um pahars

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.

The only flaw there Phil is that Crouch was in no mood to walk away. He was more than willing to stay, work with Pearson and try and get things moving. It was Lowe and his cabal's decision to put him and Pearson on the sidelines.

Not sure I would agree on this one. Adam Leitch needs to stand up and be counted. The way the Echo panders to the Club and toes the party line is an absolute disgrace. They should be in there asking questions, refelcting what the vast majority of supporters are thinking and reporting honestly and independently. Instead we get a slightly different version of the Official Site printed every day. In fact, I actually have more respect for Simon Carter because he at least used to have the balls to stand up to Lowe and ask awkward questions. If anything, I think the Echo's reporting has become watered down and psycophantic since Carter has been somewhat sidelined. If this was happening anywhere else the local media and supporters would be asking some serious questions, not coming up with excuses and reporting from some parallel universe.

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?????

To compare Wenger to Jan is hilarious. Just because some of the myopic English media had a whinge hardly means Wenger was a poor appointment. Anyway, regardless of prior experience or success, there's one sure fire way of silencing your critics, and that's by winning matches. Wenger managed that, Jan hasn't really set the world alight.

IMHO He didn't sue Gray when he told the truth regarding Delgado. Instead he rubbished him on the OS and really laid into Wadsworth as well (I'm sure the attack was so vitriolic, that it was eventually pulled/amended). He won't sue Bassett on this one, so I await 'radio silence' this time around or maybe a rubbishing/smear story on the OS. As for The Echo running with anything like this, forget it. There's a nice 'cosy' agreement between the two and they won't be upsetting the apple cart. Some people at The Echo need to have a look at themselves for toadying up to the Club in recent months.

Two trains of thought. First one is as you say, if I'm going down then I'll fight to the bitter end and only concede defeat when Administration is enforced upon me. I will only lose my money when Administration is actually upon us. The second one could be that if a major creditor was saying 'Accept the money and move aside, or I'll put you in Administration', then there really is no alternatve and you will lose your money your money either way. Of course, there is a choice, but I worry that out of malice, pride or spite, Lowe & co may go for the first.

Says it all really.

Yes, one up top. Yes, I know we are three down, but we always play one up top. Yes, one up top. One, one, one, comprende????? We always play one up top PS SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hockaday certainly is Lowe's favoured one, that's for sure. His name was being banded about well before Lowe took over again.

But once again why are we looking to blame the fans??? I, and I'm sure the vast, overwhelming majority don't want this to end in tears, but if it does then it won't be our fault. Nor should we be blamed for not having a Plan B. Those in charge, those with large shareholdings, those who lead this Club have to take responsibility for their actions and for what the solution is. Lowe claimed he had a mandate last time around and that was achieved with the support of a maximum of ten people. Maybe we should be looking to them to see what they think Plan B is??? We don't have any say in what goes on, apart from the ultimate sanction of voting with our feet (but even then that is only a rejection of the status quo, not a positive solution). We're just supporters who have no real say, we just want our team to do well.

It would not solve our long term issues, but there is a possibility it could buy us some time in the short term. If the choice is Administration or Crouch pumping a few million in, then i would bite his hand off. The problem is whether the current regime would accept it, how it would be lent, what strings comed with it etc etc etc. (it would be pretty difficult for Crouch to accept being the only one pumping in money if those who took us down this final track to oblivion are to benefit from it). Some would argue Crouch should accept others from benefitting from it, if it means the Club benefits, but personally as it would be him doing all the fundng, it should be the others who make concessions. If there not prepared to put any money in then maybe they have to step aside. Hone and co put it all on Red last summer that's for sure, and at that point Crouch was out of the loop. He never got a chance to really do anything during his tenure and it wasn't long after the got his chance to play that the two amigos were launching their 9 point crusade in the local press (it would be interesting to measure them by the same yardstick). And this summer has been nothing more than another gamble, but this time the stakes really were the future of the Club. Even if a cash injection only buys us some time, I would still take it. The problem is can those currently in control find a way of facilitating this???

I've also got this image of Lowe quickly deleting all the e mails whilst God is talking to Peter, or maybe Cowen sat outside rerouting all the emails to the junk folder!!!!!!!! This will be done his way (no capitals for the h as this "his" is Lowe!!!!).

I started doing that weeks ago!!! I have this picture from Bruce Almighty with God's Inbox full of prayers from Saints fans asking for salvation.