um pahars

The wages under Burley in his first six months were at a similar level to the six months under Redknapp, so after the first drop from Premiership wages, Lowe did not oversee a further step drop. The next drop in wages came about from that summer when Wilde, Crouch, Hone and the others rocked up. As well as reducing wages, they also reduced other costs as well (and also delivered a play off spot). And as I have proved above, not "All that came in oversaw an increase in wages". Indeed, the first regime (Wilde, Crouch & Hone) oversaw a reduction. The second regime (Hone & the Executives) oversaw the increase back up the Lowe levels of wages. Once again, you fail to discern between the two different eras post Lowe, and instead lump everyone in together. Similarly, you obviously don't know the make up of our salary base if you think that we had a bunch of PL salaried players in that first season down . Go and have a look at the step reduction that occurred when we fell out of the top flight (an effort that Lowe should get some recognition for). It is all relative. Allowing the wages to go up by a couple of million certainly is not good news. It's something I would never advocate and it's something I have always opposed. However, the use of the word disaster is somewhat over the top, particularly when put up against the loss of tens of millions from the top line. That was the disaster that has changed this Club.

I have no idea what you're getting at here, but then again, that shouldn't come as any surprise from someone who tried to claim that wages under Lowe were £6m a year (when they actually double that figure). But there's a world of difference between rhetoric, badmouthing the Executives & slagging off Hone on one hand, and actually signing players & increasing our wages on the other. Crouch was guilty of the first one and was doing & saying anything to have a go at Hone, but that doesn't translate into putting a signature on a contract, something which Hone and his cabal were guilty of. Hone made the decisions to increase the wages and not implement Plan B during that summer where he had full control of the day to day running. And as I have said before, on this point Crouch is as guilty as Lowe and Wilde, in that whilst they were all bickering amongst themselves and refusing to work together, it allowed Hone to keep singing the contracts that sent the wages ever higher. In time they eventually got together, and the Runnymede minutes show that they were not happy with the situation, with Crouch advocating removing the Executives, whilst Cowen was also questioning why the Executives had not implemented Plan B. However, even this opposition was fraught with difficulties with each group (Lowe, Wilde and Crouch) rejecting each others alternative plans. It even got so bad that neither Lowe or Wilde could agree to work together. So at this point, it could be argued that Crouch was the only one who was really up for burying the hatchet to get rid of the Executives (the other two were still fighting in the playground). However, the infighting between the shareholders and the free reign it gave Hone, should in no way exonerate him from not being responsible for overseeing the rise in wages. That was ultimately his, and his cabal's, decision and as an experienced football executive he should have been more than aware of where it was leading the Club (it would also be good to hear David Jones view on this sad little episode).

Haven't heard any boos of this type for our youngsters in the matches I have seen. If anything, I think the supporters are more understanding and supportive of the current team than for any recent team at the Club. At worst I have heard a few moans and groans at the end of a match (I think Barnsley), which was ineveitable after such a poor showing. As for booing Cole, whilst it might show the fickle nature of football fans, I also think it might be a reflection of how fans are starting to feel about the prima donnas and their attitude to them and the game in general.

Having been in the same position, I would echo Hacienda's view, in that as tough as it may seem, try and view it as an opportunity to do something. Sometimes we need a kick up the ar5e to go and do something different. Concentrate on getting qualified (maybe you could negotiate that your company pays for a part time course or something for you to continue your studies).

Keep hearing all these snippets, but nothing ever gets confirmed. If he has put money into the Club, then I presume it will appear in the Annual Report (due out soon).

In all fairness to JP, if Rudi really is playing the c nut, then I doubt if any manager could get the best out of him. I have no idea if Rudi is playing games or not, but I think we should hold back from slating JP on this one until we get a clearer picture of who the real villain is.

The increase in players wages (to a level commensurate with what it was under Lowe in the first season down) occurred when Hone & his cohorts had effective control of the day to day running of the Club. Crouch had had no real power from the day Wilde stepped down, when power was effectively handed to the Executives, led by Hone. They were the ones who were in control and decided to let the wage bill increase during that period. The position of the Executives was enforced in the summer with Crouch being removed from the Football Club Board, Hunt stepping down from the PLC board and Oldknow being appointed to it. All this effectively gave Hone a free run of the place. He and his inner circle were taking the decisions that led to the increase in players wages. Someone with a good source has already pointed out that Crouch was against giving Euell such a handsome contract, but Hone pushed it through. In fact, in the early days, when the board was more evenly balanced and Crouch played a role along with Wilde and others, wages actually fell by £3million from when Lowe left office. When Crouch resumed any real control he was limited by what he could do, given it was halfway through a season. Contracts normally run out in the summer (i.e. Claus and others) and the main dealing period is the summer close season. Nonetheless he oversaw the loans of our two highest earners in Skacel & Rasiak, whilst keeping the bank on side. This probably allowed for some flexibility when we hit the rocks on the pitch and allowed us to bring in some very important loans (even if they did cost some money) under Pearson. But the cost of these loans to the Club is small time in comparison to the cost of relegation and the disaster that would have surely followed. Crouch made mistakes, I'm sure even he would admit to that, but blaming him for some poor financial decisions when others had their hand on the tiller is somewhat misguided, a common theme that comes across in many of your posts.

I agree, and would also add that only one home league win in five hasn't really encouraged walk ups. Playing the youngsters might be inspiring to some (including those who appreciate some spirit and some sort of affinity to the Club), but it has also failed to inspire others who don't appear to be impressed by the performances or the results to date. Disloyal, fairweather, scum (not my words), call the the stayaways whatever you like, but the hard nosed fact is that unless we start turning in decent performances and getting results, then we are unlikely to win back a large chunk of our latent support. That's just life and we have to deal with it.

I heard the Derby away performance was on a par with Norwich which gave me hope. One of the Brum games was in the Leaue Cup (which quite frankly is about as important as a friendly!!!). As for the other Brum game I'll take your word on it (although we did lose at home and friends said we looked pretty but not deserving of a win), so we have a decent game rate of 3/10, up 10% on my earlier assessment.

Well, of course you're entitled to your own view, but we have only managed one win out of five at home, and I have managed to see us thumped twice away from home. Whilst some of the football is pretty and quite technical at times, the overall position is that we sit fifth bottom, just above the relegation zone. That's how football is generally judged. You can like the football all you like, I would rather like to have more points on the board (unless the authorities starting awarding bonus points for "sexy football"). But you've missed the point again. This was not a debate about the ten managers in ten seasons and the reasons behind this (been done to death over the years). It was about the lack of tolerance of the fans and how they call for the managers head, whilst also berating the Chairman for going through so many managers. I merely pointed out that sometimes sacking someone is actually the correct decision and that you shouldn't shy away from doing so just because there has been a large number of managers in previous years (although at the same time as sacking that person, you should also review your selection and appointment process for employing such an incompetent person). Espousing a need for stability in the long term, whilst also calling for an out of his depth manager to be dumped are not mutually exclusive, and I see no reason why you have tried to claim they are in this instance.

I honestly don't think that most of these takeover rumours stirred up any real interest outside of this board. Even the Paul Allen [sic] one didn't get people out in the real world talking for long. Yes, it got a mention in The Echo, but it had no legs and was quickly forgotten. Luckily, normal people were spared the Tommacs, LongLife, Barry the Briefcase and their ilk!!!!!!!!!!!!

Charlton also appointed Seymour Pierce a while back, but not sure whether they brokered the current deal or not. However, if you talking about LongLife, Barry the Briefcase and the other comedians, then you definitely have a point.!!!!!!

I've only seen 5 games and that's included two 4-1 defeats, a drab 0-0 affair against one of the relegation candidates, a poor game against Ipswich and finally an outstanding performance against Norwich. A 20% return for me hasn't got me salivating!!!!! Methinks you've somewhat missed the point here. Sometimes the error is in the appointment and the sacking is a sympton of that first glaring error. A case in point would be Wigley (or Gray). Not many people had a problem with Wigley being sacked, the problem they had was with him being appointed and his subsequent performance. I'm not overly sure there is a movement calling for Jan's head, he certainly isn't yet in the world of Wigley, and the next set of games will give a better indication as we progress towards the halfway mark.

Probably for the same reasons why many (including Weston Saint for instance) won't reveal their sources on here. If people don't post their sources up here (and they are well within their rights not to), then your only option is to judge them on how you perceive them in this anonymous, geeky internet world. I wouldn't get too worked up about it.

He'd be better off putting it in the fire beneath the boiler and allowing the undersoil heating to be turned on for the month of January.

He does seem to be indeed (just trying to be somewhat light hearted). I have alot of time for Leon, but being honest, sticking their names up there to replace the equally awful (if not worse) Ex-Directory sign is a tad juvenile. He'd be better off chinning Lowe & Wilde in the Corporate Toilets.

I can't believe there isn't a way to get it to work. For instance we could have come to an agreement with Rudi to pay up half of his remaining two years and then get him to sign a deal with Ipswich for two years on half the money we were paying him, and he'd be none the worse off. Of course, as you say he has to agree to the move, but I understand he just wants away (after being told he could go), but he's not prepared to lose money as a result of walking. Maybe someone can broker a compromise deal at some point (or else he just becomes our own Winston Bogarde!!!).

Didn't we miss a trick on Rudi when Ipswich came knocking????? He must be costing us something like £600,000 for doing nothing. Surely it would have been better to have subbed half of his wages and had him only costing us £300k????? The only downside being one of our rivals gain a decent player (with a poor attitude mind) for an average salary.

Just behind and to the left of them in that ghastly Leon & Lawrie executive box!!!!!!

It wasn't just what he said to dumb old me of course, as he publicly said the following at that Central Hall meeting that you melted from;) "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." I wouldn't really call that resisting, I would actually call that embracing. If only that business meeting hadn't come up at the last minute. You sure did miss your opportunity to grill Crouch and Pearson hat night:p

I'm afraid he's close to being spot on with his analysis!!!!! Our operating Loss wil be circa £13m on income of £14m (therefore costs were about £27m, of which wages were about £12m). You could argue it will be a loss of £15m by the time you factor in interest costs. The ony reason we have funded this mismatch is by selling players and/or increasing overdrafts (or sorting out other short/medium term financing arrangements). The cashflow will give you a good idea of what really happened behind the scenes and I await with some trepidation what our net debt position will be. But it has been the same from the minute we fell out of the top flight. In our first season down we had a cash deficit on normal trading of £9m!!!!! This would effectively have been circa £16m!!!!! without the parachute payment. IMHO, we're still running at a loss, as I can't see where we have lost £13m-£15m in costs since Lowe & Wilde have come back in. So once again that void will be filled by player sales (and/or other financing e.g. overdrafts, loans renegotiating interest & "mortgage" payments).

You're quite right there Phil and to his credit, Lowe did a good job when we fell out of the Premiership. That summer he played hardball with Liverpool over Crouch and insisted we had no need to sell (along with others during that season). Although this wasn't the truth and some renewing season ticket holders were up in arms, I have to say those little white lies were in the best interests of the Club.

I wouldn't worry too much about this fella. All I needed to know about him was clearly demonstrated when Crouch (and others) laid on that open meeting. As a vociferous and prominent (if not unbalanced and inconsistent) campaigner against all things Crouch, you would have thought this would have been an ideal opportunity to press home his questions, particularly after claiming he wold be more than happy to put them direct to those in charge. But sadly, depsite telling everyone he was going and he would indeed continue with his crusade, he couldn't make it at the last minute as he had been called to a business meeting up north and so would be in Manchester (or somewhere else I can't remember) at that point. You have to qeustion the calibre of someone who is so vociferous in their opposition, but when push comes to shove they can't folow through with their promises. So Mr Sundance, there was no chance of rescheduling such an important business meeting was there?

Your point is spot on, particularly when you look back at what Pearson said not long after he turned up: "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." Doesn't sound like someone who is against the policy of developing the youth in tandem with the first team, nor someone who was averse to using youth as opposed to buying players.

Happy to put some meat on the bones on this one. I managed to grab a few minutes (a couple of othes were involved as well) with Pearson at that Central Hall meeting towardas the end of the season (you know, the one that Sundance couldn't make as he suddenly had an important business meeting up north!!!!). He was fairly open with the fact that he was aware that next season would see a serious cutbacks on the playing staff and that the youngsters would play a much greater part in the first team.