um pahars Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 How about player wages to turnover ratio, allowed to rise to 81% under the Wilde, Hone and Crouch watch. I wonder what was Norwich's ratio and if the overheads had an impact on pricing. I wonder what the ratio was at Charlton, Basingstoke, Andover or Salisbury;) Who else do you support ??
Ponty Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 why is he not allowed as he is perceived a RL sided poster and the really negative posters are given free reign.It is a forum for all opinions I thought.As long as he is not abusive let him speak Well, quite.
um pahars Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 why is he not allowed as he is perceived a RL sided poster and the really negative posters are given free reign.It is a forum for all opinions I thought.As long as he is not abusive let him speak He's about as pro Lowe as Scooby was (in that he's actually more anti anything on here that will get a rise).
Fan The Flames Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 why is he not allowed as he is perceived a RL sided poster and the really negative posters are given free reign.It is a forum for all opinions I thought.As long as he is not abusive let him speak So if you are all for being unbiased then why do you constantly jump on Stanley or Alpines posts and why do you always call posters that you don't agree with negative.
OldNick Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 He's about as pro Lowe as Scooby was (in that he's actually more anti anything on here that will get a rise).Lol, I know what you mean but he does put some good points across at times.I understand where you are personally coming from but for the average debate he adds some spice.We dont want to go too middle ground.I liked scooby anyway as he really knew how to turn thre knife and get people going.It was amusing seeing the bites
OldNick Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 So if you are all for being unbiased then why do you constantly jump on Stanley or Alpines posts and why do you always call posters that you don't agree with negative. Excuse me, Stanley and myself have a very friendly relationship IMO whilst me and Alpine have a good understanding, he is wrong and i am always right, it is only when he vies away from that track do we fall out. ps he is negative and if we had a poll it would pan out that way. Alps is ok anyway
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 Lol, I know what you mean but he does put some good points across at times.I understand where you are personally coming from but for the average debate he adds some spice.We dont want to go too middle ground.I liked scooby anyway as he really knew how to turn thre knife and get people going.It was amusing seeing the bites He posts to deliberately wind people up. Therefore he shouldn't mind too much if people get wound up.
OldNick Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 He posts to deliberately wind people up. Therefore he shouldn't mind too much if people get wound up.I dont know if that is the case but if he is he certainly knows how to get under some peoples skin very easily.You watc hhim make a very fair assessment and loads pile in to have a go, wheras others say similar and it is left alone.
OldNick Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 He posts ****** to wind people up....he's a troll Perhaps, it is only when he is provoked that I believe he oges over the top.I have been the victim of it myself so i do know how he can act at time
um pahars Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 Lol, I know what you mean but he does put some good points across at times. “There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.”
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 “There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.” Well why don't you stop standing on the shore then?
SW11_Saint Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 its never going to be easy comparing 1 season to the next. had the FL not stuck -10 on us just before a crucial game we might well have had the fight in us to get the points we needed and gone on to get enough points to stay up. Wotte took on a team that was in really bad trouble at the bottom and pearson took on a team that was mid table and needed guidence. Wotte was hear already so knew the set up. pearson had better players at his disposal. Pearson didnt exactly keep us up. Other teams losing kept us up. hands down I would prefer Pearson but its not fair to compare the 2 on what they both had to do. No, Pearson kept us up - that is irrefutable FACT. To say he didn't and that is was merely other teams losing, is like us absolving JP/Wotte of everything and putting it down simply to other teams "winning"... (yes, it really does sound as daft as that!). Also, Wotte has been around all season - do you really think he had NO input into the first half of the season? Pearson had to come in cold on the back of Dudd and Gormless, which in itself was a feat. I'm no statistician, but if we were "mid table" we were never comfortably so, as you seem to be implying (i.e. that Pearson actually took us down the table from some position of comfort). PS Even had we not had the -10 this year, I don't think our performance would have changed one iota. Again, we'll never know - all we do know is this year we have been relegated, last year we survived.
um pahars Posted 18 May, 2009 Posted 18 May, 2009 (edited) No, Pearson kept us up - that is irrefutable FACT. To say he didn't and that is was merely other teams losing, is like us absolving JP/Wotte of everything and putting it down simply to other teams "winning"... (yes, it really does sound as daft as that!). If you take Plymouth as the last game under the old regimes, then after 33 games we were 19th. Whereas in the 13 games under Pearson we were 13th, so hardly relying on other teams losing. PWDLCSFtSFAGDPtPPG 1Stoke City3316116675843+15591.79 2Watford3317881045440+14591.79 3Bristol City33161071184039+1581.76 4West Bromwich Albion321679946640+26551.72 5Charlton Athletic33141091154636+10521.58 6Ipswich Town3314910985141+10511.55 7Plymouth Argyle331310101374232+10491.48 8Burnley3212119784441+3471.47 9Hull City32121191063936+3471.47 10Crystal Palace33111396103833+5461.39 11Cardiff City32111110884240+2441.38 12Wolverhampton Wndrs3211111014133034-4441.38 13Norwich City33119139103241-9421.27 14Barnsley321010128123749-12401.25 15Sheffield United329121110123436-2391.22 16Queens Park Rangers3210913974249-7391.22 17Blackpool3391212954142-1391.18 18Coventry City31106154133446-12361.16 19Southampton3310815794255-13381.15 20Leicester City338131212123331+2371.12 21Sheffield Wednesday3195178103340-7321.03 22Preston North End3296179123140-9331.03 23Colchester United3261412154552-7321.00 24S****horpe United33710168133149-18310.94 PWDLCSFtSFAGDPtPPG 1Hull City14914532611+15282.00 2Sheffield United14833512215+7271.93 3Crystal Palace1374273209+11251.92 4Wolverhampton Wndrs14752522314+9261.86 5West Bromwich Albion14752512215+7261.86 6Preston North End14653441916+3231.64 7Stoke City13553541112-1201.54 8Sheffield Wednesday15582332115+6231.53 9Cardiff City14554551715+2201.43 10Ipswich Town13463331415-1181.38 11Queens Park Rangers14473551817+1191.36 12Bristol City134454414140161.23 13Southampton13373341417-3161.23 14Plymouth Argyle134361418180151.15 15Blackpool13364231822-4151.15 16S****horpe United13436231520-5151.15 17Leicester City1343657914-5151.15 18Coventry City154565418180171.13 19Barnsley14437471516-1151.07 20Burnley14437331626-10151.07 21Norwich City13418331718-1131.00 22Charlton Athletic13337141722-5120.92 23Watford1318437816-8110.85 24Colchester United141310121734-1760.43 Edited 18 May, 2009 by um pahars
Frank's cousin Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 (edited) Is there an element of 'the ladies do protest to much' in some of the angry responses to NC because of his 'pro-lowe' stance? Its the biggest source of frustration as well as amusement that there are some on here that refuse to even discuss or debate some issues if: a) the poster is perceived as pro Lowe, or b) the idea being supported or endorsed was inititated by Lowe despite not necessarily supporting the man.... All this does is hinders proper debate and discussion about the merits of some good ideas -whoever initiated them... and its like an infection - I suspect there are some of you out there that simply refuse to say anything positive about anything associated with Lowe because despite deep down recognising some positives, you are simply too frightened to admit to it publically because of this rather childish response and labels and tags bandied around by the ignorant? Lowe was simply like most people - some good, some bad, talks sense, talks crap - just so happens that a lot of what he did and talked about as chairman did not work... and he had teh arrogance never to admit his errors which winds us up, but that does not mean EVERYTHING was not worth discussing and it certainly does not mean that anyone with an alternative approach to Lowe must therefor be RIGHT which is the impression quite a few folk give? Come on FFS, this is a forum for debate and discussion which takes all opinion and all sorts - also if we want to find a solution that we all agree on, that we feel is the very best way forward for saints, you have to be open minded and acknowledge that ideas (and good ideas) can come from most unlikely sources. Narrow minded dismissiveness merely limits the options. I know UP and other have sometimes accused me of having some sort agenda against Crouch - and its fair to say that part of this attitude has been a bit mischievous on my part as a direct response to those so dissmissive of everything lowe, (even simply discussing the logic or rationale behind ideas that ultimately failed) and were so up Crouches backside. Crouch had his own merits and good ideas too and I would be happy to discuss those, but only with those who have open minds towards all. To much deeply polarised opinion in many cases on a refusal to get over the simplistic and superficial result and not enough willingness to ask the right questions before drawing conclusions. If that sounds patronizing Alpine - well tough, because thats the perception that is given by those so instantantly dismissive of any opinion that is not theirs (or the popular one) - and usually from those that respond with agressive one line dismissive ****** rather than taking the time to engage in proper debate and actually give an opinion and what they base it on... Edited 19 May, 2009 by Frank's cousin
alpine_saint Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 Is there an element of 'the ladies do protest to much' in some of the angry responses to NC because of his 'pro-lowe' stance? Its the biggest source of frustration as well as amusement that there are some on here that refuse to even discuss or debate some issues if: a) the poster is perceived as pro Lowe, or b) the idea being supported or endorsed was inititated by Lowe despite not necessarily supporting the man.... All this does is hinders proper debate and discussion about the merits of some good ideas -whoever initiated them... and its like an infection - I suspect there are some of you out there that simply refuse to say anything positive about anything associated with Lowe because despite deep down recognising some positives, you are simply too frightened to admit to it publically because of this rather childish response and labels and tags bandied around by the ignorant? Lowe was simply like most people - some good, some bad, talks sense, talks crap - just so happens that a lot of what he did and talked about as chairman did not work... and he had teh arrogance never to admit his errors which winds us up, but that does not mean EVERYTHING was not worth discussing and it certainly does not mean that anyone with an alternative approach to Lowe must therefor be RIGHT which is the impression quite a few folk give? Come on FFS, this is a forum for debate and discussion which takes all opinion and all sorts - also if we want to find a solution that we all agree on, that we feel is the very best way forward for saints, you have to be open minded and acknowledge that ideas (and good ideas) can come from most unlikely sources. Narrow minded dismissiveness merely limits the options. I know UP and other have sometimes accused me of having some sort agenda against Crouch - and its fair to say that part of this attitude has been a bit mischievous on my part as a direct response to those so dissmissive of everything lowe, (even simply discussing the logic or rationale behind ideas that ultimately failed) and were so up Crouches backside. Crouch had his own merits and good ideas too and I would be happy to discuss those, but only with those who have open minds towards all. To much deeply polarised opinion in many cases on a refusal to get over the simplistic and superficial result and not enough willingness to ask the right questions before drawing conclusions. If that sounds patronizing Alpine - well tough, because thats the perception that is given by those so instantantly dismissive of any opinion that is not theirs (or the popular one) - and usually from those that respond with agressive one line dismissive ****** rather than taking the time to engage in proper debate and actually give an opinion and what they base it on... I'd rather respond with aggressive 1-line dismissive ****** than tedious and banal 1000-line dismissive ****** like you do (and as you have done here). I enjoyed the humilliating back-track on Crouch though. Very entertaining. Still the bare minimum you could get away with in the light of the news that Crouch is propping the club up though wasnt it ? Talk about bad grace...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 I'd rather respond with aggressive 1-line dismissive ****** than tedious and banal 1000-line dismissive ****** like you do (and as you have done here). I enjoyed the humilliating back-track on Crouch though. Very entertaining. Still the bare minimum you could get away with in the light of the news that Crouch is propping the club up though wasnt it ? Talk about bad grace... I am sure you are on a wind up Alpine because once again you show your true colours - keep up your 'ignorance ios bliss pathetic sniping if you like, no skin off my nose, but with each such post you merely confirm your ignorance. As to CRouch 'propping up the club' thats merely a rumour and I am surprized you heard it from deep wityhin his rectum... read the above again and previous posts and there is no back tracking...but you obviously dont have the intelligence to differentiate between posts too blinkered in your outlook.... jeez
Wes Tender Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 Is there an element of 'the ladies do protest to much' in some of the angry responses to NC because of his 'pro-lowe' stance? Its the biggest source of frustration as well as amusement that there are some on here that refuse to even discuss or debate some issues if: a) the poster is perceived as pro Lowe, or b) the idea being supported or endorsed was inititated by Lowe despite not necessarily supporting the man.... Could it not be that the angry responses directed at those perceived to be pro-Lowe, are mainly because Lowe was the main architect of our current dire circumstances. It is only natural that those who love the club will feel antagonistic towards anybody who they believe did great harm to it and therefore by extension to those who attempt to defend them. In 19's case, he is rather like a fish out of water at the moment, as he has always been Lowe's champion and indeed Crouch's detractor. It must be extremely irksome for him to be reminded that Lowe's bizarre experiment was predicted to fail from day one by many and that has come to pass. Also to see that Crouch has dipped his hand in his pocket to pay the players' wages, an act that is helping to keep our heads above water in the short term. It must be painful for 19 to be reminded that he has been so completely wrong.
alpine_saint Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 I am sure you are on a wind up Alpine because once again you show your true colours - keep up your 'ignorance ios bliss pathetic sniping if you like' date=' no skin off my nose, but with each such post you merely confirm your ignorance. As to CRouch 'propping up the club' thats merely a rumour and I am surprized you heard it from deep wityhin his rectum... read the above again and previous posts and there is no back tracking...but you obviously dont have the intelligence to differentiate between posts too blinkered in your outlook.... jeez[/quote'] You are a bigot and the "balance" veneer is wearing thin. The ignorance/intelligence barb is also being overplayed, you have no more information than any of us, yet you claim the right to dismiss Crouch's actions as rumours despite the fact he has a proven track record of sticking his hand in his pocket, unlike your Messiah that you are so scared to admit to worshipping.
Tamesaint Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 Could it not be that the angry responses directed at those perceived to be pro-Lowe, are mainly because Lowe was the main architect of our current dire circumstances. It is only natural that those who love the club will feel antagonistic towards anybody who they believe did great harm to it and therefore by extension to those who attempt to defend them. In 19's case, he is rather like a fish out of water at the moment, as he has always been Lowe's champion and indeed Crouch's detractor. It must be extremely irksome for him to be reminded that Lowe's bizarre experiment was predicted to fail from day one by many and that has come to pass. Also to see that Crouch has dipped his hand in his pocket to pay the players' wages, an act that is helping to keep our heads above water in the short term. It must be painful for 19 to be reminded that he has been so completely wrong. I am sure that he will be the first on here to admit he was wrong!!
alpine_saint Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 Could it not be that the angry responses directed at those perceived to be pro-Lowe, are mainly because Lowe was the main architect of our current dire circumstances. It is only natural that those who love the club will feel antagonistic towards anybody who they believe did great harm to it and therefore by extension to those who attempt to defend them. In 19's case, he is rather like a fish out of water at the moment, as he has always been Lowe's champion and indeed Crouch's detractor. It must be extremely irksome for him to be reminded that Lowe's bizarre experiment was predicted to fail from day one by many and that has come to pass. Also to see that Crouch has dipped his hand in his pocket to pay the players' wages, an act that is helping to keep our heads above water in the short term. It must be painful for 19 to be reminded that he has been so completely wrong. Not only 19, it seems...
Wes Tender Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 I am sure that he will be the first on here to admit he was wrong!! And Lowe will also hold his hands up and apologise at the same time. Simultaneoulsy, an entire squadron of pigs will cross the sky.
alpine_saint Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 And Lowe will also hold his hands up and apologise at the same time. Simultaneoulsy, an entire squadron of pigs will cross the sky. before or after Paul Allen's yacht arrives ?
Frank's cousin Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 Could it not be that the angry responses directed at those perceived to be pro-Lowe, are mainly because Lowe was the main architect of our current dire circumstances. It is only natural that those who love the club will feel antagonistic towards anybody who they believe did great harm to it and therefore by extension to those who attempt to defend them. In 19's case, he is rather like a fish out of water at the moment, as he has always been Lowe's champion and indeed Crouch's detractor. It must be extremely irksome for him to be reminded that Lowe's bizarre experiment was predicted to fail from day one by many and that has come to pass. Also to see that Crouch has dipped his hand in his pocket to pay the players' wages, an act that is helping to keep our heads above water in the short term. It must be painful for 19 to be reminded that he has been so completely wrong. Think you hit the nail on the head with some of the antagonism - I can fully understand that and as I said previously, its sometimes incredibly frustrating and difficult to stand up and defend an idea or concept that LOwe initiated, when it fails because of either **** poor implementation, bad timing or inexperience or just plain wrong for the circumstances - especially when he compounds it with his his appalling PR and arrogance, but that does not make 'prudence' and living within our means, or investment in youth or even a continental system wrong in totality and thats the sort of thing that I do try and defend - not the man initiating them. Lowe's name attached does bring its own set of problems though There will always be times when as fans we support ideas that later turn out to have been wrong and most sensible folk are happy to admit 'I got that one wrong' - but too often teh sense of schardenfreude or simple nasty 'I told you so's' makes it pretty difficult to admit - or more commonly the actual situation is more complex. The classic is teh one you refer to - the Dutch Duo and youth - risky and 'barve' or stupid and ignorant? you take your pick - I thought its was a combination risky and certainly brave, but also Lowe had misread the positive feeling fans had following Perasons survival run in - dropped a clanger, but would have been oK had the Duo delivered and there were early positive signs of encouragement - sure the obvious is it wont work, as has been proven, but should fans feel ashamed of being SUPPORTIVE and POSITIVE about a new season and new approach even if eventually doomed? and does that somehow mean we are suddenly Lowe supporters because we suppoted the team and were excited by teh possibilty? sorry i dont believe that is so. Finally it works all ways- so far I have for example resited 1) taking the **** out of all those who 'got it wriong about Wilde 2) all those who thought admin was a good idea...why? because its easy to see positives in these things and thus feel compelled to believe, its not naiveity but passion ruling head and there is nothing bad about that. As for CRouch I will happily (and have always done) give him the credit for the good he has done and is doing (if he has in deed dipped in again he is a legend for that), but I simply struggle with his big gob and 'showey' attitude that is ego driven... as I struggled with Lowes arrogance and dismissiveness towards fans... cant really see where Alpine gets his vitriol from, but it takes allsorts I guess...
lenwilkins Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 ... All this does is hinders proper debate and discussion about the merits of some good ideas -whoever initiated them... and its like an infection - I suspect there are some of you out there that simply refuse to say anything positive about anything associated with Lowe because despite deep down recognising some positives, you are simply too frightened to admit to it publically because of this rather childish response and labels and tags bandied around by the ignorant?.... Hitler loved his dog and Churchill used to drink too much. Sure we're all human. The facts are that Lowe f*cked us up and at present Crouch's cash (paying the wages) is all that's saving the club from oblivion. In my opinion that's a balanced view. Thanks Leon - you're up there with the Saints greats.
Foxstone Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 Could it not be that the angry responses directed at those perceived to be pro-Lowe, are mainly because Lowe was the main architect of our current dire circumstances. It is only natural that those who love the club will feel antagonistic towards anybody who they believe did great harm to it and therefore by extension to those who attempt to defend them. In 19's case, he is rather like a fish out of water at the moment, as he has always been Lowe's champion and indeed Crouch's detractor. It must be extremely irksome for him to be reminded that Lowe's bizarre experiment was predicted to fail from day one by many and that has come to pass. Also to see that Crouch has dipped his hand in his pocket to pay the players' wages, an act that is helping to keep our heads above water in the short term. It must be painful for 19 to be reminded that he has been so completely wrong. Indeed that is the case. For me it includes all our executive and non-executive directors over the past 6 years - And a couple of managers too !
John B Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 Hitler loved his dog and Churchill used to drink too much. Sure we're all human. The facts are that Lowe f*cked us up and at present Crouch's cash (paying the wages) is all that's saving the club from oblivion. In my opinion that's a balanced view. Thanks Leon - you're up there with the Saints greats. I dont think it is as simple as that. Leon sided with Wilde and because of that we over spent and got us into administration. Lowe only got us relegated from the Premiership something which was probably enivitable
lenwilkins Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 If Lowe only got us relegated from the Premiership, who was Chairman when we got relegated from the Championship? Re-writing history is a well recognised practise but some things really are black and white.
Frank's cousin Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 Hitler loved his dog and Churchill used to drink too much. Sure we're all human. The facts are that Lowe f*cked us up and at present Crouch's cash (paying the wages) is all that's saving the club from oblivion. In my opinion that's a balanced view. Thanks Leon - you're up there with the Saints greats. Fine if you want to keep it that simple, but there are others who have a (un)natural interest in delving a little deeper and seeing the rational in teh decison making process, understanding where things went wronga nd why what looked like good ideas on paper failed... not for everyone, for sure. BUt if this is not of interest why do some posters simply jump on the threads to dissmiss and poor scorn? if its not your thing just start up other threads surely?
Frank's cousin Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 If Lowe only got us relegated from the Premiership, who was Chairman when we got relegated from the Championship? Re-writing history is a well recognised practise but some things really are black and white. That really is very simplistic...
lenwilkins Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 I should have added who sacked Nigel Pearson and brought in a couple of unproven Dutchmen in our time of crisis. It was Lowe that cost us our place in the Championship not Crouch. Success and bigger crowds had Pearson stayed would have saved us from Administration imho.
John B Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 If Lowe only got us relegated from the Premiership, who was Chairman when we got relegated from the Championship? Re-writing history is a well recognised practise but some things really are black and white. We had no chairman when we got relegated from the Championship as we were in administration caused by the boards that included Crouch Wilde Hone etc who seriously mismanaged the finances buying players at too high a cost and paying them too much. It was impossible to sell them as they earned too much
miserableoldgit Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 I dont think it is as simple as that. Leon sided with Wilde and because of that we over spent and got us into administration. Lowe only got us relegated from the Premiership something which was probably enivitable I don`t think it is as simple as that.
Frank's cousin Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 Success and bigger crowds had Pearson stayed would have saved us from Administration imho. Success would indeed have secured a larger gate - large enough to put right the overspend and stave off admin ? we can not say and we will see what sort of crowds we get now... Would Perason have done better with the same squad restrictions? possible but nothing is certain given the financial situation or how his own choice of loans would have combined with teh squad members we had left - sure chances are better, but no guarrantees.
SFC Forever Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 I was one of many that marched against Lowe. The spectre of administration was even then a probability. This said I don't believe we felt if Lowe quit in response we would be on the path that we are now on. The only doubt I now have is the lack of posts of some of the organisers of the marches etcetera. I am now worried that we helped our demise even though I paid to go to the games after. I know some didn't. If Crouch has as suggested, put some more money into our club, I thank him. I still wouldn't want him to be part of the club again unless as a season ticket holder. He like the rest had his time and now it has gone. Lowe did in the beginning look as though he would be fairly good for us. The fact is he screwed up big time. I still say his biggest mistake second time around was his pigheaded arrogance in the way he refused to change a losing system.
John B Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 I don`t think it is as simple as that. You have go then you miserable old git As you say nothing is simple
Give it to Ron Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 We had no chairman when we got relegated from the Championship as we were in administration caused by the boards that included Crouch Wilde Hone etc who seriously mismanaged the finances buying players at too high a cost and paying them too much. It was impossible to sell them as they earned too much That is just unbelievable..... Can you remind me who was chairman when we signed Delap, Delgado, Neil McCann, Van Damme?
saintstr1 Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 That really is very simplistic... But Very Very TRUE !
SaintRichmond Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 That really is very simplistic... Certainly is ..... ie, you forgot to mention the REASONS why we were relegated (again) under Lowe's guidance ... 1) Not retaining Pearson, because Lowe hadn't appointed him 2) Appointing Edam & Gouder, and trying to tell us that their combined salaries were less than the "mega bucks" that Pearson was on 3) Selling/Loaning out Goalscorers 4) Insisting we go with Youth, ( which slowly changed as our disasterous season unfolded ) 5) Alienating the Supporters to the point that attendances dipped dramatically Those are the basic REASONS for our relegation ....... Simplistic as they may be
Alain Perrin Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 I should have added who sacked Nigel Pearson and brought in a couple of unproven Dutchmen in our time of crisis. It was Lowe that cost us our place in the Championship not Crouch. Success and bigger crowds had Pearson stayed would have saved us from Administration imho. Success and bigger crowds would not have kept us up. The more information we have, the more it becomes obvious the suicidal approach by Lowe was Saints playing the last hand. Cheap manager, loan out the stars to recoup some (probably not all) of their wages, youth players on peanuts or gambles who we might be able to sell on. Sure we could have signed a different manager, but double the salary wouldn't get you much. We could have signed different players, but experienced heads (the kind we needed so badly) also cost more. You say bigger crowds would have kept us afloat? I don't agree. An extra 5000 fans at every home game would have made Saints a piddling £1.68m a year. That's BEFORE you take off any costs for stewards, police, staff, utilities, business rates etc. Rasiak alone was costing the club circa £884,000 a year (assuming his salary was £17K pw), add to that other high earners (Euell, Skacel, Davies, Davis and the list goes on) and it's no surprise we were in trouble. Ironically going down to League 1 could have saved us from administration. Firstly, a season on, some contracts would have ended, but more importantly going down triggered wage reduction clauses in player's contracts. Here's the bit that makes me think others are equally culpable as Lowe for our troubles, if not more so for the financial mess. Amazingly, players signed when Lowe wasn't here DIDN'T have the relegation reduction clauses in them. How ****ing stupid is that? And if they're that stupid, what else did they agree to? The ego of the club was writing cheques the body couldn't cash (especially once parachute payments disappeared). Without a buyer/wealthy investor we were (are) shafted.
Frank's cousin Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 I was one of many that marched against Lowe. The spectre of administration was even then a probability. This said I don't believe we felt if Lowe quit in response we would be on the path that we are now on. The only doubt I now have is the lack of posts of some of the organisers of the marches etcetera. I am now worried that we helped our demise even though I paid to go to the games after. I know some didn't. If Crouch has as suggested, put some more money into our club, I thank him. I still wouldn't want him to be part of the club again unless as a season ticket holder. He like the rest had his time and now it has gone. Lowe did in the beginning look as though he would be fairly good for us. The fact is he screwed up big time. I still say his biggest mistake second time around was his pigheaded arrogance in the way he refused to change a losing system. Anyone who blames fans is barking up teh wrong tree because fans have a CHOICE in what they spend their money on - if the fare is poor less will go - its a fact and a fact at 100% of clubs. but its also a fact that reduced gates mean less revenue so tehre is a direct link - Its simplistic to say well thats Lowe's fault for getting rid of Pearson - certainly it was a major blunder as he misread the feelings of support and goodwill towards Pearson , and when replaced by unknowns that failed to deliver on early promise, it caused the demise in quality and results - yet what happened to the side that beat Reading away and several of teh otehr eresults where we played sides off the park? the ability was there but as is typical of relegated sides the consistency was not - why? The tricky question is when it comes down to pure choice... hypothetically if asked if it was achoice between Lowe and Crouch, same squad same manager, same finance who would you pick? (I would want none of them, but this is a hypothetical quetsion) The obvious answer IS crouch because he has shown on more than one occaison his personal comittment in digging into his own pocket to support teh club. He is without doubt a fan with heart on sleeve - fans can relate to him because he is 'down to earth' and has shown the passion we desire.... but what of his ability to make those difficult decisons? He has mad mistakes and my misgivings are for when he is tempted to avoid making decisons that are unpopular - he wants to be seen as the peoples champion and he seems not to understand its not a popularity contest - its ego , from a different perspective to Lowe. Lowe is ever the pragmatist, mean of spirit publically, mean of purse which we see as lacking ambition. BUt few can argue against the perils of overspending considering our current situation. too cautious in the past? possibly but its a question of risk, the consequences of relegation when in debt are all too clear to see, so why add to it? Naturally we can question his 'footballing' decisons - superficially complete ****** and shows a complete lack of understanding of teh game, and there are certainly deciosns that would back that perception up - and yes you DO have to judge them on tehir results not their logic or rationale, but that does NOT mean there was not logic and a good rationale at their conception. Thats all I have tried to understand and question; youth policy and development, being less relient on single autocratic managers that leave you teh moment someone bigger comes calling and thus its always one step forward and two back and more expense as the new guy moulds his own side, sports science, etc. Timing, implementation and inflexibility are another matter.... Thats where I am coming from in this whole saga - sure its easy to pin a label and say i am this or that nd if it makes someone happy - whatever, but the reality is asking teh rigt questions and finding the right answers leads to better understanding. If there are those who feel they have that wisdom, good for them, but for us mere mortals its what keeps us asking those questions.
Frank's cousin Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 Certainly is ..... ie, you forgot to mention the REASONS why we were relegated (again) under Lowe's guidance ... 1) Not retaining Pearson, because Lowe hadn't appointed him 2) Appointing Edam & Gouder, and trying to tell us that their combined salaries were less than the "mega bucks" that Pearson was on 3) Selling/Loaning out Goalscorers 4) Insisting we go with Youth, ( which slowly changed as our disasterous season unfolded ) 5) Alienating the Supporters to the point that attendances dipped dramatically Those are the basic REASONS for our relegation ....... Simplistic as they may be Been over these before and the points you make whilst mostly true ARE simplistic, butits all been done a 1000 times. There are those who are happy to debate tehm and those that are not - Anything I sy will not effect opinion so not going to go over it again...
miserableoldgit Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 You have go then you miserable old git As you say nothing is simple Our problems started at the time of the reverse take - over, (and no this is not an anti-Lowe rant) and from that point until around 2003 we muddled through with a combination of luck, having MLT and certain amount of good stewardship. Sadly the continual "revolving door" of managers, lack of sensible investment in the team led to relegation. Despite some people saying that relegation was inevitable, it wasn`t. No club has a divine right to be in the Premiership but we could quite easily have still been there how many points were we away from safety?). Since relegation it has been one catalogue of disasterous boardroom decisions. All of the participents in the soap opera that has taken place at SMS must take their proportion of blame. Wilde for changing sides, Lowe for his continual "experiments" (SCW, the Dutch Revolution et al) and belief that he was some sort of football guru, Crouch etc for the gamble they took to get promotion before the parachute payment ran out and Hone, Hoos and all of the others for their "Mitchell Brothers" contribution. To suggest that the reason for all of our problems is because of the "mis-management" during the months that Crouch was in the Chair is simplistic. It didn`t help but it was just part of the horrific jig-saw that Saints have become. It is a bit like saying that WW2 happened because Hitler was a naughty boy. We all know that situations like this are far from simple
OldNick Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 5) Alienating the Supporters to the point that attendances dipped dramatically A lot of supporters alienated themselves IMO. You were gagging for us to go into administration telling us it was the promised land as we would be bought as we were such a bargain.It doesnt feel like that from where im sitting. it is foolish mindsets like that that has contributed to our demise.Add to that Rl MW LC abd all the others and you have the set.
Alain Perrin Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 A lot of supporters alienated themselves IMO. You were gagging for us to go into administration telling us it was the promised land as we would be bought as we were such a bargain.It doesnt feel like that from where im sitting. it is foolish mindsets like that that has contributed to our demise.Add to that Rl MW LC abd all the others and you have the set. Too true. Many sided problem and fans ARE part of it. Started with Hoddle-gate and then turned into a Lowe vs. Anti Lowe division by people operating with only a smidgen of the facts. Clubs that stay united in hardtimes (Man City are a great example) bounce back. I fear we are not that.
broncoboy Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 A lot of supporters alienated themselves IMO. You were gagging for us to go into administration telling us it was the promised land as we would be bought as we were such a bargain.It doesnt feel like that from where im sitting. it is foolish mindsets like that that has contributed to our demise.Add to that Rl MW LC abd all the others and you have the set. "A lot of supporters alienated themselves." Are you joking. I can't think of a more nonsensical statement than that,. Thats right the supporters decided not to love their club and pick a fight with the management. You are clearly mentally ill. The board of directors are totally responsible for every decision made regarding this club, The club is in trouble because of its finances. The board over the last five years took every decsion regarding finance without reference to the fans. Stop posting Nick you are a moron
bridge too far Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 Why is it that every thread on this forum degenerates into a blame game / mud slinging competition? Why can't we just discuss the thread topic? Why can't we let byegones be byegones and move on? I despair sometimes
OldNick Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 "A lot of supporters alienated themselves." Are you joking. I can't think of a more nonsensical statement than that,. Thats right the supporters decided not to love their club and pick a fight with the management. You are clearly mentally ill. The board of directors are totally responsible for every decision made regarding this club, The club is in trouble because of its finances. The board over the last five years took every decsion regarding finance without reference to the fans. Stop posting Nick you are a moron The concept is just to much for you to grasp.
SaintRichmond Posted 19 May, 2009 Posted 19 May, 2009 Success and bigger crowds would not have kept us up. The more information we have, the more it becomes obvious the suicidal approach by Lowe was Saints playing the last hand. Cheap manager, loan out the stars to recoup some (probably not all) of their wages, youth players on peanuts or gambles who we might be able to sell on. Sure we could have signed a different manager, but double the salary wouldn't get you much. We could have signed different players, but experienced heads (the kind we needed so badly) also cost more. You say bigger crowds would have kept us afloat? I don't agree. An extra 5000 fans at every home game would have made Saints a piddling £1.68m a year. That's BEFORE you take off any costs for stewards, police, staff, utilities, business rates etc. Rasiak alone was costing the club circa £884,000 a year (assuming his salary was £17K pw), add to that other high earners (Euell, Skacel, Davies, Davis and the list goes on) and it's no surprise we were in trouble. Ironically going down to League 1 could have saved us from administration. Firstly, a season on, some contracts would have ended, but more importantly going down triggered wage reduction clauses in player's contracts. Here's the bit that makes me think others are equally culpable as Lowe for our troubles, if not more so for the financial mess. Amazingly, players signed when Lowe wasn't here DIDN'T have the relegation reduction clauses in them. How ****ing stupid is that? And if they're that stupid, what else did they agree to? The ego of the club was writing cheques the body couldn't cash (especially once parachute payments disappeared). Without a buyer/wealthy investor we were (are) shafted. Quite right .... another excellent example of Lowelife's inability of not even attracting even £1 Investment to the Club in either of his Tenures as Chairman .......... ... REASON ???? ..... He simply wanted to run a PLC
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