um pahars

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.

And what exactly is the financial mess we are now in all about then???? Quite simply (and I'll have to keep it simple for you) it's all down to only having income of £13m-£14m and costs being higher than this. We're still running at an operational loss (even under Lowe) and player sales will have to fill the void. Just as they did in the first season down when we were £9m down on operational cash (£16m before the one off parachute payments). And so they did again the second season down (the third season down under Hone was awful, but that's a seperate story). And if you claimed all those player sales were ****ed up against the wall during the period under Wilde and Hone, then you must also be consistent and call the next batch of player sales as also being ****ed up the wall again (this time by Lowe & Wilde). Additionally, you should also have called all those player sales in the first season down under Lowe as being ****ed up against the wall. So is it only ****ed up against the wall when Wilde or Crouch did it, but when Hone or Lowe did exacly the same thing it's called something entirely different:rolleyes::rolleyes: But consistency of argument is not one of your strengths is it;).

Wilde also said: " "They're also prepared to come on favourable terms financially" and the OS also said: " The move is also in line with the club's limited financial situation. The combined salary of the pair is still less than that of Pearson" " Current manager Nigel Pearson will not have his contract renewed when it expires next month with PLC chairman Rupert Lowe admitting that finances played a part in the decision." Additionally all the stories in The Echo (who now have a smoochy, smoochy tie up with the Club) were running the Golden Duo [sic] were cheaper than Pearson. And although many can see through the bullshiyyt and spin, sadly there are many on here who bought it, as you only have to look at the number of posters who still believe all this and genuinely believe we couldn't afford Pearson (with regards his own salary). PS As mentioned by Arizona, why was it an impossibility that Pearson couldn't have operated in the same financial straightjacket as the Golden Duo [sic]??? Why couldn't he have introduced more of the youngsters???

You've just made a huge leap there to assume that because I'm not overly flattered by being out of the relegation battle to Div 3, that I also think we have a divine right to be in the top flight. Great logic fella:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I too didn't agree with sacking Pearson, but I also appreciate that as the man in charge it is his right to do what he sees fit with regards the managerial position. However, like you I would rather he had been more honest with this appointment, rather than treating us as fools and trotting out the "we couldn't afford him" excuse (then again some fools still seem to believe we got rid of Pearson because of his salary, but fortunately it would appear that only a minority take in the OS & Lowe spin).

A very succinct point. I didn't go on the pitch after the Sheffield United game, because quite frankly I wasn't overly enamoured at celebrating escaping the drop to Division 3. Similarly, I'm not convinced that we should be thankful we're not in the bottom three of the second division.

But the longevity of their career after those 10 games is irrelevant in this analysis. This was solely looking at their first ten games (and even Wigley and Gray managed 10 games, 10 games too many mind). Aha, but you've included Pearson and he only had a short career. One inherited someone elses demoralised squad midway through a season, the other had all of pre season (and 8+ signings) and a revolutionary coaching set up to work his magic. Hardly comparable. And in all honesty, that's where this debate should have ended, as it is impossible to do any comparison worth it's salt. Opinions are one thing, but trying to wrap them up in "statistical analysis" is another thing entirely!!!

And when those players are sold, I do hope you add the income to your tally of money pis5sed up against the wall over recent years, and then also add Lowe and Wilde to those who you think presided over the aforementioned pis5sing up the wall.

It's all very similar to long lost LongLifeMilk who was being used and abused by Lowe & Cowen on a regular basis. How I long for those outbursts where he was fed ****** and bullshtyit and used to shoot from the hip on here:D

And from those 13 games, Pearson earned us 16 points. That was despite inheriting a right mess from Dodd/Gorman/Burley. In that context, a points ratio of 1.2 per game doesn't look that bad (he was no Ferguson mind). Jan needs to pick up 5 points from the next three games to equal that record (and he's had the whole of the close season to prepare and mould his squad!!!). Will Jan measure up to Pearson's 13 game record???

Guaranteeing a starting place may not be the right terminology, but I certainly don't think that the Chairman should be anywhere near team selection issues. So is our Chairman involved, to any degree, in team selection???

nickh, do you think it is right for the Chairman to tell any player that they will be the first name on the team sheet??

Fair play to the lad and I think his cultured style of play will look even better at U21 level.

You cynic you!!!!!!!! I'm sure there's a valid reason for not including 40% of our recent managers (it's just that I'm struggling to think of what the reason would be).

Problem is, McGoldrick isn't a flair player, but instead needs to work hard at creating and scoring chances, something he does not look like he is capable of doing at the moment. Is it confidence, is it arrogance, is it motivation or is it simply that he is not up to the grade required??? I don't know, but I do know from the games I have seen, is that he is not delivering and he is certainly not living up to the billing given to him by many at the Club and on here.

Absolutely And who is alledged to have told McGoldrick this???? Jan or Lowe???

Some interesting stats and I also wonder why Gray, Wigley and Sturrock were omitted. Was it perhaps that because both Wigley and Gray only managed 7 points, whereas Sturrock managed 12 (not 14) and it would have perhaps highlighted those appointments and sackings as being unsound?????? You then have to question the validity of such comparisons, because sadly there is no control test here, with each manager playing different teams with different resources. Therefore it is a fairly meaningless and arbitrary comparison. Furthermore, I'm not sure it is fair to include the first ten matches of those managers (or Head Coaches) who came in part way through a season. Although they have a chance to motivate the team and rejig the squad, to a certain degree their hands are tied and their choices somewhat limited. Additionally, what this also doesn't show is the context behind these points. In that, I don't just mean the manner in which we have played (i.e. I have only seen one good performance out of five so far this season), but instead how everyone else is doing and what it means in the league you're in. Most of those managers were in the top flight where the points ratio per game for teams is generally lower, particularly in the relegation battle. For example when we got relegated from the top flight you only needed something like 34 points from 38 games to survive (0.9 points per game), whereas last season it was something like 53 points, from 46 games (1.2 points per game). Therefore just looking at those managers who had the important pre season to mould their teams, then only Souness would come up above that basic level. Jan himself would fall below it along with Jones, Merrington, Branfoot & Nicholl. I had time for Nicholl, so you could argue he turned the corner after 10 games, but as for the other three (Jones, Merrington & Branfoot), I think it is safe to say that those three did not distinguish themselves after their initial start. Will Jan go the way of Nicholl, or the way of the other three who continued to stumble along?