um pahars

Without wanting to appear rude, that's a hell of alot of waffle to not really say anything!! Just what is your issue with Pearson and Crouch? Do you think he should have tyed him down to a longer contract? If yes, then how would that be judged against the premise that the new boys weren't keen on him and were lining up their own men. Additionally, what was wrong with honouring the year he had left on the existing contract and then renegotiate again from that point. Do you really think Crouch and Corbett are gloating?? If yes, then I think you are making the same mistake as when you recently accused MANY of wanting Saints to lose, which is just not the case.

There's two lines of attack in this thread and I'm struggling to get my head around either of them. Jonah's premise is that Pearson wasn't much cop and that Poortvliet wasn't that bad. As for Pearson, well I have to say whilst he didn't set the world on fire, he did what was asked, engendered a spirit of togetherness and was definitely worth giving it a go again for the remainder of the contract we had with him. His success at Leicester gives an indication that he's OK, but of course it doesn't guarantee he would have been a success here. Not as good as some try and make him out to be, but also not as bad as some like Jonah like to make out. As for Poortvliet not being that bad, well I think he's out on a limb here, even given the parameters that Poortvliet had to operate within. I read somewhere that Jonah was actually blaming Crouch for Poortvliet walking, when everyone else (including Lowe and Wilde) were actually saying "thank fck he's gone". Of course it's all subjective, but I think you'd be stretched to find many who would say poortvliet was a better bet than Pearson. And Frank's premise seems to be that either (a) Crouch et al shouldn't be gloating about Pearson's success, or (b) Crouch should have tied him down to a longer contract, both of which I don't think have been justifed on this thread.

I don't think we agree on much, but I have to say I agree with your general premise. Making it simple I have our fanbase split down into three groups: The first lot are the die hards who will come what may (we're probably down close to that). The second lot who will come if they feel it is value for money, they're not having the pss taken out of them and they are being entertained (they're the ones we've lost this season). The third lot who only really came to see the glamour of the Premiership (the ones we lost a few years back). Lowe has had an impact on that middle group. In a direct way I think some are staying away soley because of him and the perception of how he runs the Club (the numbers are impossible to quantify). Indirectly they are staying away because of him, as it is his "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up" that has patently failed to deliver this season.

Behave yourself Frank, and there I was thinking you were semi intelligent. As I said, money was not discussed, something that even Lowe and Cowen would be able to confirm (as I'm presuming you have a route in to them). W My second line of "even if it was", was a hypothetical line to try and point out that even that defence would have no substance, even if it were true (which it wasn't). Maybe for the more challenged on here I should have put "even if it was true, (which it wasn't, but I'm just highlighting what a lame excuse it would be anyway). In future Frank, it looks as though I'll have to go a bit slower for you!

He'd go for it, alright. IMHO, Lowe's view is that all that it would require to win supporters over would be some short term success. I think he believes that we are a fickle bunch. Although to some extent he is correct, I just think he would never be able to pull it off, because a) once again his poor judgement has been highlighted with regards the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up", and b) there is too much history for him to overcome, even with a modicum of success. But I don't believe that won't stop him wanting to get involved post administration, because not only might he consider there to be a potential bragain out there, but I think he would still be smarting from failure and don't think he would want to walk away being branded a failure (again). I would not rule him out.

Bought it??????? When he first rocked up, he owned something like 3% of the Club.

Could well be a crunch four days for us there. Even though we will have 5 games left after these two, I get the sense that our season could well be determined one way or the other come 10:00pm that Tuesday night.

I wouldn't be so sure about this. IMHO, Lowe could call upon a number of associates who might be prepared to form a consortium post relegation. I could easily imagine the Administrator just selling to the highest bidder who can quickly stump up the cash. IMHO, Administration would not rule out the return of Lowe in some guise.

Barclays will not be involved in such day to day matters. They will agree overall targets with regards costs, income, cashflows etc, but will let the management use their discretion within those parameters. It was up to us to decide as to whether or not we could afford Pearson and as to whether or not he would be the right one to lead us. Lowe decided he wasn't, and we are now reaping the rewards (or not) of that decision.

And which would have had a salary mass that included Pearson's being factored in there.

Considering we were happy to spend money acquiring Schneiderlin (and others), then that would suggest we had a degree of latitude with regards spending money last summer. And top priority should have been an experienced and competent manager who would hit the ground running and who could lead this Club. Instead we chose another direction and the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up has taken this Club to the edge of the abyss. Money was not the main motivation for the change in managerial positions, it was mainly down to Lowe belieiving the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up would prove to be more fruitful then keeping Pearson. Sadly for us, he was wrong (again).

There are some in Lowe's cabal that I think would support him no matter what he did (his father, Cowen, Marland etc), but I also think there may be some, who when the push really comes to the shove, might just put their loyalty to their Club before him (i.e. Askham & Richards). Well considering his U-turn a year ago was an about turn of epic proportions, then I fail to see how anyone could rule out Wilde changing his mind again. He was scathing of Lowe a couple of years back and even as recently as just over a year ago he was still vociferous against him (go back to the Runnymeded minutes where they couldn't agree to serve on a board together!!!!).

The latter one is only more difficult to sack to the extent of their personal shareholding and with just over 5%, that's not enough to ensure Lowe is unsackable. It would require the withdrawal of support from some who have erstwhile backed him to date, but the mere fact he is a minority shareholder with 5/6% does not preclude him from being removed from office.

Getting back to the opening posts, I struggle to see where any blame can be directed at Crouch with regards the "Pearson" situation. Firstly, given Pearson was somewhat of an unknown proposition, I see nothing wrong with inserting a get out clause if things went pear shaped, particularly given our financial issues. Secondly, pretty soon into the Pearson's tenure it became apparent that both Lowe and Wilde were not overawed with Pearson and when coupled with the fact that they were likely to be back in charge come the end of the season, then I think Crouch would have been slaughtered by some had he given Pearson a new (longer or enhanced) contract, knowing full well that Lowe and Wilde were more than likely going to give him the elbow (in fact Lowe was critical of the basic contract Crouch gave him anyway!!!!!!). Come the end of the season, there was no indication that Pearson would invoke the break clause from his side (BTW, you're wrong Frank as Pearson had a 17 month contract with a bi-party break clause exerciseable by either party in June 2008), so we could have honoured the remainder of his existing contract had we wanted to. We were the ones who chose not to:rolleyes::rolleyes: There was another year left on the contract that we could have utilised. And as I said above, if the insinuation of this thread was that Crouch missed a trick by not tying Pearson down, then it's missed the target, as Pearson was more than happy to stay following his relative success. What this thread actually does is highlight the awful decision taken by Lowe in kicking Pearson out and replacing him with the disaster that was the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up".

I reckon that like most of us, they would be upset at losing a promising young(ish) manager. That's if they can afford him of course :rolleyes: End of.

You're not very good at this kind of thing are you Sundance/Flashman/The Bear/the other identities (delete as applicable), as Lowe has admitted to supporting both Ipswich and West Ham in the past?

With all due respect nickh, we have been hearing that all season, btu sadly these litttle promises of "being up for it", "being confident" & "reay to repay the fans" have been very rarely acted upon. Indeed, if they've been that "up for it", then it hasn't meant much as we haven't won under Wotte to date. Whilst I admire your optimism, I would rather the team manager to string some wins together.

Who wasn't having any of it, and with regards what??? If you mean Pearson and his salary, then you're wide of the mark as there were never any negotiations with reagrds his salary between Lowe and Pearson. He was more than willing to stay, he was more than willing to be flexible, but he never stood a chance as he was a dead man walking from the minuite Wilde and Lowe teamed up together, as they had already lined up the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up, If you mean he wasn't willing to play ball with regards youngsters and maybe loans, then once again it doesn't stack up. Prior to being given the elbow by Lowe, Pearson was well aware of the financial constraints he had to work under. He had publicly spoken about the need to be cautious with regards money. And his endeavours at Leicester this season show he is not averse to working with youngsters and loanees. I'm afraid your "end of" is anything but that.

Purported being the operative word, because money was not discussed with regards Pearson and Lowe. And I don't think you'll find any of the mischief makers putting their names to such claims. I'm ceratainly aware that some people in the current set up put out tittle tattle about Pearson and I'm also aware that Peardon was furious about it and was just itching for them to go public with their spurious claims, something they never did. And even if it was, then what price for a decent manager??? I think we've found out once again that going cheap is a false economy. Pearson was no uber manager, but pitched against the total fcking disaster that was Jan Poortvliet, then all of a sudden he looks a much more brighter prospect. If the insinuation of this thread is that Crouch should have tied up Pearson to enusre we retained him, then what this thread actually does is just highlight Lowe's incompetence even further, as Pearson was more than willing to stay on.

He holds less than 6% as a shareholder, and in this context we are talking about him as a paid executive (Your assertion that he is not a paid executive is incorrect). No offense, but you seem to be unable to understand the set up here. I don't think Wilde has anything to worry about regarding changing his mind again, as his u-turn last Spring made him look very foolish. It would only take Wilde to change his mind to make Lowe's position untenable Alternatively if Askham, Richards and one other withdrew their support then it would have the same effect. The shareholders will not be forking out anything, the Club foots the bill. And IMHO, just as it would be a false economy to stick with a failing manager (who IMHO didn't resign without a pay off), it would also be a false economy to stick with a failing and divisive CEO. The same logic that applies to replacing a failing manager should apply to a failing CEO. There is no difference in principle whatsoever.

I wasn't asking about what the majority of shareholders thought, I was asking you whether you would apply the logic of "we have to make the best of what we've got", and "I still think the alternative could be worse" to the managers role. Because if the answer is no, then there is absolutely no reason why it cannot be applied to a salaried CEO. And you succinctly miss the point here as my suggestion was replacing the CEO in much the same way you would replace a manager. I'm not advocating sacking the board, merely replacing an underperforming and divisive CEO. It's eminently possible to sack a CEO and to think otherwise shows a rather poor understanding of the situation. Of course it would mean one/some of his current supporters would have to vote against him, but just as we have seen with the managers position, people can change and amend their position based on people's performance in the job. Therefore, I have no doubt that protests (of various types) may focus the minds of certain shareholders who do have the power to start the process of sourcing a CEO who could do better than the current encumbent.

Would you apply your view of: a) we have to make the best of what we've got, and b) I still think the alternative could be worse to the manager's role? If not, then why apply it to the CEO? I don't think we are likely to see a White Knight riding over the hill, but that doesn't mean we should just accept a failing and divisive CEO any more than we would put up with a failing and divisive manager.

I'll be drinking pints of vodka if we're down by then!!!!!!!

Your "He'll play 15 games this season" is going to cost you!!! Was it £50 we agreed on?