um pahars

And as we're being so civil this fine morning, how about, What do you think is/was Lowe's biggest mistake(s)? And how do you now view the appointment of Poortvliet? And what changes (if any) would you like to see at the Club, if (a) we stay up, or (b) we go down?

So we're all going to go it alone and do our own stuff then, fair enough by me (although I still feel it is a missed opportunity). Just finding it slightly hard to reconcile your stance and the belief of spontanaiety (sp), with you trying to establish a march away from the ground and setting up a website etc etc etc. If you're so anti people getting organised, don't believe in a leader etc etc etc, then why go down this route?

Not sure about the plural use of current issues. The only mention with regards the PLC status was in response to a question posed regarding whether it was hampering the chances of getting investment. Crouch's response was that he believed it wasn't deterring people any more than if we were a "private company". So I don't want to burst your bubble, but your ditty above sounds quite a bit more expansive than what Crouch actually said. All, some, or even none of our current issues may, or may not, be down to the PLC status, but that's not what Crouch said either way.

I thought you said they didn't have any members;) Just as you need to distinguish between Lowe's cabal and SFC, you need to distinguish between the Trust and it's current board. With the right direction, I still think it could serve some purpose, even at this late stage and after it's recent fence sitting, and perhaps it just needs the right people to start leading and shaping it. Why don't you put yourself forward to give it some impetus and force a change of direction? Why don't others do the same? Alternatively, if we're saying these things never work out, then we'll have to all do this individually, which IMHO is a shame, as I think a sense of common purpose and unity is what is needed.

Saint Martini (based in Holland) has always been fairly middle of the road with his contributions and this is what he had to say about Wotte: The thing with Wotte is that he never manages to stay anywhere long and even though he has held higher profile jobs then Poortvliet I don't think he's a better manager. He just comes over a bit more sophisticated and has more smooth talk. It might work on the short term but I can guarantee you he will be gone with 1.5 years. And from everything I have read and gleaned from over in Hollnad, he is not that well regarded (in fact many have it down as the complete opposite). Just as I genuinely hoped Jan could pull it off, I hope Wotte will do the same. He and his team will get my support at matches, so I'm happy to live up to my side of the bargain (that's not unconditional support BTW).

And in that interview of the 7th Feb (reported on 7th and 8th on the OS) McMenemy (and Hiley) are quite clear that the hunt for a replacement for Burley is still going on, that Gorman and Dodd are caretakers etc etc etc. They were never appointed permanently, they were always just keeping the seat warm, the problem was that they were left as seat warmers for too long. Given that the window was closing as Burley was leaving us, and that Burley going wasn't a shock, then Crouch et al should have got their act together much quicker to install someone who should have been a praty to any transfer decisions (even if there were financial drivers). They dillied and dallied too long IMHO, and I have no problem saying that. IMHO, the period of instability also added to our problems on the pitch which meant the position Pearson inherited was worse than it might have been.

And that sounds fair enough. I don't think his CV is that good, particularly when you consider how many of his roles panned out and how his tenures are perceived, but of course that's just my perception. However, I also can't help but think if he was any good, then he would have been able to have got a better job than running our ressies!!!!

But that's just a part of the same interview where he then says they're going to take their time to get the right appointment etc etc etc, which also adds the bit about the Club taking their time to find Burley's replacement. I honestly struggle to see anything in that interview, reported in two articles on the OS, that suggests, or even implies, that Dodd and Gorman had got the job(s) on a permanent basis. And as I said above, I think Crouch, Lawrie et al handled the replacement of Burley poorly, but I don't think there's anything that actually shows Dodd and Gorman were appointed on a permanent basis (and there's plenty of quotes and eveidence that suggests they were only caretakers). It may not have gone to the wire if Pearson had come in earlier, but I doubt Wilde and Lowe would have stayed away. IMHO Wilde made his decision to oust Crouch when Crouch rebuffed Wilde's advances for a seat on the Board. Not long after Crouch called Hone & co's bluff, Wilde went public in The Echo saying something like "Leon and Trant deserve a pat on the back and Leon and I are working together". Crouch wasn't interested in reciprocating this advance, Wilde felt jilted and so ran into the arms of Lowe. The cards were already dealt before Crouch dillied and dallied over replacing Burley.

Let's just hope Fagan can hit the Bullseye!

Oh, I agree. As I said above, the minute Scotland came sniffing we should have been looking to line someone up. Even though Burley wasn't the favourite (can't remember who was), there was a chance he could quickly leave and we should have been looking to replace him straight away. IMHO the dillying and dallying by Crouch, Lawrie et al was a mistake, it's just that I had it down as a "too long" holding pattern, as opposed to a poor appointment. A subtle difference, if you catch my drift, which in no way excuses the fact that they wasted too much time in getting a replacement in.

I imagine they think it might bring about change at the Club.

And not an attributable quote, merely something from the editor, but there is also: It allows the Club to take their time over the hunt for a replacement for George Burley.

Both of them mention "forseeable future" and I certainly never read that as permanent. In the second one there is the line, "We always said we would take our time to make sure we appoint the right person and that is what we are doing." And I read that as them saying we are in the hunt for someone, but there is no rush as these two are doing alright for now. I certainly never read anything in there to suggest it was permanent, but obviously some people did read it that way. DellDays, did you think these two were appointed full time and permanent??? (And PS this is no defence of Crouch, Lawrie et al, because IMHO the minute we knew Burley was going, or in with a shout of going, we should have been looking right then, and not wasted 5 or so matches including the FA Cup tie. They dillied and dallied too long in replcing Burley!!!!).

Are you referring to the Dodd and Gorman tenure??? I've never got my head around that one. I never had it down as a permanent set up, merely that they were holding the fort until they appointed someone (although I know there was that statement saying something like they were here for the forseeable future or whatever - has anyone got a link to it). I also didn't consider that they were sacked when Pearson came in. I know Exit2 has an in to Dodd, so would be interested to know as to whether Dodd thought they had the job full time or whether he thought they were just keeping the seat warm.

How did you come to that opinion??? Looking at Wotte's CV, I accept that it's better than Poortvliet's, but then so again is Stuart Ritchies!!!!!!! Wotte is no outstanding Dutch manager, his CV is littered with failure, relegations and short tenures. If Poortvliet got bigged up for taking Den Bosch to promotion when they were coming back from financial turmoil, then you have to look at the season before, when it was Wotte who was at the helm when they were relegated and went in to financial turmoil. Being honest, and I'm not running us down, if he was any good, then he wouldn't have been appointed as reserve team coach with us last summer.

Absolutely. And what worries me most, is that the preparations and start to this season were so similar to the farce that was the 2004/05 season. And that season was not farcial just because we lost our place at the top table (as others have pointed out, it's an annual risk for most teams), it was the manner in which we gave ourselves a mountain to climb but ccking it up right from the start!!!!!! I just hope history does not repeat itself, as although the fall out from relelgation last time was shattering, I fear that the fall out this time around might be catastophic!!!!

Why are you throwing in a random name, I was asking who striker number 4 was? But seriously, thanks for pointing out who number four was, cheers.

Stern John did his job with his goals last season. Burley bought Saga, and then did nothing with him. I may be wrong, but Rasiak was treated awfully as well Burley after his successful play off season, and then went out on loan in the second half of the season. Who was striker number 4???

IMHO Schneiderlin was bought solely as a potential asset to groom and quickly sell on. If he goes for a couple of million then it will looked at as a good deal and if he doesn't, then questions will/should be asked. IMHO, when money is tight and we have a mountain to climb, I would have thought the first priority would be to have the strongest possible team in the short term and to stay up. Therefore, I'm with you 100%, and rather than indulge in the player speculation game, all our monies (and efforts) should have been channelled into giving ourselves the strongest possible chance of staying up. Like you, I would have spent the money (even if was not the full £1.2m) on keeping one of our goalscorers at the Club. When people say we had no choices this season, then the appointment of Poortvliet and the signing of Schneiderlin are too easy ripostes (although there are many others as well!!!).

FFS the league don't award points for what you sense or for what you're little inside track is telling you. Pray tell, what was your little inside track telling you through the first 28 games of the season when we were going to fck?

We're not down yet, by any stretch of the imagination and as long as we have a chance then the team will get my support. I'm sure that's true of most supporters, who although they think we probably will go down, they will nto give up supporting the team until we have no chance. But that's not the same as branding everyone as defeatists and as bad as the French in the 1940's. Realistic, yes, defeatists no way.

I presume you were watching us in 1960 then, because we have never been so low!!!!

Last time I looked they were above us in the league and a tad more successful in recent years. It wasn't until they had rid themselves of some right twts of owners that they started to move onwards and upwards. I just hope that our period in the lower leagues is not as long as theirs was.

nickh, you really should go easy on such lines. Many were derided on here as being pessimists, doom mongers etc etc etc at the start of the season, whilst many (yourself included) were quick to harangue them for actually just being realistic (and as it turned out quite prophetic). Given our current position and given our current form, it's not unrealistic to think we will probably be relegated. Of course none of us want that to happen and we hope there is still plenty of time to turn things around, but claims of defeatism etc are a tad harsh.