um pahars

At least according to Carter in The Echo. Reading that, I have to say there is alot in there that resonates with me. As soon as Poortvliet walked (or was advised to jump), then for me, the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up" was a busted flush, and with Wotte backtracking faster than a thing that backtracks fast, it's clear to see that this mad vision has been found wanting. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4119454.Is_there_time_left_to_save_Saints_after_Lowe_s_grand_vision_fails_/ IMHO, it's probably only about the second article this season that's managed to distinguish itself from what might have appeared on the Official Site.

You're probably calling out to a few thousand there and it's going to be hard to reach them all, let alone persuade them all to rally round the Club. A much easier way of achieving what you seek would be if one person, namely Lowe (and maybe two with Wilde), stepped down for the greater good (they're both dispensable). That's just one person who needs to change their mind and only one decision that needs to me made. A much simpler and achievable solution. HTH

The principle of finding a new CEO is probably no different to finding a new manager. When the majority on here were saying replace Poortvliet, I certainly don't remember there being a flood of managers throwing their hats in the ring. Instead, the Board decided that Poortvliet's time was up and at the same time decided on a replacement. The same is true of a CEO. You won't get CEO's throwing their hats into the ring until there is a vacancy, or until the Board go on the search for one. It's probably not the job it once was, it carries difficulties (a fractured supporter base, a fractured shareholder base, difficult trading position and a poor league position), but for some it would still be a very attractive proposition, not least because the potential is there and arguably you're in a no lose situation. Sorry, but your last line does not reflect the situation out in the real world, as the problem remains that nobody amongst the ruling cabal seems to want to replace the CEO.

LMFAO for you're 1/3.. As if there really is only ONE surgeon available to save us.:rolleyes: I'd be up for sacking the Trustees of the Hospital if they thought there was only one surgeon in the whole country available to use. HTH from the Itchen/Chapel corner boyz

You know we're in trouble when the best reason for keeping Lowe is because people think there are no alternatives out there in an big, wide world. I would probably accept someone with £100m to waltz in, but in the absence of that option, I would just settle for a competent CEO, and independent and non divisive Chairman. How provincial are we to think that there are no alternatives to Lowe as CEO. Fck me, what's going to happen when he eventually retires??? I presume we cease to exist:rolleyes: I actually prefer it when people list a number of positive reasons why Lowe should remain in situ. I may not agree with all of them, but they're a hell of alot more reasonable than, "there's no one out there willing to do it!!!":rolleyes::rolleyes:

I agree that Crouch had no idea back then when Pearson was first taken on, which makes his idea of having a review period come the end of the season eminently sensible. It appeared to be an arrangement that suited both sides, and an arrangment that both Crouch and Pearson would have been happy to carry on with, had Lowe & co. not returned. But come the end of the season, there was a point where we did have an idea of how good/bad Pearson was. And it was at that point that Lowe decided to call time on his tenure.

I think you're being a bit of a drama queen here, as I don't think anyone is really suggesting Pearson is the best thing since sliced bread. I think what psses alot of people off is when they compare Pearson to the fcking disaster that followed him. Using Poortvliet as a comparison, then all of a sudden Pearson starts to look outstanding;)!!!!!!!! IMHO, that's most supporter's gripe, not that Pearson was a fantastic manager, not that his period here was brilliant, but with him we had something that looked promising, had the supporter's support and was starting to find his feet. Which brings us on neatly to: You must be about the only one on here advocating we kept Poortvliet on. He didn't need his steel resolved, he needed a one way ticket back to Arnemuiden!!!!!!!!! Even though I don't believe it one bit (as I think Wilde and Lowe had already called time on Poortvliet), then if Crouch did unsettle Poortvleit and played a part in him walking, then fair play to Crouch. I think we should have been doing everything possible to run Poortvliet out of town.

I may agree with his view that having Lowe in charge is not taking us forward, but that's a huge leap from that position to "supporting" Crouch.

But couldn't that mean that someone who was in the bottom 3 in February got out of it by April???? I think Charlton and Watford in 4 days will be the cruch time. My gut feel is we will always be in with a chance of staying up and everything will de decided on that last day.

I meant out on a limb in that, just like a financial adivsor, we were not going to tell people what to do one way or the other (and then bear the responsibility). Ultimately it was up to the individual members (just as it was for other individual shareholders with their own shares) to decide how the Trust's 20,000 shares would be voted. As you say, we were more of a voice echoing what the membership were saying and the Trust itself only came out one way or the other after polling it's members.

I personally backed Wilde back in the summer of 2006. I was also a member of the Trust Board back than and as Rob said we met with Wilde a couple of times and put a number of member's questions to him (we also tried to set up meetings with all the other prominent parties eg Lowe, Cowen, Crouch etc). Just as a financial advisor would say, there was no way we were going to go out on a limb and verify and be accountable for all his assets, promises, cash etc. and the Trust Board (some of whom were Lowe supporters) did not make the decision one way or the other to support Wilde, Crouch or Lowe. That was left up to a membership vote at an AGM.

Why does it have no credibility? Everything to do with this area is subjective and impossible to substantiate either way, but I think it is a fair position to take, in that, like many others, he believes Pearson would have been more successful than Poortvliet. But (a) we had a period to judge and gauge Pearson, and (b) we are now discussing the Poortvliet position from the benefit of hindsight. Given where we are, I see no problem in using it as an example of the poor decision making that has go us into that mess, particularly if we don't want to repeat those mistakes. Just as I'm sure Lowe would claim Strachan was a success, then why shouldn't Crouch claim the same with Pearson.? After all, if Poortvliet had come good, then I'm sure Lowe would have been crowing about it. It's all about taking the rough with the smooth. As my quote from last week, above, shows, there is consistency and balance. I'm just really struggling to understand the original premise of this thread and what you were trying to achieve?????

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!!!!).