um pahars

He would have been lying had he said that, but he never said a deal had not been done (of course feel free to show us the quote by Crouch). The closest he came was at Central Hall when he said something along the lines of "sorry but I can't answer that question under advice from the people from Seymour Pearce". The only line denying it was an intro on the OS by the editor of the time who was quite clearly out of the loop, as the deal had almost been done and dusted when Hone was the main man.

Typical woman, always knocking years off their age.

I think you'll find that dumb pahars has from day one said this was nothing to do with money. On the contrary, I have from day one said that this was solely a footballing decision. Maybe if you learnt to read you would find that Weston Saint was saying that the appointment of the revolutionary coaching set up was due to financial reasons, whereas I have been arguing that it was solely for footballing reasons. HTH.

I think you've been sold a dummy if you think either Pearson's wages or his requirements were the reason for letting him go. Pearson was acutely aware of the financial pressures at the Club and after speaking to him at length down at Central Hall he was more than aware that the summer would mean a mass exodus of the higher earners (and anyone who would command a fee), with not much money being spent on player purchases. After meeting with Lowe he was of the mind that he could work within the financial constraints and also felt that Lowe wanted him (hence when he went on holiday he thought everything was hunky dory). Lowe decided to go with the revolutionary coaching set up not as a financial necessity, but because he felt that was the best way forward. People may not agree with it, but at the end of the day Lowe is in the hot seat and he made that call. Of course we couldn't afford Keegan and his shopping list, but the neither was the revolutionary coaching set up the only option available. Lowe made that call and he will have to be judged on it. It may not be the answer, but I'm sure that for some people they have opted to do just that. When my uncle picked me up from Heathrow the other day I asked him what our performances had been like. HIs response was "I don't know, I haven't gone to any matches as I just can't stand the idea of giving Lowe my money". Irrational, stupid, naive, damaging or whatever you want to call it, you can't get away from the fact that some people (and it may be a minority) feel this way. Of course last seasons debacle and this seasons luke warm start (along with player sales) may also be a factor, but in these hard times, sadly Lowe is as divisive a figure as he was when we first went down during his tenure. Will my uncle come back when we are climbing the league? I don't know, but you can't ignore that in the absence of success on the pitch Lowe is not a unifying figure off of it.

I'm not sure anyone confirmed it, but it definitely happened. Lowe and Wilde mentioned it in their 9 points and the Echo reported on it (as well as some nationals). Hone started the negotiations before he left and Crouch concluded them. It definitely happened and I imagine this will be confirmed once and for all in the Annual Report.

I have to say that Edgar's summary is more in line with the financial turmoil we are currently in. Looking at the numbers mentioned in the Trading Statement, I would expect our P & L for last year to be something like this: Income---------14m Cost of Sales---(22m) of which £12m is wages Gross Loss------(8m) Admin costs-----(5m) Operating Loss--(13m) Interest---------(2m) Loss before player tading --(15m) So this was our normal trading loss last season, a loss of £15m which was only bailed out by player sales and pulling forward the payments on Walcott and Bale (can't remember if Bale's money came before 30 June). Then we consider player trading (which is not accounted for on a "cash" basis (in simple terms player sales effectively make it in to the P&L but purchases are spread over a number of years), which was : Profit on Diposal of players--- 12m Amort of players-------------(2m) Net profit from payer trading--10m Total Loss Before Tax---------(5m) What will be really interesting will be the cashflow as the P & L often doesn't give you the "real" position of the company's financial performance.

Sorry Ron, but I think you're being a bit naive here if you think the only people who can save us or run the show are Lowe & Wilde (what happens when they do eventually go, does the Club fold or do we appoint someone else? Maybe we have to make do with Wilde JR and Lowe the II in some sort of hereditary dynasty!!!!). The very fact that both of them failed whilst on the bridge would suggest to me that there might well be others out there who could do a competent job. One thing that was evident form those Runnymede meetings was that the larger shareholders never once considered going outside of their cosy cabal to get the best man for the job. Instead they were too busy carving up the jobs for themselves (Lowe as DOF and Wilde as Chairman, problem was neither would work with each other back then!!!!!! - how times change). And as for how it could be done differently, then once again there are many ways of skinning a cat. A fine example would be the sacking of Pearson and the appointment of JP and the coaching structure that surrounds him. I'm not saying one is better than the other (that's another debate for another day), just giving one example that different strategies can and are being employed and those who make those choices will be resopnsible for them (there should be no hiding behind the "we had no choice" excuse card). Money is tight and will almost definitely influence every decision, but there are a number of footballing things that could be done differently.

Considering there is a Branfoot thread on here, then maybe it is worth asking what you thought of the stayways at that time, who ultimately forced the board to sack Branfoot?? Whilst many just stayed away because the football was appalling, many also stayed away in protest, a protest which ultimately worked with Branfoot being removed?? Those idiots would claim that the pain and sacrifice was ultimately price worth paying.

Not correct. The FA never had the rights to negoitate and manage the commercial rights of the product. The rights for the Football League (in whatever guise dating back to the 1880's) were always the responsibility of the League itelf (and it's members) and nothing to do with the FA. I agree we can't blame SKY for how money is distributed throughout the game, although I would have thought that as the ultimate customer and paymaster they do have a view on the competitiveness of the league (and the pyramid system) and it's attraciveness to punters. It is totally up to the Clubs in the top flight to decide how the money is distributed throughout the game and with many of them (including ourselves when we were there) it is probably akin to xmas, voting and turkeys in trying to get them to pas on more to the teams below them. It's just that the FA get enough stick without being blamed for the ills of the Premiership gravy train.

The FA had no part in seeking the best comercial prospects for the Football League (in pre Premiership days). Just as the Premiership runs itself nowadays, so did the Footbal League before it. They could have refused to sanction the move, but it would have happened anyway. The clubs had all the power and if the FA had not agreed, then English football would probably have fallen apart. They would have still formed the Premier League and the repercussions for the FA and the rest of the game would have been massive. The simple fact is that although they need to work together at times, the FA needs the Premier League more than the other way round. But this is where you're confusing yourself again. The FA were never in the game of negotiating and managing the rights of the Football League. The Football League negotiated these rights. The top teams (including us at the time) thought they could get a better deal by going it alone from the Footbal League, hence the mass resignations. Maybe the Football League were hapless at managing the rights, but certainly not the FA!

The FA have nothing to do with this. They were powerless as the old First Division clubs simply resigned from the Football League in the early 90's and set up the Premiership. They had no choice but to sanction it, the Clubs have all the power. The power lies with the Premiership Clubs, and within that the big 4 or maybe 5 are the real power barons. The big clubs know they could earn more if they sold their rights individually, so therefore the lesser clubs often defer to their way of thinking just to ensure the collective agreement remains. In a way this acceptance of the collective bundle is the big 4's way of saying they are doing something for the game (i.e. accepting less than they may otherwise get - although there are rumblings that two or three of the big four are looking to go alone at some point).

The FA does not run the Premier League!!!!!!!!!! The Premier League is run by a board of Directors who are appointed by the 20 shareholders (i.e. the Premier League Clubs). Effectively the Clubs run the League themselves through appointed Directors and an Executive team. The FA are a special shareholder with a right of veto on issues such as promotion, relegation and other areas, but they have no influence on the commercial aspects of the Premier League.

Many a true word spoken in jest!!!!!!!!!!! Let's leave it at that

Maybe we have to dampen our expectations of him and come to accept he may never be the same as the Killer of old. If he was, then he would probably be snapped up by someone in the top flight (or abroad) anyway. That said, I would probably settle for a 75% Killer just for his tenacity, leadership and the way in which he carries himself, which must be a great example to the many youngsters at the Club.

Wilde has 16.5% of the PLC's shares. Lowe has 5.6% of the PLC's shares.

Lowe has never sold his shares for the sole reason that no one has been prepared to buy his and his cabal's shares. After being ousted Lowe was quite open that he would sell his shares if a buyer could be fund to buy his and those in his cabal. To my knowlegde, Wilde has never made any announcement about wanting to sell his shares. His recent piece states that he would sell, but only if in doing so it was in the Club's best long term interests.

You may have a point there Phil. I certainly would prefer nothing to one sided spin on the OS and in The Echo. I would still like to see them come out to meet the supporters, but in the absence of that, I would probably vote for radio silence.

Is it a concidence that some of the viewpoints on here mirror the tone in the Premiership vs Championship thread (and how we now think the ar5se is falling out of the game, only after we have witnessed some of the probles first hand). There's always been a debate about Club vs Country, but I dare say if we were in the top flight, with a few players in the squad (and a few more on the fringes) and hosting Enland internationals at St Mary's, then we wouldn't be as negative as we are now.

Please ignore the: and overseen by Wilde). I've paid my fiver Mr Grant, so please sort the edit function out you slacker!!!!

I certainly wouldn't call the answer given to Stevn Squibb full, frank and open. In fact the response is pretty evasive and does not answer the question posed. For me, the question touched upon one of the most important issues, but Wilde failed to respond in any coherent or cogent sense. There were some good snippets in there, mixed in with some noddy stuff, along with a big dash of spin. If anything, this initiative just highlighted the shortcomings of a "write in with your questions". There is no opportunity to push for a full answer, no opportunity to challenge the answers given and it is basically a chance for those in power to rehearse their reply and use the Echo as a platform to provide a one sided response. Nothing beats a good old face to face grilling so I wonder what plans there are for Lowe & Wilde to face the supporters. Wilde states that the main reason we find ourselves with such fundamental financial problems is down to relegation and the drop in income (relegation overseen by Lowe), compounded by last seasons overspend (an overspend by a board constituted by Wilde, and overseen by Wilde). I'm not really sure how you link Crouch to the response given by Wilde. It was clearly aimed at the Fulthorpe consortium and was a simple put up or shut up. Whilst I'm sure talks will not go forward with time wasters or those without proof of funds, the directors would not be doing their job if they did not consider every oppotunity to find and answer to our funding problems (however these materialise). Some may be loons, some may be time wasters, some may be fishing and some may be real, but only a fool would dismiss any approach out of hand. I would imagine that they were doing exactly the same as Collins Stewart were doing before them. And this wild goose chase is the same wild goose chase that every team is on in an attempt to find outside investment. I presume you were much happier with the concept of LongLife Saint & Barry the Briefcase going round his photocopier clients in an attempt to find some funding:rolleyes:

Au contraire, he is quite clear that we cannot wash our face in this division and will need to rely on the sale of players to make ends meet The following quote clearly outlines this: In my mind, it is virtually impossible for any significantly sized club with a modern stadium to survive outside the Premiership on normal operational revenue streams, irrespective of how well they are run – certainly if they are to remain competitive at this level. Player trading is a vital revenue stream for any club in this position.

Dear Mr Echo Further to my earlier letter, please find the answers to the aforementioned questions. Yours sincerely R Lowe

Dear Mr Echo Further to my earlier letter, please find the answers to the aforementioned questions. Yours sincerely R Lowe

Is there an avater for GGGGGGRRRRROOOOAAAAAANNNNNNNNN? What next Dalek, "well at least Mussolini made the trains run on time" (sic), or, "well Hitler did at least bring on the idea of motorways" (sic)? I don't hate Branfoot, he doesn't consume me, but I think it's going just a little bit too far in suggesting he did a good job (in whatever circumstances)!!!!!!!!!!

I quite agree. IMHO, the change of managerial team was not driven by the need to cut costs, it was driven by a desire by Lowe to implement a new way of working, and Lowe will be judged on that decision (whether it be a success or a failure). I also think that the manager is the single most important person at the Club, and it would be folly to scrimp and save in this area. If anything, it is probably one of a few areas that for me that should be ringfenced when it comes to making cost savings. I would probably forego most other expenditure if it meant we got the right man in as manager.