um pahars

Sorry Rich, it never meant to come out like that, it's just I'm so pi655ed off with people claiming there was no other possible alternative for this season, when quite clearly there were many alternatives/options, with keeping Pearson being the most obvious one. Of course there was no guarantee that he could have done any better, but I don't think the "they didn't have a choice" line should be used as an excuse to exonerate Lowe & co from facing the music if this experiment goes ti77ts up. Frank Cousin's revelation last week that Wilde and Lowe were committed to a continental set up months before they took over shows that they were always going to go with this "revolutionary coaching set up" and that Pearson (was he even appointed at this point????) was a dead man walking. Agree 100%. I have nothing against him (and have bigged him up on occasions), it's just that I fear he is not the right man for us, in much the same way that as much as I thought Wigley was a good coach and a nice guy, he just wasn't the man for us. Within reason, as although we no longer have the benefit of pre season and the little money we had (rewind back to Sturrock and Wigley back in 2004), there may come a time when ploughing on with Jan is just not the right thing. When that will come to a head, I don't know, and I honestly hope it never comes to that as I would love him to succeed. But there just may be a point when we have to call time on this experiment and try and get a "Pearsonesque" type of guy in. Even if it means paying up Jan's salary and employing someone else then those costs might be peanuts compared to the cost of relegation and/or administration.

He's not Lord Marland, no way in the world!!!!!! And as an aside I'm not sure what Marland's Sport Nexus Lobby Group would make of the current shennanigans at St Mary's when you consider this is a part of their aims: We believe that poor quality of leadership and misguided strategy has too often failed British sport at all levels. Constantly scrutinise the issues in sport to highlight areas where poor management is acting against the public interest. To be the independent voice which challenges the structures, practices and accountability of British sporting institutions. Maybe Marland should be looking closer to home and having a word in lowe's ear. LOL.

Another drab home performance for me. I really can't be ar56ed to report on anything and most on here would probably have seen it via the TV anyway. The only performance of note I have seen so far this season was Norwich at home, so struggle to reconcile what I have seen, with the line often trotted out of "we may not win but at least the quality and style of play is good". The plain fact is that we have been (and are) a pretty poor side.

Keeping Pearson on was one of those short term options that was clearly available. We then have different tactics, team selectiopns etc etc etc. We then have a different strategy of spending the little money we have. The finances certainly dictate some of the choices that were available, but there are things we could have done differently. Even now we could dispense of Jan and get someone else in who might (or might not) be able to do something different with exactly the same resources, as one of my ongoing concerns is that Jan is becoming a bit of a one trick continuing to play one up top when at home.

LMFAO. So here is someone who doesn't go to matches and yet: a) Is the first to moan about players getting on the youngsters backs, without actually witnessing it:smt069:smt069 b) Suggests the youngsters need more support and yet doesn't go. You don't have to go to matches to have an opinion, but it will impact on your ability to speak about issues that you don't have first hand knowledge about. Sometimes you just couldn't make it up.

And what about at the match yesterday??? How did you rate the atmosphere and support from where you were sat??? I'm sure many on here would happily swap those average/poor years in the top flight for the rubbish we are being served up now. I have to laugh that the best defence of our current predicament is that we didn't win very much when we were in the top flight.:smt069:smt069

What is actually more concerning is if the Head Coach is starting to blame the fans. He, and the team, need our support and shouldn't be doing anything to undermine that relationship.

There's one easy way for ther manager (Head Coach actually!!!) to silence his critics, and that's by winning matches! A successful manager will be able to defend any of his decisions if he's successful. As an apologist for the current regime, you're doing a fantastic job.

LMFAO.:rolleyes: What did you think of the atmosphere yesterday??? Did you experience anyone abusing the players yesterday??? How did those react around you to the defeat??? PS If we were average to poor during our time in the top flight, how would you rate the current team. PPS I actually reckon my nephew could do a better job than Lowe as DOF.

Could have kept Pearson on. Could have played a different style or formation (i.e. not persist with one up top when at home). Could have been more focussed with our signings, rather than get the 11 or 12 odd new players in. Could have gone for fewer in number and included a number of more experienced players. Could have gone for fewer in number and managed to hold on to some of the more important players. Could have done alot of things differently. Of course, some avenues were closed due to our financial problems, but there were a number of alternatives and choices we could have made differently. Would they have been more successful????, who knows, but let's not kid ourselves that Jan and the route we've taken was the only option available.

Could have kept Pearson on. Could have played a different style or formation (i.e. not persist with one up top when at home). Could have been more focussed with our signings, rather than get the 11 or 12 odd new players in. Could have gone for fewer in number and included a number of more experienced players. Could have gone for fewer in number and managed to hold on to some of the more important players. Could have done alot of things differently. Of course, some avenues were closed due to our financial problems, but there were a number of alternatives and choices we could have made differently. Would they have been more successful????, who knows, but let's not kid ourselves that Jan and the route we've taken was the only option available.

He's going down in my estimation with this comment. Once again I thought the support yesterday was really good (considering how many were there) and there were many in the Itchen really urging the team on (a quick note to those who don't attend - there is hardly any negativity at the ground at the moment, so you're barking up the wrong tree claiming otherwise). I don't think there has been any animosity or abuse aimed at the players, the vast majority are behind them and can see they are trying their best. They may not have the ability to cope with this division, but there can be no doubting their efforts and tenacity in the circumstances. Personally, I'm beginning to get a bit bored of all the accusations blaming the fans for our predicament, and particularly pi6655ed off at those having a pop at the rump 14,000 who continue to go and support the team.

You need to read through those minutes again Phil, as they (and that's all three of the major shareholders) never once showed any inclination to look outside the three major shareholding groups. Each of the proposals/combinations that were put forward always included a substanital make up pf the status quo. There was never any mention of an outsider, an independent etc etc etc. The only person who I am aware looked outside the interested parties was Crouch when he attempted to get Salz and others involved. You need to ask why that idea never came to fruition.

I think you're being rather presumptious there nick. Attendances certainly show that many haven't bought into this new "revolutionary coaching set up". Addtionally, whilst many others, myself included, are willing to give the lads (and Jan) our support, that doesn't mean that we are in agreement of Lowe's involvement or even where the Club is heading (but of course we would all love this to come off). And in a way, that's my problem with Franks posts on this subject. Whilst it was OK for him to be worried about the future direction of our Club a while back (so much in fact that he got deeply involved), now it is deemed negative, vitriolic and unrealistic to have concerns about the plght of our Club.

Have to agree with you. Up until the recent thumping defeats, he came across really well on the radio and although there were language issues, I always liked what he had to say. I also heard him in the corporates pre season and he did sound really refreshing. I still have my doubts about his expereince, tactics and abilities, but as a speaker and a person he comes across really well in person. (PS did you see Mini Me's post on this thread??? LOL).

16,149. And that is definite.

Webster asked back in the summer!!!!!! I understand Lowe wanted a fee from Ipswich to release him, they said no and so we still have him on the payroll (and he isn't cheap!!!!). Not a good decision IMHO.

Interesting. Where did you get their total wages bill being £8.8m to get the £2m other from, compared to our £4.5m other???? £0.5m of our £4.5m was the directorate, which was reduced under Crouch and now again under Lowe, but, like you I wonder what the balance is. I have often said our infrastruture is still very big and wonder how much of that is linked to St Mary's and also how much is linked to revenue drivers (corporate hospitality etc etc). It's certainly an area I would have taken the knife to before I cut back on anything that affected what happened out on the pinch. However, whether it is possible to cut some costs and whther they then impact on revenue is another question!!!!

Interesting to read the point that their playing budget was £7m and their chairman reckoned a bill of around £10m was seen as the benchmark to get in the top 6. We had a circa £10m bill in 2006/7 (and go to the play offs) which went up to £12m last season (and got involved in a relegation battle). Loads of research in the Premiership & Championship shows there is a direct correlation between wages paid and league position. However, with all these statistical analyses, there are exceptions and last year we were definitely an exception!!!!!!

As much as I agree Hone spent too much on Euell, Thomas etc, Rasiak's 4 yr mega wonga deal was done by Lowe!!!!

If it paid for itself, then why did Lowe arrange a 25 year agreement to borrow the money then????:rolleyes::rolleyes: We still owe in excess of £22m on the loan notes taken out to fund the building of St Mary's, so it quite clearly has not paid for itself. Once again you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Our wage bill in the Premiership - £23.2m Our wage bill in the only full year under Burley - £10.5m Tahat's hardly reintroducing most of them now is it?:rolleyes:

I quite agree, as those that are against someone for no other reason than because they are posh/hockey loving/a snob/ruddy cheeks (delete or add as applicable) are themselves no more than inverted snobs. I wouldn't be so naive with regards Jan, he's also played the "skint" card along with the "youngsters are tired" card. Now of course one mans bulsh17t is another mans honesty, but .............. We haven’t been lucky in all the games We go with a young team because we have not the money to do it another way. We may have to change a couple of players because some players are tired physically or mentally. We will have to make some changes because I think even the young players are not capable of playing three games in a row It needs a little bit of time But with regards the honesty and effort of the youngsters, I think you would struggle to find one poster on here who has activley criticised the effort and integrity of them (although McGoldrick has polarised opinions!!!), and it is great to see them putting the effort in (and getting a great result on Saturday). However, with the downside being so massive, I see nothing wrong with people having (and expressing) a view on our progress.

Oh no!!!!!!!! That was just terrible all round. Thinking they could court and influence opinion by entering into subtefuge on here. Then claiming it was all a storm in a teacup etc etc etc. One of the most misguided, foolish and quite frankly insulting episodes in recent years. Cowengate me up :smt119:smt119

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."