Frank's cousin

Many things right, many things wrong - mostly on the footballing side, hense the impacton performance and relegation. Same as some of the Right things will have been down to luck, some of the wrong will have been down to bad luck or poor timing rather than wholsesale bad ideas - thats the problem because its never IMHO been so black and white as so many seem to be willing to accept... which is oddly translated as support ......

I think these problems all occur because in most cases well meaning, in other cases dillusional folk, see that it might be possible to help. They talk to brokers or indeed act as brokers to try and bring money men to the table. I have no doubt that we had so many interested parties initially who quite honestly believed they had enough connections and ideas to generate interest by backers with the appropriate finance - hense pretty pictures of grandiose property schemes or development opportunities...why? because we all know there is feck all PROFIT in football and that these brokers seem to be targeting those who have made money by making PROFIT by providing venture capital to enterprises that have a potential profit - I doubt that many or any of the 'backers' have any interest in football or in saving saints but have agreed to at least talk to said brokers as they have indicated the opportunity for potential lucrative spin offs, as part of their grandiose plans - Its when it becomes apparent that these schemes are a) risky, b) involve further purchase and serious development costs c) require planning and other consents, etc + possibly having unrealistic figures for the possible returns that these backers quite rightly seem to pull out leaving said brokers alone and stupid looking. What any sensible bid should be looking to do is be REALISTIC - this is about saving a football club with a 124 year history from extinction - not a money making scheme but a business with the potential to grow if well managed and with the infrastructure already in place to support that growth. Yes it should be looking to exploit the potential assets - more concerts, others sports, maybe deal with the council for SMS etc but at all times be realistic about what money is required and what money in needed to be written off based on the current contractual obligations... I do think there are potential backers out there who are realistic in that way, but they cerainly wont be dealing with dreamers and 'local self styled tycoons' - there may be room for a local person to bring the opportunity to their attention, but they would then walk away and let the negotiations begin....

the depressing thing is that temporary respite was probably all it would have provided....

I am sure that deep down in his darkest never regios Lowe is kicking himself for not sticking with pearson and implementing his Euro dream at the wrong time... even if never admited publically.. the bigger picture? I am sure Lowe recognised it when we were a sea of Yellow at Cardiff, I also believe part of his rational (and please note I am not saying I agree with this) for maintaining that strict financial controls were more important than risking say 15 mil on two players as was Strachans wish, and looking at things such as the Academy and Sports science to gain an advantage were important BECAUSE we could not compete without spending money so had to look to other possible advantages. On his recent return, I suggest that he felt that having narrowly avoided Relegation it could get no worse.... ;-0 so decided the time was right for the Euro plan (ironic given his UKIP status ;-)) - yes he could alos have said and in many folks eyes would have been better off saying, ' no now is not teh right tiem for risky new approaches, but for consolidation and stabilty, we will keep Nige who knows this division and see how he gets on with the kids' - no guarrantees but understandable. BUT Whilst that makes sense from a footballing perspective you simply cannot assume that we would have seen bigger gates had we been in teh same lowe haldf scenario all season - which given the need to ship out big earners would have been likely even had we avoided relegation - Do you think the same players would have done any different? Yet we have heard countless times how had he stayed we would have had bigger crowds.... which would have helped us avoid admin - do you really believe that? We had the biggets crowd of the season under Lowe and JP because of teh simple fact of who the opoosition were - the 10000+ missing fans who deserted when we lost premiership status returned - I woudl suggest that with the kids and a low CCC position, it would not really matter who was in charge apart from maybe the initial feelgood factor when a new familiar face arrives...

I wish I could, but I dont know the criteria that Mr Fry will have established for this - and it seems Mr Jackson went as far as 'saving bournemouth' before the mony seemed to dissappear in a puff of smoke....

Thanks for clarification on that - Hypothetical question though, based on those initial terms would you accept such an offer if you were either Lowe or Wilde and in the subsequent negotiations, what would you say Lowe /Wilde should have accepted for teh good of the club v their personal status? I would suggest that even if agreement could be reached on teh cash injection and they had it at their disposal, there would be no way LOwe would have stepped down if it involved the financial controls being handed over?

I appreciate this is in response to Ponty, but I would also suggest to Fos1, that yiou cant have it both ways -hint at negligence in one sentance, whilst opeening with how seriously all sides took it over 3 months of negotiations.

Is it just me or does Crouch make it very difficult for himself to be taken seriously though?

True but tell me this, If peanuts is all you can afford would you borrow or risk capital we knew only promotion could pay back? Value of customer satisfaction is withouit doubt important, but right now it means diddly squat - we did not even get to taste the success Leeds had, but had in effect done the same thing - albeit on a smaller scale. What is so difficult with these debates is that defending a situation can at times be embarrassingly difficult because of the obvious feck ups someone has made elsewhere, but doubly so because too many assume because you defend one aspect of something - or criticise the opposition for their approach that this implies support for everything someone does or stands for.... which I am sure you know is not the case. I look at it like this if you split the characteristics for a good chairman up, its not simply adding up how they scored in each - and I am sure CRouch would out score Lowe in most, but weighting the characteristics for importance - A weighting scale that changes greatly between the premiership and the FL where avoiding risk is even more important. IMHO the weighting on financial control is far greater than the rest combined when in the mire.

Sorry Wes but you are reading things into this that are simply not there. 1. When you have contracts unless someone buys those players you cant simply tear them up - so the question is do you think Lowe would have entered into player contracts that committed us to in excess of 80% of revenue on wages? I dont irrespective of who or what he ratified or how crap they were (that is a different matter) with respect to relegation - FFS it happens to 3 clubs a year and yes footballing decsions he made contributed to that, but to put all the blame of that on his shoulders has always been simply mad - its sport FFS and these things do happen - As to fans staying away purely because he returened - did not seem to put them off when MAN UTD were in town despite teh fact we were likely to get a beating and playing the same kids??? Its just too many dont have the stomach for CCC and lower table CCC at that - we cant hide behind that excuse - of course we would ahve had a few thouseand more if in the top 6 - same as at EVERY Club.... The Manager deciosn was not included in that statemnet - this was purely about saying NO to managers wanting to spend or vetoing those decisons and wage demands which were beyond the budget and only sustainable if promoted the risk v return scenario. Sure we can argue till we are blue in the face about the merits of Pearson v the new bods who failed and speculate as much as we like about the percentage chance of better results had he still been here - that is a duifferent question. Yes IF we had had better results we would undoubtedly have senn a few thousand more on the gate but to link Pearson staying directly with avoiding admin is a pretty BIG leap.. My point was as should have been obvious is that in the CCC and the lower leagues the need for stability takes preference over spending on the potential for success EVERY time - its why there is the point deduction rule, its why most clubs dont ever compete because they simply cant afford to risk - not great from a footballing perspective, but at least tehir fans are greatful for still having a club to support rtaher than risking it on a do or die approach.... Of course in an ideal world you get the combination of both - but we did not ahve that choice. So yes LOwe may have continually displayed a tendancy to feck up footballing decisions, but has a record for maintating the cashflow within our means - wheras CRouch may well have through LUCK and neptistic opportuinity through LM got lucky with arguably a good managerial prospect, but failed to demonstarte he was prepared to make those decsions that fans find so unpalatable financially...

LOL - a fair summation I would suggest

Alpine - what do you believe is most crucial? Financial stabilty or risk to ensure popularity albeit with potential footballing success? That is what I base my opinion on, nothing else. Lowe might be the biggest arsehole on the planet, might have as you say no interest in football, might eb in the whole thing for greed etc - in other words all the rhetoric spouted could be true and 10 x worse - the worst managerial record whatever.... but if he controlled the purse strings so taht we avoided this financila meltdown, he would get my vote OVER someone who is popular, spends money on fan friendly projects (to his credit), has the obvious passion for the team (to his credit) but seems unable to make teh bastrad decsions when necessary or too late - I am simply not from the school of thought that says the risk is worth it - others are and thats fair enough and they will obviously as a result will empthasize with Crouch far more than someone who is purely a money man. If Crouch had tried to prevent the big spend and taken the resultant fan backlash on teh chin I would be far more forgiving of the big gob - as I say I could live with that if he could make those decisions. I dont see how that qualifies for your persistent and futile attempts to score petty points rather than contributing why YOU feel as you do and teh reational behind it.

Be real for a moment - When Wilde showed up he was all about 'evolution not revolution' - but he wanted a seat on the board and also a split between the CEO role and chairman role - this was refused by Lowe and the board so he stood against it.... A mistake by Lowe from a tactical perspective, because then when Crouch arrived despite only controlling 10% he now found himself in the situation of being able to hold the balance of power. He flirted with Wilde, then Lowe and then finally siding with Wilde who would give him the biggest role - taht of Football club Chairman - Do you honestly believe this was not influenced by his ego? That he did not enjoy that position of power? He then made another tactical error in falling out with Wilde and ousting him - what did he think would happen? These guys are all fuelled by egos and will sell their granny if it meant gain - so getting into bed witha previous enemy if it was mutaullly beneficial would be nothing to them - Crouch was extremely naive here. The ONLY time they actually came together in unity was for persaonal interest in rejecting the SISU bid which would have seen all their shareholdings diluted. IMHO its all about the financial management in the transition from prem revenues to CCC living within ones means - Do you think LOwe would have approved teh spending under GB to some 7.5 mil and teh wages for those players when they were up at 81% of income? Thats the question I base my opinion on, nothing else.

NO alpine, seeking balance is about treating all the feck ups made by all the parties with equal and neutral evaluation and NOT sticking colours to any particular mast but acknowledging pros and cons in everyone. Sure I cant stand Crouch's big gob, same as I cant stand Lowe's arrogance and gaffs.... what is biassed about that please tell?

Forgive my ignorance but surly the football club board would ratify and approve particular player purchases?

Maybe you are partly right there, because I do believe that it could have been avoided had we not went mad spending under Burley - when Crouch was chairman of the football club and should have vetoed this without seeing the colour of Wildes 'investor in the wings' money. Crouch in his most recent spell in charge did try and stem teh tide, but teh damage had already been done following saints 'going wilde' and spending what we did not really have - to which Crouch is partly responsible IMHO. Of course the over riding reason for our mire situation is the prem relegation, but that is ultimately part of sport and any club could struggle especially after 27 years where the whole infrastructure is set up for a far greater revenue stream. I do think that had we kept Lowe throughout we would not be in Admin but most likley have been relegated before to L1 or even L2 as a result of cost cutting - which is better? Well I dont think there is a wrong or right answer to that but right now with the axe hanging over us I know which I would take. That the sort of thing you had in mind? ;-)

Lets hope it comes to that! ;-)

I think we would have been relegated the season after loosing teh parachute money as Lowe would have cut teh squad to fit the revenue so L1 but solvent...but as you say its hypothetical

Sorry UP thats not the quetsion I was asking - of course its only right to judge a deciosn after you have the results - but teh fact remains that this was luck + nepotism, not experience and judgement - and thus even if he had been successful would he have deserved the credit when everyone knows full well none would have been granted to LOwe had it worked out for him - a good example is the 'luck' Lowe had with Strachan to realise how this is skewed in thuis way - all I want to see is the same sense of 'fairplay' applied to all, rather than one side viewed favourably against the other for teh same 'luck' rather than judgement.

Dyer is worth at least 1 mil whatever some may say - he absolutely destroyed league 1 opposition in the CCC a few years back and we should do all we can to hang on... Just the tight wads after a bargin - vultures are circulating....barstewards

Do you realaly believe that this is down to incompetance or that the Barclays calling in the loan was from left field? Come on whatever you think of Lowe, even you must acknowledge that this was probably not planned for and an unexpected move by Barclays - maybe even against what had been agreed in principle?

Ok UP, lets assume had Crouch stayed and kept Pearson on , would you be bigging up Crouch as a great visionary or recognising the luck over judgement and the nepotistic influences of LMs son happening to be the agent, played in this? I think you will find that part of the continued issue some have with all this is how its presented to us as Crouch being somehow gifted v Lowe in manager choice when its simple luck after chucking a bit of business Lawries sons way... something that no doubt many would have been shouting from the rooftops had Lowe got lucky with a pearson under similar circumstances....

I think we see a classic case again of how feckin difficult any of these guys make it for us fans to support them or their actions - Whilst not a fan of Lowe, I was supportive of various of his approaches, from the living within our means in the prem to trying new ideas - but with every mistake or gaff or refusing to accept his part in teh problems like a man it became increasingly untenable to continue and more embarrassing to admit to... I think there are several posters on here who are now finding this same situation with Crouch - prepared to acknowledge that in their opinion he was the best bet of the three, but with each new gaff (the PLC was set up deliberately to avoid points deductions any one?) or mistake (why did the chair of the football club not seek reassurances of investment when seeing the spending under Burley?) to his fan friendly but ultimately hollow promises its becoming increasiongly difficult to defend... Lets all be honset here, those of us who have supported (during various times) eithe Lowe, Wilde or CRouch have ALL been let down.

BUt from Lowe's perspective, irrespective of whether the 2 mil would help unilaterally, WTF would he hand control back to someone who when previously in that role felt it OK not to prevent the daft spending (and why Wilde never had any power - just a tool to let Lowe back in)... and perhaps at best very naive not to think that by making an enemy of Wilde it was inevitable he would not last long..... Doh!

My wife to.. although getting a bit long in the tooth now ;-) (only kidding)