um pahars

When he walked in the door we were 18th. He wasn't really in charge when we slipped lower after immediately losing at Plymouth (down to 20th I think). At that point we had achieved 38 points from 33 games (1.15 per game and sat 20th I think). Then when he left we were 20th and managed 16 points from his 13 games (1.23 points per game). So during his tenure he stabilised a fall and managed to improve on the points per game haul of the previous 33 games. In the context, a result all round.

And do you know how many shares he has bought and how much that has cost him, compared to with how much he was paid by the Club. PS I don't expect an answer, but before you make these outlandish claims it would be best to have an understanding of the sums involved, particularly in the context that SW11 was talking of.

Don't want to incrimnate anyone, but where and when did that happen??? Must say, I never liked him. Had the DB7 and the yacht/cruiser but did fck all for the money.

And where is he saying that you thought we were a top of the league team? Even in our relegation season we convincingly beat a team at their place who finished 7th in the Premiership. The performance in one match is nothing to base the rest of a season on, 28 games is a much better judge of how good a team is and perhaps more importantly, how good a manager you have. If there is talent there to such a degree as you state, then pray tell why the "successful" Poortvliet managed to nurture it such a way that he left us second bottom staring relegation squarely in the face. We've probably got a slightly lower than average squad, who for the first part of the season were overseen by probably the worst manager in our history. (all of the above is IMHO blah, blah, blah).

Fck me Mr Sanctimonious, not content with ripping into people for some gallows humour on one thread, you're now going to town here. You may have missed the IMHO in my post and you have also subtlely overlooked that most things posted on a nerdy, anonymous internet message board are peoples opinions and take on things (unless they are talking about factual things such as number of appearances etc). Maybe just for you, everyone should prefix or suffix their posts with IMHO so you don't blow a fuse. And I would counter that maybe the odd game playing well above your station (and when the opposition underperform) does not suggest you have the ability to play like that ll the time and ultimately you will settle down to a more averagec / reflective level, which will be reflected in your league position over 28 games as opposed to just looking at one result. All IMHO of course. If you were confident under Poortvliet when we were in the bottom 3, playing sht, then you're more of an optimist than I am. IMHO of course. (All of the above is subjective and my personal opinion only, unless it is specifically noted as fact. TM Um Pahars © 2009)

I understand what you're saying, but they were still produced by the Academy so I think they should be included. Of course if this team of Academy players was challenging for a Champions League place then they may have stayed put!!!! However, I would counter that looking at that team, even including those 3, it is not of a Premiership standard.

If you take one game in isolation, you could probably read anything you wanted into it. Much more powerful is a sustained period of performances and results, and IMHO 28 games is certainly enough to give you a much better feel for what the team was capable of. We were going nowhere fast, Poortvliet was looking increasingly more and more bemused as each game passed. He may have stuck with the same rigid formation, but he was continually tinkering with the line up. Contrary to what Chris Iwelumo would tell you, we didn't play football the "right way" and just because Wotte hasn't managed to get us to play a "proper Championship style" so far, I don't think we should get all misty eyed and grab our rose tinted spectacles and wish for success under Poortvliet. He had more than enough games (as well as a pre season) to make his mark and he failed, disastrously. We've had enough rewriting of history without trying to suggest that under Poortvliet we were on the cusp of something beuatiful and successful.

I was just going to post that. Maybe it's slowly releasing toxic fumes into the boardroom that is interfering with decision making ability of our Board. Those pesky Tykes.

He was on their books as an Associate Schoolboy, but came here just before his 16th birtheday so I think that qualifies him for this team. So far this would be my team: -------------------Flahavan------------------- Baird---------Monk--------Cranie----------Bale Walcott------Oakley-------Howard-------Bridge ------------McDonald-----Blackstock---------- Certainly good in places, but definitely weak in others. Any changes to the above???? I'd have that team down as a high scoring, high conceeding Championship team. Mid table/Challenging playoffs. Any different views on how "good" this team would be???

It's just a reflection of the sht state of the Club (and City). Simple as that.

Following on from something in the Mike Williamson thread, could we produce a team of Academy players who could all play together as we stand here today (i.e. No Shearers, Wallaces etc). They have to have come throught the Academy from a junior (i.e. no Kenwyne Jones) and still have to be playing. And where would they be in the 92 places in the league???? GK: ??? RB : ??? CB's : Monk, Cranie, Mills LB : Bridge, Bale RM : CM's : Howard LM : Bridge or Bale CF's : Best, Blackstock, Walcott, McDonald

Think about it logically. Take out the foreign players and where do you think all the other players up and down the leagues came from??? I'll give you a clue, most of them came from an Academy of some description. Ours was not the panacea some tried to make it out to be. It was arguably not really that different from many up and down the country. So how about coming up with a team of our Academy players over the last 10 years (and then placing them in the league): Keeper : Have we produced one? RB : ??? CB: Williamson (Championship strugglers) CB: Mills or Cranie (Both hardly setting the world apart) LB: Bale RM: ??? CM: ??? CM: ??? LM: Bridge CF: Walcott CF: McDonald Could we put together a team that would be worthy of top flight place??? I doubt it.

John finished the season on fire and Poortvliet and/or Lowe never gave him a chance to carry on. Told he could leave, cold shouldered (I even think the lad on loan to Bournemouth go the nod ahead of him at one point) and marginalised, it was our decision to let him go with a whimper. Saga and Rasiak were terribly managed by Burley last season. After signing both of them, he consigned them to the subs bench and failed to get the best out of them. Players have to take some responsibility, but if there's one example of how much of an impact a poor manager can have on a team (in addition to Poortvliet, of course) then Burley's usage of players and tactics before he jumped ship would be up there with the best of them.

We've already tried that. News is hitting Um Towers that Poortvliet's 60,000 euros was actually paid to Saints (not Helmond) in return for letting him take the reins at St Mary's.

I think I'll leave it, as like you say I wouldn't put it past Lowe either signing himself as a player, coach or even manager;)

It was a cheap shot by Lowe as the same sort of stuff went on when he was at the helm, and as others have said on this thread it goes on at every club in the land. Loads of players don't make it because their position in the first team is blocked by a good player, they just get the break, they develop late, managers want instant results so buy a ready made player etc etc etc. We could easily make up a team of players who have passed through us, just as every other team in the land could.

Both 20 a season scorers for us (the latter in a relegation threatened team), who IMHO proved their worth when they were used correctly by us. What we would give for a 20 a season scorer this time around.

I'm sure they were. Lowe was most definitely a Lowe signing. He was on loan for us for the second half of the season and was made permanent a month before Lowe left office. What your saying is fair to those who said he didnt try to invest, but I'm not one of them;). I was always of the mind that Lowe/Cowen's approach that summer wasn't that different to what Wilde/Hone did. Lowe made a number of statements regarding backing the manager in the transfer market that summer. He also alluded to a "warchest" or reserves which some people took to be a sum of money locked away ready to use, when in reality this was just a "term" which identified an agreement to spend a certain amount of cash in the transfer market, which as Hone pointed out would have to be funded by debt.

Not privy to either nickh, so sorry on the factual stuff and can only give you my opinion/insight. With regards the first, the biggest was player wages, which came down by a couple of million. Our wages for the second half of the first season down were just as high as for the first six months, so there never seemed to be that much movement that season, even though we were selling off ex Prem players through the season (may have been due to contractual issues though). They then dropped by a couple of million under Hone in the second season down. Hone & others were also critical of some of the contracts and overheads (as well as income streams) the Club was running with, but they never went into detail of what they were, or what sums were involved. I'm sure there were contributions from Lowe/Cowen just as there were from Hone/Wilde to the drop in costs. As I said in my post above, I honestly didn't see much difference in the way the most of the Club was run post Boardroom change in the summer of 2006 with regards finances etc, particularly when you look at Rasiak's signing and the other promises about supporting Burley, along with Lowe & Cowen's assertion that we need to earn repromotion during the parachute period, which is why I then find it rather irksome that people blast everything Hone/Wilde did in that first season, when arguably is wasn't a million miles away from what Lowe/Cowen were planning. Indeed their time for implementation of Plan B was the summer 2007, which brings us nicely on to your second question. As for Plan B, it was something everyone alluded to (Lowe, Cowen, Wilde, Crouch aneven Hone & co). I don't think it was a Top Secret Plan kept in the safe, more a strategy to reduce costs at the same time as the second parachute payment ended. What it entailed, what sums it involved and over what period it would be implemented was never defined, and I also imagine different individuals had/have a different perception of what it might entail and there are obviously a myriad of ways of how it could be implemented.

When you start trotting out lines such as these above, then it's the surest sign that you've lost the argument. If you could steer clear of the insults, rhetoric and try not to change the subject, then we might get more of a worthwhile debate (or argument). Many focus on the bigger picture. Indeed, even on this thread there is some sensible reasoning and debate, even if individuals don't share the same viewpoint. But this one instance was just a small part of the initial discussion regarding Lowe where you asserted he had handled the PR well since his return. Something that given the furore over his approach to the AGM would suggest otherwise - and there are also a number of other quotes and statements that would suggest he still hasn't mastered the PR side of things (e.g. his gambit in the Annual Report with Chris Iwelumo must be one of his classics). Of course it's all about people's opinions, but you have been the only person I know (and I am happy for others to sign up to that view) who has thought his behaviour and antics at the AGM was befitting of the role and context.

LOL. Thanks for putting a smile on my miserable face tonight. PS I did miss out Alan Brazil and I also reckon I've got an Ipswich team across a couple of eras there as well.

You're quite right about Ipswich and they did have a manager who was uiniversally liked in Bobby Robson. As a team they played it the right way and had a pretty decent team. I used to love Paul Cooper who I'm sure had a great record of penalty saves. And watching Saints up in Sunderland a few years back managed to get out on the lash with Eric Gates in Newcastle after the match and he was a great laugh (even with no teeth). I've probably combined about 3 different teams but I can remember a team of Cooper, Burley, Butcher, Osman, Mills, Wark, Beattie, Muhren, Thyssen, Gates, Mariner. Quite a side, and very similar to us in many ways around that time.