Alain Perrin

Those who can't do, teach. Suck it up.

Bit churlish Yorkie. The catering relates to the weddings, events management and corporate matchdays, not to the pie and a pint. All part of the diversified income needed to make money in a football club outside of the 25 fixtures a year. Theo was one thing Lowe got right - whether that was more down to Theo's parents than Saint's treating him right, we'll never know.

Apologies SS - I was somewhat trigger happy with my response to you and I do appreciate that you have more balance than most. I do think the one thing that is missing in this whole debate is reason - the arguments are too often based around the emotions of a football fan, not the realities of pros and cons or when an answer is only wrong when it doesn't work. Although they'll hate this, posters like Alpine and FF are just ciphers of Nineteen Canteen or Scooby - just different ends of the spectrum. They egg each other on until everything is black and white, not the shade of grey it undoubtedly is. In most of Lowe's decisions, I can see the rationale, if not the logic. For example, I understand why he went for JP over Pearson, not what I'd do, but I can see what he was thinking. But no one can (perhaps 'should' is more appropriate) argue that he hasn't had his hands on a lot of what went wrong. Personally, I blame him more for the debacle that caused the Premiership relegation than I do this one (I see it more as a joint effort between Lowe, Wilde, Crouch and cronies). I think the current ship was already holed below the waterline when he took it back over (Pearson or no Pearson). Anyway, here's to moving on and forgetting this sorry state of affairs.

What a load of arse. When Lowe did create extra revenue streams (through award winning catering, the radio station and insurance services), the Anti-Lowelifes lambested him - "We are a football club, not a business etc". (Ironic though that those things could have justified to the Football League that SFC shouldn't have a points deduction!). Credit where credit's due, Lowe got some things right - accept it. He also got a hell of a lot wrong - you seem to have no problem accepting that. But to criticise the stadium (location, or facilities) is pointless. Look around (Derby, Leicester, Sunderland etc. etc.) None are integrated developments, just because they've got an Allied Carpet's next door doesn't make the club any money. A station would have cost something in the region of £5m (I think that was the number) to be used 20 times a season. Do the maths (we're a football club, not a transport company ).

I agree that a great turnout would be a positive advert for the club but it's really only window dressing. The numbers involved in football are so out of comprehension for the ordinary fan that it's no wonder there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm. When players are being paid a couple of hundred quid a week a bucket collection or a full house at St Mary's goes a long way. When players are being paid thousands and in some cases tens of thousands, it doesn't work. Couple that with the division that is in the club (to which McMenemy and Crouch are just as guilty as Lowe and Wilde) then it is difficult to raise any motivation. Add to that the poor season, people thinking about holidays, a global recession, historic awfulness of these 'legends' matches (I've never seen a good one) and yes, there are plenty of reasons why turnout would have been low. Your mob on the otherhand didn't turn up to help African kids get heart transplants. It's not only tight. it's racist.....

Please can someone tell me what they have against the MonkeyChicken petting zoo. I, for one, would pay good money to see that. Your problem is you're too obsessed with your Lowe vs Crouch rants to see that that could be a real winner.

C'mon. Everyone's tasted their own, haven't they........?!?!

Who was the largely uninspiring manager - Dodd/Gorman? I've got time for Crouch, but his time in charge didn't fill me with confidence. I felt he was less than honest with the fans over things like the Skacel / Rasiak loans, and downright duplicitous over the Walcott renegotiation. If Lowe had done that, Alpine at all would be making T-shirts and sharpening pitchforks.

Not sure that is correct - surely a 'lie to the myth' makes it a truth.... Fans are part of the problem in my opinion. For three reasons: - If we'd had 32K every week we wouldn't be in admin. That's unsurprising though, the division's lower, the economy is a bit pants and the quality has been lacking. - Sections of fans (on both sides) have stoked the fires of division (with best intentions maybe, but at times it felt we'd forgotten it was a football club first, political hot potato second) - The fan uprising over Hoddle helped bring about the management merrygoround that lead to our relegation. It didn't make Lowe make stupid decisions, but it did force his hand on what turned out to be key one. Blame is a stong word. We need to take collective (some more than others i.e Lowe/Wilde/Crouch) responsibility. I don't think anyone has covered themselves in glory though.

I believe the point he was making is that the Echo is unbalanced and seeks to use any stick to hit him (Lowe) with. Kind of like your assertion that the "recreational redecoration" was necessary because it was flawed as a result of RL's design decisions. Part of the problem is that the directors and a large number of fans are so concerned with spinning stories to support their 'horse' that the truth gets lost.

Wrong. Financial destruction comes from decisions made by all three Execs. Contracts signed in that '6 months' are financially strangling the club just as much as relegation or redecoration.

You and I won't agree on this Alpine, but can you detail which parts you think are incorrect and delusional? To me it seems there are some valid points (whether it is appropriate is a different question) and there's not much to argue with. Lowe is trying to fight his corner (his right) when faced with other people punching him through the Echo. Just because you don't like the guy doesn't make his comments incorrect or delusional.

Because when a club signs players it is collective responsibility, from the scout who spots, the manager who approves and the chairman who signs the cheque. For every carp player in the last season, there are good players that were signed. For every Gasmi there's a Cork, for every Pulis there's a Size, for every Smith there's a Holmes. It just suits people's purpose to highlight the bad ones. The problem is exacerbated when you are like Saints. Cash strapped and shopping in the bargain basement. In these cases I think you're going to have more misses than hits, but if you don't try, you won't ever find nuggets. Smith for example: a very promising youngster released by a big club, a couple of bites of the cherry at other clubs and hadn't made it? Worth a gamble? (your answer would be no, but Kevin Phillips was in the same position (Kevin Davies also). Perhaps we should only sign people called Kevin?

Pulis and Gasmi, I'd agree with you, but Robertson and Pekhart, poor as they turned out, both scored match winning goals. I don't believe you can criticise someone for signing players that didn't work out. Every player signing is a gamble, Gasmi could have been the next Rooney, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. Pulis is an anomaly, but I don't see him as anymore than a trade off against Andrew Davies' wage. I don't rate Crouch, I think he was as flawed as Lowe, just in different ways. People are very myopic about that. If Lowe had renegotiated the Walcott deal or let Rasiak on loan, and then been economical with the truth, he'd have been crucified. Crouch's signings were fan signings, 'big' names, 'big' salaries, leaving us with big problems.

I don't see why. Say he cut his salary to zero. Would £160K have been enough for Pearson? I doubt it. Would Pearson not have wanted loans, or wanted to buy players too? The fact is the club had a finite amount of money to divide appropriately. The balance wasn't right, clearly because we got relegated and -10pts, but a balance was necessary. My argument is that Lowe's £100K is a) chickenfeed in comparison to player salaries and b) a wage for the role was appropriate.

No, I deny that it is possible to be an 'APWIID denier'. Apparently, I'm a c*nt.

I agree. I don't defend Lowe unequivocally (I am not a denyer ), but I do try to take a balanced view that I think many, with blind hatred, cannot do. In this case I think there's a lot of hot air from people who expect people to work for nothing (when if, in the same position, they'd want paying too). Did Lowe do a good job? No. Did he make decisions that damaged the club? Yes. Did he do that deliberately to spite Wes Tender? No. Did he cost less than McMenemy? Yes. Did he cut costs (his job on his return)? Yes. Could he have cut costs less and improved performances by hiring Pearson, thus raising crowds and avoiding administration? Who the **** knows. Make no mistake I think Lowe was bad for the club, I just don't think he was all bad. I think getting rid of Pearson was stupid, but he obviously felt necessary to help avoid admin (probably ego and grand plan in there too mind). Would RL have been crucified if he'd kept Pearson on and we went into admin in November after losing the first 10 games? Undoubtedly.

Yes. Clearly you're right. How dare anyone have a different opinion to you? But then, if you think someone you've never met is a '****' because they read things differently, it suggests to me that you are the one with the problem, not me.

A better job of what exactly? Burying his head in the sand about the takeover that never came? Being dishonest to the fans, signing players on big contracts, being good in the media, appointing 'caretaker' managers..... They've both got good and bad points - but to hold up Crouch as some messiah just because he isn't Lowe is a mistake in my opinion.

What a bunch of sanctimonious *****s you lot are. Your only answer is Lowe should have worked for free. Grow up. Lowe and Cowen replaced Hone, Dulieu, Hoos et al, all of whom were obviously working for nothing - not! - so that represents a saving. Let us not forget McMenemy who was allegedly on £75K for glad handing a few bigwigs on a Saturday. There is no way I'd expose myself to the grief Lowe got for £100K a year. 2 days a week plus a couple of Saturday's a month of having abuse chucked at me by people who don't really have a clue what it is I am doing. The fact is that none of the 'staff' salaries really cause a problem. It's the players salaries and contracts that cause the problems. Because of those we were in **** street when Lowe came back (some of which was his doing) and are in **** street now (some of which is also his doing). BUT.... he was trying to get us out of **** street (hence the JP experiment / play youth approach). I can't wait until the new owners get here. They'll of course be working for no gain whatsoever....

I believe it will be a kind of reverse takeover....

Two words. Kevin Davies. When you shop in the bargain bin at HMV, sometimes you find a classic, sometimes you find a new track that turns out to be a new favourite, other times you get gash. If you don't take the chance however you'll never get anything. Financially I think we were in so much do-do that we had little choice to be rummaging. Trouble is on this board, managers / chairmen / scouts are always remembered for the drongos they sign, not the gems they unearth.

Yes, I was at Loftus Rd that night, as were a large contingent of Saints. Le Tis was on top form. I was as gutted as the next Saints fan when Hoddle didn't take him, but it was difficult to see how MLT could play the same role at international level as at Saints without restructuring the entire team. I'm not sure Hoddle wanted to do that a few weeks before the tournament. I was on the phone to my girlfriend that night telling her how to record Skysports when his third? (the mazy dribble) went in. I nearly busted her eardrum. Great night. Please Hod, Pick Le God. But.... as this was BEFORE Hoddle first came to Saints, not picking Le Tis is a difficult stick to beat him with. Regardless of the trial, Dave Jones had lost the faith of the fans and I think RL would have got rid of him soonish (with fan support). The trial just hastened it by a few games. My recollection is that Hoddle was a surprise but generally welcomed replacement.

I have sympathy with Dalek, although I think he verges onto obsession. Fan's attitudes clearly had sway on the board. They were publicised in the media ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2004/feb/11/newsstory.sport7 ) and the subsequent refusal of the board to sanction Hoddle, or at least make it clear to Lowe they wouldn't ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article520806.ece ) is well publicised too. Hoddle probably wouldn't have got us relegated, but Sturrock probably wouldn't either. It's interesting that the circumstances behind Sturrocks demise haven't been clearly explained. The word is that senior pros were instrumental in removing him and I'd like to hear more about this cloudy period. I stnad by my position that Lowe is responsible for many mistakes made at Saints, just not all of them. If we are to wash our dirty laundry, we should learn from all of the mistakes - not just those of this forum's favorite whipping boy. Part of me agrees with Ponty though, I'm not sure what we will gain at the end of it. Different times, different league, different owners, different players, different fans.

False economy or not, it kind of proves how much **** we were in. I'd suspect there were clauses in the contract to reward more heavily based on performance etc. From JP's point of view, even if it was the same salary as before, the opportunity / future opportunities that would result from doing well would make it attractive. As it was, it screwed both parties. On the stadium loan, the accounts show the debt went up last year by a million or so, so that would suggest some kind of restructuring (lengthening the term, payment holidays etc.). It becomes more apparent that this year was about making cash flow match expenses. Signing Forecast on a long contract, or buying Morgan on a staggered basis all had to fit within those constraints. The Forecast contract is an interesting length for a reserve keeper - made up figures but £4K per week for 3 years or £3K a week for 5 years. Perhaps the 5 year contract is a win win from a cashflow perspective.