Lowes "everybodys fault bar mine" syndrome

[1965onwards]

In todays pre-season special Lowe asks why the young players have not been playing.

Considering that these players have grown up exclusively under managers appointed by Lowe,barring of course Pearson,who did give some a chance;this aptly demonstrates that this man has changed not one iota,and accepts not a jot of responsibility for the clubs' present state.

Having said that the present course the club is following is the only intelligent way to go.
Hopefully the rest of football will take a similar course.

England is full of useless,gutless managers continually relying on has and never been players who are kept in the game way beyond their sell by dates,when they should be kicked out to make way for young players to get experience and develope their careers.

Every club is wasting money they do not have on these useless journeymen and getting very little back in return,and it is time it stopped.

It is no coincidence that the introduction of all these young players has made Saints fans feel as if they are getting their club back again,after losing it to couldn't care less managers and players,and businesmen using the club for their ego trips.

Roll on the revolution,even if partly instigated by Lowe.

[70's Mike]

I think Hull may see Dean Windass as an exception to your statement

"Every club is wasting money they do not have on these useless journeymen and getting very little back in return,and it is time it stopped."

It is all about balance , young and old mixed correctly

[John B]

In todays pre-season special Lowe asks why the young players have not been playing.

Considering that these players have grown up exclusively under managers appointed by Lowe,barring of course Pearson,who did give some a chance;this aptly demonstrates that this man has changed not one iota,and accepts not a jot of responsibility for the clubs' present state.

Having said that the present course the club is following is the only intelligent way to go.
Hopefully the rest of football will take a similar course.

England is full of useless,gutless managers continually relying on has and never been players who are kept in the game way beyond their sell by dates,when they should be kicked out to make way for young players to get experience and develope their careers.

Every club is wasting money they do not have on these useless journeymen and getting very little back in return,and it is time it stopped.

It is no coincidence that the introduction of all these young players has made Saints fans feel as if they are getting their club back again,after losing it to couldn't care less managers and players,and businesmen using the club for their ego trips.

Roll on the revolution,even if partly instigated by Lowe.

I dont understand how this demonstrates that this man has changed not one iota,and accepts not a jot of responsibility for the clubs' present state.

Please can you explain as I do not fully understand why Lowe is hated so vehmently.

[adriansfc]

I've heard him say on numerous occassions that many people including himself made mistakes and had to take the blame for relegation. Can we just get over it now?

[John B]

I've heard him say on numerous occassions that many people including himself made mistakes and had to take the blame for relegation. Can we just get over it now?

Yes I agree but I cannot really understand this hatred to wards Lowe it seems ridiculous and I am sure is having a bad affect on SFC as some fans are boycotting St Mary's

[1965onwards]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

Not difficult.

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

[70's Mike]

Yes I agree but I cannot really understand this hatred to wards Lowe it seems ridiculous and I am sure is having a bad affect on SFC as some fans are boycotting St Mary's

very few because of Lowe , more to do with the standard of football and cost.
i make no secret of the fact that i want lowe, wilde and crouch gone but would never let them be a reason to not support the club

[Panda]

Yes I agree but I cannot really understand this hatred to wards Lowe it seems ridiculous and I am sure is having a bad affect on SFC as some fans are boycotting St Mary's

I'm with you. Time to move on. The last two years have been as bad, if not worse, as the years before them. We have no one better to take us forward. We have no one else to take us forward. We have no other course to follow which will take us forward. We are where we are. Based on our experience of expensive 'journeymen' who do not deliver I think this really is wake up time for football as a whole. It is not sustainable in the long term if we go on the way we are. It is back to the sixties/seventies as far as I can see - grown your own and add in some seasoning when and where you can. Not before time.

And can we please get over this obsession with the club's board. It is down to the players and coach now and all we can do is go on supporting the club we love and care about. After 55 years a Saints fan I cannot and will not give up now regardless of who is chairman. Its not the chairtman I support and cheer, it is those in red and white stripes that matter and if they never do to me again what they did to me at Bristol Rovers (amongst others) last year then for me the only way is up.

[Roman]

Yes I agree but I cannot really understand this hatred to wards Lowe it seems ridiculous and I am sure is having a bad affect on SFC as some fans are boycotting St Mary's

I find this equation of anti-Lowe sentiment with damage to the club really tiresome.

And do you honestly think that those who say they'll boycott SMS amounts to more than a handful? I think you are seriously mistaken in over-hyping this.

Success on the pitch will bring fans back in the sort of numbers that will make a difference - not pro- or anti-Lowe feeling.

[Panda]

.I'm with you. Time to move on. The last two years have been as bad, if not worse, as the years before them. We have no one better to take us forward. We have no one else to take us forward. We have no other course to follow which will take us forward. We are where we are. Based on our experience of expensive 'journeymen' who do not deliver I think this really is a wake up call for football as a whole. It is not sustainable in the long term if we go on the way we have done. It is back to the sixties/seventies as far as I can see - grow your own and add in some seasoning when and where you can. Not before time.

And can we please get over this obsession with the club's board. It is down to the players and coach now and all we can do is go on supporting the club we love and care about. After 55 years a Saints fan I cannot and will not give up now regardless of who is chairman. It is not the chairman I support and cheer, it is those in red and white stripes that matter and if they never do to me again what they did to me at Bristol Rovers (amongst others) last year then for me the only way is up

[John B]

I find this equation of anti-Lowe sentiment with damage to the club really tiresome.

And do you honestly think that those who say they'll boycott SMS amounts to more than a handful? I think you are seriously mistaken in over-hyping this.

Success on the pitch will bring fans back in the sort of numbers that will make a difference - not pro- or anti-Lowe feeling.

I agree with you but with the Forum Down I was logging on to the Echo Site and there was a great deal of comment about not going to St Mary's whilst Lowe is there.

But any negativity surely will eventually affect the players and I thought Wilde's Interview came across quite well.

[John B]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

Not difficult.

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

Doesn't seem to be a very good argument to me.

The youngsters were not good enough for the Premiership and Lowe only worked with Burley for a few months

[66East]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

Not difficult.

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

Are you saying then, that you would prefer Rupert to pick the team? Surely the manager should be left to pick who he thinks.

[miserableoldgit]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

Not difficult.

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.
I am NOT a fan of RL but he can`t win can he? If he tells his managers who to play he is accused of interfering in footballing matters. If he doesn`t, it`s his fault that the managers that he appointed play who they want, because that`s their job.:confused:

[manji]

very few because of Lowe , more to do with the standard of football and cost.
i make no secret of the fact that i want lowe, wilde and crouch gone but would never let them be a reason to not support the club
Quite.Lowe wasnt here last season and attendances were poor.

[Fowllyd]

I agree with you but with the Forum Down I was logging on to the Echo Site and there was a great deal of comment about not going to St Mary's whilst Lowe is there.

But any negativity surely will eventually affect the players and I thought Wilde's Interview came across quite well.

Chances are that those on the Echo site were exactly the same people you find saying the same things on here; of course, over the weekend they only had the Echo site as this one was out of action!

If you're worried about negativity affecting the players, then surely it's best for those most likely to be negative to carry out their boycott threat? After all, they'll have precious little effect on anything from outside the ground. More generally, any negativity in the ground itself will quickly disappear if the team starts playing good football and winning - witness the comments on the West Ham game on here. Let's just hope that happens, eh...

[Thedelldays]

isnt it about time we all got behind the team and forget about the boardroom

I was amazed at how the team played against West Ham and hope for a good season

[Thedelldays]

also, I am Thedelldays...any chance of changing my name back to that and maybe letting me stay before I sign up??????

my ban was up next week anyway (6 months ffs)

peace everyone..

[mprobert]

zzzzzzz

[Fowllyd]

also, I am Thedelldays...any chance of changing my name back to that and maybe letting me stay before I sign up??????

my ban was up next week anyway (6 months ffs)

peace everyone..

Wow, way to step out of the shadows! I think I prefer Thedelldays to Wonkey! ;)

[1576]

very few because of Lowe , more to do with the standard of football and cost.
i make no secret of the fact that i want lowe, wilde and crouch gone but would never let them be a reason to not support the club

One here.

Just because I am not going does not mean I am not a supporter.

[Mole1]

Lowe will never change, he's far too pompous and full of his own self importance to ever admit he was wrong. Even when it all goes tits up this season he'll carry on blaming everyone else.

Two people are primarily responsible for the clubs demise; Lowe and Wilde - in that order.

Lowe sent us down with his 3 managers in one season debacle.

Wilde kept us down by taking over without a plan.

[Saint Bones]

Two people are primarily responsible for the clubs demise; Lowe and Wilde - in that order.



The Gaffer ? The Players ? I'm sure they were there during some parts of the relegation season ?

[Tamesaint]

Lowe will never change, he's far too pompous and full of his own self importance to ever admit he was wrong. Even when it all goes tits up this season he'll carry on blaming everyone else.

Two people are primarily responsible for the clubs demise; Lowe and Wilde - in that order.

Lowe sent us down with his 3 managers in one season debacle.

Wilde kept us down by taking over without a plan.


You can't say that on this forum !!!! Anything as sensible or as truthful as that will get immediately attacked by the luvvies.

Siundance Beast will go on about how relegation was inevitable for a club of our size. A good job this view wasn't around in the '90's when we were a lot smaller. The Professor will go on about how this view is too blinkered and ignores how Saturn was in its ascendancy during 2005 and that was not good for a club of our ability and anyway he is a lot cleverer than us so his view is more accurate.


3 managers in a season - I think you have got it in one..... and whose fault was that??? Now let me see....

[Andy Durman]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

Not difficult.

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous statement. Lowe has not been at the helm for almost 2 years and none of these youngsters have been good enough in this time. As I remember Burley was chosen because of his work with youth players.

Your hatred of Lowe clouds your judgement the man on numerous occasions accepted responsibility.

However he has laid the foundations for our survival and we should all be thankful.

Good luck Mr Lowe your success is our success.

[Hacienda]

However he has laid the foundations for our survival and we should all be thankful.

That remains to be seen does it not.

[Snowballs2]

I've heard him say on numerous occassions that many people including himself made mistakes and had to take the blame for relegation. Can we just get over it now?

Oh when, because I have not seen any such statement where Lowe accepts any personal blame !

[Ekelund]

Oh when, because I have not seen any such statement where Lowe accepts any personal blame !

Does his offer of resignation after relegation not count then?

[Plumstead_Saint]

Does his offer of resignation after relegation not count then?
No. Bo back and reread it.

[sadoldgit]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

Not difficult.

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

On the one hand Lowe gets blamed for meddling too much in team affairs and now it seems he is getting balmed for not meddling enough???

Make you mind up. You can't have it both ways. If he expected these managers to play the youngsters more but they decided they didn't want too, that is their right as Manager, as it is his right to be disappointed with their decisions surely?

[sadoldgit]

You can't say that on this forum !!!! Anything as sensible or as truthful as that will get immediately attacked by the luvvies.

Siundance Beast will go on about how relegation was inevitable for a club of our size. A good job this view wasn't around in the '90's when we were a lot smaller. The Professor will go on about how this view is too blinkered and ignores how Saturn was in its ascendancy during 2005 and that was not good for a club of our ability and anyway he is a lot cleverer than us so his view is more accurate.


3 managers in a season - I think you have got it in one..... and whose fault was that??? Now let me see....


How many managers did we have last season? Who were the people in charge?

[70's Mike]

Does his offer of resignation after relegation not count then?

This has been debated so many times, he offered to resign in a private meeting NOT a board meeting, as a gesture.
If he had been serious he would have gone.
I want him and wilde and crouch gone but for now we are stuck with him, it is the pro lowe lobby who keep telling us what a great job he is doing for the club but when the counter argument is put about some of the crap previous decisions he made, then all of a sudden it is not his fault, it is the manager's, players or supporters fault.

[saint1977]

This has been debated so many times, he offered to resign in a private meeting NOT a board meeting, as a gesture.
If he had been serious he would have gone.
I want him and wilde and crouch gone but for now we are stuck with him, it is the pro lowe lobby who keep telling us what a great job he is doing for the club but when the counter argument is put about some of the crap previous decisions he made, then all of a sudden it is not his fault, it is the manager's, players or supporters fault.

Spot on Mike but you won't get much in the way of sensible debate on the topic of Rupert Lowe. I would sum it up by saying that I still support the team and go to games, the only thing that would stop me is if we had blatant asset-strippers and crooks in charge of the club - ie Bill Archer and David Bellotti at Brighton during the 90s who were only interested in flogging the Goldstone - or Richardson at Doncaster who tried to burn down the main stand for the insurance. I don't like Lowe, Wilde OR Crouch but you cannot accuse ANY of them of that and I think they are interested in saving SFC.

With regard to pre-season, I was delighted with the WHU performance and pleasantly surprised with Celtic. Let's not put too much pressure on these lads though and as 70's Mike said, you need a good blend to be successful, look at Windass last season and Barmby for Hull as well, class makes a mark at all levels of the game.

[Wes Tender]

How many managers did we have last season? Who were the people in charge?

Valid point Bern and I said as much on another thread where I said that ultimately it was the instability of changing manager three times in a season that caused our relegation from the Premiership and almost again from the Fizzy Pop league. Whilst not defending Crouch, Burley leaving was not his fault, but Dodd/Gorman was a mistake commensurate with the Wigley appointment. Had we been relegated again, I would have been happy to call for Crouch's head. As it turns out, Pearson kept us up with an improving team and I would have been very happy to have let him continue. Instead we have had further disruption at board level and also with the management. It might succeed against the odds, but if it fails, then it will not be unexpected based as it is on precedent.

But Lowe, Wilde, Crouch all ought to go.

[miserableoldgit]

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous statement. Lowe has not been at the helm for almost 2 years and none of these youngsters have been good enough in this time. As I remember Burley was chosen because of his work with youth players.

Your hatred of Lowe clouds your judgement the man on numerous occasions accepted responsibility.

However he has laid the foundations for our survival and we should all be thankful.

Good luck Mr Lowe your success is our success.
Fair point. I also seem to remember that when Redknapp was in charge, we played a League Cup game away (can`t remember who against) when he played loads of kids, because RL wanted him to. We lost the game,(IMHO delberately) and HR "proved" a point to RL about using kids.

[Hacienda]

How many managers did we have last season? Who were the people in charge?

Which nearly got us relegated again.

Just goes to show that the decision to have too many managers leads to failure and that chairman who follow that path are failures themselves.

[pedg]

Just goes to show that the decision to have too many managers leads to failure and that chairman who follow that path are failures themselves.

Do you think its some sort of concious decision to have too many managers then??

[um pahars]

How many managers did we have last season? Who were the people in charge?

We had two managers last season, and changed when the first one walked out on us.

If you come back with , it was four, what about Dodd and Gorman, nah, nah, nah?, then it shows what a fool you are.

They were caretakers, in much the same way that Chatterley, Wigley et al were in the past. Normally, when someone walks out on you you have to fill the gap pretty quickly (if you're sacking someone, then it is much easier to plan ahead).

Going by your dumb logic in 2005 we had FIVE:rolleyes::

WGS
Wigley
Sturrock
Wigley
Redknapp

And then in 2006 we had FOUR:rolleyes:

Redknapp
Bassett
Wise
Burley

In fact, if you were looking at this you would claim we had NINE in two years;)

[um pahars]

Should have read 2004 (not 2005).


PS How do you edit on this new fandangle machine?

[um pahars]

Do you think its some sort of concious decision to have too many managers then??

Of course it's not a conscious decision, you would have thought you should always be looking for a degree of stability, but that just makes the fact that it did happen under Lowe's stewardship even more damning.

It just highlights that in 2004, he (and his associates) got the managerial/Head Coach appointments very wrong.

[SaintDonkey]

Lowe is an arrogant **** - but that doesn't mean that he's not good at his job. yes we were relegated during his watch - but it's not like we weren't flirting with relegation for years before he had ever heard of Southampton FC and relegation for a club of our size was something of an inevitability. Also under his watch we got a stadium that allows us to compete at this level, an academy that gives a chance to compete and a day out in Cardiff.

Some people hate him and will interpret everything he says in a negative light. It's a view point I can appreciate, after all hatred is an emotional rather than a logical response, but as such it's not worth arguing against.

Can we finally put the Lowe bashing behind us and jsut get on with supporting the team through a season that will be difficult enough without any more infighting.

[pedg]

It just highlights that in 2004, he (and his associates) got the managerial/Head Coach appointments very wrong.

The one key mistake was probably one that very few people saw coming, that being the appointment of Luggy. I was one of those who welcomed his appointment as he appeared to be a successful manager and I don't think I can remember anyone warning about the internal conflicts that ended up with him leaving and the roundabout that ensued as we played manager catchup.

He's not exactly the only candidate ever to apply for a job that interviewed well but then turned out to be a disaster.

[Dicko]

I am totally bored with RL bashing.

He's back, get over it
In our current predicament, he is the best man to have at the helm

[PokingFun]

Quite simply John B,Lowe complains that young players were not played.

They were not played by managers Lowe appointed (Wigley,Redknapp,but mainly Burley).

As he appointed the managers he must take responsibility for what they do or do not do.

Not difficult.

His failure to see or admit this demonstrates how he continually seeks to blame others for things for which he is partly or totally culpable.

But this group of young players we have out there are only now maturing and some we didn't even have. Take the eleven against West Ham - Lloyd James, Jake Thomson, Spiderman, Gillett, Lee Holmes, McG, Lallana were out there and by all accounts played well, however, 2 were not with us (one we paid about £1m for) and the rest were very young in previous seasons or put out on loan to try to give them the experience needed. From what I understand the lads out on loan never set the world alight but maybe the experience they gained has helped them step up now?

[Professor]

This has been debated so many times, he offered to resign in a private meeting NOT a board meeting, as a gesture.
If he had been serious he would have gone.
I want him and wilde and crouch gone but for now we are stuck with him, it is the pro lowe lobby who keep telling us what a great job he is doing for the club but when the counter argument is put about some of the crap previous decisions he made, then all of a sudden it is not his fault, it is the manager's, players or supporters fault.
Once again there is confusion here between people who "Luv" Lowe - of whom there are very few, and people who see the constant attacks on Lowe as divisive and damaging to the club. Some of the Lowe-haters have very weak grounds for their position and inevitably these get challenged. We've all seen comments that Lowe is doing OK so far, and better than expected but 70's Mike has made up the statement that people 'keep saying what a great job he is doing' just so that Mike can then complain about it. The fact is people do NOT keep saying that. Its this sort of dishonesty that undermines the anti-Lowe argument.
As chairman in 2004/05 Lowe obviously played a part in the relegation, but many people dispute the line that it was 'all down to him'. That is a fair difference of opinion, but opinions should be based on fact. Simplifying it to '3 managers = relegation = chairman to blame' is just crassly stupid. Just as if "Colchester = 1 manager in 2 years = relegation = chairman to blame" is any more sensible.

As for 1965onwards criticising Lowe for commenting on team selection when he was not on the board but then blaming Lowe for it, is bizzare. This sort of desparation to find something to blame on Lowe simply shows the desparation of the anti-Lowe position. None of this makes Lowe a 'great' chairman, but neither does it make him guilty of being a bad one.

[Hacienda]

Do you think its some sort of concious decision to have too many managers then??

I think it shows a clear lack of strategic thinking.

[buctootim]

Sorry is this TMS? Is it last week already? Have they found all the old posts?

Ah joy the same arguments from the same few explaining, although the world has changed and moved on, they cant / wont as a matter of principle.

[Bon Call Night]

I think Hull may see Dean Windass as an exception to your statement

"Every club is wasting money they do not have on these useless journeymen and getting very little back in return,and it is time it stopped."

It is all about balance , young and old mixed correctly


As much as McMenemy upsets me now with his continual sniping and bitterness towards the clubs decisions he did manage to achieve this mix pretty well. That said signing the likes of Osgood then is probably like singing say Shearer now.

[Hacienda]

The one key mistake was probably one that very few people saw coming, that being the appointment of Luggy. I was one of those who welcomed his appointment as he appeared to be a successful manager and I don't think I can remember anyone warning about the internal conflicts that ended up with him leaving and the roundabout that ensued as we played manager catchup.

He's not exactly the only candidate ever to apply for a job that interviewed well but then turned out to be a disaster.

That is a very fair comment.

The real problem with that though was the appointment that followed him.

That decision is the one that really cost us.

The gamble Lowe is now taking I hope and pray works. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than having a team of young bloods and old heads pinging the ball about and playing with some pride and passion. God knows we've been wanting that for years.

My fear is that if it goes Pete Tong that Lowe will resort to type and replace the manager, thus repeating previous mistakes.

[pedg]

That is a very fair comment.

The real problem with that though was the appointment that followed him.

That decision is the one that really cost us.

And as I said the time in the season when we needed to replace Luggy was not a good time to find a decent manager (i.e. no half decent ones got fired before Luggy left!) which left us with the barrel scrapings we ended up with.

[Alucard]

We had two managers last season, and changed when the first one walked out on us.

If you come back with , it was four, what about Dodd and Gorman, nah, nah, nah?, then it shows what a fool you are.

They were caretakers, in much the same way that Chatterley, Wigley et al were in the past. Normally, when someone walks out on you you have to fill the gap pretty quickly (if you're sacking someone, then it is much easier to plan ahead).


Shows what fools LM and LC were then because the dynamic duo were appointed for the forseeable future because they were doing so well

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=9711

[um pahars]

And as I said the time in the season when we needed to replace Luggy was not a good time to find a decent manager (i.e. no half decent ones got fired before Luggy left!) which left us with the barrel scrapings we ended up with.

The problem was rumbling all during the close season (it first came to light not long after he took over when many of the 'superstars' took umbrage with him).

I can remember the rumours, stories and muck spreading all through the summer.

Personally, I think the Chairman and board should have shipped out all the negative influences and supported the manager (as had happened with Lawrie and Nicholl).

Alternatively, they should have cut it short earlier before Luggy had spent the transfer budet and wasted the vital pre season build up.

What followed (i.e. Wigley) was the real disaster.

[dubai_phil]

Yawn.

Yes we KNOW already. As Wes says - the shareholders had to work together or they all had to go.

But as SOME people who MAY spend SOME of their life doing something OTHER than searching for new ammunition in the pro-anti debate MAY have NOTICED, the global economy is f*******d

Now this is IMPORTANT to us Saints fans because it means that CREDIT is hard to get (not just for us to buy tickets and beer but it means that people and BUSINESS want to find sources of CASH.

Anybody who has MADE money needs to have had HALF a brain and luck to succeed. But RIGHT now, if you have money you can make a LOT more money with it, people and companies go bust and whether it's Flog It or Alliance & Leicester you can make MONEY if you have MONEY in a "slump".

The ONE thing that people with money will NOT do right now is WASTE it on extremely dubious dodgy deals.
Invest 20mil or so to buy the shares in SLH and what - we are LOSING money - so they have to fund that gap OR work their socks off to STOP the losses.
Why would anyone with a brain come in right now and invest the money when somebody else has ALREADY started to do the hard and unpopular work?
They can earn MORE money elsewhere, wait for the finances to be destroyed OR stabilised (minimising their risk) and THEN still buy the club for the same basic cost as it is today.

So it matters not one iota what anyone thinks. Simple economics, simple business sense and pure bloody bad luck mean the shareholders will be around until
1) The "recession" shows sign of easing or
2) The club's finances make an investment a sensible business risk.

You guys on both sides are just going to spend another year typing the same boring stuff that we have read, and agreed with 1,000's of times already.

They WILL be gone, but not in the next 5 days before the season starts but one thing I can guarantee, it AIN'T gonna happen because you scored a debating point this week

If Only is a phrase that if you start to use it will consume your life. Leave it, move on or you get hit by another if only that you didn't see coming

[pedg]

Personally, I think the Chairman and board should have shipped out all the negative influences and supported the manager (as had happened with Lawrie and Nicholl).

Alternatively, they should have cut it short earlier before Luggy had spent the transfer budet and wasted the vital pre season build up.

What followed (i.e. Wigley) was the real disaster.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Remember there was a possible third option that the manager and the players might have learnt to get on.

What would people have said if we had shipped out some well known and popular players?

What would people have said if we had got rid of Luggy earlier?

Persevering with the new manager and the players at the time, who, lets now forget were supposed to be professionals not school children, was an equally valid approach to take at the time without the wonders of hindsight and if anything the constant moaning on places like this about the number of managers that worked under Lowe probably contributed to the fact that he was kept on for too long in the end once it started to become obvious that there was not going to be any reconciliation.

[um pahars]

Shows what fools LM and LC were then because the dynamic duo were appointed for the forseeable future because they were doing so well

Said after they had been at the helm for two league games, i.e. until we get the appoinment sorted out, then these two guys will still hold the reigns.

They weren't appointed as full time managers, given the appropriate contract and wheeled out in front of the media as the new gaffers (nor were they sacked when Pearson came in), they were just caretakers.

I personally thought we dillied and dallied too long in appointing Pearson, and even then I was unsure that he was the right man and I said at the time that the end of the season wold be the time to judge whether Crouch and Pearson had made the righ decision.

[um pahars]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Remember there was a possible third option that the manager and the players might have learnt to get on.

And maybe that's what they went for.


What would people have said if we had shipped out some well known and popular players?

It's happened here before and it has happened elsewhere as well. Perhaps the board should have been tough enough to do it.

Even though players get the mega salaries and the fame, I still think the manager is the single most important person at any club and be should be backed 100%. To undermine the manager, or not support him, just creates troble somewhere down the line.


What would people have said if we had got rid of Luggy earlier?

If we had not ended up with Wigley, but instead got someone else who then went on to keep us up, then I would say it would be deemed a good appointment.

The board get paid good money to make these decisions.



Persevering with the new manager and the players at the time, who, lets now forget were supposed to be professionals not school children, was an equally valid approach to take at the time without the wonders of hindsight

As I said at the start, that is a fair enough assumption (although it doesn't automatically mean we had to settle for Wigley when it went pear shaped).

When things really started to come to a head, there was still time to ship some disruptive influences out, or alternatively get someone better than Wigley in!!!!


and if anything the constant moaning on places like this about the number of managers that worked under Lowe probably contributed to the fact that he was kept on for too long in the end once it started to become obvious that there was not going to be any reconciliation.

Sorry, but we, as fans, might be to blame for some things, but to try and blame us for the managerial appointments (and the length of them) is taking the **** somewhat.

[Alucard]

Said after they had been at the helm for two league games, i.e. until we get the appoinment sorted out, then these two guys will still hold the reigns.

They weren't appointed as full time managers, given the appropriate contract and wheeled out in front of the media as the new gaffers (nor were they sacked when Pearson came in), they were just caretakers.

I personally thought we dillied and dallied too long in appointing Pearson, and even then I was unsure that he was the right man and I said at the time that the end of the season wold be the time to judge whether Crouch and Pearson had made the righ decision.
It was after 3 of their 5 games in charge and the quote from Crouch was.


We have a stable squad and a strong board which is more
united than it has been at any time in the past four years. We
still have serious ambitions to make the play-offs and we believe
John and Jason can provide the spark to get us there with the kind
of run we had at the tail-end of last season.

Hopefully this will now end the speculation and uncertainty
and enable us to focus fully on reaching at least the last eight of
the FA Cup and mounting a strong challenge for the
play-offs.

That quote doesn't seem to suggest that Dodd and Gorman were only in place for another 2 games. It was only the knee jerk reaction to the Bristol Rovers debacle that meant they weren't in charge at the end of the season.

[um pahars]

It was after 3 of their 5 games in charge and the quote from Crouch was.


We have a stable squad and a strong board which is more
united than it has been at any time in the past four years. We
still have serious ambitions to make the play-offs and we believe
John and Jason can provide the spark to get us there with the kind
of run we had at the tail-end of last season.

Hopefully this will now end the speculation and uncertainty
and enable us to focus fully on reaching at least the last eight of
the FA Cup and mounting a strong challenge for the
play-offs.

That quote doesn't seem to suggest that Dodd and Gorman were only in place for another 2 games. It was only the knee jerk reaction to the Bristol Rovers debacle that meant they weren't in charge at the end of the season.

As in they are caretakers, just as Gray was caretaker until the end of the season when Hoddle walked, just as Wigley was caretaker until the end of the season when WGS went, etc, etc, etc.

They were caretakers holding the reigns after a manager walked out, they were never full time, long term appointments.

I thought Lawrie and Crouch got it wrong putting them in place for any length of time (certainly until the end of the season as I was up for an appointment much sooner) and we have gone for Billy Davies or someone of that ilk to push on.

But to try and compare their stint as though they were full time appointed managers/Head Coaches in the same way that Sturrock, Wigley and Redknapp were in that fateful season is clutching at straws

[scooby]

Please can you explain as I do not fully understand why Lowe is hated so vehmently.

He isn't.

Unless we figure in the Northam fringe who are frustrated working class heroes and full of bile when it comes to someone of the 'upper crust' coming into their sport, their game.

[St Paul]

He isn't.

Unless we figure in the Northam fringe who are frustrated working class heroes and full of bile when it comes to someone of the 'upper crust' coming into their sport, their game.
That's rubbish, stop playing the class card. People dont like him because in their eyes he's mismanaged the club (that's an opinion they're entittled to, like you are), it has nothing to do with his background.

Was it just the Northam who stood at the Ipswich game?

[Professor]

That's rubbish, stop playing the class card. People dont like him because in their eyes he's mismanaged the club (that's an opinion they're entittled to, like you are), it has nothing to do with his background. Was it just the Northam who stood at the Ipswich game?
Mismanagement is a totally unreasonable accusation, in fact Lowe managed the club very effectively for 10 years. The compaints about relegation in 2005 tend to be from people who look for one simple cause to blame, when in fact the world is far more complicated. The chairman played a role in the relegation season but the outcome of the season, relegation by ONE goal, was not caused by him alone. If Neimi had saved one more shot, or if Crouch or Phillips had scored one more goal, relegation would have been avoided but that would not have made Lowe a good chairman, any more than the failure to get that goal made him a bad one. The events after Lowe was removed in 2006, showed that we could also do a lot worse - and we did.
Its true that people are entitled to their opinions, but if opinions are based on closed minded predudice, others are entitled to point out that out.

[OldNick]

As in they are caretakers, just as Gray was caretaker until the end of the season when Hoddle walked, just as Wigley was caretaker until the end of the season when WGS went, etc, etc, etc.

They were caretakers holding the reigns after a manager walked out, they were never full time, long term appointments.

I thought Lawrie and Crouch got it wrong putting them in place for any length of time (certainly until the end of the season as I was up for an appointment much sooner) and we have gone for Billy Davies or someone of that ilk to push on.

But to try and compare their stint as though they were full time appointed managers/Head Coaches in the same way that Sturrock, Wigley and Redknapp were in that fateful season is clutching at strawsUM, you are living in a dream world if you really think that had they stayed until the end of the season and then let go.If they had been there to the end without a doubt we would have been doing ok, and so they would then have made the transition.
Had they done well they would have deserved to have been installed as the main men and all season long people pointed out that had GB been sacked that's who we would have got.
As for NP the jury is still out, I quite liked him but he still took us to the brink of relegation.

[Alucard]

As in they are caretakers, just as Gray was caretaker until the end of the season when Hoddle walked, just as Wigley was caretaker until the end of the season when WGS went, etc, etc, etc.

They were caretakers holding the reigns after a manager walked out, they were never full time, long term appointments.

I thought Lawrie and Crouch got it wrong putting them in place for any length of time (certainly until the end of the season as I was up for an appointment much sooner) and we have gone for Billy Davies or someone of that ilk to push on.

But to try and compare their stint as though they were full time appointed managers/Head Coaches in the same way that Sturrock, Wigley and Redknapp were in that fateful season is clutching at straws

To deny that an appointment for the forseeable future (surely longer than a week) was not an appointment is clutching at straws.

[Snowballs2]

Does his offer of resignation after relegation not count then?

What the informal chat one? He never offered at a board meeting or in writing

[St Paul]

Mismanagement is a totally unreasonable accusation, in fact Lowe managed the club very effectively for 10 years. The compaints about relegation in 2005 tend to be from people who look for one simple cause to blame, when in fact the world is far more complicated. The chairman played a role in the relegation season but the outcome of the season, relegation by ONE goal, was not caused by him alone. If Neimi had saved one more shot, or if Crouch or Phillips had scored one more goal, relegation would have been avoided but that would not have made Lowe a good chairman, any more than the failure to get that goal made him a bad one. The events after Lowe was removed in 2006, showed that we could also do a lot worse - and we did.
Its true that people are entitled to their opinions, but if opinions are based on closed minded predudice, others are entitled to point out that out.
People are entittled to their opinion, just as you and Scooby are.However what makes you think it's all down to Lowe's class?

I bet there is just a tiny handful of people against Lowe becasue of his upbringing, just as there are a handful who are against anyone else solely because they're not Lowe.

It seems to me that some of you can not bring yourself to think anyone could be Anti Lowe, because of the job he did, and therefore automatically think it's some sort of class prejudice.

I would not insult you by saying you didn't like the job Crouch, did soley on the basis he wasn't Lowe. Why therefore should it be assumed people dont like Lowe because of his class?

[Wopper]

Lowe is disliked because of his obnoxious ignorant personality.

[um pahars]

To deny that an appointment for the forseeable future (surely longer than a week) was not an appointment is clutching at straws.

They were indeed an appointment, but certainly not an appointment in the same shape or form as the appointment of Sturrock, the appointment of Wigley or the appointment of Redknapp.

Those three appointments were permanent appointments, not "hold the fort until we get our ar5es in gear" appointments until we make a long term manager appointment.

Substance over form.

[um pahars]

UM, you are living in a dream world if you really think that had they stayed until the end of the season and then let go.If they had been there to the end without a doubt we would have been doing ok, and so they would then have made the transition.
Had they done well they would have deserved to have been installed as the main men and all season long people pointed out that had GB been sacked that's who we would have got.
As for NP the jury is still out, I quite liked him but he still took us to the brink of relegation.

I honestly very much doubt we would have stayed up had Dodd and Gorman stayed in charge any longer and supporters would have been calling for their heads (along with Crouch and McMenemy).

Even if somehow we had stayed up under them, I doubt Gorman would have taken it on (considering he stepped down at Northampton due to stress/personal reasons), and Dodd probably hasn't got the relevant UEFA badges.

They were nothing more than stopgaps.

[puff the magic dragon]

Lowe is an arrogant **** - but...

Didn't Lowe's PR company start posts along similar lines?

[OldNick]

I honestly very much doubt we would have stayed up had Dodd and Gorman stayed in charge any longer and supporters would have been calling for their heads (along with Crouch and McMenemy).

Even if somehow we had stayed up under them, I doubt Gorman would have taken it on (considering he stepped down at Northampton due to stress/personal reasons), and Dodd probably hasn't got the relevant UEFA badges.

They were nothing more than stopgaps.Come on UM, how has a few badges stopped someone coming manager, Wigley didnt either if you recall.
The financial set up at the time could only really go for the cheap option.

[jam]

I honestly very much doubt we would have stayed up had Dodd and Gorman stayed in charge any longer and supporters would have been calling for their heads (along with Crouch and McMenemy).

Even if somehow we had stayed up under them, I doubt Gorman would have taken it on (considering he stepped down at Northampton due to stress/personal reasons), and Dodd probably hasn't got the relevant UEFA badges.

They were nothing more than stopgaps.

In one of Gorman's post mach interviews on Radio Hants he made it clear that he and Dodd wanted the job full time.