um pahars

I almost liked bits of that Frank. As for the piece in bold, I was not wedded to Crouch staying, but I was most definitely wedded to the idea of Pearson staying. And of course we don't know what he could have done even if he was given the same hand as Poortvliet, but I also think it wouldn't be a totally unreasonable hypothesis to claim that Pearson would have got more out of the team than the useless Poortvliet did, even if it was under exactly the same conditions and constraints. But you can't ignore the impact the decision to boot Pearson out and replace with the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up has had on the Club this season. Of course it's hypothetical and subjective, but you don't need to be an expert to see it all went tts up and we suffered on and off the pitch because of it (hell if was working so successfully, then why did Lowe give Jan the El Bow).

A very big risk, with absolutely no element control of how the money is spent in return for such a large sum of money (particularly when referenced to the market "value" of the Club at the time) does not sound very attractive to me. And how's this for a little rumour that I know some on here are aware of (rumour mind, before we all go mental). I heard that there was a letter whereby Crouch said he would commit his £2m (no idea what form it took though) as long as Lowe and Wilde relinquished control and Poortvliet got the boot (and not sure if he was meant to replace them or whether someone else would come in to run the Club)!!!! Anyone else heard this?????

Something which IMHO Lowe and Wilde opposed, effectively giving Hone and co the green light to carry on regardless. Crouch doesn't get away scott free either, as he wasn't savvy enough to see that the Execs were taking control of the train set and drving it off in another direction. Lowe was complicit in the mistakes up to 2006, had some involvement in 2007 (re ruling out ousting Hone and co with Thompson & co and then the *****ing at Runnymede when a coup was being planned) and then instrumental after the summer of 2008 with the Revolutionary Coaching set up being a terrible mistake. In between a whole raft of people also contributed from Hone to Wilde to Burley to Crouch.

That's when decnet communication, honesty and empathy with the fans comes in to play. The very fact they haven't got that is also a problem in having them run the Club.

I never suggested Pearson was on the same as Poortvliet, but as you allude to later on, it was a false economy even if finances were the driving factor behind Pearson going (which IMHO they were not). You have to add in all the costs of such decisions!!! But it wasn't a financial decision. It was a footballing decision and the main driver for Pearson going was to bring in the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. The fcat that we saved some money (although I'm not sure once you throw in Wotte, the Helmond fee and some severance monies for Jan) was a mere bonus.

None whatsoever. They quite rightly would not have got involved in that level of decision. Poortviet for Pearson was purely a footballing decision. A decision which backfired spectacularly which cost us £££'s this season. Rather than save us, that decision probably took us over the edge.

I'm sorry, but IMHO there was no financial reason why we had to kick Pearson out and get Poortvliet in. That was purely a footballing decision which spectacularly backfired costing us points on the pitch, bums on seats and £££££'s in the bank.

I would have countered that we have also seen the problems having "businessmen" run the club.

You're quite right nickh in that packaging it all up together is not really the same, particularly when in all of his high prfile TV and radio interviews the line he is spouting is that it happened when he was not on the bridge. In the interviews I have heard/seen he is absolutely adamant that the reason for our demise ccurred when he was away. I would disagree. I think his insistence that it had nothing to do with him just reinforces people's view on how delusional he is/was. Most people have always accepted that there have been many failings in recent years and many people should take their share of the blame, it is only a few loonies, and Lowe himself, who don't think some people are not to blame.

For example we should have accepted whatever was on offer for Dyer. On top of that I would have thought we could have raised a small sum to manage the overdraft. If we thought we could make £5m, then a £1millin reduction should have been possible. I'm never one for selling our talent, but I also accept our position in football and the fact that we will always lose our best players. If it's becuase they want to move on and are tempted by salaries we can't compete with then fine, or if it's also because the Club as a whole will benefit, then I'm also fine with that. If someone said we ahd to lose Dyer and Lallana to keep afloat, I would have accepted that.

Indeed, when he gets on to the Barclay's bit, then it would be hard not to agree with his sentiments. I think what they did to us mirrors the bank's overall contribution to the wider world in recent years and they have a alot to answer for. There is also some turth regarding some of the decisions made during his absence (mainly when the parachute payment ran out), but then he just proves how out of touch he is by blaming everything on that 2 year period, conveniently forgetting what happened in his tneure before he left in 2006 and what has happened since he returned.

Wey hey, I agree with you. What is the world coming to?????? There were some very poor decisions post May 2007 (and those people should also be held to account), but his desire to blame all of our ills on that one/two year period, conveniently ignoring the mistakes pre and post that era just show him up to be somewhat deluded. These interviews have had nothing to do with Saints and all to do with Lowe, Lowe and Lowe.

I think the two statements are indeed in conflict, but at the same time you have to admit that we didn't give ourselves the best chance with regards the first one when we went down the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. That decision definitely cost us points on the pitch and £££'s in the bank due to falling attendances. I also agree that Barclay's have acted in a somewhat knee jerk manner and I would have thought they would have been more than willing to accept a stepped repayment considering their willingness less than two years ago to allow us to go overdrawn. Maybe they did indeed lose confidence in Lowe???? Additionally, I'm somewhat surprised that we didn't do more to ensure we stayed within these new limits as we ceratinly had a chance in the January window to raise funds (even if it was a firesale!!!, which why uncomfortable would have been better than where we now find ourslelves!!!!!) and maybe even do other things to try and get some funds in (sale of other assets, short term investment etc)

There is most definitely some truth in the claim that others must share their share of the blame, but that certainly doesn't mean that Lowe can conveniently blame it all on everyone else. It's this lack of humility and arguably a lack of realism that paints him in such bad light.I honestly have to wonder about his grasp on reality with the claim that it is always someone elses fault. I was certainly a critic of Hone's faling to implement Plan B last summer and we certainly should have cut our costs when the parachute payment ran out, so he and his board have to accept their share of the blame. But the idea that all of our problems stemmed from the two years he was away is simply rewriting history. For instance in his last year with us, we brought in £16,000,000 of income from player sales and yet we still lost cash out the door in that period and debt went up. And as Hone mentioned in his version of the "truth" that is the Annual Report, relegation shaped and continued to exert an overwhelming influence on the club. And then of course there is this year, where rather than rescue the Club he has driven it deeper down into the mire through an appalling managerial decision which has hit us on and off the pitch. If the Bank cut the overdraft 6 months or so again, then you also have to ask why we didn't take steps to make sure we could live with the £1million reduction (we had a transfer window to bring in money and we could also have undertaken other initiatives). Also when Irani mentioned the managerial merry go round he countered by saying Hoddle, starchan and Jones left for other reasoons and it's not as bad as people make out, conveniently forgetting Gray, Wigley, Sturrock, Poortvliet, Redknapp. Lowe isn't to blame for everything and there are indeed a number of people who will have to step up to the plate to take their fair share, but Lowe's claim that he is blameless is actually as ridiculous as those who do indeed blame him for everything.

The current football market and surrounding conditions do indeed make it a rather tricky course to navigate, and a course that has claimed many other victims as well, but by starting off this season with the Revolutionary Coaching Set up was akin to going into the race blindfolded and with one hand tied behind your back. As was going through that relegation season with three managers and a wasted pre season. Football is a meritocracy, but if you handicap yourself from the start, then you're probably always going to fall at a fence at some point. (and still no reason for one man to be washing the linen, instead of standing back and putting the Club first, or at least looking forward).

But how about declining their requests for interviews, putting the Club first and moving on, rather than washing the dirty linen in public just so that one individual feels vindicated? Or maybe even use these interviews in a positive manner to either drum up support for our short term financial problems or to find a longer term solution??

He did indeed commit the first 2million (and a 4 year deal) on Rasiak that summer. Additionally, he raised the expectations of Burley (and others) but stating that that wouldn't be the last of the monies spent that summer, and that there was a warchest to be spent on further transfers (which was mentioned after we had already signed Rasiak) in that summer. Like you, I don't blame him for all of ours (or the worlds!!) ills, but conversely his line of "everyone but me" is simply as awful as those who think he is to blame for everything. Also loved his 4th reason for us being in this mess is due to the redecoration of the stadium in the two years he was away. There's nothing like keeping focussed, seeing the bigger picture and discussing things in a sensble & rational manner is there:rolleyes:????

Good job I didn't pre-empt him then:rolleyes::rolleyes: As someone else has said, basically a re run of the Sky Business interview where he blames all the Club's ills on the two year period he was away. His best new line was that people should read the Chairman's Statement in the last set of Accounts which will explain everything (the same statement with Cris Iwelumo in them and the "fact" that Poortvliet is doing very well). Only problem with that is that they are just his view, his opinion and his slant on things. They're not some oracle of truth merely his take on what has happened. You could just as easily say read the ones from the year before when Jim Hone said: "The relegation of SFC from the Premier League in 2005 and the subsequent failure to win back promotion to that level have shaped and continue to exert an overwhelming influence." So just beacuse Hone says that, we should believe him and then we should not hold him to account as well then?? Poppycck as Hone is in there with the others who are responsible for the mess we are in. And of course not much in the interview about us going forward, merely the continuing massaging of Lowe's ego and the fact it was not his fault. And of course nothing about the abject failure that is this season, but then of course as I said on the SKY interview thread, this season has no bearing on us going into administration:rolleyes:

Fair points. Additionally, although I don't have any real evidence, I always got the impression that Lowe always played things by the book (which is praise BTW), e.g approaching clubs re their managers & players in the correct manner and when negotiating with players and agents, whereas I reckon many othe clubs weren't as honest. So if we get by because their rules are loose, then I won't lose any sleep over it, and I certainly won't be worrying what other fans think of us.

Are you saying Royston Smith was on the radio saying this was a possibility, or that some random bloke was on the radio saying this was a possibility?????

Everything I have found suggests that the points deduction came into play at the start of the 2004/05 season, and I think Derby went into Admin the season before the oints deuction rule was introduced. Crisis clubs to be docked 10 points By Paul Brown Friday, 26 September 2003 Nationwide league clubs that go into administration from the start of next season will be handed an automatic 10-point penalty under new rules agreed by the Football League yesterday. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...ts-581236.html And I think the Derby issue was regarding their restructuring and administration in October 2003 (i.e. after the ruling, but before it came into effect).

My little rant wasn't aimed at you fella. Sorry if you interpreted it that way, as honestly wasn't meant like that.

But of course no mention of this season, as I presume like one or two others, he thinks this awful season has no bearing on us going into administration. So basically appointing a poor manager, who achieved poor results, ensuring poor attendances, ensuring poor revenues has absolutely no bearing on our financial perfromance. With 2,000 bums being something like £1million on the top line, then I think the failings on the football pitch have a direct knock on effect on the bank overdraft. Of course the same can be said going the other way, i.e. no money ensures we have poorer players, but the decision to boot out Pearson and install Poortvliet was just the final straw of our financial suicide as I fail to believe that things would have been as bad on the pitch had Pearson stayed. Then of course you have to ask why if we just had the overdraft tightened by £1million, then why they didn't make a better attempt at hitting this target, no matter how unjust the decision to cut it might appear. If they thought they could hit £5million, then surely there were ways to enusre they hit £4million (sell players in January - even if it's at a knockdown as it would be better than admnistration, look outside for a small cash injection - force Crouch's hand, sale of other assets, engender the kind of support we saw on Saturday etc etc etc). PS As many predicted, he was still interested in looking backwards and not particularly keen on passing on the blame game and trying to help the Club in these dark times. It was all about how Lowe appears to others.

I have always said that we will go into that last game with a chance to stay up. I just think we will sort of match the results of a couple of teams and will be in with a shout right up until the end.

A few points: 1. I don't think the League or even the Forensic Accountant would visit this board, and 2. They would be fcking mental to take what goes up on here as gospel/genuine/well informed, and 3. There's just as many people on here saying we having not broken any rules. I think it's safe to say the decision won't be made (or influenced) on this board!!!