um pahars

£16m of the player sales and parachute payments went to fund the normal operational cash out the door in the first year down (ie we lost £9m out he door even after banking the £7m parachute payment). It's not hard to see that an enterprise eating up so much money after being relegated will soon consume so much cash. Additionally, the existing Football Club Chairman has made it known that he doubts we will ever be self financing in this division (so will always be eating more cash than we make).

Whilst I agree it won't affect the outcome of the match, I'm just not comfortble that the man who makes all of the day to day decisions is not there for the most important 90 minutes of the business' week. It was something that Hone took some stick for (and rightly so), as ultimatley the CEO is the managers boss, so matchday performancs play a massive part in evaluating just how the manager and squad are doing. It certainly didn't sit well with me when Hone and others didn't travel midweek, and I have no reason to change that view now (in fact you could arue that in the current circumstances it is even more imperative to be there to review performances).

I agree it is a balance, and my balance would be that by having some strong leaders in there it would mean the youngsters could be blooded with support and develop alongside some tough guys (in the same that Lawrie maintained a good mixture). I would argue that by playing alongside such players and being supported, encouraged and protected, they would come through the experience in better shape and so would grow stronger.

Not really (although he did bring the decision maker in), it was Hone, who by then had total control of the PLC board with himself, Hoos, Dulieu, Oldknow & Jones easily outnumbering Wiseman, Trant and Crouch.

Even Lowe acknowledges that most teams give it a go during both years of the parachute payments, hence his various words and deed at the end of that first season down: signing Rasiak Informing Burley he had a transfer kitty to spend Stating that history had shown that repromotion happens most in the 2nd year down (OK so he was wrong on the stats, but he was stating that we would be giving it a real go in the second year, bless him). Compiling a Plan B that would be implemented once the parachute payments finished. etc etc etc. Most of our financial problems stem simply from relegation (and then failure to get repromoted). That turned this Club upside down and cost us tens of millions. The situation was then not helpled by the failure to implement Plan B after the parachute payment ran out (as was acknowledged at the Runnymede meeting), which put a few million more on the debt. And who was in charge of the PLC board and the day to day decsion maker when Plan B was not implemented?????

What I was saying was that those that came in did not inherit a position where everything was hunky dorey (as Up and Away would have us believe). They inherited a cost base that even after being cut in the first year down was still far in excess of the income that was being generated. There was no vast pot of money, but instead we were still a heavily loss making business. (As an example, even after axing many Premiership players, our wages bill was just as high under Burley for the last part of the season as it was under Redknapp for the first part). The legacy of relegation and having a Premiership cost base was still with us (and still is in many areas, not least the £2m pa in interest on the "mortage").

Who says that the alternative choices are likely to be equally poor options???? That's rather presumptious of you. They could be worse, equally as poor or potentially better. And given that JP was looking for the play offs and many were backing that as achievable, you could argue that his start has been very poor and that there was more than an outside chance that doing things differently may have resulted in better performances (and results). Given the recent run of poor form (and strange selections and tactics) many are suggesting that we should have gone for an experienced CCC/English League manager. Additionally, maybe we should also have steered away from total football being played by a team of mainly young lads. Given our recent form and current position, the I think you would be hard pushed to do things worse (or even equally as poor)!!!!!!!!!!! First and foremost, I would not have sacked Pearson. His salary is probably above that of Poortvliet's, but for me the manager is the most important person at any club. I would have made a number of sacrifices to ensure we got the right man. Then I would have accepted a number of youngsters from within the academy in the first team squad and decided to play those who could handle the CCC. I then would have held back spending any money bringing in other youngsters (Scheiderlin, Pekhart, Holmes, Forecast,Cork). I also would have saved the money of getting players who couldn't contribute from the off (Pulis and whatever the other blokes name is). I would also have saved money by letting Webster go to Ipswich (he's on a 6 figure sum). I would have subsidised half of Skacels wages to let him go Ipswich. He's costing us £600,000 a year for nothing, I'd rather it was £300,000 for nothing. I would also have saved some money by letting Dyer go (that's aother 6 figure sum). I would not have relied on Killer being the lynchpin of our defence. With the savings above (why don't you put an estimate on them) I would have endeavoured to get a number of good CCC experience in on free transfers and/or loans. A prime example would be someone like Darren Moore (there's also quite a few good experienced pros on free transfers/loans and cheap buys in this lot - http://www.watford.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=123324). Having a balance of motivated youngsters and solid professionals would have been my approach and I see no reason why this could not have been achieved, even within our current financual consraints, had people prioritised correctly.

If you take the point at which Lowe left then you will see that for that year we lost £9m cash out the door on normal operations. That was what was inherited. Not a cash rich company generating millions from normal trading, but a massive loss making enterprise. The legacy was blown the minute we fell out of the top flight.

I just don't think that players bulk up and fully develop until the early to mid 20's. Of course there are always exceptions(Rooney always struck me as a lump when he was 16), but I think are lot are still growing and filling out and currently don't have the physique to have alot of stamina. Additionally, I don't think they're used to the quick succession of games and the pace and intensity of the CCC. To make things worse this season will be aound 50 matches, and most of them are probably used to half that amount of games per season. It was always going to be a big ask for these lads to perform consistently at this level.

It should be shelved and instead the award given to one of the fans who went last night.

I'm not advocating changing the manager (yet!), but wouldn't you agree that sometimes it's the right thing to do, particularly when it corrects an earlier poor decision? i.e. The sacking of Wigley who shoud never have been appointed in the first place. I fully accept that sacking Wiley produced instability and disruption, but was it not the lesser of two evils? Sometimes the error lies in the appointment, not the removal.

Totally disagree that all experience makes you stronger. I'm sure there are a number of occasions when a bad experience can sap your confidence, ebgender bad vibes and be a real negative experience. One of my worries was that some of these youngsters were being played too young and are suffering as a result. Talent has to nurtured, not thrown in at the deep end and asked to rescue a club. That's a huge responsibility on some young shoulders.

We should seriously be looking at Jurjen Streppel. He has achieved no end of promotions and is successful with clubs with small budgets and loads of youngsters.

You and anyone else who thought things might get better have no reason to apologise for anything whatsoever. Who cares if you were optimistic, who cares if you were upbeat, who cares if you wanted what ultimately we all want i.e. a winning side. You've done nothing wrong in wanting our side to win. And conversely no one who was unsure, pessimistic or whatever has no reason to gloat (not that they would) as ultimately it is our Club that is being fcuukced over here.

shyi7t competition anyway. Let's focus on the league. No ijuries please, and let's get the fook out of Yorkshire PDQ.

I certainly thought he looked the part and had a great future. Seemed to go off the boil after his injury and lost a bit of confidence, which I think is a massive factor for goalkeepers. Wouldn't write him off just yet and being honest I miht have lost my confidence with our defence in recent years. By contast Davis seems to have found is confidence and has improved immensely.

Because on one hand you're saying there was no alternative, then the next saying there were choices that were made. So which one is it? I'm not convinced it's all a massive mistake at all. I have always said that I will judge those involved on the results the set up achieves. And that may well take some time to decide one way or the other (on the other hand results and the implicationsmay dictate the time involved). If it all goes well then I would happily offer congratulatios to all involved (including Lowe). As we stand here today, I admit I have massive reservations, but I am not convinced one way or the other. We have spent some money on some youngsters (transfer fees, loan fess, wages etc). This could have been prioritised in another direction. There are other costs we could have saved (we could have let Webster go to Ipswich, we could have released Dyer, we could have pushed for selling some of the talented players - Lallana, Surman). This income could have been prioritised in a different direction. So even with a rather shallow pot of money it could have been prioritised in a number of differing ways. The results may be better, worse or similar, but the strategy could still have been different. Throughout my posts I have highlighted a number of ways of generating extra revenues, saving monies and maybe a strategy on the type of players who should have gone for to augment the youngsters we already had on our books. Asking for a mere supporter to come up with costings etc to back up an opinion on a message board is risable. I have no inside knowledge into the wage demands of players, nor our own budgets, nor our bank requirements. Maybe if you could furnish me with them then it might make it easier for me to come up with alternatives. But I think people have enough nous to relaise that there are/were different ways of procruing and moulding a squad. You don't have to provide business plans to justify espousing an opinion on here. And how do you know that? Please provide me with a detailed analysis on why something that has not yet happened can be so easily dismissed (see, it really is laughable to ask for justification of someone elses opinion isn't it?)

Nothing personal and I certainly wasn't pushing an agenda, just fed up with the number of people now suggesting there is/was no alternative (whereas when we were beating Farnborough and Winchester it was a fantastic coup/choice to get this "revolutionary coaching set up" playing all these youngsters!) which cropped up again on this thread. This was a considered and rational decision made by Lowe, not something he stumbled on and certainly not one forced on him as it was the only choice available. Of course there are limitations to which avenues he could have pursued due to our precarious financial position, but there were a number of avenues still open to him. And he will be judged on that decision. And going back to expectations, then you're right JP's play off claim was OTT, as was the stupid number of quotes and stories on the OS which built up people's expectations and which probably also put heaps of unwanted pressure on the youngsters (something that I commented on at the time when I said I hoep people can see through the propaganda and cut the lads some slack if it doesn't come off).

I think we'll concede, but we will score more than them. 2-1 or 3-2 morale boosting victory. (If we lose, I'll be saying it doesn't mean anything as it's Mickey Mouse and it will leave us to concentrate on the league!!!).

But it's a pretty weak argument when you consider Wotton is only getting a game because of injuries, Stern isn't the first choice striker and Svensson is injury prone. That's hardly a spine around which a team is being built!!!!!!!! And as for your earlier remark about me taking a degree of satisfaction out of Saints on pitch difficulties, then I have to say that comment says so much more about you than it does about me. That may be the way you think, but some of us are above such accusations. HTH.

Good. I'm glad we put the fallacy that there was no alternative out there to bed. Yes, money is tight, yes, some of our options are limited, but there are many, many, many ways of running a Club and assembling a squad that would fit within the financial parameters we find ourselvs in. And this is a good example of what I mean by choices. Lowe took the decision to go this way. There was an alternative of going with the incumbent manager, but instead he chose to implement this "revolutionary new coaching set up" and support it as it assembled it's own squad (allowing for some inherited deadwood) and played the football how the "revolutionaey new coaching set up" thought it should play. As it stands, of course I will support this set up, (it would go against everything I believe in not to give them my support), but that does not mean my support is unconditional. By that I mean they have to show that they are worthy of support (by showing signs of progress, making changes and learning from their mistakes). I would like to think they get a full season to show us what they can do, but I also would not rule out having to take drastic action if we continue to show no signs of progression (in much the same way as we finally had to call time on Wigley's tenure). I also agree on you definition of success for this season i.e. mid table, because I did not regard last season as a success,and you didn't find me on the pitch after Sheff Utd, because quite frankly just escaping relegation was nothing to celebrate in my eyes. However, that is only short term success and success for us should be promotion. Anything else is just accepting second best.

What do you mean here Phil?????? CEO's generally don't have the money to come in and take over, they are generally appointed executives who come in to run the company on day to day basis. I don't think there are any potential buyers out there willing to pay the amounts wanted by some of the larger shareholders, BUT that is a world away from having a different CEO/MD in place to run the Club. The problem is I don't think any of the large shareholders' egos would let that happen and you oly have to look at the Runnymede minutes to see that. Obviously the Dulieu/Hone episode didn't go down too well with them, but they never considered an independent Chairman or perhaps more importantly, an independent CEO. Instead were trying to share out all the top jobs for themselves (Richards as Chairman, Lowe as Director of Football etc etc etc). I personally would have gone for an independent, experienced and respected CEO & Chairman, empowered by the shareholders and free to get on to do the job in a professional manner. (Just because Hone and Dulieu turned out shy5ters, doesn't mean al CEO's are like that). This may have enabled the Club to issue a rallying call to supporters to get behind the team and forget past differences (soething which Lowe and/or Wilde are not able to do).

I can only assume you haven't read all the posts, have trouble understanding them or are perhaps being obtuse. I have posed a number of alternatives, a number of suggestions, but I think it is also fair to say that when in "opposition" and not in the corridors of power, it is rather hard to come up with a fully fledged alternative business plan. However, this season has clearly seen the emphasis being put on youth. From the signings of Forecast, Scheiderlin, Cork, Holmes, Pekhart, to the pre season friendlies which were mainly staffed with "youngsters" playing a style that suited them. For me, youth is important, but I believe it will only work if augmented by a number of senior players with experience to guide them along. So one of my priorities would have been to acquire a number of seasoned players on frees. Our finances are tight, but I am sure that there is some leeway to have been able to make this happen. My priority before I signed another youngster (Forecast, Holmes, Scheoderlin, Cork, Pekhart etc) would be to get some old heads in first. Then of course we come on to managers. I personally would have appointed someone with more knowledge of what he was letting himself in for. I don't believe that this was a season for letting our manaer learn "on the job". With enough problems around the place, we needed to hit the ground running. After that, there's tactics, motivation, loans, and a whole host of thigns that could be done differently. Lazy and naive. Pearson (or anyone) could have decided to go nuclear and put everyone on the transfer list. Not signed any of the 8 we did. Not given contracts to others (e.g. Dyer) etc etc etc. Of course, we would still be stuck with some of the deadwood, but to suggest we would have had the same team is rather naive. Additionally, a different manager can make such a difference to the same set of players (even without any personnel changes). That's what makes a good manager. If things "would ‘likely’ be much the same as they are now", the maybe we should have saved on JP's & MW's and got Ginger from Mottisfont in (managers can, and do, moake a difference). Wat did you inferring by "we had that last year" and "dross"??? By continually suggesting there is no alternative and whoever came in would have to work with the same squad is just accepting the roll of the dice. By being blinkered to the infinite amount of options we had suggests you are the one who is sugesting there is nothing we can do about it. I have continually said 7 games is too early to judge the manager (and indeed the players), but that doesn't mean that the alarm bells aren't gong off already. I also think some of these players can get better, but it is also clear that we're probably not in the best position to be learning as we go along. We haven't got the comfort of some hard nosed barstewards in there helping them learn their trade, nor have we the comfort of some wins to let them play without fear. P.S. I'll tell you specific thing I would have done which would have made a decent 6 figure saving, and that is let Webster go to Ipswich in the close season. I wouldn't have asked Ipswich for fee for him, which ultimatley backfired on us when they said no and went elsewere.

Of course there's an alternative. Finances may dictate that some routes that we may want to go down are blocked off, but there are many other routes we could follow. As for last year, well we had a manager who couldn't be ar5sed along with a bunch of players who then took his lead. Just because one set of experienced players couldn't be ar5sed doesn't mean they are all like that. Perry and Davis look up for it, and have to say Darren Moore looked his usual committed self on Saturday Additionally, I think you'll find that most people are asking for a balance of old wise experienced players (who still have some passion and a sense of professionalism about them) mixed in with some of the better youngsters. Just to say the dice have been rolled and that's it, is totally uninspiring, and rather naive. Tactics, motivation, signings, loans, fitness and a whole other myriad of things can impact on our performances.

But Lowe and Wilde must still be blagging it then, because they are still asking for a rather pretty price from everything I have been hearing. However, unlike with contracted players, who Lowe always played hardball with when selling, they have a pretty weak hand and any prospective buyer (including even mad old Dan Williams) knows that.