Hypocrites

[solentstars]

i,m backing jan ,the same has i backed pearson after hull stuffed us 5-0.

[Snowballs2]

Football seems to be the only business where the customer has to pay for the incompetance of the directors.

To play a load of untried youths and appoint a manager with no experience of English leagues is laughable

[Window Cleaner]

i own 1000 shares in SLH, A RIGHTS ISSUE of £1 per share in theory would raise £14m but in practice would raise at least £5 because some could not offered it.

 

Only reason this is not happening is because Lowe, Askham, Richards and Wilde could not afford it

 

Rights issue?,

That would mean that people who have shares on which they've already lost money want to buy more and errr lose more money.

 

Can't see anyone fancying that honestly, not even Lowe,Wilde et al.

Anyone count me out.

I just can't see any way out just now, we've got to get some short term cash

from somewhere. AS I said the other day, should have sold Surman and Lallana in August. I mean they're great young prospects but they're not scoring and apparently not making others score.We just have to try and do a deal on them NOW and try to get some up front money or at least something to persuade the bank to lend us some(more).

[um pahars]

AS I said the other day, should have sold Surman and Lallana in August.

 

They will go in January, no doubt about that.

 

The bank will demand the money is used to reduce the overdraft as simple as that.

[Window Cleaner]

They will go in January, no doubt about that.

 

The bank will demand the money is used to reduce the overdraft as simple as that.

 

Yes, but I'm afraid that their value will have slipped well down the scale

by then. They're doing nothing to maintain the value that they had in pre-season. Unless they start turning in performances we'll get a couple of mill for them all up,as opposed to the reported 5.5 million that was on offer in August.Still must keep the fans happy and not sell their darling boys,even if it does put you right in the shîte.The academy costs a fortune to run (apparently) if you can't sell the products or use them to boost your gates and get Sky money there isn't much point is there.

[um pahars]

Have you ever stopped to think that he decided not to hang about because of the financial restraints

 

I don't think anyone has spent more than one second considering that point, mainly because it is such a ridiculous claim.

 

But as you have asked, in hindsight I would rather have seen the season out with him.

 

Deary, deary me. You must be the only person out there who wold have persevered with Wigley.

 

Fciuk me, even Lowe knew he had to call time on that pi655 awful appointment.

 

I am not excusing the poor performances but I am pointing out the obvious. The financial constarints have had a huge detrimental effect on this club both on and off the pitch.

 

You are excusing the poor performances in that statement itself!

 

As I have pointed out elsewhere, we have had numerous different options and choices despite the financial problems. the most obvious of which is the appointent of the revolutionary coaching set up.

 

As for promising so much, what exactly?

 

Then you must have been in your own little bubble if you missed all he bollcoks being spouted on the OS and in The Echo about the revolutionary coaching set up and total football spin, spin, spin.

 

With you Lowe was not to blame for relegation and now he is not to blame for our current predicament. He's your real life Mr Teflon isn't he:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[John B]

Football seems to be the only business where the customer has to pay for the incompetance of the directors.

To play a load of untried youths and appoint a manager with no experience of English leagues is laughable

 

Nothing to do with the incompetance of the players then.

 

Not playing to the Whistle at Cardiff

 

Giving a stupid penalty v Blackpool

 

Missing two penalties against Watford

 

Getting sent off at QPR etc etc

[sadoldgit]

I don't think anyone has spent more than one second considering that point, mainly because it is such a ridiculous claim.

 

 

 

Deary, deary me. You must be the only person out there who wold have persevered with Wigley.

 

Fciuk me, even Lowe knew he had to call time on that pi655 awful appointment.

 

 

 

You are excusing the poor performances in that statement itself!

 

As I have pointed out elsewhere, we have had numerous different options and choices despite the financial problems. the most obvious of which is the appointent of the revolutionary coaching set up.

 

 

 

Then you must have been in your own little bubble if you missed all he bollcoks being spouted on the OS and in The Echo about the revolutionary coaching set up and total football spin, spin, spin.

 

With you Lowe was not to blame for relegation and now he is not to blame for our current predicament. He's your real life Mr Teflon isn't he:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Oh dear, the rolley eyes thing again.

 

No Lowe was not soley to blame for relegation (remind me again, how many games did he play?). No Lowe is not soley to blame for the state we are in now (great idea of Wilde and co to blow all that cash wan't it?), but if it makes you feel better to believe that one man is repsonsible for everything (just like it is Gordon Brown' fault that the economy is in a mess) then good for you.

 

{ps, If Lowe gets the blame for relegation how come he does not get the credit for the cup final, our best Prem finish and a taste of European football? Oh yes, that's right, it does not fit in with your flexible aganda does it?}

 

Oh, and if you are going to try and continue to score cheap points, please respond to what I actually said. I actually said in hindsight I would have stuck with Wigley over Redknapp as he could not have done much worse and would probably have spent that cash more wisely/

 

As for the OS. Did they actually say anything about winning the league? How do you make the leap from revolutionary coaching set up to beating everyone in site (feel free to add rolley eyes here if it helps you understand my point).

 

You and Alpine make great bedfellows. You are both steeped in the blame culture and you are so busy finding fault with others you don't actually know what to do about the problems yourself do you?

 

As for being in a bubble, probably preferable to being wedged up my own back passage.

 

Come on then, I have given up with Alpine coming up with any postive suggestions but how would you take the club forward given the current financial situation?

 

Any fool can critisise, let's hear your master plan Steve.

 

And by the way, I am not excusing any poor performances. But then I have seen them under managers like Bates and McMenemy too, so perhaps I have a bit more patience?

 

The way that you take people's posts apart and try and make out you have a superior grasp on things by the childish insertion of those stupid rolley eyes things, anyone would have thought that you were bright enough to see the situation for what it is. Even under the people you hitched your wagon to (yay, we got our club back) the OS was full of spin. Of have you conveniently forgotten that period?

 

Surely to anyone with an ounce of common sense this season and the next two or three are going to be very tough indeed (no matter what spin the OS gives it). Not because of Lowe, as you would have us believe, but because no one can be found to come in and inject the funds we need to compete at a decent level.

[John B]

Oh dear, the rolley eyes thing again.

 

No Lowe was not soley to blame for relegation (remind me again, how many games did he play?). No Lowe is not soley to blame for the state we are in now (great idea of Wilde and co to blow all that cash wan't it?), but if it makes you feel better to believe that one man is repsonsible for everything (just like it is Gordon Brown' fault that the economy is in a mess) then good for you.

 

{ps, If Lowe gets the blame for relegation how come he does not get the credit for the cup final, our best Prem finish and a taste of European football? Oh yes, that's right, it does not fit in with your flexible aganda does it?}

 

Oh, and if you are going to try and continue to score cheap points, please respond to what I actually said. I actually said in hindsight I would have stuck with Wigley over Redknapp as he could not have done much worse and would probably have spent that cash more wisely/

 

As for the OS. Did they actually say anything about winning the league? How do you make the leap from revolutionary coaching set up to beating everyone in site (feel free to add rolley eyes here if it helps you understand my point).

 

You and Alpine make great bedfellows. You are both steeped in the blame culture and you are so busy finding fault with others you don't actually know what to do about the problems yourself do you?

 

As for being in a bubble, probably preferable to being wedged up my own back passage.

 

Come on then, I have given up with Alpine coming up with any postive suggestions but how would you take the club forward given the current financial situation?

 

Any fool can critisise, let's hear your master plan Steve.

 

And by the way, I am not excusing any poor performances. But then I have seen them under managers like Bates and McMenemy too, so perhaps I have a bit more patience?

 

The way that you take people's posts apart and try and make out you have a superior grasp on things by the childish insertion of those stupid rolley eyes things, anyone would have thought that you were bright enough to see the situation for what it is. Even under the people you hitched your wagon to (yay, we got our club back) the OS was full of spin. Of have you conveniently forgotten that period?

 

Surely to anyone with an ounce of common sense this season and the next two or three are going to be very tough indeed (no matter what spin the OS gives it). Not because of Lowe, as you would have us believe, but because no one can be found to come in and inject the funds we need to compete at a decent level.

 

Very nicely put Sad old Git

 

I cannot believe some the bigotted unrealistic rubbish posted on here

[Wes Tender]

Nothing to do with the incompetance of the players then.

 

Not playing to the Whistle at Cardiff

 

Giving a stupid penalty v Blackpool

 

Missing two penalties against Watford

 

Getting sent off at QPR etc etc

 

Every single point made a condemnation of playing youngsters before they were ready enough to make the step up and proof positive from the perspective of management also that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

[sadoldgit]

Yes. Honestly. Unreservedly.

 

 

 

 

 

How did Somedunce slip under your radar? He was also very vocal with those opinions and also had such a loathing of Crouch that one could supect him of being one of Lowe's cronies, as well as Scooby's only mate.

 

We shall never know, but I do think that Pearson would have struggled too with what we have here to work with currently. If you are going with growing your youth team you need someone who buys into that philosophy. I am making an assumption here but I would not be surprised if the strategy was put to him and he decided that he did not want to work under those conditions.

 

We can criticise JPs tactics but if you have good enough players they should be able to make a decent fist of most systems. I haven't seem much football this season but, from the sound of it, we are just too lightweight in too many areas of the pitch. I really doubt that Pearson could have made much of a difference.

[Window Cleaner]

We shall never know, but I do think that Pearson would have struggled too with what we have here to work with currently. If you are going with growing your youth team you need someone who buys into that philosophy. I am making an assumption here but I would not be surprised if the strategy was put to him and he decided that he did not want to work under those conditions.

 

We can criticise JPs tactics but if you have good enough players they should be able to make a decent fist of most systems. I haven't seem much football this season but, from the sound of it, we are just too lightweight in too many areas of the pitch. I really doubt that Pearson could have made much of a difference.

 

Trouble is SOG at the start of the season we didn't look too bad, likely to score but didn't, so we lost a few games we might have won;

Now we don't even look likely to win, in fact we look consigned to defeat.

Our "plan" was an adventurous one, unfortunately it was based on Killer playing at least every other game (what a joke), Thomas not getting injured (he looked good in his few runs out). Holmes was a key man, he looked the real biz, since then we've been trying to duplicate his role without success.

Lancashire has already gotten 2 red cards, bet that wasn't in the plan,

Skacel ? who the F knows what his role was supposed to be, f**king off to provide some much need cash I expect.

Schneiderlin has had a couple of injuries, the "loans" have been erratic, McG isn't scoring, neither is Lallana.

The "plan" has gone tits up in every department, yesterday was a game I thought we should compete in but we were dismal, didn't even look as good as we did in August.

I gave the "plan" some credibility but it's shot to f*ck because nothing has gone the way it was supposed to.

[Mole]

Pearson was breath of fresh air who turned round a thoroughly de-motivated and depressed Burley hangover of a squad.

[OldNick]

Pearson was breath of fresh air who turned round a thoroughly de-motivated and depressed Burley hangover of a squad.

Forget not he took us to within 45 minutes of being relegated.

Saying that I was happy for him to be given a go for 1 reason.It was the first time in a long time that the fans in the main were united.

[Mole]

Forget not he took us to within 45 minutes of being relegated.

Saying that I was happy for him to be given a go for 1 reason.It was the first time in a long time that the fans in the main were united.

 

And the last time we had 3 managers in one season we went down.

[John B]

Every single point made a condemnation of playing youngsters before they were ready enough to make the step up and proof positive from the perspective of management also that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

 

Sorry my point is it is not the board that is totally incompetant it is the players as well.

Edited 26 October, 2008 by John B

[um pahars]

No Lowe was not soley to blame for relegation (remind me again, how many games did he play?). No Lowe is not soley to blame for the state we are in now (great idea of Wilde and co to blow all that cash wan't it?), but if it makes you feel better to believe that one man is repsonsible for everything (just like it is Gordon Brown' fault that the economy is in a mess) then good for you.

 

How many games did he play argument??? A brilliant response.

 

The answer of course is none, but he oversaw a season of three managers and an overall policy that was tantamount to commiting Football Hari Kari.

 

Quite simply, you cannot delegate responsibility.

 

{ps, If Lowe gets the blame for relegation how come he does not get the credit for the cup final, our best Prem finish and a taste of European football? Oh yes, that's right, it does not fit in with your flexible aganda does it?}

 

Then maybe you should get your head out of your ar5e and actually read and appreciate what people have said in the past.

 

When Lowe was due praise he certainly go it from me (in fact I'm sure GM can dig out my post circa 2003 or 2003 where I give him handsome praise), so to suggest otherwise just shows you up a being flexible in your genda and not willing to accept that people can judge him by his actions and resuts.

 

Additionally he was rewarded handsomely in his wage packet for his success.

 

(BTW life didn't begin with the Premiership and we have finished higher)

 

You and Alpine make great bedfellows. You are both steeped in the blame culture and you are so busy finding fault with others you don't actually know what to do about the problems yourself do you?

 

Firstly, I personally don't think you achieve much by taking part n the blame culture, but where it is valid is in ensuring we don't repeat our past mistakes. Lowe has made too many, he has lost the fanbase again and we as a Club are losing as a result of his persistence of doing it his way.

 

Come on then, I have given up with Alpine coming up with any postive suggestions but how would you take the club forward given the current financial situation?

 

Any fool can critisise, let's hear your master plan Steve.

 

Now you're a full member, then maybe you can do some reading as well as posting, as only this morning in a reply to St Throbber I outlined a number of different choices or routes we could have followed.

 

Surely to anyone with an ounce of common sense this season and the next two or three are going to be very tough indeed (no matter what spin the OS gives it). Not because of Lowe, as you would have us believe, but because no one can be found to come in and inject the funds we need to compete at a decent level.

 

I have said it would be financially tough from the minute we got relegated.

 

Sadly you and others mocked that claim at the time as anti Lowe hype, when in fact it was spot on and telling it like it was. Lowe didn't leave his Club in a robust position, he left it fatally holed below the waterline.

 

Times are indeed tough, BUT that does not mean we had to go down the route of this revolutionary coaching set up. Lowe appointed Poortvliet and Lowe is driving the Club at the moment. Financial constraints may limit some our choices, but from what I have seen so far, the choices he has made have been poor.

 

Do you even go and watch games, because you sem to be in another world to most????

[um pahars]

I am making an assumption here but I would not be surprised if the strategy was put to him and he decided that he did not want to work under those conditions.

 

It is an assumption that has absolutely no basis in fact.

 

Pearson was fully aware of our financial constraints and was fully aware that youth would play a greater part this season.

 

He was used to working with youngsters in the England set up.

 

Here's what Pearson was saying in March:

"I worked with the /England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club.

 

I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it.

 

If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees."

 

Hardly the words of someone who wasn't prepared to work with youth, in fact the middle sentence is actually very close to the "revolutionary coaching set up".

 

Poortvliet was a conscious choice by Lowe, so please spare us the idea that it was forced on him by Pearson dipping out:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[saintjinksie]

Jan = Played 13 . W3. D3. L7 = 12 points

Pearson = Played 13. W3. D7. L3 = 16 points

Even if your one of those who think Pearson should be contributed with the Plymouth loss even though he took over only hours earlier then he still did better then Jan.

 

So what do those Hypocrites who said they didnt want Pearson here as he was rubbish after just 13 games now think about Jan?

 

What do those hypocrites who wanted Crouch and Mcmenemy out because we were in a relegation battle now think?

 

Surely they should be saying Jan and Lowe out right? Or are they still using that whole "give it time" line?

 

leicester are hardly ripping up league 1, considering they have the best squad.

[Window Cleaner]

 

 

Poortvliet was a conscious choice by Lowe, so please spare us the idea that it was forced on him by Pearson dipping out:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

 

 

Unless you believe (as I'm prepared to do) that Pearson had already been tapped up by Milan. I could believe that, I don't think he'd 'dip out' of his own accord but with a hefty incentive from Milan, yep, I could see that happening.

[sadoldgit]

It is an assumption that has absolutely no basis in fact.

 

Pearson was fully aware of our financial constraints and was fully aware that youth would play a greater part this season.

 

He was used to working with youngsters in the England set up.

 

Here's what Pearson was saying in March:

"I worked with the /England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club.

 

I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it.

 

If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees."

 

Hardly the words of someone who wasn't prepared to work with youth, in fact the middle sentence is actually very close to the "revolutionary coaching set up".

 

Poortvliet was a conscious choice by Lowe, so please spare us the idea that it was forced on him by Pearson dipping out:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

So then that proves that he wanted to stay does it? People say all sorts of things and do the opposite.

 

I don't see anywhere where he says that he actually wanted to stay, do you?

 

I see you are still using the rolley eyes things, yep, really adds to your argument.

[Window Cleaner]

leicester are hardly ripping up league 1, considering they have the best squad.

 

Only because they've drawn their last 2 games and have agame in hand.

They're doing AOK so far although the last 2 results have been sub par (by thier expected standards) .

Their squad probably earns more than ours so it's only normal really.

 

In football you get what you pay for,same as always.

That's OK, the affair goes tits up when you're paying top whack and getting bottom dollar.

[um pahars]

Unless you believe (as I'm prepared to do) that Pearson had already been tapped up by Milan. I could believe that, I don't think he'd 'dip out' of his own accord but with a hefty incentive from Milan, yep, I could see that happening.

 

Sorry, but Pearson was desperate to stay on and work under whoever was at the helm here.

 

The idea that he dipped out because he didnt like using youngsters, that he cost too much, or that Milan had tapped him up (be that Mandaric, AC or Inter) is just not true.

 

Lowe had his replacements lined up even before he had his feet in the door (and there is enough evidence out there to confirm this) and Pearson was always going to be replaced.

[um pahars]

I don't see anywhere where he says that he actually wanted to stay, do you?

 

Because these quotes were rubbishing your spurious assumption that he was averse to working with youth etc etc etc.

 

If you want some quotes that he wanted to stay, then I'm sure I could find enough.

 

You just carry on believeing Pearson dipped out of his own accord and Lowe was forced into replacing him:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[sadoldgit]

Trouble is SOG at the start of the season we didn't look too bad, likely to score but didn't, so we lost a few games we might have won;

Now we don't even look likely to win, in fact we look consigned to defeat.

Our "plan" was an adventurous one, unfortunately it was based on Killer playing at least every other game (what a joke), Thomas not getting injured (he looked good in his few runs out). Holmes was a key man, he looked the real biz, since then we've been trying to duplicate his role without success.

Lancashire has already gotten 2 red cards, bet that wasn't in the plan,

Skacel ? who the F knows what his role was supposed to be, f**king off to provide some much need cash I expect.

Schneiderlin has had a couple of injuries, the "loans" have been erratic, McG isn't scoring, neither is Lallana.

The "plan" has gone tits up in every department, yesterday was a game I thought we should compete in but we were dismal, didn't even look as good as we did in August.

I gave the "plan" some credibility but it's shot to f*ck because nothing has gone the way it was supposed to.

 

That's the trouble with plans, they don't always go to plan!!!

 

Confidence plays such a huge part in all of this. If some players had stayed fit and if we had won some of the games we played well in, who knows...but as you say, the wheels are falling off big time now and there seem to be precious few answers.

 

We do have some good players and I don't see why things can't be turned around in time, but the defence looks like and area where we have to throw money at, whare is that money going to come from?

 

Not a pretty sight, but I don't think those who feel the need to find scapegoats are helping the situation.

[sadoldgit]

Because these quotes were rubbishing your spurious assumption that he was averse to working with youth etc etc etc.

 

If you want some quotes that he wanted to stay, then I'm sure I could find enough.

 

You just carry on believeing Pearson dipped out of his own accord and Lowe was forced into replacing him:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

I don't believe anything. I make some assumptions but they are only assumptions. I don't sit in the boardroom, I am not privvy to the converations that these people have so I don't know.

 

Good for you, you obviously have a hotline to all of these private discussions so well done.

 

(PS go talk to Throbber about Pearson).

 

Oh yes, and keep on using those rolley eyes things because they work so well in backing up your arguements Steve.

[sadoldgit]

Sorry, but Pearson was desperate to stay on and work under whoever was at the helm here.

 

The idea that he dipped out because he didnt like using youngsters, that he cost too much, or that Milan had tapped him up (be that Mandaric, AC or Inter) is just not true.

 

Lowe had his replacements lined up even before he had his feet in the door (and there is enough evidence out there to confirm this) and Pearson was always going to be replaced.

 

Please provide proof that he was desperate to stay. Or are we supposed to believe you because you are ITK?

[Mole]

Because these quotes were rubbishing your spurious assumption that he was averse to working with youth etc etc etc.

 

If you want some quotes that he wanted to stay, then I'm sure I could find enough.

 

You just carry on believeing Pearson dipped out of his own accord and Lowe was forced into replacing him:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

The Lowe Luvvies will use all the tricks in the book to defend Lowe.

[madruss]

leicester are hardly ripping up league 1, considering they have the best squad.

 

Agreed, and by all accounts Nigel Adkins (S****horpe manager) would be a better option than Pearson as manager due to his side currently sitting higher in the table than Leicester despite finishing below them in the championship last year

 

Personally I find it hard to believe that any manager could succeed at a club where they are forced to play only the cheap, younger players and don't have any say in player recruitment.

 

Basically we're screwed whoever's in charge

[fos1]

Sorry, but Pearson was desperate to stay on and work under whoever was at the helm here.

 

The idea that he dipped out because he didnt like using youngsters, that he cost too much, or that Milan had tapped him up (be that Mandaric, AC or Inter) is just not true.

 

Lowe had his replacements lined up even before he had his feet in the door (and there is enough evidence out there to confirm this) and Pearson was always going to be replaced.

 

What Steve is saying here is 100% fact

Pearson was settled here and was desperate to continue what he had started and was fully aware that cut backs would have to be made and accepted this .

Lowe was not going to employ Pearson as he was appointed by someone else and he could not dominate him as he can with an unknown dutchman from some lower dutch league !!!

[Weston Saint]

Pearson had sorted out the Academy and was having a positive effect on the youngsters. This is evidenced by conversations from players and officials of that time.

 

Pearson was not on money that was considered high or unaffordable (unless he was trying to negotiate an increase we are unaware of).

 

Lowe and Wilde had made their mind up long before they came back. Lowe had already invited the Dutchmen over (BarcelonaSaint was privy to a conversation on that matter). Wilde had hinted at a continental change (SOS were privy to that conversation)

 

Of course we could be wrong but all the evidence points to Pearson going against his wishes. What evidence is there to support ant other outcome?

[Wes Tender]

That's the trouble with plans, they don't always go to plan!!!

 

Confidence plays such a huge part in all of this. If some players had stayed fit and if we had won some of the games we played well in, who knows...but as you say, the wheels are falling off big time now and there seem to be precious few answers.

 

We do have some good players and I don't see why things can't be turned around in time, but the defence looks like and area where we have to throw money at, whare is that money going to come from?

 

Not a pretty sight, but I don't think those who feel the need to find scapegoats are helping the situation.

 

The plans were formed without due consideration being paid to all of the possible shortcomings that might occur. In short, there was no plan B or C.

 

As you rightly say, confidence is key to something like this working, but that confidence can only be built on the back of success, not failure. Confidence demonstrated by the players would have manifested itself in success for the team and in turn increased support by the fans. But exactly the opposite scenario is the result of failure.

 

You and everybody else has identified the defensive frailties as the root of our problems. When I say everybody, I mean everybody except those who could have done something about it, of course. Those are the people who you call the scapegoats and I see no problems with calling them to task for our dismal showing using their failed madcap experiment. With luck, such will be our wrath with those scapegoats that they will do the decent thing and wake up to the fact that their bizarre strategy has not worked and do something to put it right. If they don't then perhaps we will take the necessary steps to rid the club of them.

 

So where is the money coming from to shore up the defence? Well, as it could have come from funds used to buy or loan other players who play midfield and up front, or in goal, when we were already well covered in those positions, then perhaps the directors should dig into their own pockets to buy some defenders to address the situation caused by them. But of course, hell would freeze over before they turned into people putting money into the club rather than being here for their own selfish reasons.

[sadoldgit]

What Steve is saying here is 100% fact

Pearson was settled here and was desperate to continue what he had started and was fully aware that cut backs would have to be made and accepted this .

Lowe was not going to employ Pearson as he was appointed by someone else and he could not dominate him as he can with an unknown dutchman from some lower dutch league !!!

 

 

It is all very well coming on and saying this stuff but where exactly is the proof? Does your mate's plumber share his hairdresser?

 

I have seen things that contradict this, so who is right?

 

Frankly unless I hear an interview from Pearson himself confirming what you say I shall take it with a pinch of salt.

[Snowballs2]

It is all very well coming on and saying this stuff but where exactly is the proof? Does your mate's plumber share his hairdresser?

 

I have seen things that contradict this, so who is right?

 

Frankly unless I hear an interview from Pearson himself confirming what you say I shall take it with a pinch of salt.

 

 

There is none so blind as those who don't want to see

[Chez]

What none of its top earners?

 

but we can afford to pay Forecast, Gasimi, Peckhart, Dyer, Robertson, Pullis, Smith and BWP.

 

Sorry this is about wrong choices not just lack of money.

 

 

I agree with you about making the wrong choices, why on earth we signed Forecast I will never know, but all of those players wages combined probably add up to Stern Johns wage.

[sadoldgit]

There is none so blind as those who don't want to see

 

See what? You might like to believe third hand gossip on an internet site, I don't.

 

You'd think after all the rubbish that was posted about the supposed take over some people would be a bit more circumspect about who and what they believe.

 

Find me hard proof that Pearson wanted to stay and then, if I don't believe it, feel free to call me blind.

 

You are another one who has a set agenda and spoon up whatever gossip is posted here in support of that agenda.

 

Let's face it Snowballs, we are a bunch of cyber geeks who spend far too much time than is healthy pontificating on a web site.

 

None us has sat in the boardroom, none of us know what conditions have been laid down by the bank, none of us know exactly what transpites between people and why they stay or go.

 

It is all conjecture but some people hoover up all of the "negative" conjecture and spew it back as fact to suit their purpose.

 

I am not happy that John has gone, but is that because Lowe is the Devil or because we had not choice but to get shot of his wages? Who agreed his wages in the first place?

 

There are lots of factors that go to make up our decline, it is not all down to one person. If that makes me blind then I can only think that those who still want to believe that our troubles will be over if we get rid of one person must be even more badly afflicted.

[fos1]

It is all very well coming on and saying this stuff but where exactly is the proof? Does your mate's plumber share his hairdresser?

 

I have seen things that contradict this, so who is right?

 

Frankly unless I hear an interview from Pearson himself confirming what you say I shall take it with a pinch of salt.

 

Bernard I would like to see the "things that contradict this " as I dont believe they exsist

as my information is fact !

Edited 26 October, 2008 by fos1

[sadoldgit]

Bernard would like to see the "things that contradict this " as I dont believe they exsist

as my information is fact !

 

It may well be, but I can come on and makes all sorts of claims and say they are fact, but without proof why should anyone believe them?

 

Probably over 95% of stuff that is printed on these message boards is conjecture and is cobbled togther from alleged hearsay.

 

If what you say is fact, provide the proof.

[Toomer]

Lowe should never have been given a chance to get control of the club in the first place.

[Rod Le Shearer]

So what do those Hypocrites who said they didnt want Pearson here as he was rubbish after just 13 games now think about Jan?

 

what a stupid arguement. the level of ****e which Jan is delivering,has no relation whatsoever on how poor NP was !

right now they both seem crap.but even if Jan loses his 20 next matches 0-10,that can`t and won`t change the view of those saying Pearson did an fairly poor job here.your statement lacks coherence and logic,what a simple-minded post.

[Snowballs2]

See what? You might like to believe third hand gossip on an internet site, I don't.

 

You'd think after all the rubbish that was posted about the supposed take over some people would be a bit more circumspect about who and what they believe.

 

Find me hard proof that Pearson wanted to stay and then, if I don't believe it, feel free to call me blind.

 

You are another one who has a set agenda and spoon up whatever gossip is posted here in support of that agenda.

 

Let's face it Snowballs, we are a bunch of cyber geeks who spend far too much time than is healthy pontificating on a web site.

 

None us has sat in the boardroom, none of us know what conditions have been laid down by the bank, none of us know exactly what transpites between people and why they stay or go.

 

 

 

It is all conjecture but some people hoover up all of the "negative" conjecture and spew it back as fact to suit their purpose.

 

I am not happy that John has gone, but is that because Lowe is the Devil or because we had not choice but to get shot of his wages? Who agreed his wages in the first place?

 

There are lots of factors that go to make up our decline, it is not all down to one person. If that makes me blind then I can only think that those who still want to believe that our troubles will be over if we get rid of one person must be even more badly afflicted.

 

SOG I freely admit that I want Lowe and Wilde out...not as shareholders, but from their directorial positions of influence. You would have to be blindly silly not to accept that the experiment of reliance on young untried players and manager at this level was a crazy scenario.

In the early days Lowe did some reasonable things at SLH, I will not deny, however he lost his way about 4 years ago, and has made a massive contribution to our current plight by a number of crazy decisions.

It is not possible to defend the indefensible, he must go for the good of the club and PLC.

[sadoldgit]

I do not think this is an experiment. I think that it is a long term plan, agreed with the bank, to keep the club going. I doubt if we have had much choice about letting the senior players go and can't really see what else we can do. If Lowe goes the next bloke will have the same problems and constraints.

Whilst things are not working right now, whose to say whether it will not eventually work?

There were glimmers at the start of the season that it could work well.

The thing about long term plans is that they take a long time. We need people at the club who want to be here and want this to work. Sadly I am not sure if some of the senior pros buy into it, which isn't helping.

I am not going to pretend that everything is great when it is clearly not, but given the serious financial position we are in, I don't think we have many other options.

[St Marco]

what a stupid arguement. the level of ****e which Jan is delivering,has no relation whatsoever on how poor NP was !

right now they both seem crap.but even if Jan loses his 20 next matches 0-10,that can`t and won`t change the view of those saying Pearson did an fairly poor job here.your statement lacks coherence and logic,what a simple-minded post.

 

Right...

 

The argument which clearly went over your head is that there was a very vocal group of fans who wanted Pearson and the old board out in just 13 games. They wanted Lowe to return and said Jan would do better. Some bought into the lies they were told and actually believed we were a team capable of xyz. So the statement that lacks "coherence and logic" is that by the logic of those views means they must be cosistant with them and have the same view now. My view as was others was give it time. Your OPINION is you felt Pearson did poor. However in the last 5 games he had we went to 3 of the top teams all chasing promotion and got something. We lost only 1 of those games and that was a sucker goal in a match we dominated. If any of those results were different i.e we lost one we would of been down. Those are the pressure games of the league. The games right now mean nothing, if we lose on tues there is always next weekend, then the weekend after that. Pearson didnt have that luxuary.

So your OPINION is that Pearson did poor, fair enough, however your opinion is in the very very small minority. There was a poll run on wanting Pearson to stay or not in the close season and 85% wanted him to stay. So you saying "Jan loses his 20 next matches 0-10,that can`t and won`t change the view of those saying Pearson did an fairly poor job here" is a view supported by their OPINION. One that is not supported by FACT. So the logic is if they said Pearson was crap after 13 games then that must make JP even crapper right? And they should be being just as vocal about how poor he is and Lowe just as they were with Pearson and Crouch right? So thus meaning your view means nothing and holds no credit at all. In fact i would say it is quite sad really.

[um pahars]

Please provide proof that he was desperate to stay. Or are we supposed to believe you because you are ITK?

 

Before the decision was made:

 

I am delighted the fans want me to stay although I also realise how small a margin for error there is. We cut it very fine to stay up and people's emotions could easily have been different. But it is nice that they have taken to me and I would love to stay here."

 

"I would love to carry on but we just have to see how things pan out in the next week to 10 days."

 

"There is a big job to be done. I would like to do it but we will have to see what happens. There are a lot of variables and a lot of speculation about how the situation might be resolved."

 

"survival has given us a bit of breathing space to plan for next season and I have a very clear vision of what I want to do."

 

"When the dust settles after the game we have to look at how we move the club forward."

 

After being sacked:

 

""I didn't think it was going to be my last game if I am perfectly honest."

 

And Wilde doesn't mention how Pearson dipped out:

 

"we held a meeting with Nigel which was extremely constructive and helpful and the board were impressed with what Nigel had to say"

 

There was no mention by either side that Pearson wanted to dip out and to try and portray this fantasy of yours as being fact just makes out to be slightly dim (actually very dim).

[CB Fry]

Right...

 

The argument which clearly went over your head is that there was a very vocal group of fans who wanted Pearson and the old board out in just 13 games. They wanted Lowe to return and said Jan would do better.

 

 

St Marco, what seems to have "gone over your head" is the "vocal group" you seem to be railing against is about three people winding people up on a message board.

 

This group you are battling against are a fictional as the lizard rulers of the earth that David Icke goes on about.

 

 

It may well be, but I can come on and makes all sorts of claims and say they are fact, but without proof why should anyone believe them?

 

Probably over 95% of stuff that is printed on these message boards is conjecture and is cobbled togther from alleged hearsay.

 

If what you say is fact, provide the proof.

 

See what? You might like to believe third hand gossip on an internet site, I don't.

 

You'd think after all the rubbish that was posted about the supposed take over some people would be a bit more circumspect about who and what they believe.

 

Find me hard proof that Pearson wanted to stay and then, if I don't believe it, feel free to call me blind.

 

You are another one who has a set agenda and spoon up whatever gossip is posted here in support of that agenda.

 

It is all conjecture but some people hoover up all of the "negative" conjecture and spew it back as fact to suit their purpose.

 

It is all very well coming on and saying this stuff but where exactly is the proof? Does your mate's plumber share his hairdresser?

 

I have seen things that contradict this, so who is right?

 

Frankly unless I hear an interview from Pearson himself confirming what you say I shall take it with a pinch of salt.

 

 

Errr, SOG, why is the entire burden of proof on the people that contest the fairly obvious fact that Pearson wanted to stay?

 

Why don't you have to prove anything to prove your argument that he didn't?

 

You seem quite happy to take the moral high ground about how we should jolly well disregard conjecture, but all you've done is spout lie after lie claiming Pearson didn't want to be here.

 

Pearson wanted to stay - he said it before, during and after.

 

Of course he wanted to stay - this was the best job he ever had, and when he left he had to drop down a division for gawd's sake.

 

Pearson wanted to say, and you're a liar for saying he didn't.

 

Now why not try proving us wrong?

[Snowballs2]

What does a bank normally do if a business is heading for administration and sells off most of its assets? under normal circumstances they get put into receivership. This is why I cannot understand the situation at the moment with the bank. I mean its not the word of a person like Lowe that makes the bank continue to support the PLC because in his customers eyes he has no credability

[Rod Le Shearer]

Right...

 

The argument which clearly went over your head is that there was a very vocal group of fans who wanted Pearson and the old board out in just 13 games. They wanted Lowe to return and said Jan would do better. Some bought into the lies they were told and actually believed we were a team capable of xyz. So the statement that lacks "coherence and logic" is that by the logic of those views means they must be cosistant with them and have the same view now. My view as was others was give it time. Your OPINION is you felt Pearson did poor. However in the last 5 games he had we went to 3 of the top teams all chasing promotion and got something. We lost only 1 of those games and that was a sucker goal in a match we dominated. If any of those results were different i.e we lost one we would of been down. Those are the pressure games of the league. The games right now mean nothing, if we lose on tues there is always next weekend, then the weekend after that. Pearson didnt have that luxuary.

So your OPINION is that Pearson did poor, fair enough, however your opinion is in the very very small minority. There was a poll run on wanting Pearson to stay or not in the close season and 85% wanted him to stay. So you saying "Jan loses his 20 next matches 0-10,that can`t and won`t change the view of those saying Pearson did an fairly poor job here" is a view supported by their OPINION. One that is not supported by FACT. So the logic is if they said Pearson was crap after 13 games then that must make JP even crapper right? And they should be being just as vocal about how poor he is and Lowe just as they were with Pearson and Crouch right? So thus meaning your view means nothing and holds no credit at all. In fact i would say it is quite sad really.

 

sigh..

I`ll repeat,worded for the simpletons: FACTS about NP`s results/performance,cannot be changed whatever JP does. so your whole comparison-nonsense between the two are of no use whatsoever in this context.

 

if Jan loses his 100 next matches,that wont alter how many points NP got/how NP`s team played-and those points are what most fans base their opinions on.

 

going by your twisted logic,the first world war must have been a nice stroll in the park..just because one worse followed !

you`re one crazy individual if you cant see that two things can be quite bad,even though one seems slightly better than the other ATM.

[Torrent Of Abuse]

So let me get this straight...

 

We spent the last couple of months whingeing about how the team has been weakened beyond recognition - even since last year's squad - and yet we see fit to compare Poortvliet's results with that weakened team against Pearson's comparatively strong side. Does that make sense? Surely we can't have it both ways? Poortvliet is either dealing with less or he's not.

 

FWIW, I didn't want Pearson appointed but didn't want him sacked either - but this continual search for reasons to rip into other supporters seems pointless.

 

I'd ask those rubbing their hands together with glee at this thread whether they would seriously think Pearson would be achieving any more with Lowe performing his hatchet job on the playing staff? It's all academic I know but I wouldn't think any other manager would even want to stay beyond Christmas bearing in mind what Poortvliet is currently having to put up with. Bad as things are now, I think it would be far, far worse if we added to this dismal season by sacking yet another manager. While we're taking a walk down managerial memory lane, let's just remember how wonderfully that went last season shall we?

[Wes Tender]

So let me get this straight...

 

We spent the last couple of months whingeing about how the team has been weakened beyond recognition - even since last year's squad - and yet we see fit to compare Poortvliet's results with that weakened team against Pearson's comparatively strong side. Does that make sense? Surely we can't have it both ways? Poortvliet is either dealing with less or he's not.

 

And the shades of grey that you have missed are that many said that Pearson had a team of overpaid and disinterested journeymen and that they'd rather watch the youngsters who were really up for it and would play exciting, passing total football. It is also arguable too that JP had an easier run of games than NP had.

 

FWIW, I didn't want Pearson appointed but didn't want him sacked either - ditto and the same for many on here. but this continual search for reasons to rip into other supporters seems pointless.

 

I'd ask those rubbing their hands together with glee at this thread whether they would seriously think Pearson would be achieving any more with Lowe performing his hatchet job on the playing staff?

 

Yes

 

It's all academic I know but I wouldn't think any other manager would even want to stay beyond Christmas bearing in mind what Poortvliet is currently having to put up with.

 

Agreed. JP obviously has a far thicker skin than NP and that is probably why NP wasn't acceptable to Lowe, apart from being Crouch's appointee.

 

Bad as things are now, I think it would be far, far worse if we added to this dismal season by sacking yet another manager. While we're taking a walk down managerial memory lane, let's just remember how wonderfully that went last season shall we?

 

Management changes have been very disruptive in the past, but this is one appointment that is going wrong that Lowe probably won't terminate. But did Lowe consider the disruption of dismissing Pearson? Did Lowe even consider the disruption of the change of power at boardroom level? All very well when Lowe is making the disruptive changes, but there's tut tutting when others suggest it when things are going wrong with the current manager/board.

[St Marco]

St Marco, what seems to have "gone over your head" is the "vocal group" you seem to be railing against is about three people winding people up on a message board.

 

This group you are battling against are a fictional as the lizard rulers of the earth that David Icke goes on about.

 

 

Not at all. Im guessing you didn't go to many games last year then because there was many people up until the Sheff Utd game who didn't want him because of his results (mainly the Hull game). The forum is just a small representation of the actual fans.