um pahars

Let's not be so quick to dismiss things, Weston's a gentleman for starters.

In whic case, feel free to share your winnings with me and Weston!!!!!

Did you find it diificult to read and understand the starting piece that said: My personal gut feel Thanks for confirming my earlier thoughts.

It must be extremely difficult being such an uber fan!!!! The simple fact is that people's support of their Club manifests itself in a myriad of ways. I'm sure we all wish everyone was as committed and devoted as you, but then again, most of us live in the real world. And in the real world we have to accept that whilst there is a hard core support of 10,000 to 14,000 who will probably go come what may, there will be many others who will go depending on the quality of what is before them, how they perceive it as value for money, whether or not we're winning and what the atmosphere/community spirit is like, along with a number of other reasons. So whilst your devotion is admirable, it really is up to the Club to entice, tempt and win back the missing thousands. The PLC is in the entertainment business and modern day football is no longer the preserve of those devoted to their community club. Although some of course still maintain that link, others see themselves exactly how those in charge want to see them, customers (as you point out). And I know of no other business where the customers are blamed for not buying a sub standard product.

Methinks you need to try and read what people post then, as opposed to just bumbling through them, being blinkered and assuming you know what they're saying. You ought to try and be a bit more open and receptive (but not receptive enough to be brainwashed into the chasm I, and others have created:rolleyes:)

We sure have. In a friendly at the end of the 1979 season, and stuffed them 4-0. Did you win or lose???

It will be impossible to compare and judge any hypothetical situtation, be it would we be doing better with Pearson in charge, would it be better if we had more money, would it be better if Lowe interfered less (or even more). We can of course voice our opinion, but that is all it is, our opinion and it will never be backed up by any degree of fact in these scenarios. My personal gut feel is that I don't believe that any manager will perform to his best if he is being second guessed, being told on and on and on who should be playing and/or being subservient to someone, who although they now have quite a bit of football experience, is not someone I would want involved in first team affairs.

Money doesn't solve every problem, and there are many ways of skinning a cat. We've brought in excess of 10 players so we have had some latitude and of course we go back to the possibility that a different manager can get different results from similar playing assets.

And as I (and others) have said, I don't think there is anything wrong with that strategy (in principle). How many homegrown youngsters will be in that team will be up for debate, but in essence it's a reasonable suggestion. However, that's not what is being delivered at the moment and the results aren't flowing through either.

Que???

Who knows (and I'm not really sure why you're even asking me).

With all due respect, I do think you have gone slightly overboard here. People don't think the idea of playing youngsters is an absolute disgrace, merely that they think the way they have all been dropped in and how they are currently being used is open to question. We're all entitled to our opinions on who to play, but ultimately it is down to the manager on who should feature and he will ultimately be judged by the results taht his teams achieve. If we could field 8, 9, 10 or even 11 youngsters who are good enough, then I can't believe anyone would be against that (aka Arsenal).

But, I just don't think such a set up will work (and it's not working as we sit here now), and as much as Lowe has learnt about football, I don't think he should be involved to the degree I fear he is. I'm not really sure what relevance finance has to having Lowe involved in first team affairs.

I actually think they are very clear to Jan, Lowe, Hockaday et al, and they are that Lowe is up to his ar55e in first team affairs. IMHO, Lowe is the de facto DOF and Jan is merely a first team coach.

Let's be honest, if we were doing well then I'm sure there wouldn't be as much of a furore. But that still doesn't make it right, as all those underlying problems would still be there. Additionally, I just don't think you will get success with a set up where the roles aren't clear and where the manager is subservient to others (on first team issues). I don't think many would have arguments with that set up (and it's similar to how I would like it set up), although of course I'm sure there would be some argument about degress of latitude in some areas. However, I'm not sure how you would reconcile your description with the line that the Chairman and Technical Director going on and on and on about who should feature. And of course if Lowe was that bullish and forthcoming with someone as strong as Redknapp, you do have to wonder just what he is doing with regards poor Jan.

Firstly, the Chairman/CEO & the Technical Director going on and on and on wanting the manager to play the youngsters certainly strikes me (and many others) as interfering in first team affairs (and BTW I think using on and on and on strikes me as being more than a hint). Secondly, it was not retracted. In fact, Basset's follow up comments reaffirmed his earlier comments that Lowe wanted Redknapp to play the youngsters. Thirdly, look at the title of this thread and the many posts on it and the inference and complaint is not that Lowe is picking the team, but instead that he is overly interfering in first team affairs. Very few, if any, have suggested Lowe picked the team under Redknapp so I've no idea why you (and The Echo) continue to try and shout down something that was never even suggested in the first place.

So where do you think 'when I was there, and he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.' fits with regards your two scenarios of (1) just encouraging and (2) telling the manager who to include??? As I said last night, no one was really suggesting that Lowe picked the team when Redknapp was here, but this statement would also appear to go further than just encouraging (the on and on and on infers a certain degree of continuous interference). So what you are happy with is a scenario where a) the Chairman/CEO wanted the manager to play youngsters to ensure they do not leave due to lack of first team action, regardless of ability, suitability for the job etc. b) the Chairman/CEO wanted the manager to play players who the manager obviously believes are not better than who he is already playing. c) that it is alright that makes suggestions on who should be in the first team. Once the general parameters are laid down, (i.e. transfer budget, wages budget, seasons targets), then who the Manager plays and who he believes are best for the next match and the season ahead, is the domain of the manager. Of course, he won't be left in total isolation from one transfer window to the next, but ultimately he should make the playing decisions and will ultimately have to be judged by what he achieves on the pitch. That's his remit and the minute you get others interfering with team selection, transfer targets etc etc etc is the minute it will all start to unravel. There should be no way that Lowe, nor Woodward, should have kept on going on and on and on at the manager about who they wanted in the team. You get in a manager who is experienced to run the footballing side and leave the on the pitch decisions to him, and with all due respect to Lowe and Woodward (whom I sure know something about football), the idea that these two are going on and on and on about who to include in the team does not make pleasant reading If there was a DOF style set up, and the manager fully bought into it from the off, then although I don't like that set up, you could accept that this is how it was going to work. But here we have a Chairman/CEO and a Technical Director (who BTW Redknapp did not report to) wanting specific youngsters to play. If you can't see how that is wrong, then we'll just have to accept that your views on roles and responsibilities in football is different to mine.

I didn't really understand what you were alluding to in your response above. Sorry, but it doesn't really read well. Are you Ok with Lowe's involvement at that level or not? Let's not get distracted by this. We now have the transcript and rather than be sidetracked why not look at what was said.

You could put a fag paper between 'he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids.' and 'every week Rupert Lowe insisted he included more youngsters' which was at the crux of the matter, but let's not get distracted. Instead why not focus on exact quotes of: 'he was always keen that we played the youngsters', which followed on from: 'when I was there, and he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.' Let's not get lost in semantics and instead debate whether or not it is right for the CEO/Chairman and the newly appointed Technical Director (who the manager did not report to at the time) to be telling the manager who to include in the first team.

That's fair enough Phil, and it probably has some mileage in that Lowe & Wilde had their plan already laid out well before they actually took over as Frank's Cousin has intimated (further proving that Pearson was a dead man walking). But it is still their judgement call, and they have to live or die by the success of their appointment.

So this is the definitive part of the transcript along with a new quote from Basset: 'when I was there, and he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.' along with: 'he was always keen that we played the youngsters', And with these claims, the insinuation is exactly the same as it was when the story first broke (when people were paraphrasing what was said), namely that Lowe was interfering in first team affairs and suggesting who the manager should be including in the first team. So the story is still the same. Now if you feel it is OK for the CEO/Chairman to keep telling the manager on and on and on to play different players, then you have a different take on the responsibilities of managers and CEO's of football clubs.

As far as I am aware, Pearson had no problem working under Lowe, (indeed when he went off to Malta, he thought the job was his!!!) nor did he have any problems working under tough financial constraints, as he was more than aware of our financial worries. The plain fact was that Lowe wanted his own man and do things his own way. The Dutch pair were already lined up and Pearson was a dead man walking the minute Lowe rocked up. The money issue is irrelevant. PS I also don't think Lowe is evil, and the constant claims that it is against this pretext that people post against him is rather tiresome and somewhat insulting. I simply judge Lowe by his results, and have praised him when he has done well and will cntinue to hold him to account with regards what happens on his shift.

I suppose there's a massive difference between: 'he always wanted Harry Redknapp to play the kids. It was something that him and Clive Woodward went on and on and on about.' and 'every week Rupert Lowe insisted he included more youngsters'

The reverse takeover occured halfway through the 96/97 season so I never included it in either of the analyses. And of course Lowe was here until 05/06 where we effectively finished 32nd!!!!!!!!!!

And here's what I posted yesterday which is not about Lowe picking the team, but instead interfering in areas which he should not be. Today's quotes just reaffirm exactly what I was saying yesterday (read the bold bits which have been reaffirmed by Bassett). What is comical is how so many who think it is a storm in a tea cup either try and move the debate away from the real issues, start to insult others or miss the point entirely. Firstly this has absolutely nothing to do with Lowe's background, his fondness for shooting or his preferred sport being hockey. To suggest otherwise is just diverting the issue. Secondly there is nothing wrong with the Chairman/CEO dictating the parameters within which the manger manages, i.e. transfer kitty available, salary budget available and setting target & objectives. He should also be involved in contract negotiations, transfer negotiations and dealing with agents. Thirdly, there is nothing wrong if the Manager/Head Coach decides he wants to go overwhelmingly with youth. That would be his decision and he would have to be judged on it. But the problem comes from this part of the response from Basset: This clearly states that the Chairman/CEO is second guessing the manager, interfering with team selection and stepping into areas of detail that he should be nowhere near. Once given the general parameters to work with the manager should be left to manage. Of course he should be overseen, reviewed and assessed, but the Chairman/CEO should in no way be interfering with team affairs on this level. Now if Lowe was prepared to interfere at this level with someone as 'backward looking', 'dinosauric' and 'traditional' as Redknapp, just what level is he interfering with poor old puppet Jan?????