um pahars

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?????

Whenever someone continues to trot out the lines that Pearson didn't want to work with youngsters, or that he wasn't willing to work within the financial parameters I think I should trot out this post from a while back: And of course you have these quotes from Pearson a few months back which hardly make him out to be a dinosaur and backward looking when it comes to youth. "A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club. I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it. If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees." And as for whether he knew of and/or could deal with the financial situation we find ourselves in, I think the answer to the following question also makes it clear that he was aware of our predicament (and willing to work within some tough parameters). "Is it hopeless or are there ways we can improve the team to get back in the Premier League? Can we do it through wheeling and dealing or the youth team or is it hopeless?" "It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that. Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill. We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players. Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too."

I was going to paste something very similar. I don't see why we can't turn Wolves over (1-0), but I also think Reading will thump us 3-0.

Absolutely!!!!!!! No one ever suggested that Lowe picked the team, so why do the Echo feel the need to distort the story, make it out that this was the original claim and then dress it up as a denial/rebuttal???? So the chat with Bassett went, 'Did Lowe pick the team?', with the answer being 'No'. So that's it then, done deal, case closed. No one ever suggested that was the case, so it shouldn't be any surprise with the answer received. But why didn't they pick up on the bits that he originally said and what he also said in this response which reaffirms the notion that Lowe is overly involved in first team issues, namely: '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.' So if they had Bassett on the phone, then why didn't they delve deeper here??? What exactly did he mean with these two quotes??? What was the context of the 'wanting' the youngsters to feature? Because IMHO, they knew they were going to get an answer that they (and the Club) would not have liked. That Echo/Club tie up sure looks comfy. Lowe should be managing the business side of things and overseeing the manager, but there is no way he should be involved in telling the manager who to play, second guessng him or even making suggestions as to who should feature. The manager should be left to manage.

I must have blinked and missed those posts. Who was claiming we were a top 4 club before Lowe rocked up? 9 seasons prior to Lowe 87/88 - 95/96 - Average position 13.8 9 seaons with Lowe 97/98 - 05/06 - Average position 15.2

I would suggest our away form is not as good as we would like to believe (although having only seen matches on TV, I will defer to those who travel more regularly). Three of those points were against one of only two teams who are probably worse than us, played well against Derby (however, they were still in their hangover period) and put in a good 45 mins display against Preston. Away from home we're not immune from playing poorly and getting thumped (QPR, Coventry & Swansea). With regards not being effective at home, I think it has more to do with tactics and style of play, than any other outside factor. Our continuous of playing with one up top against teams whose first thought is to defend is clearly not working. After that, we seem to lack a Plan B (in fact Jan has already said the boys can only play one way!!!).

They certainly could and in the past under they have. As an example around the time that Jones was relieved of his duties, Meridian news ran a story that Lowe didn't like. Consequently they were banished from The Dell. It's not just us though, The News have also had their share of bannings from Fratton Park. My sentiments as well. Even if it is a local rag, even if the circulation is small and even if there may be a message coming down from above, any self respecting journalist would be looking at the current situation and thinking we really should be doing something different than the 'boys done well and nirvana is just around the next corner' stuff.

I certainly think Murray has alot to answer for, as I assume he's the one who brokered the 'deal' with Lowe, but at some point a journalist has to stand up for himself and be counted. Does Leitch want to be an independent journalist asking the questions many people want answering, reporting honestly what is going on and not just regurgitating what the Club are putting out, or is he happy to be a poodle??? I certainly don't think the Echo should deliberately set out to be anti Club, anti Lowe or anti anyone, but the current stance, given our circumstances, is risible.

No, I'll just stick with telling you that if you think the reason Pearson was elbowed out was becuase of his wages, then you are very, very wrong.

If you really think the reason Pearson was shipped out was because of hs wages, the you are really rather out of touch with reality. Ask Frank's Cousin for the reasons, he spoke to Wilde directly about it. If, if, if. If my aunty ... ........ ....... ...... .......

One of the biggest turn outs in recent years at the Cenotaph on Sunday and a very large number of youngsters present. It might have been something to do with it being 90 years, but if that is the case then the 100th anniversary should be even better.

Rock 'n' Roll. LOL. All this from the person who would give Jan a 10 year contract. Total Football me up.

The Annual Report and accounts do indeed relate to the financial period, which on the whole was before Lowe & co returned. But these reports also include a forward looking perspective, namely the concept of Going Concern (i.e. the concept that assumes that the Club will continue in business in the foreseeable future). I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was much heated discussion between the Board, the Auditors and the Bank about this issue. Signing off last years numbers won't be the issue, it will be convincing the auditors that we are a going concern that is probably causing us problems.