um pahars

So they asked Lowe & Wilde whether they should implement Plan B that summer??? I presume you think that Lowe's cabal said yes and Wilde said no, and therefore they carried on as normal signing those contracts and salary cheques. Your grip on the reality of the situation last summer is about as tenuous as nickh's grip on the financial situation.

It either has to be the failure to support Strrock in his battles with the prima donnas and stirrers in the squad, or the crass appointment of Wigley. I don't buy into the idea that the Club suffered from the minute Lowe turned up. Although I have issues with the part played by some of those in the wings around the time of the reverse takeover, Lowe himself performed OK in his early to middle part of his reign. Like any Chairman he made mistakes, but he also made some good calls. His troubles began when his ego took over and when he failed to learn from his earlier errors. So on balance I would have to go for the ludicrous appointment of Wigley, as once we had sacked Sturrock there was no reason for us to appoint Wigley.

I certainly don't believe that I am the financial god on here, but what is patently clear is that you are out of your depth whenever you try to add to the debate in this sphere. The financial reports aren't difficult to read (see Weston Saints post above), but sadly you and a few others fail to believe anything that is written in them because they don't fit in with your biased perception of events. As for answering questions, then feel free to repeat any of your questions that I may have missed and I would be only too ready to answer them. I await your gripping questions:rolleyes: And as I have noted above, we may have lost players during the early part of Burley's tenure (feel free to list the 20, as that seems excessve), but we also brought in quite a few (I have listed at least 10 above). Look at the figures pre and post the January window and our wage costs are similar at around £1m a month. As for "some is held over to later accounts", what are you bumbling on about? Once again you display a noddy like approach to reading other peoples posts and a poor attempt at being consistent and rational in your arguments. You obviously fail to appreciate how the Club was run on a day to day basis fom the time when Wilde stepped down and where the power lay with regards the Executives and the Non Executives (depsite it being highlighted on many occasions on this forum - nd even this thread - and in the real world). Try and read some posts and try and do some of your own research before you spout off rubbish and embarrass yourself on here. Spending money on the loans of Lucketti, Wright and others was not ideal, particularly when Hone had already increased the wage bill in the summer of 2007, but when looked at in a rational and sensible manner, that money was money very well spent. Arguably some of those short term additions helped secure our status in the second division and staved off the footballing and financial disaster that would certainly have followed relegation to the third tier. Attacking Crouch for sanctioning these short term loans is an astonishing position to take nickh, a very weak argument indeed. You would have to look at the company the industry and the context of where it finds itself. In the case of Saints, like Lowe and others, I would have pursued a position of exploiting every conceivable advantage during the parachute payment, even if it meant a small increase in net debt or some player trading to cover the deficit. I would then have looked at retrenching after those two years.

The last seven months of the Lowe regime (Dec through to end June, the start of the Burley era) had a wage bill of £7.4m, whilst the proceeding 6 mths (the end of the Redknapp era) was £6.2m. This would suggest that despite your January cull, wages for the period after the January transfer window were similar to the period before i.e. the net outcome was that there was no real discernible reduction. These figures come from the Interim and Annual Reports are not up for debate. So although we may have lost players like Quashie and Niemi (and the many others you mentioned), we also replaced them with others that netted these savings out, and these included Rasiak, Madsen, Ostlund, Pele, Potter, Brennan, Bart, Chaplow, Wright, Miller. The first six months under Wilde (July to Dec) had a wage bill of £5m.

With this post, methinks you have surpassed yourself in highlighting your total lack of knowledge and understanding on this subject.:rolleyes: Just as it was impossible to try and explain our Operating Loss to you , so it would appear that it will be impossible to try and explain our cost structure and how it has impacted on the Club in recent years. Besides, this debate was to do with Leon Crouch and his part in increasing the wage bill (or not as is the case in fact), so it would probably be best if you took your bumblings to some other thread. Take my advice, go and do some research, look at the numbers put up here by myself and others relating to wages, put them in a timeline, understand how costs are treated in the books (inc terminated contracts) and then maybe, just maybe you might be able to add something tangible to this debate.

And you would do well to read that first part, which clearly demonstrates that the power at the Club, at that time, lay with the Executives under Hone. Crouch could moan, whinge and stir up trouble as much as he liked, but it was Jim Hone's signature on the contracts for the players that saw our wages rise in the summer of 2007. We have no idea of knowing just what Crouch would have done had he been in control. He might have increased wages further, he might have lowered them, but for some reason you continue to ignore tha plain fact that he had no day to day say in the Players Wages at the Club during the period that they went back up.

:rolleyes: Once again I can only presume that you fail to read posts and instead just post waffle, conveniently ignoring the salient points (not to mention ignoring clear evidence). The plain facts (as noted above, lifted from the Interims and Annual Report) clearly display the trend in wages over four season. You would do well to sit back and digest them, as opposed to keep coming back on here and revealing that you are poorly informed on this area. As for having great affection for Crouch and always defending his actions, well that's just the same, lame jibe you trot out when you have no other defence. It's up there with "you only hate Lowe cos he's posh" in terms of lameness. If you had cared to read some of my posts, then you would have seen that I judge him by the same standards Ijudge anyone in control of the Club (e.g. I was critical of is handling of the cashing in on Theo, dallying when Burley left, how Rasiak and Skacel being loaned out was dressed upand a number of other areas where his management was poor). However, what I won't do is try and hold him accountable for things that did not occur under his stewardship, which is where this debate was going before you bumbled in with your ill informed posts.

You must indeed be missing something, as pre and post the January window, our wages were constant at approx £1m per month: 6 months to Nov 2005 (under Redknapp) - £6.2m 7 months to June 2006 (effectively Burley) - £7.4m Rasiak came in on loan under Burley, and he cost a decent wedge, but those numbers are taken from the interims and Annual Report.

And players salaries only were: Players wages y/e 2005 £23.2m Players wages y/e 2006 £13.6m (13 months) Players wages y/e 2007 £10.5m Players wages y/e 2008 £12.1m (est)

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.