um pahars

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!!!

You'd have loved me today Stu, I was right old grunt of the infantry. Took my nephew to Bovington and ended up getting roped into being a part of the demonstration in their arena. Togged up in army gear, given a rifle, some basic training and thrown in the back of a FV432 to go into battle. Piece of pss, don't know what the fuss was all about;)

that children are our future (OMG I didn't even realise I was quoting Lowe and Poortvliet when I thought of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Indeed. Piece of pss, don't know what the fuss is all about. Tanking is easy;)

Stay confident fella. As conifdent as I was when I was behind the wheel of a 432 this afternoon:D

Keeps us alive and still not adrift. This point isn't that bad, it's just the Charlton result is the shtter.

But we have to get points to close that gap. They're 5 points ahead, with a game in hand and only 5 games left to overhaul them. Them losing and us losing is no good I'm afraid. We're not out of it, but only 1 out of Norwich, FOrest and us are going to survive and we must be least favourites out of those three.

I have to disagree. IMHO we certainly don't have a team capable of pushing for promotion, but I do think we have underperformed. We're bad, but I don't think we'e as bad as we have been playing (if you catch my drift).

And there was me thinking he was just having a quiet game!!!!!! Must take more notice of team line ups!!

I'm still predicting a Saints win and a Barnsley loss and we'll stay up. COYR!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Try and forget about it for 90 minutes!!!!!!!

Have to say that alot of that is exactly what I am thinking at the moment. I'm just not comfortable with this scattergun approach to throwing money into a bucket, without there first being a clearly identified and explained rationale. I know there is this dilemna regarding keeping the Club alive and not contributing, but I just don't think this should be done in an unorganised and unstructured manner. And as for the OP and Channon's comments, then they are very valid as well. Where else would you get grassroots customers chipping in their cash, only for it to be paid to very rich footballers, just so that "their" Club survives???????

Thanks for that Derry. So to paraprhase you're not collecting any money just yet, just getting ready to press the emergency button and potentially be an alternative if nothing else comes off???? I therefore think that Crouch and/or the Administrator need to come forward and explain just what this £500,000 is all, about as I'm alightly confused about what this part is all about (although we at least know that your initiative isn't involved in this other initiative).