um pahars

I would have thought a man of your wordly ability would have done better than to repeat Lowe's mantra. There were indeed some noddy decisions taken by the old Executive team (particuarly last summer), but you have to remember that revenue has fallen from circa 50m to circa 14m. That sort of fccuks with your cash. As for your analysis of the current position, then we shouldn't have to wait long as the interims are soon out, and unlike you my gut feel is that we are still running at a loss and the overdraft has increased since the summer.

And with that one line you still show that you don't get these finance things. It didn't free up 8million cash, the #17million loan was the initial construction loan from MeesPierson, which was replaced and then finally consolidated by #25million of loan notes as the costs of the project increased through time. In fact, Lowe should have been hung out to dry, along with Risdale and others, if he entered into long term loan/deals to generate cash to use in the short term. Some of your analysis on the overall position is quite good, but steer clear of saying things like the above which are patently untrue (and has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, which does make you wonder why you persist in trotting out such claptrap).

Not true. In Lowe's last season the wage bill was 13.6m (12.5 pro rata) and stood at 53% of turnover. In first season after Lowe wages dropped to 10.5m and stood at 45% of turnover. Last season it went back up to 12.1m and stood at 81% of turnover.

Fcuukc me!!!!!!! I was wetting myself so much over the Pearson bit that I didn't realise it got even worse:rolleyes::smt044:smt044 Delusional, out of touch, in a fantasy of his own, does indeed sound like Lowe.

And here's what David Jones thought of the numbers: Would loved to have been a fly on the wall in the office after the AGM with Rupe's leading on the stupidness of the 81% figure and Jones responding that it was a mere blip!!!!!!! The only thing in that report that surprised me was the figure down for Rasiak. When Lowe signed Rasiak he intimated that he was on alot more than that, so just wondering if the Rasiak figure has been massaged down (is it missing loyalty binuses etc). So does that indicate that it was a Lowe leaked story???? Certainly when I read the piece, the fact there was the big caveat stating, "this all happened when Lowe was not at the Club" made me think that it probably was. A sort of get my excuses in and divert attention at the same time. If t was him, was he thinking of getting this out to try and say: a) "I'm having to do all this on the cheap because of what I inherited" and/or b) "Administration is inevitable after all these payments" and/or c) "If I put this out it might deflect the spotlight away from the things that aren't going too well at the moment" Not sure what Crouch's camp could achieve by these stories coming out (anyone want to offer up why they might have been behind this?). Also not sure that the old Executive team would have leaked this as parts of it doesn't paint them in a good light (i.e. Euell). Anyway, I'm sure Euell wil now go that extra mile for us having been outed and it's just another day at The Cirque Des Saints.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: And just when I thought it couldn't get any funnier around here.

Reading the publishers details of In That Number is considerably more interesting than reading your poorly constructed diatribes. In fact I'd rather read, re read and then re read again the ISBN than listen to you. Compared to Haliology and their contributions to this Club, you're a complete irrelevence. But do keep posting as you always provide us with fun material to rib (Mods, I'm still up for paying his 5 quid).

If Rupert is going to post on here, then you would like to think he would disguise himself better;). As likely to score, you're having a giraffe!!!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry, just noticed Benjiii has already taken Rupe's to task)

My four would be: Channon Keegan Shilton Williams

So at last you fully accept that this was a footballing decision. At least we've put the myth to bed that we had to appoint Poortvliet due to financial reasons, and as you now concede there were a myriad of managers out there who we could have brought in that we could have afforded and would have worked within those constraints (Pearson included). Whoever came in certainly had to work in some rather tight constraints, but there was absolutely no reason why Pearson, for instance, would not have been prepared or able to work within those tight constraints. Of course what will always be up for debate is whether he (or someone else) would have performed better, but quite frankly from what I have seen, and what we are starting to hear, I very much doubt anyone could have been a worse appointment.

Lordy, fugking lordy. What comes next after saying "Last one out, turn off the lights". That really is poor, even by our own poor as poor standards. HHHHHHHHHHHHEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllppppppppppppppppp

Where did Cork say Watford wanted him more? Never heard that one before? Can't believe he would come out and say that.

He will have developed transfer window flu/guts ache by the time the squad for Barnsley travel north!!!!

If, if, if. If we had scored 5 more goals we would go up to something like 18th in the goals scored table, and if we had conceded 5 less we would move up to 17th in the goal against table. What all those stats say is that it's not just the fact we need to score, they show that from almost every angle we are in the relegation zone. Our main problem this season is that we're just not very good.

Three - Norwich, Charlton & Watford. We are 21st with regards goals against. We are 23rd with regards goals for. We are 23rd with regards current league position. We are 23rd with regards current form (8 games). We are 24th with regards current form (6 games). We are 20th with regards our record against the top half. We are 23rd with regards our record against the bottom half. We are 22nd with regards keeping a clean sheet. We are 22nd with regards our ability to score first. It's all relative I suppose.

We're gonna ring a rang a dong for the holidays Well this is my partner with the number one jam Famous in the boogie in Amsterdam He's the fastest rapper yo his name is Miker G His rap is longer than a sucker MC Well let me show you what my man can do Rapping talking and the Boogaloo too Well anyways, no more delays Just listen to the beat box he will play My name is Dee Jay Sven and also DJ I didn't like the school so I took the other way I like the mic So I use my voice and soon I got me a big Rolls Royce That's why my name is Miker G Use the honey days with the F-I-C On the street with the party ... I groove in thie world starting in the neighborhood We are going on a summer holiday

You haven't got doubts about Jan have you Crabbers??? I'm still here

Was he the Prince of Orange's 2nd in command???

You like cutting and pasting don't you? I suppose at least this time around you've credited the original author;)

Agree with alot of that and if there was one overiding factor for him being back this time, then I would say it is EGO. He's still bitter that he was forced out, he believes he is the only one capable of turning this around and he will do exactly as he wants. And this is why I am more worried this time around, because for me when ego's are involved, then very often people's decison making becomes blurred & not focussed, and they will plough on rather than admit they made a mistake.

Or of course our relegation rivals could all be laughing at us and Derby for some ridiculous managerial appointments. Step back for a second and have a think about what Doncaster, Forest, Barnsley and Blackpool fans were thinking when we unveiled Poortvliet:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

you go mail.

And it's a wild guess that has no substance whatsoever. Pearson was clear before he was sacked that he was aware of the financial constraints he had to work under, the fact that more youngsters would have to be played and that many higher earners would have to be shipped out. When he met Lowe there was no disagreement or disillusionment over having to pursue a more frugal strategy. In fact when it got back to him that people (and a few know exactly who I mean by this) were suggesting he would not have been prepared to work under the new regime and it's tight budget, he was rather upset!!!!! I don't think you'll find that individual repeating that allegation in public. That's exactly what he thought, in that he believed these Dutch guys would be more successful working within the strategy he wanted to follow. I have to say there is nothing wrong with having that opinion, but it was a footballing decision and one he will have to stand or fall by. The financial situation certainly set the environment for a new manager to work in, but it did not dictate that we had to go for Poortvliet. There is no reason to suggest that Pearson, Clough, Cotterill, Holmes or another manager could not have worked within the same constraints. You're quite right in stating that it is impossible to judge whether Pearson would have delivered more given the same resources and restrictions (but I doubt you'd find many who think he would have done any worse), but I have to say it's ludicrous to suggest that Pearson was not prepared to work within those constraints. The lack of cash certainly dictates what we cannot afford, but it certainly did not dictate that we had to ditch Pearson and go for an unknown Head Coach and this "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up". Are you really suggesting that Poortvliet was the only manager we could have appointed, and this was due to our financial position?