Frank's cousin

Its the difficulty of being a chairman and what I was alluding to in an earlier post: If successful on the pitch - the chairman can be an ignorant, stupid, mindless, crazy fecker as he likes... we wont care. Its only when things dont work out that we start to analyse all those charater traits, many of which are irrelevent... secondly Ideas are always seen positively when they work, and negatively when they dont... the result is all that matters. BUt that should NOT distract from the quality or logic of an idea in the first place: There is a sound and rational argument for involving other sports people with proven records in the game, developing a commercially viable academy to create a conveyor belt of talent for the first team AND as a revenue stream, or even employing a coaching set up that is in theory skilled in that system... but many rational ideas fail because of poor implementation, timing and just bad luck... But I agree Wilde did seem to be more concerned about the image than anything else?

I am sure he did care about his shares... as anyone would, probably alot more than some such as Lawrie who is believed to have sold his early doors.. but thats another debate. I do however agree with you that the perception he gave in not renewing Pearson's contracts was one of petty sniping at Crouch (and possibly Lawrie Mac - whose agent son helped on the deal) -This wasa huge blunder by Lowe, because irrespective of his personal thoughts on teh merits of teh Dutch experiement, in one single stroke he alienated even the tiniest bit of good will he may have been able to build during a joint tenure with Wilde. The Pearson appointment and the subsequent relegation survival had given us some optimism, albeit against a backdrop of poor cost control during that season. Crouch - being a fan - I suspect felt that avoiding relegation was most important thing, and I suspect was also not prepared to cull the squad to get us back on budget - I am sure it was well intentioned not wishing to be seen in interfering with the playing side of things, but after Wilde's wild spending, we needed a very firm hand to bring things back under control, and I dont think he wanted to be seen as the villian controlling the purse strings to the detriment of the team (that was how fans viewed Lowe) As a result it opened the the share price was tumbling and Wilde could see the value of his investmnet ebbing away. Having fallen out with Crouch previously, CRouch left himself exposed on two fronts... the continued losses did not seem to be being stemed, and his 10% without Wilde's support made his position very weak... and we know what followed. Lowe's decison to cull teh squad and go with the kids was based on finance. But even with loaning out certain high earners, still paying a % of their wages and their overheads did nothing to stem the tide - we were fecked with teh contracts we had in place and when no one wanted some of these players the writing was on the wall. Lowe compounded this with getting rid of Pearson -probably his biggest blunder that season. I still maintain i can see the logic in trying a dutch academy transition system given our position, but it was naive to think it could be up and working in a tough devision such as the CCC quick enough to avoid the relegation Nightmare. Had He kept Pearson and played the high earners would we have survived? who knows but we probably would have done - we may have gone into admin, but been in a position to avoid the the drop even or even the additional income to come the following year may have given us more time with the banks... who knows. Yes admin has brought about a positive change but it did wipe ou those shareholders investments - woudl you or I not try and avoid that to, if it was our money? Its all Ifs and Buts and Maybes and thankfully we now have a business that will be self sustaining and debt free - a new start, the irony is surely not lost that this was only possible because of those sequence of events ;-)

The only thing wrong with this statement is: It fails to take into account the manager at the time - Lowe simply cant win with some folk - eg He brought in Redknap - and although we had kept wigley on way too long there was still plenty of time to get safe if 'arry was as good as teh media and 'arry thinks he is. He was utter ****e with us, coming out with all sorts of demotivating tripe publically. The players underperformed as well. Had redknapp kept us up, would you say that was a masterstroke by Lowe, or the brilliance of Harry? I know that with many fans all the credit would have gone to Harry, yet as he failed, it was not his failure, but Lowe's. The popular misconception on here is that I somehow want to defend Lowe in some blinkered trance... I dont, I have no need to, he is history and we have a brighter future, and when he was here, I would readily acknowledge his failures and mistakes, but I just find the one sided view, the totally illogiocal blinkered perspective that anything bad at the club during Lowe's time was 100% directly attributed to him, and anything good that happened at the time was down to someone else and in no way down to anything Lowe did, so blatently ignorant, that it it winds me up no end. Its pure and utter ****** and I suspect you know it too. Lowe fecked up, with a series of blunders and errors that CONTRIBUTED to our demise, but he did also try an run teh club within its means when in the prem, much to the annoyance of some managers such as Souness, possibly WGS as well, and at the time obviously fans. Fast forward and had In partricular Wilde and Crouch taken the same stance, we may still have been relegated again, but admin could have been avoided. I know football fans in general are not renowned for their intelligence, but its this sort of stubborn refusal to look beyond the headlines that does nothing to dispel that myth...

.... Sat in the foyer of The Hyatt in Birmingham at the moment... and STeve Macanananannman is sat opposite reading the Racing Post horse paper thing - guess he is here given his connections to Jung at BCFC?

Hi Duncan Hope all is well mate. Think we are all grateful he is history, and we have a new era. BUt I agree with you there have been worse out there. I think the perfect chairman is extremely rare, because its so difficult if passionate about something and bank rolling it NOT to get over involved in areas that are not your expertise - I know If I owned saints and was a billionnaire, how difficult woudl it be not to try and get involved with footballing decisions? ;-) Or I'd be skint and accuse of not spending enough or 'risking enough' which i would refuse to do if it were not in the bank... So from that I suppose you cans ee why I could at least empathise with Lowe on those accounts... Sadly, my match attendance is going to be very sporadic as I'm moving to Scotland in a coupel of weeks time so hopefully meet up for a pint befor I go... will be in touch

Hi Wes Fair request. I think though the answer is likely to stir up a further hornets nest and I am not sure I have the energy left for the debate TBH. It wont change anyones mind so why go to the trouble. ...but hey you asked so nicely ;-) Well there are plenty of chairman who have ben relegated from the premiership, so he is in good company - and taking the eye of the first team ball and manager feck ups had a major impact on that first relegation so perhaps he is worse than some. BUt the dreadful morale, player form and redflaps are not blameless either... but yup he took us down so scores on the doors there. The second relegation is tricky. Simply put I still do not know what the real situation with teh bankns was determining policy when he returned. BUt yes he made two big erros that compounded any financial problem - getting rid of pearson and keeping on JP when it was clear he and the kids were struggling. Cant blame him for administration though - by that time we were fecked financially and his mistake was probably believing he could fight it off untill the ST monies came in at season's end - that meant the -10 - which has set us further back... thankfully ML was tempted and things looking up... So worst chairman ever? no because whatever we like to believe with the wonderful insights provided by the retrospectoscope we were well run financially when in the prem - within our means - teh problem was at teh time we were competing against clubs prepared to gamble and risk increasing debt to keep them there, we were not. For me any chairman who wants to club to live within its means is on the RIGHT track - even though at the time most were calling for him to spend and spend big... without acknowledging where this cash was coming from.... and funny how times change and now we once again desire such financial stabilty. Crap Chairman who made mistakes would sum it up for me... but not the figure of hate that he is for so many - life's too short for that and I am lucky I have so much more to worry about than his status in the crap chairman stakes ;-) (TBH, I dont think I would like many of teh current league chairman - except Nicola and Markus of course! )

Every defeat... especially at home. League/division, never been the biggets factor, so like many the lowest was when Pinnacle was discovered not to have any cash of any substance... and we were left with.... Thankfully ML was not put off and the only way is up ;-)

Hello! Been away a while - work and all that... and hey ho, I come back and its just like old times! ;-) Its a shame that even though we are now in a position to regrow, put down solid foundations under a new and although 'inexperienced' non footballing person (heard that before somewhere) the outlook is looking good... but we still cant leave the past alone - and thats good as its my favourite topic! But as its still 'lets go round in circles time' with pros and cons being argued as to whether the pros are actually pros or luck etc... Thought i would try a different tack... here goes: I think if we had to 'build' the ideal chairman - what would it be? Loadsamoney? happy to spend big to bank roll success, sits with and in touch with fans, gets 'behind' the manager however much he wants to spend? then puts up a stature of himself and names a stand? Would we all be happy with that, or would some feel we had bought success in a kind of vulgar way? I think you would get both, those really happy just to be successful, and those who felt uncomfortable with the way it had been attained. So relevent to this thread? A lot has been made that Lowe was in effect pretty much disliked from the start - an upstart who knew nothing about football seen as someone who saw money to be made from the Sky Sports premiership model, a chance to massage his ego and surround himself with the great and the good of the game - perhaps not far from the truth. Thing is I think this kind of thing only becomes negative in fans eyes if what is happening on the pitch is poor. Had we had success year in year out, I think alot of what we deem as negative about a chairman as written on 3 pages here, becomes irrelevent to most, as with Chelsea fans and the fact that most dont concern themselves with the morality of Abramovics' business success. Lowe, simply does not have personality to be loved - his arrogance and lack of communication skills come across as almost distain for any one challenging his approach. But its quite simple - Had his approach worked this would have probably been seen as some kind of eccentric irrelevence, the fact it contributed to failure means there are no holds barred in the response he is given. We may wish to deny this 'two-facedism' (Can I get away with that as a word?) but I do think its fair to say for most fans. We think of what happens on the pitch first, not the reasons why. The only thing I would say in defense of the evil one is that it is disingenuous to believe he was somehow always determined to feck us over, or somehow too stupid to ever give us long term success. There was method in the 'madness'- which i know most will never acknowledge, be it the need to move grounds, the importance of a good academy even if for something as cynical as a revenue stream (which I dont believe by the way - look how livid he was about the Bridge sale?) etc... But whilst concentrating on these reasonable things, we took the eye of teh most important ball, the one on the hallowed turf on a saturday (or sunday or Wednesady depending on Sky's whims) - the first team that needed investment to support a sustained development and improvement. Where that investment was coming from has never been made clear, but it was an obvious contributor to our decline and as chairman he needs to take that responsibilty.. ultimately. As an aside, reading Full Time at the DELL - gives a more factually accurate account of teh whole Stoneham V St Mary's thing and its a bit different from the the perpetuated gossip on here that has become an urban myth - Sure mistakes were made, but ultimately these things happen with many such projects as the various interested parties hold back their ammo to ensure the biggest impact... How many sites and proposals did the new national stadium go though or look at Pompeys mythical new ground.... Ultimately, I cant say I would ever like the man, Cant agree with much of what he did, but could see some logic in the approaches taken...even those that failed, but it always got me wound up when there was simply so much rubbish and bull spread and perpetuated by those with other agendas - and it spreads so quickly to become 'fact' in many eyes. The beauty of propoganda :-) A good example is Saint Robbie above - I have absolutely no way of knowing the source of the 'WGS thinks Lowe is a ****' FACTUAL statement he makes, it may be true, it may not, but it is at odds with the FACT that even after he left he still had dinner with Lowe now and then... so who knows, but it just adds so little to any real debate apart from winding folk like me up - which is maybe the plan? ;-) Anyway enough of my drivel, just think we should maybe all look at some of the home truths in all this 'chairman assessment' - which for the vast majority is simply down to success - had lowe brought us the title 3 years in a row and a Champions league trophy, there are without doubt some fans who would have let him **** their wives! and there might even have been a few more Ruperts on birth cirtificates in Southampton - or maybe not - but we should acknowledge our fickleness really.

For me the form guide is simple... without the -10 we would have 15 and be in approx 10th place - which is about on par with the the fact that we have been so inconsistent and n some games poor, yet clearly have some talent and a good game when we want it. The maths mean that we still need to improve quite a bit and be consistent to be safe from dropping again... BUt if we can get some momentum going oon the back of these wins and getting over that psychologucal hurdel of minus points we should do OK.

Have to laugh at this very emotive subject - reminds me of the Diana effect - for some reason even though we dont know the person some folk begin to believe they can do no wrong because of the good that they have undeniably done... my question to those who say - 'he won us our only trophy and the 84 season etc therefore he can do what he likes in my book' I ask a simple question, what would he have to do for you to chnage that opinion? be spotted being way too friendly with a goat? Without doubt he gave us some excellent football and great memories for which he was undeniably given praise and affection. I dont believe we should lose sight of these relative triumphs whatever happened later, the same way as questioning some of his later actions and public debates in no way undermines his history in my book. I have never met teh man so cant judge his personality or criticise the man. I can only form an opinion on what is in the domain and for me its quite simple. if asked what i thought of him as a manager of saints and what he achieved for us, i would wiothout hesitation say he was our best, someone who gave this provincial club its greatest moments and someone who built on the foundations liad down by Ted to elevate us to heights we have yet to repat and for that he should always be fondly remembered. If asked what I think of him since he left, I would say its more difficult - its obvious those that dispised Lowe will say he was great because he also dispised Lowe... but really that should be irrelevent - he should be judged on is actions perhaps more than his opinions. He was with his shares given an opportunity to continue to have an influence in teh direction the club went. Some folk resign when they disagree with teh way a board is running the club and walk away... others if they truely believe in the club and their way being teh right way, will saty and fight (or better still not get frustrated and try and work constructively) to showly shift the thinking and thus be clever in their influence.. LM cashed in and left... make of that what you will. When it comes dow to it the arguments in football always seem to boil down to money. The biggest criticism of Lowe whether from fans, managers or ex managers such as LM, always ultimately come down to money. A board and Chairman, can be as conceited, arrogant, vindictive, or just plain stupid as anyone but if they keep ploughing cash into teh side and give teh manger the freedom to spend as they please, you wont hear or see any complaining - you might see a bankrupt club, and then fans blaming teh board for stupidity, but the manager wont complain... thats the point.. LM and Lowe fell out about money first and foremost and the way it would be controlled with 1st team spending - The club either before being a PLC or after has never had teh financial resources to support managers as they would like - just pre premiership the amount needed to compete on if not an equal, then certainly a similar footing to all other clubs was within our budget... when the premiership reared its ugly head... the rich got richer and the gap created simply meant that managers of teh smaller clubs were always going to start whinging about the budget - especially the likes of LM, Souness etc who were used to success - recognising that teh new era would need big money if they were going to be able to repeat those successes.... and with teh premiership risches fast dissapearing into the pockets of the new Ferrari driving millionnaires, for a small club such as ourselves the transfer kitty was never going to be enough for managers used to having the best... So its easy to see why successive managers and LM slung this back at the board... but what has never been satisfactorily explained by any fan on here, or LM or ex managers is where these sorts of funds would come from. We had no sugar Daddy, nor the gate resources etc. We just had a budget and a boardroom mandate to live within our means... ironic that we now have exactly the same thing.... and IMHO the lack of spending freedom is too often the excuse used to justify poor performance. Most fans can recognise if a team is well organised, hard working and comitted - that is all we can expect - and if we see that but lack the skill, then at least we can accept that if we lose its not down to effort or manager skill, but down to a limited budget.... but too often our poor form or results has been as a result of bad attitude, disorganisation and ill discipline on the pitch in doing the simple things right. Sh*t gone off topic a bit, but there continues to be so much hyperbole surrounding Lowe, or LM, hatred and blind effection, emotional extremes that are simply in the real world unjustified because teh roots to it all stem form a simple difference of opinion on the value of taking financial risk. My gripe with Lawrie, has not been what he has said, he is entitled to his opinion as is everyone else, but the simple fact that he had shares and the backing of fans... he could have been in a powerful position of influence to work with or against the board to influence when he could for the beterment of teh club... he cjhose the easier option of lselling up and leaving - again his perogative - but to then come back and sit on teh outside and criticise seems churlish, because it contributed to the disintergration of any unity of purpose when we needed unity more than anything... and IMHO it smacked a bit too much of self interest

We nedd to get past that 0 point mark - it might sound simplistic, but its a huge psychological barrier - I think as soon as we are back on an even keel even if still 10 points behind - we will see progress - the building blocks are there, but there seems still to be this nervousness that has prevented us from playing OUR game for 90 mins - and has been the bane of the last 3 seasons. As we have been repeating ad nauseum over the last 3 years, when we play with care free confidence we have and do beat the best in our divisions - when nervous and shackled by pressure we are poor and relegation fodder. Time for AP to almiost say 'feck it - go out there and enjoy yourselves and the results will come, because right now I still dont think we are coping with the millstone that was the-10 points.

NOt sure about fence sitting on this one MLT was a genius and a lazy bugger, no law that says he could not be both simultaneously. NC does seem obsessed with this for sure, but I was merely posing the question that we do seem more defensive of the flaws that go with genius, than those who will never win any popularity contests.... I just cant be wound up by NC, simply because despite not agreeing with him and depsite his odd obsession, I am sure there is an element of mischief in those posts as its was always bound to provoke - There is some truth in what he says, however unpalattable we may find it - but hero 'dissing' (to use the modern slang ) seems 'well out of order' on here whatever truth might be hidden amongst any bitterness?

You made sense so why the snipe? Seems a bit ironic if criticising NC for his blatent snipes and jibes...

My take on this is that the book was a bit hasty.. and it did lack depth and real insight - Whatever we think of Le Tiss its true that he was a lazy bugger - he admits that himself, so I never expected him to suddenly be pouring hours and hours into an 'autobiography' . I think its a fun read but not really anything new. I would have liked to read a bit more about teh man himself, maybe it would ahve ben better to have worked in collaboration with an experienced biographer who could delve that bit deeper. Its great for Saints fans, but as pointed out, perhaps not much interest for those looking for more about the man behind the genius?

I never expected NCs line on this to be popular ;-) (understatment of the year) but this thread does pose an interesting question - about how we are generally more defensive and forgiving of genius and heros than those with which we cant identify. Le Tiss whatever his so called 'failings' is rightly in our hearts and minds as a true great - because of what he achieved at Saints in our colours. Other players who we forgive are the likes of Best and Gascoigne because of their innate genius, despite their failings - Le Tiss' failings were probably exactly a bit of laziness and possibly he did not go into too much background on teh whole pinnaclething trusting in those leading the 'bid' - It obviously means he would probably have been no more than a figurehead chairman, which would have suited his skills, rather than an exec which he certainly aint.... but should our heros be above criticism? Are we 'frightened ' to dig a little deeper? It just seems that for teh most part whenever questions are raised about those who are 'popular' be it Lawrie or Le Tiss, there is an immediate clamp down and action against those that 'dare' to question... sure there may well be an motive behind it be it stirring or political, but that should not make us scared of the difficult questions. Matt will always be a genius in my eyes, a lazy bugger for sure, but a loyal and passionate saint who OK maybe did not get the level ofnational call ups as his talent deserved, but maybe it was reflective of his work ethic - which he freely admits... but like I said his goals and loyalty make him more forgivable for that - but we dont need to be so worried about asking questions...

Top Bloke is Matty, and I can forgive any involvement in te PInnacle fiasco because I am sure ven Matty would admit he is perhaps not the the biggest of business brains - yet the support he lent was simply because it was an option to save the club - so we should cut him some slack. One point of interest is when someone mentioned he was 'ripping into Lowe' and this seems to elevate him in most fans eyes as it does whenever old players have a good dig... but how would opinions of Matty change if he had came out with a different perspective, acknowledging the problems, but perhaps understanding why certain decisions were made? ;-)

What that **** Crouch? ;-) (Note to all, this is meant in good humour)

No NO and NO - as to the atmosphere, has nothing to do with the stadium - just who is in it - Think back to the noise generated in the 1st relegation season in the 4-3 against Norwich - electric and huge noise Right now we have a side that is still not good enough to compete regularly with crowds that are smaller and fans who get nervous when we are only 1-0 up with 10 to go - the atmosphere just freezes as we are all shi**ng ourselves that we will conceed - WE NEED TO KEEP cheering like we are watching Brazil and confident that we can go on and win - Thats what makes the difference, not the bricks, mortar or steel etc

A real 'man' - happy to admit he was wrong - I salute you sir - I wish I could say the same, but as I am always right it would be inaccurate! ;-) Nah, full of sh*t at times like most posters on hear - but that's the appeal - the banter, debate, even at time infantile meanness plays its part in the entertainment... Think X factor early shows... you know when its like a Victorian freak show - we all do it now and again as we let off steam. There is always going to be a problem with 'the rumourmill' posts - because often the source may be impeccable ...but in turn be wrong... We all know Duncs is well placed - and has a much higher accuracy record than most, but even he will get it wrong sometimes... its whne that happens that the I find the victimisation and mean spirited ness of some posters way OTT - come on we all know who teh bullshi**rs are and who are genuine but now and again get it wrong... It would be pretty sad if the 'mob' mentality means good posters decide to hang up their boots - anyway it should all calm down a bit when the kids go back to school!

On balance though i dare say his background DID lead to increased suspicion when he arrived, not from everyone but certainly a few. I do believe that had he gone on to do great things for the club he would ahve won everyone over regardless of his background etc, but as it happens there are still quite a few who bring it up when criticising him - we often see 'stuck up t**t as oposed the to more unprejudiced 't**t' ;-)

Very true, the irony though is that that second group who stayed away as the results worsened actually held the clubs fate in their hands - had we had even 23k all of last seaosn we would have avoided admin if not the drop! "PLASTIC FANS REMOVE LOWE" ;-)

Thats fair enough, I dont think you will get any arguments about the outcome and that looking forward is what we all want. I guess though that there is still some interest in ensuring we have at least learned something from the whole mess, even if its only us fans in terms of our appreciation of the ned for solid financial foundation and the real impact that both footballing decisions (and indecison) and the simple mater of available revenue has on the potential for the club to fulfill our ambitions. Naturally, part of being a fan is that we dream and have high expectations for our club, but maybe we will be happer in support with more realistic expectations?

I appreciate what both you and Wes are saying, but I still dont see a answer has to how we would ahve raised say 15-20 mil of cash without risk. Say we had managed to raise this for say a 1mil a year return for 22 years and let WGS buy both Malbranque and saha in 2003/2004 . we would also have been looking at an aditional wage bil of maybe 5-6 mil a year after increases for teh likes of Beattie and a few of teh other key players - that additional 6 mil then needs to be budgets for for the remaining time of the contract each year - would have been easy to see us getting say 15-20 further in debt over a 3 year contract period? Thats what I was saying about not seeing the solution anywhere. I totally agree the following would have been the RIGHT thing for a good football chairman to do in supporting WGS after a period of success: Secure Malbranque and Saha - by giving WGS 15 mil to spend Relax wage restrictions to ensure we keep Beattie and other top players Bridge should have been offered 30K + Had LOwe done that could we have complained? BUt to dtae no one has said HOW we would ahve funded this... and thats not defending LOwe but a genuine attempt to understand why the club made the decisions as it did

Whilst what you say is 'true' - my gripe would be how? We were a PLC and we cant expect the board to suddenly 'find' money to put in. Investors want equity in return so any monies spent on acquiring equity would have gone to the shareholders selling shares... What you are in effect saying is he failed to find a buyer - yet the club was not for sale - he nor the otehr shareholders had any intention of relinquishing their stake. Other shareholders could have loooked for buyers if they felt disatisfied with teh way the board was running teh club... in effect your statement is way too simplistic.

I guess my angle on this has always been to ask why it happened? And I'll be honest I am mostly interested in the 'bigger picture' reasons. The money in the game has created an environment where money = success = money. The gaps grow and as clubs enter into contracts that demand they maintain their revenue streams or annually increase them to cope with annual wage demands - the spiral of increasing costs just to stand still let alone progress gets out of control - clubs need to extend themselves just to be sure they survive to be able to suckle at the great Sky teat another year and fulfil their contractual obligations - if they dont they end up in the downward spiral - or they take the WBA model which is up and down within their means. In our case we had no benefactors, just debt if borrowing so the business decision as I see it seemed to be invest in youth, home grown talent etc to build both loyalty and have a revenue stream from the best talent - is this a bad idea? No, but It's easy to see that potential managers may feel that this did not provide the support they needed - no time to wait for developing talent when we need a new CB pair now to cope with Henry et al.... In addition the club looked at other potential revenue streams in financial services and media, but these would ahve been very long term yet did not get fan support either... I agree that Managers NEED support, but I have yet to see a buisness model that will provide this for small clubs who are PLCs without a benefactor to underwrite the losses/debts - thats not defending Lowes position, but asking a genuine question. Its perhaps for that reason that I do look to see why deciosns were made rather dismiss them with a one liner about 'not having a clue' or no knowledge of the game' etc, easy rhetoric with some truth no doubt but not all the truth. The game is in a perilous state financially and its led many clubs to take on serious debt... in addition there has never been less competition at the top and more difficulty for the remaining clubs below that level. Undoubtedly Lowe's inabilty to foster harmony and a collective spirit means any ideas whether good or bad are doomed from the outset, but it does not lessen the principle of the approach... just highlights the inadequacies of the executor. JP has a right to have a gripe, afterall he was not taking on a prem side, but a second tier provincial club whose board had said develop the youth and play football - My gripe is not wether thsi was a right or a wrong decsions by the board, but having made that decision as a strategy, they should have had teh courage of heir convictions and seen it through - stand or fall by it, not have Wotte as potentially undermining it as alledged by JP or make JP teh scapegoat because the kids were struggling despite the pretty passing in mid field... For me Lowe's biggest wekness was after having the balls to make a decision, then wimping out and not standing by it when the momentum went against him. Developing an Ajax style conveyor belt is a good idea but takes 3-5 years to see the results - he should have know this, communicated it and stood by it.