um pahars

As the Beetles once sang: "All you need is luck":rolleyes::rolleyes: I've got one word for you Professor: You're talking out of your sr5e again, now run along.

Sadly, according to some it will indeed still be our fault!!! The mind boggles with regards their logic.:rolleyes:

Did you miss out a "T"

There is an element of truth in that one, but I also honestly think we should be able to get points out of most games in this division as the quality of opposition isn't that good (but that does say something about us as well!!!), so I'm normally optimistic.

I don't think anyone would have had a problem with youngsters being used judiciously, when they are ready and perhaps even only for certain games. A good mixture of young and old would have bee fine (and personally, although i'm not sure what his wage demands were, I would have had no problem with Wright staying on). I think there are some youngsters that are ready to play when they are fairly young, but IMHO we didn't judge each case on it's merits and really look at what was best for the Club and for the player, we just seemed to throw in as many as we could and hoped that they would at least tread water!!!!

I think that given the manager has a major impact on what happens on the pitch, then I think there is nothing wrong with this poster believing a change of manager might change results on the pitch. After all, what do you think Lowe was thinking when he bumped Gray & Wigley off (and when he and Wilde bumped Jan off as well, because he didn't walk of his own accord)? It's a totally valid viewpoint to hold and espouse.

I was talking more about the Gobern's, Lancashire, McClaggon, Mills, Paterson, White, Thompson etc and maybe even others such as Lallana, who is a more fragile type of player. Many of these players have been dropped in the deep end, then bombed out. IMHO, on too many occasions we have played players before they were ready, or we have overplayed others. I am an advocate of "if they're good enough, then they're old enough", but I also understand that for some being dropped in at 18/19 or even 20 is not necessarily good for their development, particularly in a struggling side in a a brute of a division.

You stayed out of this thread by posting twice on it yesterday and then once again today, so forgive me if I find your (and others) sanctimony and hypocrisy on this thread somewhat wanting. Feel free to have the last word. HTH

I would add that I think it's done something worse than that, as I am concerned that we have blooded too many, too early and actually set them back. Rather than allow them to develop at theior own pace and come into a team when they are ready, I fear that too many have been forced into a failing team way too early in their careers. I just hope this hasn't impacted on their development and confidence. If you were a parent you would want your son nurtured and somewhat protected until they were ready.

That's funny, because you were in this thread yesterday adding your twopenneth worth!!! I think the original post definitley missed it's target and was unnecessary(although some in the following thread certainly didn't disappoint in using it to score points on both sides), but I have to say some of the sanctimony, hypocrisy, posturing and bullsht that followed has been just as bad.

I do hope this isn't the start of the "tugging of the heart strings Phil";)

As with a few above, I think a lucky draw, which will keep us in the hunt for safety as most of our rivals have tough matches tomorrow.

Agreed. I'd rather have to play against Davies once, than have him turn out for Norwich in their relegation battle.

With all due respect RinNy, it would now appeat that you have changed track and rather than arguing that there is no alternative out there (which is quite frankly ridiculous), you're now now arguing that someone else couldn't do any better. A subtle, but succinct change in your position. The argument as to whether or not someone else could do better is purely hypothetical and subjective either way, but that's a world away from saying: "if there is genuinely a better alternative out there to replace him. I haven't seen any suggestion that there is" and "We tried it, with the Hone/Hoos pair, and it did not work." I think the case against tha has been made very strongly on here in recent months in numerous threads. My simple reply (because to be honest I think the case has been so well argued) is Jan Poortvliet, the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up, the strategy of youth and ultimately our legue position!!! QED, but there is also a different strategy with regards transfers (in and out), diferent priorities, a different coaching structure, different wages policy, different pricing structure and a whole host of different ways of running a football club, even given the financial constraints that we have to work in. There are no guarantees that this would produce better results, but just as saying there are no alternatives to Lowe, it's rather naive to suggest things couldn't be done differently. The CEO of a football club, and I believe it's even more acute at our Club, is central to everything on and off the pitch. Our CEO was at the forefront of dispensing with Pearson and employing Poortvliet and Wotte. He is involved in footballing issues (the only debate is to what extent) and he was central in installing the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up and the strategy that accompanied it. Ultimately our CEO appointed the manager. Then as I have said above, I think you're being rather naive if you don't think there are a number of different approaches/strategies/decisions that could have been made, with of course the managerial issue being the single biggest of them. Without wanting to appear too rude, the line that people are against Lowe for any other reason other than his failings is somewhat cheap, lazy and insulting to those who hold well founded and thought views on his tenure as CEO/Chairman. I fully accept a very small minority have issues with his background, but the vast majority judge him in a rationa and balanced manner, and by the standards he himself requested, i.e. on results. And if you think that off the field issues do not have a major impact on on the filed issues (appointment of manager, transfers in/out, overall strategy etc etc etc), then I think you somewhat misjudge the impact the CEO, the board and their decisions have on a football club.

I think we're somewhat clutching at straws in trying to trace the root of our problems back to the sacking of Nicholl. There have been almost 20 years and a number of opportunities to sort things out!!!

There is no doubt that the power to decide our destiny rests with perhaps only 3 or 4 people, but I wouldn't discount the impact protests, boycotts or whatever might have on them. I absolutely agree, but my point is countering those who stupidly claim there are no viable or available alternatives out there. That excuse/reason for sticking with Lowe has no substance whatsover. There are viable alternatives out there, if we have the desire to look fo them, but I fully accept that's not the same as getting one in and it will never do so until there is a change of heart by some of Lowe's cabal. That's my argument here, not that it is possible for us as supporters to get someone in, just that getting someone in is a viable alternative if only those with the power would consider it. OR until some in his cabal have a change of heart, which is more likely (even if it is remote) than the two scenarios you have mentioned above.

Go and have a look at who was Chairman, or more importantly where the balance of power lied when the players you mentioned were signed. That should answer your question. At least we agree that Lowe and Wilde are a part of the problem. I think you're right, in that I also think Crouch doesn't covet any position of day to day power. He certainly thinks the current Chairman/CEO and managerial set up needs changing, which is something I agree with, but after that I actually think he would rather not be involved. As for just saying the dice have been rolled and we have to accept our fate, well whilst there might be some truth there, I also think we still have a degree of latitude. After all, Pearson came in with about the same amount of time left and used the loan system, with assistance from Hoos, quite judiciously. In fact, I would conjecture that without Wright, Lucketti, Perry etc we migth have gone down last season. IMHO, there is still time to make some final changes to the set up to give is our best possible chance of staying up, because I have a real worry that going with what we have may not be enough. As for saying Wotte only has been here 3 games, well I do think that's stretching it somewhat, as he has been complicit in all of the pre-season and the disastrous run of 28 games as a part of the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. I'd argue it's not even the same as promoting from within, because Wotte was almost "joint manager" with poortvliet!

And your alternative is what?? Sitting here, fingers crossed that the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up" comes off?

When we replaced Wigley, his replacement did not work out, but I can't believe for one minute that people were therefore advocating we stick with Poortvliet "because the last time we repalced a crap manager it didn't work". Sit back and think aboiut it logically. Are you really saying that just because we didn't get a suitable replacement last time around, then it should preclude us from trying to get it right this time? It's an absolutely ridiculous (and rather backwards and defeatist) argument. A new CEO and/or Chairman will not be a guarantee of success, but it might just be the only hope we have, as the current regime is just taking us backwards. If people argue that Lowe has some traits and a strategy that they belive in, then although I may nto agree with some of them, it is actually a logical position, but the idea of sticking with someone who is sht just because last time it didn't work out is somewhat lame. And what is the solution in the absence of the above, because from where I'm sitting, I can't see any major infusion of cash on the horizon? So you're just advocating maintaining the staus quo and dying a slow lingering death (or it might actually come quite quickly if we carry on at this rate). Hardly a strategy that's got me excited. And when you (and the rest of us) discuss ridding the Club of a failing manager, do you only sanction it if you've got the replacement lined up, vetted and approved??? Or do you accept that there probably is someone out there who could hopefully do a better job? To write "if there is genuinely a better alternative out there to replace him. I haven't seen any suggestion that there is" sounds rather ignorant of the big wide world out there. A big wide world where there are probably as many CEO's/MD's as there are managers (in and out of work). I don't think it will be a walk in the park for whoever comes in to replace Lowe, or Poortvliet (or Wotte), but to trot out the same lazy line that no one has been presented for your approval is disengenuous, at best.

I think it's fair to say that you're not au fait with our recent history then!!!! Whuch is hardly a ringing endorsement of Lowe and Wilde. Crouch in a day to day capacity is no solution, but at the same time the idea that Lowe and Wilde are our best hope of salavtion is an even more mind boggling solution. As long as we sit here saying, "there is no alternative to Lowe", then we will never move forward.

A very interesting read, thanks for the link. One of my concerns is that there is no way Lowe could engender such a spirit amongst the supporters, the city and the wider catchment area, due to his past and present failings. Whilst that may not be a massive hindrance when the money is flowing in from other sources, it certainly starts to bite when you find yourselves in the predicament we are in.

Absolutely. There are probaly a number of suitable alternative candidates out there, but the issue is that first of ll those with power have to accept the need for a change.

Then why were they unveiled as a pair, then why was Wotte involved in team selection, then why was Wotte involved in contract decisions, then why was Wotte involved in transfer decisions, then why did Wotte comment on first team matters, why was he wheeled out with Jan at the AGM to answer questions etc etc etc etc etc etc????? Wotte was all over the first team and the Club were not shy in telling us that (he even went out to the fans chats down the pub with Jan!!). The way that Wotte has disassociated himself from everything Pre January 23rd 2009 is quite risible, as is the spin eminating from the OS and SMS towers who are now trying to make out it was all Poortvliet's doing and Wotte never had anything to do with it!!!!!

I absolutely agree, in that for Lowe to be removed there would need to be a withdrawal of support for him by either Wilde or a few others. Until that point, then no one is going to put themselves forward for a job that is not vacant, and similarly no one is going to go hunting for someone when they can't promise them a job. But this is something that I cannot agree with in any shape or form as it just doesn't stand up to any semblence of scrutiny. How do you think other Club's recruit their CEO/MD? There are as many CEO's/MD's out there as managers, so there must be a market in potential candidates out there. You won't find anything if you don't want to look for it.

But I'm not talking about people who wish to inject cash, mainly because I think you'd either have to be stupidly rich, ot just stupid, to invest in us. I'm talking about a salaried CEO to take over from another salaried CEO. There are as many CEO's/MD's out there as there are managers, and there is no real difference in the recruitment of either. They are out there if there is a will to go and find one.