um pahars

So even if you doctor the figures attendances still rose, which makes your claim of : as still being wrong.:rolleyes: Wrong as it was a couple of months ago and still as wrong today.:---):---) Keep 'em coming troll boy;)

Pretty much where I stand. The League can easily hide behind the rules that would appear to state that clubs are proteced if only their holding company go into administration and not the club itself. Despite it being potentially farcial and the rules being too loose, there is a clear fallback position for the League to rely on in court. There is no subjectivity or interpretation in their decision, they're just applying the laws as they stand (as crass as they may appear to be). Although some others might have a moan, I don't see how you can argue that the rules haven't been applied coreectly (although expect them to changed staright after). But at the same time I can see the League invoking some catch all clause (15) (b) (ix) (app a) that overrules everything else as they can see that the situation is not what they intended regarding holding companies and soolvent football clubs. The problem with that is that they then open themselves up to question for being subjective and for interpreting the rules. Regardless of whether we could pull it off, we would most defintiely have a right for that decision to be questioned (although of course winning would beb a different matter as would peraps be funding a case). 50/50 split for me, but that's got more positive than when I first thought about it last week.

That would probably be much better value than the "attractive" football we have seen this season.

We did spend cash on share buy backs, and I'm sure it was a few million and we also saw cash go in the form of dividends, again a few million. Looking back maybe those sums could have been better used.

You were wrong last time and you're wrong again today. Keep 'em coming troll boy, this is like shooting fish in a barrel;)

bllocks

Two points: 1) I don't know why I'm bothering, but even if you take Sheff Utd out of the equation, then attendances still rose under Crouch. But that's spectacularly missing the point (something which you've become quite an expert on) as we haven't made any adjustments for the myriad of issues I mentioned above. If you want to use averages you don't then say I want an average without this, without that, add that back in, that's not fair. :rolleyes: 2) Attractive football under Poortvliet. Do me a favour. Of course it's all subjective and how you see football, but apart from a the odd good game and some pretty triangles in the middle fo the pitch (WGS would call it propaganda fotball) we were served up dross and ultimatley the table does not lie.:smt017

You had better throw Mark "everyone's got a soft spot for Bournemouth and always enjoy coming down here" Jackosn in there somewhere as he was in the Corporates yesterday doing his due dilligence!!! Whether that involves Beckham, Sheikhs, Barry the Briefcase and Saints Worldwide Inc, I do not know. I wouldn't rule out a Bransgrove involvement in there somewhere (more a sum of money as opposed to any active involvement). I also wouldn't rule out Lowe being involved in there group either. I also wouldn't rule out none of them coming off and having to resort to bucket collections, donations and some sort of big alliance between supporters and others to keep the club alive, at least in the short term.

And if you took out the Opening game and if you took out the game against newly relegated Wets Brom and what about the games against local(ish) opposition like Palace, Charlton and maybe even Cardiff. What about the number of evening games in both parts of the season? What about the effect on attendances in the second half of the season when we relatively sht and had just got dumped out of the cup by Bristol Rovers? If, what and my aunty having ******. If you want to talk about averages and make claims, then you have to be able to substantiate them (and not being rude, but you've asked exactly the same question before and you've received an answer. But then again going by your memory suggesting we played great football under Poortvliet, then perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised you can't remember).

Haven't we been here before LMFAO http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=221397&highlight=reappointment#post221397 Average attendance for the 11 games prior to Crouch's reappointment in Dec 2007 20,585 Average attendance for the 12 games under Crouch from Dec 2007 to May 2008 21867 If you're going to make such claims, then at least check they stand up to scrutiny. Keep 'em coming troll boy:---)

We indeed have no choice on this matter, as Lowe failed and delivered us into the hands of this nasty man.

But haven't you and others been saying that very often when you get youngsters from the top clubs (and Pearson has managed to pick up some from Arsenal and Liverpool as well), that their own clubs very often pay their wages;) I'd also say he must be doing something right and earning the confidence of others (as well as having good contacts) if he's convinced Wenger, Rafa and Ferguson to lend him their young stars. We can never say one way or the other whether Pearson would have been better or worse than Poortvliet (although i'm guessing only a total fckwit would plump for the latter), but it does highlight that Pearson has rebuilt his team, has played loads of youth players, has been successful (relatively speaking of course). Don't rewrite history nickh, because apart from the odd one off game we were sht under Poortvliet. The table does not lie. With the exception of 3 or 4 games, that period under Poortvliet was appalling. And there's nothing wrong with wanting a manager who is useless, out of his depth and ultimately terrible, to get the boot. Sometimes (as with Wigley) the error is not in sacking the manager, but in making such a fck up of an appointment in the first place. Off the pitch this season has been a nightmare under Lowe and it has been exactly the same on it, so let's not suggest Poortvliet wasn't that bad!!!!

Indeed it does, because IMHO the make up of the crowd's were so different. The Man Yoo game were those more interested in seeing the stars of Man Yoo than Saints. Not that they were Man Yoo fans, more that they were fans of the stars/celebrities. IMHO the make up of the crowd on Saturday were those who have grown disillusioned by Saints either due to performances or through being taken for a ride.

You need to remember that the Forest game was linked to the Man Yoo cup game a couple of weeks later. Non season ticket holders had to buy a Forest one to guarantee a Man Yoo one. It was about 10,000 up on recent games and probably 10,000 up on our average attendaces this season.

He wouldn't even have got the job if he agreed to work for nothing. As you say, it was a plan hatched during that Spring and it was Lowe's decision to go that way (supported by the rest of the board). Ultimately, I have no problem with that, Lowe was in charge and it was his call with regards hiring or firing Pearson. He will have to be judged on that decision, so I find it rather galling for the odd revisionist on here to start suggesting that Pearson walked out on us because he didn't like what he saw.

Yep, shedloads of it and if you hadn't read what has been posted up ad nauseum here since Pearson left, you'd have to be completely stupid to think that Pearson turned Lowe down. Even go back to the OS and it is patently clear to anyone with half a brain that it was our decision to relieve Pearson of his duties. Money was not discussed with Pearson when he met Lowe, but he was willing to renegotiate in light of our fnancial predicament. As his quotes show he was acutely aware of our problems. He had no intention nor desire of leaving and went in to his meeting with Lowe stating he wanted to stay and came out thinking he was going to. Pearson's salary was not declared in the accounts and if you think Poortvliet is only on £50k then you really are out of touch with reality (after all he had to pay Helmond £60,000 to release him).

My problem with yesterday is that it looks as though Plymouth are now out of it. I know there are still six games left, but they are 6 points ahead of us, so even if they only win 1 of their last 5 games we would have to win three of ours just to pull level. I think it's now 2 teams out 3 (Us, Norwich & Forest) and I don't like those odds!!!!!! Maybe Barnsley can be pulled back into it, but they have 5 points and a game in hand on us. I've gone from being somewhat optimistic to rather pessimistic after yesterday.

This is what I found out when I looked at the team Pearson put out a couple of months ago: Here's his side today: 4 loanees 11 of the squad are 23 or under (7 are 20 or under) Martin - 23 (on loan) Gilbert - 21 (on loan) Morrison - 20 (new in) Hobbs - 20 (on loan) Berner - 31 (new in) Oakley - 31 Andy King - 20 Cleverley - 19 (on loan) Dyer - 26 (new in) Fryatt - 22 Howard - 32 Subs: Pentney - No age or data (but young) Chambers - 18 Gradel - 21 Mattock - 18 Dickov - 134 Pearson has shown by his deeds that he is not averse to playing youngsters, nor wheeling and dealing on a small budget. It was pretty obvious that he would be up for such a strategy, particularly when you look back to see he said the following not long after taking over: On youth: "A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club. On working with limited funds "It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that. Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill. We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players. Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too." On youth again, but how the relegation fight must be a priority It cannot be my priority at the moment but it will get my total support in terms of fitting in with the philosophy of the club. I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it. If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees." Those that claim Pearson was only interested in big name players earning big name wages couldn't be more wrong, particularly when you look at his words and deeds in this area. To suggest that Pearson would not have wanted to work here, despite all the evidence showing otherwise and also ignoring the fact that Poortvliet and Wotte were already lined up, is actually a daming indictment of Lowe. Rather than support his footballing decisions you're actually making excuses for him because you know his first major decision was an absolute fck up. The very fact that even his most ardent supporters make excuses and are embarassed by that decision speaks volumes. I'm sorry, but as much as I wanted Poortvliet to succeed, I think you will find there were many supporters who were questioning the appointment right from the off.

Well you better wake up and get in the real world. Pearson was more than happy to stay and he was more than happy to work under the financial constraints he knew would be applied. Lowe decided to curtail the arrangment because he thought he knew best with regards installing the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. You'd have to be blind or a total idiot to try and suggest Pearson turned Lowe down.

No way was that the disparity, and that's even before you throw in Wotte as well (and maybe even Kim Van Der Secrecy). But even if it was, then just for arguments sake I would either have thought (a) paying more for a decent manager would be a priority (i.e. success puts bums on seats), and (b) that there was no reason to go for such an inexperienced, untried and untested Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. To suggest that we only booted out Pearson and got in Poortvliet because we were skint is incredulous (and that's even before we stat ripping your salary disparity apart LOL).

And I was sat Itchen Centre and there is no way Manji can claim "I doubt very much whether the fans were clapping the speeches" because as you say Lawrie's speech was met by almost universal support, clapping and the odd huzzah!!!!! We may indeed all be lemmings, but to suggest it never happened just makes you come across as a right tw1t. I just don't understand the need to make yourself look stupid by trying to twist something tht 28,000 people saw and heard first hand.

You must have been in some parallel stadium, because the overwhelming majority of people in the stadium did indeed applaud at the end of Lawrie's speech. You may not like him, you may have valid reasons for that and there may indeed be others who do not like him, but the facts are that yesterday his speech received a very warm round of applause at the end (and even in the middle as well). Trying to pretend otherwise akes you look an even bigger fool.

So elbowing out Pearson and getting in Poortvliet was down to money then???? We didn't have a shedload of money, but what we did have was spent poorly and a decent asset in Pearson wa shipped out to make way for the disaster that was Poortvliet.

Ignorant, sloppy, trotted out before etc etc etc. I don't think we have delusions of grandeur or a belief that we have a divine right to be in the premiership. Of course we aspire to get there (as do/should most teams), but then that's whole point of the footballing pyramid with promotions based on success on the pitch. We know where we are in the foootballing pecking order and have always enjoyed a healthy awareness of our place in the grand scheme of things. Even when we were at our peak in the early to mid 80's we still accepted we were punching above our weight and were happy to give the big teams a bloody nose when they ventured down to The Dell. To claim we have delusions of grandeur due to one strapline on the Official Site, which is actually more of a rallying call and an aspiration is just poor tired journalism (and I use the term journalism very loosely indeed).

Possibly one of the casualties of the sudden influx of youth into the fist team. This is a tough old league, with games thick and fast (sure the Youth Team only play something like 30 games) and so much pessure has been heaped on so many young shoulders. Although there is the argument that the best way to learn is to be thrown in at the deep end, I also think it is valid to say that youngsters need to be nurtured and introduced when there ready in a controlled manner.