Frank's cousin

That is a very fair comment - TBH I think that his inabilty to do what was necessary to keep thsoe that worked well was his biggest flaw. In some cases we were restricted financially and that is a factor, yet there was often the call to 'spend some f****ng money' form the teraces - I agree we needed to if we wanted to keep and support managers in the tradditional sense - I dont disagree with teh sentiment, but always followed this up with a quetsion of where this money was going to come from, sionce we just about broke even year in year out. If we had made a 10 mil surplus every season and this went on dividends I would have been as loud as anyone else, but we didn'yt so it would have had to come from borrowing and thats the problem... some believe it would have been worth it, others dont - right or wrong? The answer is sadly only right or wrong in hindsight. boroow and be successful so that teh increased revenues service the debt and its all worth it, borrow and it not work out, say through serious injuries, suspensions poor form and end up not achieving the level necessary to service teh debt and and it goes pearshaped....

TBH, I have no idea what level of business accuman Lowe has... if we judge on some criteria within football, the facts show none whatsoever, but on other criteria, he knew how to get a good deal for a player etc.. other decisons such as the 50% wage clause for relegation are debated... some say good, some are concerned that it sends an unambitious message... both sides having pros and cons is the most likely right answer. The inabilty to appoint those who were experienced and trustworthy in the right roles can always be debated as well, as we know that genuine 'football' people tend to put results ahead of finance and we can see where that has gotten many clubs who have fan friendly boards. Lets be honest football is one business where the idea of breaking even is seen as successful... An industry that can have its most succesful business £600mil in debt and with the best chance of success yet others which run with no debt with no chance seems somehow perverse, yet the model works for those clubs... I just think we do look at this in general very emotively (which I guess is the fans perogative) and its that emotion that means we over simplify things. I remember well debating with quite a few when we were sat comfortably in mid table in the prem that we lacked ambition... we were budgeting on breaking even and living within our means - many felt we should borrow more cash to progress, that the risk/benefit ratio was worth it, because thats what everyone else was doing except WBA and teh like who were happy bouncing in and out of the prem. Typically Lowe was blamed, yet now many are happy with this approach under ML? The problem is we tend to compare what we are doing with the few clubs that have risked a few things on success and achieved it to a certain degree rather than those that many that got into serious trouble as a result... many looked at Pompey a couple of seasons ago with envy, splashing out on big signings, top half prem and FA Cup win and look at the mess this has created for them now? Ironically the relegation from the prem was really down to bad footballing decsions with management, not business ones and its just seems that we forget these things very quickly.

The difference is at other clubs the blame is usually heaped equally on managers and players not just the chairman - yet at Saints we do things differently? He was bad, sure, no one is in denial on that front, but there were also some good things that the many seem to be in denial about.... or perhaps more to the point, some the ideas although badly executed or mis timed were not bad yet are given no thought or proper debate - what of the chairman at Leeds, Boro, Norwich, Charlton, Newcastle?... My issue is not with blaming Lowe for what he did wrong, but in blaming him for EVERYTHING that WENT wrong in some cases exclusively when the reality is that there are many who need to carry some of the blame... If we bury our heads in the sand and assume it was just Lowe, we will not learn from the past mistakes and we are setting ourselves up for further falls. Does this mean we start blaming NC and ML for the results so far? How long before we do? because if being consistent we should be?

Thing is there is no right or wrong on what folk prefer, just opinion. We as fans should be arguing over who is right/wrong etc on style and enteratinment v results... thats what fans have done for years! As I mentioned personally, I 'prefer' the 'purer' forms of the game - and yes this does demand a better calibre of player but also coaching from coaches who want to see a TEAM develop as well as individuals. Lowe for his part seemed to get carried away with his own 'abilty' - most likely driven by ego as many point out - probably believed his own hype following what were arguably some successes eg the Strachan years, and commercially with the results of the academy in netting some decent revenue on players sales. I still dont believe he was as bad as some on here make out - simply because there was some progress before the pear-shaped years - but his persona inevitably alienated the majority and subsequent decisions and internal bickerings simply made things worse...

Certainly raised a few eyebrows - For me it highlights one of the biggest problems/paradoxs in football. That of style v results, or entertainment v success. It was clear to most that the early periods of decent football were never going to be maintained by youngsters as the results started to ebb away at confidence. The presure the kids and JP were under to get results versus the desire to play a passing game in a league that providess no rewards for entertainment - only the end result. YES Lowe carries the can for the appointment and ultimately the failure of the approach. Whether this decsion was based purely on finance or based on his desire to follow the commercial model so successful at Ajax ( a conveyor belt of talent that can be sold to help fund the first team and the next generation) or a combination of both its frankly irrelevent as it did not work, but from a purists perspective, the idea of watching a young exciting team of mostly home grown talent is far more appealing than TBH what we saw at Swindon and what we are likely to see for the most part this season. I have no problem with being a 'lower league' side, never had that 'Freudian' need be associated with a so called 'big' club, and I would argue that for most fans the things we remember most are those moments of pure footballing genius, when it just works - from Channon v Liverpool to the magic of Le Tiss's goals, so I wanted the whole passing 'dutch thing' to work not as some endorsement of Lowe's decision (although thats is always how these things are perceived) but because I feel its the right way to play the game. So much bull is spread about about teams 'playing to their strengths' justifying stiffling boring agressive tactics because coaches and managers know know different and are either too ignorant of anything else or believe its teh only option to get RESULTS - that big bogeyman intensified through the desperation to secure ever greater financial rewards. The ART of coaching and getting a bunch of average players to pass teh ball and be better than the sum of their parts is discouraged as it takes longer and endangers club status within the division. It may sound like romantic dillusional bollo x, but when you consider that we pay to be 'entertained' and no one forces us to support a club, should our pride not be elevated by supporting a club that desires to stand against the tide of mediocrity and put style and entertainment first even if it means a low points tally whilst the system is being developed? Eachto their own I guess, but I just think its a shame that we are so quickly dismissive of someone who 'lacked CCC Experience' and was 'clueless of the ENGLISH' game' because either the results were crap or in some cases no doubt because of who appointed him... mY point is that comentators can come out with as much rhetoric as they like about how the prem is the best league in the world or that the depth of the game is second to none in England, but the quality below the few elite clubs is distinctly average and often miserable in style. Survival and maintaining revenue has become far more important than playing a style that captures the imagination of fans. When will be more appreciative of those that coach a game that is pleasing on the eye rather than coach to minimise defeat as we so so often with away sides - especially in the prem? Idealistic for sure, naive? nope because I fully understand tehcommercial drivers behind this, but it does not make it any more paletable.

'Broadsides at Crouch'? Why TBH, I think there are a few of us that whilst acknowledging Lowe's greatest blunders also recognised some positives. Crouch also had positives for which he is rightly given teh plaudits, but he also made some blunders and therefoe when I see some of the sychophantic posts, its just a case of trying to redress the balance....

Dont see anything controvercial ther TBH... NC is merely stating how the FINCIAL decisions are his... he will not be selecting players but from APs list will make the contacts look at the wage demands/price etc and make the decions yes or no based on whether its within budget... What was more interesting was AP on teh radio talking about teh possiblity of working with a DoF that seemed on the cards... WGS anyone?

Do we know if Crouch helped Pinnacle with the deposit as a loan or gift or at all? I dont doubt Crouch had the best interests of the club at heart, but would he not have recognised that the Swiss bid was far more likely to succeed? Why give Pinnacle the chance by fronting the cash? Why not recognise the Swiss bid as the only realistic option and allow it to go ahead? I just dont see how someone would front 500k without seeing the deal in writing. If It was the only way to save the club but was independent of any bid, I could see how that would be a generous proposition, but given we have been told the Swiss literally missed out by minutes surely Fry would have let Crouch know this was in the offing and given the wealth and seriousness of their bid , was Crouch bailing out pinnacle with the deposit necessary? I know this is going to be controvercial, but it does lead to speculation that maybe Crouch backed that particular horse because it may have meant he stayed involved in some way - which was as we have seen not going to be the case when the Swiss broom came in?

I for one right now are simply gald we have a club - ML came in and took on a BIG job and its the wonderful (if slightly mad) beauty of football fans that the moment that happened - we were thinking of ourselves no longer as a club rescued from the brink by a huge slice of fortune, but a s apremiership club in waiting again. - I disagree with NIck Hornby's quote, yet a fair bit of NCs post - I think the natural state is blind optimism - after every defeat, we mostly look for excuses as to why the 'NEXT TIME' we will be better - or for negative sof defeat are rapidly dispelled as we look towards the next glorious victory that we surely deserve! Football fans in general need the ebb and flow - the defeats make th changes in fortune so much more inspirational - we are delusional by nature but in a positive way as it feeds our dreams and aspirations. I think the players and club SHOULD have high and lofty ambitions to progress as rapidly as possible, that losing is not acceptable and that there are NO excuses for lacklustre or uninspiring performances. pLayesr and coaches should eb instilling a work ethic that is demanding - the professional nature and basic psychology of sport dictates that to be winners you need a winning attitude, not relying on excuses such as the pre-season etc... ... But as fans we need to temper our own lofty dreams with a bit of realism simply so that our frustrations dont run over - dont impact on our support and gate and generally keep us sane! Aspiration leads to inspiration and add that to hard graft and strong minds, we will be successful - but what that means in terms of league position is different matter - you need to add good fortune to that as well.

Anyone with a rational brain is not going to witch hunt - sometimes these thing do lose money - it happens and it does NOT distract from the good intentions - my point was that this rational mentality needs to be applied consistantly - eg, what would certain posters be saying in this situation had it been Lowe's cronies in on the organisation? We have enough irrational statements on 'back pockets' anyway without adding to it, but it did seem odd that when someone asked about this, it was kinda of dismissed by you as a 'no post' - its a fair question IMHO?

As an aside - Rupert had very little SUPPORT, but he had more that were prepared to try and understand why certain decisions were made, accept some positives and accept that it was not all down to one man - which is slightly different.

TBF (and balanced) if it was registered as a charity, they will nedd to submit the accounts for review - and certainly all those that helped in anyway they could during these dark times need thanks and should be comeneded whether by giving tehir time FOC or volunteering to collect and those who donated. If because of interest or simply many fans also skint the actual totals v cost figure dont read too healthily, it should not detract from fact that folk tried to do good and help. Naturally, as with all these thing some will be suspicious of motives and the politics is never far away as some seek to get mileage from anything that was not 100% succesful in their opinion. That does seem unfair, and so I can understand why some might feel its disengenuous to rake this all up. My point earlier was that thats OK if applied to ALL and in all situations, we should not be picking and chosing what is open for debate based on which personalities we support. If we are happy to give certain individuals a kicking for any small incompetence, we should be prepared to acept that others will want to do the same to those we support..... That I think is why these threads degenerate - because too many are too willing to be the first to stick in the boot when it serves tehir own purpose, but are reluctant to even discuss the potential failures of those they support... So we will continue to go round...and around... and around in circles..

humble 'pologies m'lord.... .... but I was just trying to make a point...maybe not not very subtle, but where would we be without a bit of good old fashioned Low v Crouch jingoism? ;-)

;-) arguments are fine by me... like a good barney, but just get frustrated with need to say teh same thing over and over as nothing sinks in .... there are some amazing double standards applied to any slightly controvercial debate. 'Best let this one drop hey, in case it shows something wrong.... and as we cant pin it on that evil ***t Lowe, dont want anyone one to be able to criticise the holy ones' ;-)

My twopenneth worth? What is the motivation behind any thread comparing Pompey's position to ours apart form the usual 'slagging' opportunity? Any football fan, welcomes banter especially with local rivals, but no one wants to see clubs go under except the minority morons who dont appreciate that the profile of clubs in the south is elevated by having regional success... IN this threads case, this was Saints fans money that was donanted to the club, so there is an interest in how much was raised, what the costs were and where it went - Some will argue that its realy motivated by hoping to spot some holes in the repoprt that could be used against those involved so maybe its wrong to pursue... personnally, it should be transparent - if it did good it should be praised, if it was a bit of **** up, then we should know - I susueoect that if LOWE had been behind it (I know impossible) and there were concerns about where the cash went, I dont think Mr W would have complained about the post - even though we all know that if LOwe had been involved it 'Would definitely have been a **** up and the money would have ended up in his back pocket'...... its the double standards on here that are a constand source of amusement

Careful now OB, You will get a rep as a luvvie with sensible statements like that! ;-) Seriously my take is that Lowe began in the right vein... he DID have a strategy that worked during the early years that allowed us to stay up... whoever 'saved' teh SMS deal as some love to point out 'it was the council', is actually not the most important aspect of it... it was being able to fund it. By having a finacial policy that was based on 'living within our means' a stable breakeven budget, we were able to demonstrate financial competence and thus secure the loans necessary. Its too easy to assume this was because we had Sky millions. Would have counted for jack, if we had as many Prem clubs do, been running at a loss due to excessive risk on transfers and wages. So I do think on that score he got things absolutely spot on - FOR A CLUB WITH NO SUGAR DADDY... So his skills did have a positive impact on the club to being with. Where he failed though was once we got to that 'stable mid table' position - How do you build on that without a sugar daddy? - Lowe put teh eggs in the conveyor belt of youth approach so successful at Ajax - problem was he did not appreciate that this was not The Netherlands and the competitive nature of the prem and even CCC made survival almost impossible without experience. But having kept us up for so many years and seen us progress, I think his ego kicked in big time believeing he had all the answers... The premise was actually realistic, I think he knew and quite rightly that because of the finance and club budget if we wanted to survive we needed every possible advantage because we could simply not compete transfer and wage wise without that benefactor so many other clubs had... hense the academy investment and later the whole SCW saga - he had seen success in another sport by instigating a different coaching stratgey and management set up, believing it would be possible to implement in football... that was where he failed to understand the mentality within the game that has the 'gaffer' entrenched its its playing culture. So you could argue, was Lowe at fault for not recognising it, or the players and engrained culture within the game for being closed to radical changes? Who knows but it failed... but by now I think his ego was driving too many decisions and thats where it started to fall apart. I have always said that in the right role Lowe would have made a very positive contribution, but he needed strong experienced figures who understood the culture to help guide him through that minefield - unfortunately for us ,he did not see it that way.

Uhm... I think though that its only speculation about what was avoidable or not...dont get me wrong, I am not trying defend anyone in this, but not fall into the trap of assuming soemone is at fault when I simply dont have the facts - and thats something barclays and the board really only have

It was easy to criticise the youngsters such as Lallana especially last season as as they faded very early on in teh season - succombing to the preasure - and mainly becasue it was easy to forget they were actually still only kids in a mans environment - Lallana included. BUt as we have seen with Schneiderlin and a few of the others - despite a dissapointing first season, that experience will be invaluable. Lallana has a lot of talent and as he becomes more experienced and is alos to some extent protected by mgreter experience on the pitch I have no doubt he will realise his full potential and quickly. We should not forget that he was under tremendous pressure, not least because of his talent last season and to expect a youngster to cope with that and everything else that was going on at the club was too much really. He's a down to earth lad, who I have no doubt will shine this year - him and Schneiderlin will become the mid field generals - the tricky thing wil probably be keeping hold of them when bigger boys come sniffing around... something we have been used to even in the prem, but perhaps more of an issue in L1 when it becomes more difficult to replace such talent even if teh money is there.

Yup... but There is not one successful club in football that aint had their fair share of it - so we were due a bit of luck - now lets see what we can do with it!

;-) dont suppose though, but who knows?

As I said above - how many folk are prepared to be really honest with themselves? I will be happy to say my enthusiasn and spirit is directly linked to how well we play and the results - It wont stop me going when I can, but its amazing what even a few goals can do... far too easy to balme the lack of spirit on Lowe - you make your own spirit by how much the results effect your enthusiasm

Given our situation, it was necessary to sacrafice either the football or the finance - sacrafice the finance to try and get more bums on seats? = Admin - sacrafice the football by selling on the expensive guys even for nothing over the summer and with the contracts ends we could have stabalised and budgeted for a new season on an average gate of say 10,000 - no more no less - I think that would have avoided admin. Then we would have entered the vicious circle - If by some miracle we start well = attract greater crowds = more in the coffers = better players... flip side - play crap, less than 10k, losing money and sell better players = relegation.... The flip side is then what next? How to you then build and seek promotion without a sugar daddy - and therein lies the answer why there are alot of great clubs that over the last 30-40 years just seem to stay in at their level.... This is not really a saints only thinkg, but a sad truth that the premiership billions have so distorted the natural payscales, that only money can deliver long term success - because without it you cant hold onto your best youth for the future...

See this is what I never understood... As I and other said at the time, The club is far more important than any individual whose association will only ever be transient... Lowe only eroded whatever you let him..and I would suggest that releagtion and **** poor results had in reality far more of an impact on the 'spirit' than Rupert Lowe - Saw plenty of Spirit in Cardiff in 03 despite Lowe being in charge ;-) - If he is to be awarded the title of spirit eroder, we have to acknolwedge that...

;-) no worries... its not worth arguing about - its just I had that whole 'manipulation thing on the brain - and the original artical did kind of imply that as well after what another ex Director said in public....