um pahars

A positive 1-0 away win. John craker again.

Doug, he's not who you think he is.

So are you saying that JP played Killer, and refused to sub him, knowing he would break down and would then be out for a while?? Surely there's an easier way of not playing Killer at the weekend: Jan: "Mikey, we go with the young defence giving us high pressure attack defending for the important vital game, so yu will have to sit out Saturday. You're still in my brain dreams, so get your muscles fit and we can use you for the special match." So now you think we have a manager that grinds his players into the ground as opposed to not selecting them:rolleyes::rolleyes:

As Chapel End Charlie has correctly pointed out, if the Club were to operate under any future guise then they wold have to honour season tickets. They are a ringfenced football debt that would have to be honoured in order to receive the share in the Football League.

Do you think the hate and vitriol made the Chairman and manager fail? Or, Do you think the hate and vitriol was as a result of the Chairman and Manager failing? I'm not saying hate and vitriol is justified (personally I think you can be against both without resorting to hate, life's too short for that), but we have to get away from this perverse idea that the fans are to blame for where we are now. If some people want to feel they are uber fans, then feel free to donate extra monies every time you visit SMS or make a point of regularly buying some merchandise. The simple fact is that football is no longer a sport linked to the community it serves, and our Club is merely a PLC business operating for profit, delivering value to it's shareholders. You can't have it both ways, in that you want to run a business diven by profit, yet retain some romantic notion of blind loyalty. Ultimately you reap what you sow. It is a business, so we should forget any romantic notion that we owe it to the Club to stand by it come what may. Of course some will do that, and fair play to them for that, but many others will come or go depending on how the team performs and how they perceive they are valued. On both of those criteria the Club has failed it's supporters in recent years, so maybe the onus is on the Club to deliver, as opposed to continually knocking the grass roots fans.

I'd actually pay for his subscription, just to be able to giggle at his noddy posts. If the admins are OK with it, the cheque wll soon be in the post;)

I was more worried about what it said about the quality of this bloke. i.e. If Jan was looking to sign him to play in the Dutch Second Division (and we've heard many stories about how poor that league is) then he can't be that good!!!!!!!! At least I hope he was looking to sign him when he was at Helmond, and not when he was manager of a Sunday League team over there!!!!!!!!!

Don't have a problem with Dyer going as I have never rated him. I'm not even convinced we should have wasted a few months wages on him. Not overly enamoured by this new guy. Firstly I'm not sure we need another forward (we have quite a good one in Stern John not getting a start) as other areas are in need of strengthening. Secondly, I think we should be looking for experience, not another youngster. As for quality, I suppose we shouldn't be that concerned if he's not that good, after all he's a swap for Dire (sorry, Dyer), but the fact that Jan was looking at bringing him over to play in the Dutch Second Division probably says enough.

Old Phil the Greek saw active service in the Navy, and I'm not sure Lord Louis Mountbatten would be too happy either as I'm sure he had something to do over in the other theatre of war. But your right this thread is obtuse!!!!!!1

Well you need to go and have a look at not just his words but his deeds as well around that time. He was not shy in splashing the cash for Rasiak (he sanctioned this deal) and he was also not shy in lining up most of the deals that were then ratfied under the new board. It is accepted that the new regime spent a couple of million more than Lowe intended (e.g.turning BWP into a permanent one as opposed to a loan), and maybe they even gave in to bigger wages than Lowe have, but I'm afraid you need to be convinced abot Lowe's plans that summer, because your current viewpoint is way out of touch with the reality of the situation. He did spend big and he was willing to spend further as he knew that that season would be the last real chance of maintaining a competitive advantage and gaining repromotion [sic]. Well you have also forgotten how Lowe sanctioned a few million to be spent that summer, but for some reason neither he nor Redknapp could land those they were after. Well Lowe presided over the biggest contract (for Rasiak), but even allowing for that, both players wages and overall costs were down year on year. Absolutley, and I have never suggested otherwise. The 3rd season down was the time to cut back and make some savings. For some reason (still never fully explained, do you want a hey ho?) Hone decided to carry on as normal, which is something I have always said was a mistake. Hone presided over a one off overspend, brought about as a result of delaying Plan B. I asked it because I just don't think you get it, and your answer actually supports my fear. The overiding reason for us being on the mire is not the one off overspend under Hone (as stupid as it was, and it has added to the problem), but the fact is that this Club cannot operate with an income of circa £14m. Had we cut back before the Hone overspend, then just why would we have been cutting back then? What we are seeing now is Plan B (with a few more cuts due to the Hone overspend), a Plan that would have been implemented anyway. A Plan B that despite the cost cutting will still show us running at a loss and having to sell players to survive.

LOL. He's like MI5 holding various peoples old posts on files. Can we use the Freedom of Information Act to see who has the biggest file??? Maybe in 30 years time they will thrown open to the public!!!!!

So you put up an antagonistic and attention seeking thread, but when the tables are turned on you, you start crying :smt089:smt089 and going off on one. Boo hoo you big girls blouse. PS Thought I was on your ignore list LMFAO.

No one at the time even acknowledged we had gone through with this, which I thought was poor by Crouch/Hoos. It was only leaks in the press, and Wilde and Lowe using it in their 9 points in the Echo (they look very lame now BTW), that we got to hear of it.

Someone mentioned on here a few weeks back that the Club have still to receive the money. No idea if true or not, but it was a strange deal all round.

At the point Lowe left he left a cash hungry company consuming circa £16m in cash a year (£9m cash out on normal trading , even after recieving £7m parachute payments). That would have been initialy reduced by any exodus that summer, but the signing of Rasiak and statements of a transfer kitty to support Burley, along with aims of gaining repromotion in the second year of the parachute payments, also give a clear indication that further monies would have been spent that summer and the wage bill being added to. Th strategy of holding back from implementing Plan B was one that almost everyone (with the exception of you and nickh) would have implemented. Lowe's plan was to implement Plan B after the second season down. Furthermore, as will be shown by the current years accounts (and I'll happily take a wager on it), despite the ruthless cuts administered by the current regime, we are still a loss making enterprise that will have to rely on player sales to cover those losses. What are you on about. The £2m "mortgage" is an integral part of our running costs (i.e. the £16m deficit), where has this increased gate come from??? If anything slashing and burning to get us down to CCC revenues has resulted in reduced gates. When Lowe left he did not leave a cash rich Club that was self sustaining. He left a very cash hungry Club, whose appetite would get even hungier a year down the line with the withdrawal of the parachute payments. A Club whose own Football Club Chairman doubts we will ever get to a position of self financing unless we regularly sell players.

I'd rat Hammill as a 3 ot of 10 and BWP as a 2. Neither impress me, but one is slightly worse than the other.

And to get to that tally after 13 games Jan will have to amass another 11 points from 6 games. 3 wins, 2 draws and 1 defeat from our next 6 games. I'd settle for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two very quick thoughts on this one: 1. Don't the majority of those players just get rolled out for this competition. i.e. they are not expected to turn out for 7 games in 21 games and perform in a division of cloggers (with shiyte refs). 2. They actually have some serious talent in there.

So are you saying we should have cut right back at the end of the first season down? If so, then you would have been out on your own for holding that view as even Lowe was aware you had to go for promotion during the parachute period. He even sanctioned a £4m commitment to Rasiak and made it clear that Burley would be further supported in the transfer market. He was not going to slash and burn in that second season down as the prize of the Premiership was so valuable we had to go for it. Just a simple question: Why do you think we are we now cutting back?

Most historians actually view "trekking" as the natural instinct of self preservation (in the same manner as Londoners going down the tube and then back to work in the morning) which then enabled the workforce to go back to work the next morning. The population of many cities "trekked out" at night (at some points more than 50% of Coventry's population would trek out nightly). Perversely, GM's noddy rant may actually provide some similarities with our own predicament, but not in the manner in which he first intended (that's even before we start to delve into his slur on the good people of Southampton who msut have gone through hell in those dark days). What is also universally agreed upon is that the Administration and Civic Leadership failed during the blitz of 1940. Despite 2,000 extra firefighters being drafted in from around the country, very often their kit was not compatible, there were water shortages and a paralysis of central authority leadership. Additionally the leadership of Mayor William Lewis was found wanting at the City's most darkest hour. Is Rupert Lowe the modern day William Lewis and is his administration just as paralysed????

You seem to be reading my post but not digesting it in the context of the reply to Up and Away. I was just pointing out that when Lowe left he did not leave a stable business, he did not leave a pot of cash, nor did he leave a business that was cash neutral. In fact we lost £9m out the door in cash that first season ust running the Club and that was after receiving £7m in one off parachute monies (i.e. without it we were losing £16m out the door on normal business, exc play transfers). So the context was that he left a cash hungry Club that needed the player transfer income and parachute payments just to survive. The second point was that it is universally recognised (including by Lowe) that you have to do all you can to get repromotion during the parachute years and the strategy taken by the new regime was probably much in line with what he would have done. At the end of that period, in relative terms we were stable (debt was at it's lowest for years and costs had been managed down). Getting on to that third season down, I have always maintained that Plan B should have then been implemented at that point. I never ageed with Hone not implementing it and have said so numerous times. It is also something all the shareholders agreed on (my only caveat would be that Plan B would not have mirrored Lowe's Plan B in it's exact execution!!!!). So Hone must definitely shoulder the blame for overspending last year. My only caveat there is that whilst it was a totally unjustified and the cash was lost forever, it is not that overspend that put us in such a perilous financial position. It certainly didn't help to have further millions put on the debt, but the precarious financial position stems solely from losing £75m+ from the top line over the last three years. You can react to your circumstances, but I think the current lot will also find it impossible to make this Club wash it's face given the inherent infrastructure and cost base (in fact the Football Club Chairman has openly shared his fears on here).

Player wages 1st season down : £13.6m Player wages 2nd season down : £10.5m Player wages 3rd season down : £12.1m There really should have been a serious effort in getting them down in that 3rd year, but Hone in his own wisdom actually increased them. Whilst there was obviously a few million overspent in that third year and lost forever (and I would never condone that) it really is fairly insignificant when compared to the £25m to £35m lost from the top line every year that we're out of the top flight. It certainly needed correcting, but it is not the main reason for the position we now find ourselves in.

Pearson was unbeaten in all the Cup competitions:rolleyes::supz::supz:

That's just on normal operations, with the deficit being made up from regular player sales.

But don't that "young" Arsenal team only get rolled out once a month for this competition (hence they won't have played all these games in a short period). They're not all played regularly in the top flight.