. We know that replacing Pearson was part of the cost-cutting as was the youth policy. We don't know whether Pearson would have worked for lower wages, or whether he would have run the club on the terms required to reduce the costs. Working with no money is certainly not the way he is having to do the job at Leicester. Ergo, its not possible to say whether Lowe HAD to remove Pearson. . This is what I found out when I looked at the team Pearson put out a couple of months ago: Here's his side today: 4 loanees 11 of the squad are 23 or under (7 are 20 or under) Martin - 23 (on loan) Gilbert - 21 (on loan) Morrison - 20 (new in) Hobbs - 20 (on loan) Berner - 31 (new in) Oakley - 31 Andy King - 20 Cleverley - 19 (on loan) Dyer - 26 (new in) Fryatt - 22 Howard - 32 Subs: Pentney - No age or data (but young) Chambers - 18 Gradel - 21 Mattock - 18 Dickov - 134 Pearson has shown by his deeds that he is not averse to playing youngsters, nor wheeling and dealing on a small budget. It was pretty obvious that he would be up for such a strategy, particularly when you look back to see he said the following not long after taking over: On youth: "A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club. On working with limited funds "It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that. Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill. We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players. Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too." On youth again, but how the relegation fight must be a priority It cannot be my priority at the moment but it will get my total support in terms of fitting in with the philosophy of the club. I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it. If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees." Those that claim Pearson was only interested in big name players earning big name wages couldn't be more wrong, particularly when you look at his words and deeds in this area. To suggest that Pearson would not have wanted to work here, despite all the evidence showing otherwise and also ignoring the fact that Poortvliet and Wotte were already lined up, is actually a daming indictment of Lowe. Rather than support his footballing decisions you're actually making excuses for him because you know his first major decision was an absolute fck up. The very fact that even his most ardent supporters make excuses and are embarassed by that decision speaks volumes. As for Poortvleit, like all managers, its easier to judge them after the event, I'm sorry, but as much as I wanted Poortvliet to succeed, I think you will find there were many supporters who were questioning the appointment right from the off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGF Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Did not Lowe approach JP & Wotte before he took over again so how could he say it was a cost cutting exercise as he would not have known how much Pearson was being paid. Didnt Barclays change the overdraft in October? could that not have been a signal to the board to look at the reasons why the attendance was dropping and do something about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Man Do Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 I have been supporting the Saints for nearly 50 years and like you my expectation was as you post. But I am talking the fans who were demanding that we move to the next level in 2003 which was plainly unrealistic. I feel this outlook has cost us dearly because we have become a divided club Just so you can quantify John ... why exactly was it unrealistic to have tried to move onto the next level. Now the next level for us wouldnt have been anything as stupid as the champions league but we clearly had the chance to be a solid top ten side and potentially challenging for a uefa cup spot, with a few extra decent squad additions. We had good crowds and were doing well in the league as well. As for that article, complete ******** imo as others have said ive supported saints my entire life ive never "demanded" more than us to stay in the league we're in and to occassionally have a good go at the big boys. As for merging with Pompey only a real journalistic moron could come up with something like that its almost as clever as suggesting celtic merge with Rangers or boro merging with sunderland and the toon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Article in Sunday Times by Rod Liddle http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/rod_liddle/article6036576.ece Slags us off alot but can't disagree with his sentiments. This is probably how the rest of the football world thinks about us as well Apart from the suggested merger with Portsmouth I thought he quite literally hit the nail on the head. Somewhat ironic we call ourselves a Premiership club based on things like our ground and academy when these are the very things our ex-chairman delivered for us. That is realy our only claim, our facilities, as we have spent well under less than a third of our existence in the top flight and a fan base unwilling to support the club for the other two thirds if history is going to be a guide to the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Well you better wake up and get in the real world. Pearson was more than happy to stay and he was more than happy to work under the financial constraints he knew would be applied. Lowe decided to curtail the arrangment because he thought he knew best with regards installing the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. You'd have to be blind or a total idiot to try and suggest Pearson turned Lowe down. Do you know this for a fact? Have you some evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Just so you can quantify John ... why exactly was it unrealistic to have tried to move onto the next level. Now the next level for us wouldnt have been anything as stupid as the champions league but we clearly had the chance to be a solid top ten side and potentially challenging for a uefa cup spot, with a few extra decent squad additions. We had good crowds and were doing well in the league as well. As for that article, complete ******** imo as others have said ive supported saints my entire life ive never "demanded" more than us to stay in the league we're in and to occassionally have a good go at the big boys. As for merging with Pompey only a real journalistic moron could come up with something like that its almost as clever as suggesting celtic merge with Rangers or boro merging with sunderland and the toon. I was quite happy in the seasons prior to relegation as we were not continually at the bottom of the league like we were at the Dell. The club appeared to be financially well managed and we did did sometimes beat the bigger clubs and we invested in the Academy. Investing in the Academy seemed to be a good idea to me as we were not producing enough quality home grown players like we had done in the past so we were buying more squad players who were not really up to it which eventually led to our downfall. Of course to change the strategy and buy more expensive players was possible but without large investment unlikely as the whole wage structure at the club would have to be changed and success could not be guaranteed. What I think the articles are saying is that we were doing OK and because of the size and history of the club should have accepted that some did and some did not but the did nots seem to have been more vocal . Of course Lowe was never popular but the relegation turned this unpopularity to hate and he was driven out. Wilde was as it turned out promising investment falsely but this was what many fans wanted . However success in football is not guaranteed with investment which Lowe and his Premiership board had already thought and we are now in limbo waiting for somebody to buy the club. Whether we will be happy then who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Well you better wake up and get in the real world. Pearson was more than happy to stay and he was more than happy to work under the financial constraints he knew would be applied. Lowe decided to curtail the arrangment because he thought he knew best with regards installing the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. You'd have to be blind or a total idiot to try and suggest Pearson turned Lowe down. And, as you seem to have all the inside knowledge - was Pearson prepared to take a pay cut to stay (to be on less than Leicester would pay, for example) & do you know what Poortvliet was on. I believe - and I'm prepared to be corrected - that it was in the accounts that Pearson was on £250k & I can't imagine Poortvliet was on anything like that. And before you go on about the cost of Wotte etc, even Superman Pearson would have wanted a few staff to help him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Personally it looks to me like they lost faith in Lowe, didn't think he'd kept his promises, or thought he was a block to investment and any chance of them getting their money back. Yep, I reckon you are right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 (edited) And, as you seem to have all the inside knowledge - was Pearson prepared to take a pay cut to stay (to be on less than Leicester would pay, for example) & do you know what Poortvliet was on. I believe - and I'm prepared to be corrected - that it was in the accounts that Pearson was on £250k & I can't imagine Poortvliet was on anything like that. And before you go on about the cost of Wotte etc, even Superman Pearson would have wanted a few staff to help him. Pearson would still have had the same players some of which lack skill whilst others lake awareness of what is going on on the football field and do react in the correct manner. Edited 6 April, 2009 by John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Not surprizing its from a Murdoch rag - we upshot is we have never been popular with Sky as a prem club, simply put Sky would have preferred a club with a bigger armchair fan base than fans that actually go to games - or get away with not showing us at all... The points about dillusions of grandeur as valid, if applicable, but apart from over optimism and a call to 'SPEND' (How ironic now) after teh cup final, I woudl say on balance we have always known our place. I take issue though with the -' premiership- club' bit. Its a bit feckin rich coming from a murdoch rag to try and now when it suits them include the entire histrory of teh old 1st division and lump it in with the premiership.... when its all but purged from history in 99% of all media outlets with sky and its premiership stats leasding the way - e no longer hear of top flight goals, its 'premiership goals and appearances, titles etc as any side or player who achieved similar heights in the old 1st division, has this now 'devalued' because obviously now its the premiership it must mean so much more.... ***t. So Our defence then must surly abide by the same rules - we were a 'founding premiership side' - so too darn right we should be in there! ;-) The guy is talking out his proverbial, but thats pretty typical of the naive and oft confused ignorant knobs posing as sports journos in the Murdoch press... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Worse, it shows people who bought Barnum Lowe lock stock and barrel. If I cannot afford a car to get to work, I can have a serious think about: walking a bike train bus lift from a pal hiking What I don't do is go up in my attic and build a machine to fly there with balsa wood and marmite. And that is Lowe - a total innovator with no grip of reality and less of football. Lowe coming back did NOTHING for our finances that you and me could not have done. What did he do about: better relationships with shareholders increasing revenue through the gates bringing shareholders together to help fund us through our difficulties attracting investment - ever??? Answer - nothing, zip, nada, niet, big fat zero - only just dwarved by his big fat ego. Superb post. Top-notch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 To all those who claim that Lowe has cut cost I have only two words to say: Morgan Schneiderlin And what a f**king waste that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Do you know this for a fact? Have you some evidence? Yep, shedloads of it and if you hadn't read what has been posted up ad nauseum here since Pearson left, you'd have to be completely stupid to think that Pearson turned Lowe down. Even go back to the OS and it is patently clear to anyone with half a brain that it was our decision to relieve Pearson of his duties. And, as you seem to have all the inside knowledge - was Pearson prepared to take a pay cut to stay (to be on less than Leicester would pay, for example) & do you know what Poortvliet was on. I believe - and I'm prepared to be corrected - that it was in the accounts that Pearson was on £250k & I can't imagine Poortvliet was on anything like that. . Money was not discussed with Pearson when he met Lowe, but he was willing to renegotiate in light of our fnancial predicament. As his quotes show he was acutely aware of our problems. He had no intention nor desire of leaving and went in to his meeting with Lowe stating he wanted to stay and came out thinking he was going to. Pearson's salary was not declared in the accounts and if you think Poortvliet is only on £50k then you really are out of touch with reality (after all he had to pay Helmond £60,000 to release him). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 That Liddle article's complete tripe. His whole argument is predicated on one comment on the OS. He's been highly selective with the few facts he's managed to research. His suggestion of merging with P**tsmouth is plain silly. Merger might be rational in business terms but he knows full well that business isn't what makes football special. If he really is a Millwall fan, I wonder how he would feel about merging with West Ham. I think a few heads would get kicked in with that one, including his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 While that Liddle article is a bit annoying, and ****ed me off when I read it, it should be remembered that it's his role to be 'controversial'. Getting upset over what he's written, complaining etc is simply justifying his existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Do you know this for a fact? Have you some evidence? Wilde & Lowe had clearly been preparing for the "re-takeover" for some time before their "announcement of EGM" in when was it April? of last year. I am certain that the preparation included how to structure the footballing side of the club, as although Lowe is an innovation freak, he does appear to have a side of him that is at least organised. As we clearly know from posts on here, Lowe had meetings with the Dutch group, so even without any "ITKness" it is pretty clear that he would have had "his people" ready to go at least in outline when he and Wilde started plotting the coup. IF FOR EXAMPLE he was ready to announce an EGM in FEBRUARY of last year, that was right at the start of NP's tenure, at the time that MOST on here and even MLT was questioning the wisdom of such a "left field appointment" He then came to power in MAY, by which time NP had proven his worth. Unfortunately, the "Baldrickian cunning plan" included the Dutchies and had been worked on for at least 4 months and probably longer One thing we know about Lowe is that no matter what evidence is put in front of him, it is pretty clear he never changes his mind. So, when he met with NP, the dice was already cast. The money side of things was the "convenient smokescreen". Lowe faced a proven upcoming manager with his grand plan that had been months in the making. Pearson never stood a chance probably even IF he had taken a 50k a year salary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Some of the papers suggest that the blame begins with Mike Wilde back in 2005/06 for thinking he knew how to run a football club, and later with Leon Crouch for much the same reason, although to be fair to both of them, they did act in good faith. Its just that they were wrong. As someone else said, this club was run for years by former merchant bankers who understood business, and had the team punching above its weight for years. You live in some sort of dream world. Merchant bankers are the financial equivalent of teachers; the ones who can, do, and those who can't teach, or work in Merchant Banking. Both Michael Wilde and Leon Crouch built up their own businesses and both achieved a far greater success in their enterprises than Rupert Lowe, when he dabbled in his own business, a fairly small and insignificant retirement homes business. We are definitely not talking McCarthy Stone here; it was a minnow of a business, but conveniently for those charlatans comprising the former board, a PLC. As for your contention about these Merchant Bankers (presumably you mean Lowe and Cowan) they only came upon the scene this past decade, whereas we had been punching above our weight for about 17 years before they arrived when the club was run by accountants, builders and solicitors. so much for your argument that Merchant W*nkers are the chosen ones! Why, even some of Lowe's other businesses have hit the rocks recently. That must be fault of their customers, eh, as the business accumen of Merchant Bankers is beyond reproach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Pearson never stood a chance probably even IF he had taken a 50k a year salary He wouldn't even have got the job if he agreed to work for nothing. As you say, it was a plan hatched during that Spring and it was Lowe's decision to go that way (supported by the rest of the board). Ultimately, I have no problem with that, Lowe was in charge and it was his call with regards hiring or firing Pearson. He will have to be judged on that decision, so I find it rather galling for the odd revisionist on here to start suggesting that Pearson walked out on us because he didn't like what he saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 This is what I found out when I looked at the team Pearson put out a couple of months ago: Here's his side today: 4 loanees 11 of the squad are 23 or under (7 are 20 or under) Martin - 23 (on loan) Gilbert - 21 (on loan) Morrison - 20 (new in) Hobbs - 20 (on loan) Berner - 31 (new in) Oakley - 31 Andy King - 20 Cleverley - 19 (on loan) Dyer - 26 (new in) Fryatt - 22 Howard - 32 Subs: Pentney - No age or data (but young) Chambers - 18 Gradel - 21 Mattock - 18 Dickov - 134 Pearson has shown by his deeds that he is not averse to playing youngsters, nor wheeling and dealing on a small budget. It was pretty obvious that he would be up for such a strategy, particularly when you look back to see he said the following not long after taking over: On youth: "A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club. On working with limited funds "It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that. Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill. We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players. Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too." On youth again, but how the relegation fight must be a priority It cannot be my priority at the moment but it will get my total support in terms of fitting in with the philosophy of the club. I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it. If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees." Those that claim Pearson was only interested in big name players earning big name wages couldn't be more wrong, particularly when you look at his words and deeds in this area. To suggest that Pearson would not have wanted to work here, despite all the evidence showing otherwise and also ignoring the fact that Poortvliet and Wotte were already lined up, is actually a daming indictment of Lowe. Rather than support his footballing decisions you're actually making excuses for him because you know his first major decision was an absolute fck up. The very fact that even his most ardent supporters make excuses and are embarassed by that decision speaks volumes. I'm sorry, but as much as I wanted Poortvliet to succeed, I think you will find there were many supporters who were questioning the appointment right from the off. Very good research again Um, but I do know 1 of those loans is in from man u , and so the fees and wages would be highdont know about where the others are from) Mandaric has bankrolled Leicester for just under 10m this season alone.It is the Pompey model all overe again, not a level playing field.NP should never have left for the reason that he had united the fans and there was a hope. None of us will know whether with a much depleted squad he would have fared much better. Yes he may not have bought Gasi Morgan etc but he also would not had the very experienced and highly paid squad he used at the end of last season. Lowe made a massive mistake in Jan (although the football played was far more entertaining than we have had for some weeks now, and better than wee had last season as well.) and should have changed him sooner.There's me a fan wanting the CEO to sack the manager , something he gets stick for, odd isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_bert Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Do you still not get it - it was all down to money (or the lack of it). Apart from 5 (I accept) it was all down to money. As a CEO of a plc company, he has to put the best shine on events or the shares plummet and you go broke. All the youth thing, a cheap coach & trying to get senior players out was because Barclays were threatening to pull the plug if we didn't act. But if he'd stood up on the 1st September and said 'basically we are doing this because we are broke' we would already be in administration & possibly out of the league. I am not a fan of his by any means, but to still go on about playing youngsters and having a cheap option manager being Lowe's fault is just pointless & totally ignoring reality. We were as good as stuffed last autumn, he gave it a shot at saving us, but ultimately failed. That is reality - deal with it So why did we have money to spend on Spiderman? Money to spend on numerous,pointless loan signings who were complete gash? Shirley it would have been better to say keep Rasiak for 6 months than fork out for all those loan signings??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Very good research again Um, but I do know 1 of those loans is in from man u , and so the fees and wages would be highdont know about where the others are from) Mandaric has bankrolled Leicester for just under 10m this season alone.It is the Pompey model all overe again, not a level playing field.NP should never have left for the reason that he had united the fans and there was a hope. None of us will know whether with a much depleted squad he would have fared much better. Yes he may not have bought Gasi Morgan etc but he also would not had the very experienced and highly paid squad he used at the end of last season. Lowe made a massive mistake in Jan (although the football played was far more entertaining than we have had for some weeks now, and better than wee had last season as well.) and should have changed him sooner.There's me a fan wanting the CEO to sack the manager , something he gets stick for, odd isnt it? Nick & others - just never make the mistake that NP left the club. He was MADE to be left, in exactly the same way that JP was made to be resigned unexpectedly. In fact JP's resignation was so unexecpected even he didn't see it coming until after it had been done allegedly of course.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Very good research again Um, but I do know 1 of those loans is in from man u , and so the fees and wages would be highdont know about where the others are from) Mandaric has bankrolled Leicester for just under 10m this season alone.It is the Pompey model all overe again, not a level playing field.NP should never have left for the reason that he had united the fans and there was a hope. None of us will know whether with a much depleted squad he would have fared much better. Yes he may not have bought Gasi Morgan etc but he also would not had the very experienced and highly paid squad he used at the end of last season. But haven't you and others been saying that very often when you get youngsters from the top clubs (and Pearson has managed to pick up some from Arsenal and Liverpool as well), that their own clubs very often pay their wages;) I'd also say he must be doing something right and earning the confidence of others (as well as having good contacts) if he's convinced Wenger, Rafa and Ferguson to lend him their young stars. We can never say one way or the other whether Pearson would have been better or worse than Poortvliet (although i'm guessing only a total fckwit would plump for the latter), but it does highlight that Pearson has rebuilt his team, has played loads of youth players, has been successful (relatively speaking of course). Lowe made a massive mistake in Jan (although the football played was far more entertaining than we have had for some weeks now, and better than wee had last season as well.) and should have changed him sooner.There's me a fan wanting the CEO to sack the manager , something he gets stick for, odd isnt it? Don't rewrite history nickh, because apart from the odd one off game we were sht under Poortvliet. The table does not lie. With the exception of 3 or 4 games, that period under Poortvliet was appalling. And there's nothing wrong with wanting a manager who is useless, out of his depth and ultimately terrible, to get the boot. Sometimes (as with Wigley) the error is not in sacking the manager, but in making such a fck up of an appointment in the first place. Off the pitch this season has been a nightmare under Lowe and it has been exactly the same on it, so let's not suggest Poortvliet wasn't that bad!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 But haven't you and others been saying that very often when you get youngsters from the top clubs (and Pearson has managed to pick up some from Arsenal and Liverpool as well), that their own clubs very often pay their wages;) I'd also say he must be doing something right and earning the confidence of others (as well as having good contacts) if he's convinced Wenger, Rafa and Ferguson to lend him their young stars. We can never say one way or the other whether Pearson would have been better or worse than Poortvliet (although i'm guessing only a total fckwit would plump for the latter), but it does highlight that Pearson has rebuilt his team, has played loads of youth players, has been successful (relatively speaking of course). Don't rewrite history nickh, because apart from the odd one off game we were sht under Poortvliet. The table does not lie. With the exception of 3 or 4 games, that period under Poortvliet was appalling. And there's nothing wrong with wanting a manager who is useless, out of his depth and ultimately terrible, to get the boot. Sometimes (as with Wigley) the error is not in sacking the manager, but in making such a fck up of an appointment in the first place. Off the pitch this season has been a nightmare under Lowe and it has been exactly the same on it, so let's not suggest Poortvliet wasn't that bad!!!! Man u and Arsenal do not need to loan out players on the cheap. They have many clubs who want to snap them up and so whilst i understand your point about Pekhart (who was returned very quickly) it is chalk and cheese.Mandaric has bankrolled the club and they have the advantage of playing some super young loans from top teams, who would almost certainly get into our starting line up. I was not saying Jan was any good and am disappointed that you think i was , but the actual football and passing game was better under him until the last third.That is an observation as i like to watch proper football, with players passing and admire it when it is done properly. Sacking the manager when you have made the mistake in time is another thing you have to be good at. Run the clock back to the 70's and were Leeds correct to sack Clough after 40 odd days, should our board have got rid of LM when he had an appalling record that got us relegated and the following season we were not much better. Can you imagine how he would have fared on here in the way he treated Terry Paine who were that generations MLT? Lowe is gone and I look forward to the day when he is not the focus of ths foums debate.it will take sometime for that to happen but he and hopefully people like Askham will be gone too and then we will be able to focus on football.By then the spectre of NP's progress to the PL and England management and you and others will be able to tell me how great he is. perhaps he will be our Clough, that Leeds missed out on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Man u and Arsenal do not need to loan out players on the cheap. They do it all the time. They aren't loaning these players out to get their wages off the books (as we've done this season), they are loaning out their young players to gain experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 They do it all the time. They aren't loaning these players out to get their wages off the books (as we've done this season), they are loaning out their young players to gain experience.Not at nil , there are loan fees and appearance fees add to that the wages they would be on as they were associated to these big clubs.Yes they might subsidise them a little or as much as half but still it is major money.If it was so easy why dont all clubs loan from them? It is due to the fact that MM has bankrolled the club. The credit to NP is that he has targetted those players who seem to have done well.I dont know how many games they have played, but they had a decent squad when they went dowmn let alone the extra signings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobCharles was Thin Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 As Rod Liddle does not understand that dreams are what keep football suppiorters going, then I suggest that he stops writing about football and goes back to doing what he is most famous for: Editing the Today programme. Getting sacked by the BBC Sh***ing other men's wives. Possibly true. However, if you read his copy every Sunday the treatment of the Saints is very balanced. Ask Leeds and Ashley Cole to name two! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Nick & others - just never make the mistake that NP left the club. He was MADE to be left, in exactly the same way that JP was made to be resigned unexpectedly. In fact JP's resignation was so unexecpected even he didn't see it coming until after it had been done allegedly of course....Lol , I have no illusion that was not the case, especially with Jan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 So why did we have money to spend on Spiderman? Money to spend on numerous,pointless loan signings who were complete gash? Shirley it would have been better to say keep Rasiak for 6 months than fork out for all those loan signings??? The loan signings all combined would still only be loose change from Rasiak's wage. And please don't call me Shirley! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now