We got relegated in August!

[AwaySaint1]

This football club got relegated before the first ball of the season was kicked.

 

Why? because the board made the decision to cut our cloth to division one spending on wages, expected gates and revenue in the summer.

 

We will go down but the share price may still have a possitive value.

 

So the fans get division one football and RL gets to retain his shares.

 

Everything is being done to protect the boards money without any thought for the supporters and sfc.

 

I suppose you could say they have done nothing wrong as they MUST put shareholders before fans as board members of a plc.

[Mole]

I suppose you could say they have done nothing wrong as they MUST put shareholders before fans as board members of a plc.

 

Declining the SISU offer doesn't sit well with this comment IMO. Mike Wilde said "The quality and nature of any investment is as important, in my view, as the quantum." So presumably he thinks that him and Lowe are better than SISU would have been.

[stthrobber]

This football club got relegated before the first ball of the season was kicked.

 

Why? because the board made the decision to cut our cloth to division one spending on wages, expected gates and revenue in the summer.

 

We will go down but the share price may still have a possitive value.

 

So the fans get division one football and RL gets to retain his shares.

 

Everything is being done to protect the boards money without any thought for the supporters and sfc.

 

I suppose you could say they have done nothing wrong as they MUST put shareholders before fans as board members of a plc.

 

Well if the previous 2 boards had run the club in a sensible manner then there would have been no need for Lowe to come back.

 

What they did was gamble with our club and increase player wages to a completely unsustainable level, particularly when the standard of player that they signed was well below what we needed.

 

All those people on here and the previous forums that preceded it that demanded the club "speculate to accumulate" got your wish, and the fruits of that policy are what we are left with now.

 

The simple fact is that there is no money in football at the moment, and with the economic climate being like it is, there is no-one out there who wants to buy into an ailing football club.

 

So not only is there no money coming in, the current board has to stop the money flowing out as it has been. Sadly that means getting rid of our high wage earners.

 

We might go down this season, administration will make relegation a certainty, but the hope is that these kids can develop and learn and put in a strong finish in the 2nd half of the season

 

You might blame the current board for our situation, but whilst the seeds were sown a couple of years back, it was crass stupidity like increasing player wages having lost the parachute payment that has led to the cutbacks we've had to suffer.

[John B]

Well if the previous 2 boards had run the club in a sensible manner then there would have been no need for Lowe to come back.

 

What they did was gamble with our club and increase player wages to a completely unsustainable level, particularly when the standard of player that they signed was well below what we needed.

 

All those people on here and the previous forums that preceded it that demanded the club "speculate to accumulate" got your wish, and the fruits of that policy are what we are left with now.

 

The simple fact is that there is no money in football at the moment, and with the economic climate being like it is, there is no-one out there who wants to buy into an ailing football club.

 

So not only is there no money coming in, the current board has to stop the money flowing out as it has been. Sadly that means getting rid of our high wage earners.

 

We might go down this season, administration will make relegation a certainty, but the hope is that these kids can develop and learn and put in a strong finish in the 2nd half of the season

 

You might blame the current board for our situation, but whilst the seeds were sown a couple of years back, it was crass stupidity like increasing player wages having lost the parachute payment that has led to the cutbacks we've had to suffer.

 

A very balanced and realistic post compared with lots of over the top ones in other threads

[alpine_saint]

Well if the previous 2 boards had run the club in a sensible manner then there would have been no need for Lowe to come back.

 

What they did was gamble with our club and increase player wages to a completely unsustainable level, particularly when the standard of player that they signed was well below what we needed.

 

All those people on here and the previous forums that preceded it that demanded the club "speculate to accumulate" got your wish, and the fruits of that policy are what we are left with now.

 

The simple fact is that there is no money in football at the moment, and with the economic climate being like it is, there is no-one out there who wants to buy into an ailing football club.

 

So not only is there no money coming in, the current board has to stop the money flowing out as it has been. Sadly that means getting rid of our high wage earners.

 

We might go down this season, administration will make relegation a certainty, but the hope is that these kids can develop and learn and put in a strong finish in the 2nd half of the season

 

You might blame the current board for our situation, but whilst the seeds were sown a couple of years back, it was crass stupidity like increasing player wages having lost the parachute payment that has led to the cutbacks we've had to suffer.

 

Wilde's and then Crouch's aims, were entirely laudable. They put the club wealth on black, and it came up red (with some help from George Burley...)

 

I find it highly disingenuous how the change in club finances is put down to the last two years. It was relegation that screwed the clubs finances, followed by zero attempt by Lowe at bouncing back with promotion in our first CCC season.

[Guest Hacienda]

Well if the previous 2 boards had run the club in a sensible manner then there would have been no need for Lowe to come back.

 

What they did was gamble with our club and increase player wages to a completely unsustainable level, particularly when the standard of player that they signed was well below what we needed.

 

All those people on here and the previous forums that preceded it that demanded the club "speculate to accumulate" got your wish, and the fruits of that policy are what we are left with now.

 

The simple fact is that there is no money in football at the moment, and with the economic climate being like it is, there is no-one out there who wants to buy into an ailing football club.

 

So not only is there no money coming in, the current board has to stop the money flowing out as it has been. Sadly that means getting rid of our high wage earners.

 

We might go down this season, administration will make relegation a certainty, but the hope is that these kids can develop and learn and put in a strong finish in the 2nd half of the season

 

You might blame the current board for our situation, but whilst the seeds were sown a couple of years back, it was crass stupidity like increasing player wages having lost the parachute payment that has led to the cutbacks we've had to suffer.

 

Nothing to do with Lowe's decision making getting us relegated or his decision making in our 1st season down then?

 

Not really a surprise Rich that Lowe isn't to blame for any of it.

[dubai_phil]

Wilde's and then Crouch's aims, were entirely laudable. They put the club wealth on black, and it came up red (with some help from George Burley...)

 

I find it highly disingenuous how the change in club finances is put down to the last two years. It was relegation that screwed the clubs finances, followed by zero attempt by Lowe at bouncing back with promotion in our first CCC season.

 

Back to the which reason is the right one argument, but the general gist is still, too many years of too many bad decisions by too many people.

 

In "kind of" agreeing with the title of the thread though, my gut feeling (and I posted at the time) was that it was one gamble too many.

 

The gamble with kids could have (and still could) work. The gamble with the coaching set up could have (and still could work) but for BOTH to work together was IMHO a step too far.

 

There was a piece of the jigsaw missing in the structure, and as it stands now that is a DoF with EXPERIENCE to act as mentor to the coaches.

 

Forget their "personalities & foibles" for a moment, but someone with the EXPERIENCE of a Venables, Pleat, Graham, Robson et al would have helped keep a steadier hand on the tiller

IMHO of course.

 

One gamble too many is still my feel and as we run out of money the options shrink.

[um pahars]

There was a piece of the jigsaw missing in the structure, and as it stands now that is a DoF with EXPERIENCE to act as mentor to the coaches.

 

But Lowe would argue that he has 10 years experience of the game, has worked with some senior managers etc etc etc.

 

We have a DOF, it's just not been publicly acknowledged for fear of the backlash it would cause.

[Norm]

Nothing to do with Lowe's decision making getting us relegated or his decision making in our 1st season down then?

 

Not really a surprise Rich that Lowe isn't to blame for any of it.

 

 

 

My view (in bold above) on the sorry saga.

[John B]

Nothing to do with Lowe's decision making getting us relegated or his decision making in our 1st season down then?

 

Not really a surprise Rich that Lowe isn't to blame for any of it.

 

I think Lowe was trying to balance the books in the first season down.

 

The problem is that nobody did it after him.

 

If we get relegated it will because the gamble by Wilde Hone Crouch did not work and we spent too much money on players fees and wages.

 

We probably would not have got to the play off with Lowe but would be probably been in a better position if Wilde had not taken over and may have been taken over by somebody.

 

I still cannot see anyone taking us over in our current state and in the current UK financial situation but we can hope.

[um pahars]

the seeds were sown a couple of years back, it was crass stupidity like increasing player wages having lost the parachute payment that has led to the cutbacks we've had to suffer.

 

The seeds were sown the moment we got relegated.

 

We were't financially robust upon relegation, and lost £16m cash on normal operations (if you take away the one off parachute payment) in Lowe's first season down.

 

At some point it was always going to bite us on the ar65e, as the Club's infrastructure and cost base cannot be supported in this division, something the current Football Club Chairman has stated on here.

 

I'm actally surprised we hae lasted as long as we have!!!!!!!!!

 

We were always going to have to cut back at some point, and that would have been solely down to our revenue dropping from near £50m to below £15m! Hone's £3m, £4m, £5m overspend on wages last season isn't the reason we are now cutting back (as we should actually have implemented the cutbacks of Plan B before that overspend even happened).

 

We should have cut back last summer and there can be no excusing Hone's refusal to do so. It certainly added to the debt, but we would have been cutting back regardless of those stupid actions. Of course they may have made some of the cuts a little deeper, but the cuts stem from relegation.

 

And then we move on this season.

 

Of course we have been financially constrained in what we do, but we still had choices to make and different options to take.

 

We could have gone for an alternative manager to Jan.

 

We could have considered an alternative style of play.

 

We could have brought in alternative players to the 8 or 9 we did.

 

We could have concentrated all the money spent on the 8 or 9 players in getting in a couple of hardnosed CCC experienced palyers to augment the talented youngsters.

 

We could have concentrated all the money spent on the 8 or 9 players in working hard to retain some of the existing quad.

 

We could have done alot of footballing things differently during the close season.

 

And with regards leadership we could have gone for an alternative set up in the boardroom, but no one, including Crouch, looked beyond themseves as an alternative.

 

We could have looked to have formed a board and leadership that the supporters would have respected, trusted and as a result would have rallied around, but instead the main players fought amongst themselves for control of the hot seat.

[John B]

The seeds were sown the moment we got relegated.

 

We were't financially robust upon relegation, and lost £16m cash on normal operations (if you take away the one off parachute payment) in Lowe's first season down.

 

At some point it was always going to bite us on the ar65e, as the Club's infrastructure and cost base cannot be supported in this division, something the current Football Club Chairman has stated on here.

 

I'm actally surprised we hae lasted as long as we have!!!!!!!!!

 

We were always going to have to cut back at some point, and that would have been solely down to our revenue dropping from near £50m to below £15m! Hone's £3m, £4m, £5m overspend on wages last season isn't the reason we are now cutting back (as we should actually have implemented the cutbacks of Plan B before that overspend even happened).

 

We should have cut back last summer and there can be no excusing Hone's refusal to do so. It certainly added to the debt, but we would have been cutting back regardless of those stupid actions. Of course they may have made some of the cuts a little deeper, but the cuts stem from relegation.

 

And then we move on this season.

 

Of course we have been financially constrained in what we do, but we still had choices to make and different options to take.

 

We could have gone for an alternative manager to Jan.

 

We could have considered an alternative style of play.

 

We could have brought in alternative players to the 8 or 9 we did.

 

We could have concentrated all the money spent on the 8 or 9 players in getting in a couple of hardnosed CCC experienced palyers to augment the talented youngsters.

 

We could have concentrated all the money spent on the 8 or 9 players in working hard to retain some of the existing quad.

 

We could have done alot of footballing things differently during the close season.

 

And with regards leadership we could have gone for an alternative set up in the boardroom, but no one, including Crouch, looked beyond themseves as an alternative.

 

We could have looked to have formed a board and leadership that the supporters would have respected, trusted and as a result would have rallied around, but instead the main players fought amongst themselves for control of the hot seat.

 

Yes of course you are right.

 

But things of course would have been better if we had actually sold two or three of

 

Skacel Saga Rasiak John Euell Thomas .

 

 

The lack of tranfer income is causing serious problems

[stthrobber]

Nothing to do with Lowe's decision making getting us relegated or his decision making in our 1st season down then?

 

Not really a surprise Rich that Lowe isn't to blame for any of it.

 

I am specifically talking abour our current situation and the suggestion that we were relegated by this board before a ball was kicked.

 

We all know our recent history and I would never attempt to rewrite history by absolving Lowe of any blame, but those who followed had a duty to run the club in a sensible manner and the fact is the first lot just took what they could, knowing they would fail and leave and Crouch then failed to begin to take steps to reduce our losses.

 

Anyone who describes gambling with our club as "laudable" is plainly mad. How many other clubs have gone before us by gambling with money they didn't have and suffering the consequences of successive relegations?

 

The result of that gamble is what we see now, but if any of those that followed Lowe had run the club within its means, we could have been looking forward to our football instead of worrying about relegation once more.

[Mole]

The result of that gamble is what we see now, but if any of those that followed Lowe had run the club within its means, we could have been looking forward to our football instead of worrying about relegation once more.

 

But surely the £7mil spent by Wilde would have been spent by Lowe too?

 

Don't you remember Lowe talking of the fabled "War Chest"?

 

I put it to you that the fans were behind (even demanded) this outlay because Lowe led us to believe we could afford it.

[Faz]

This football club got relegated before the first ball of the season was kicked.

 

 

Sorry to **** on your wake, but we haven't actually been relegated yet, or is it May already. I put my clocks back an hour last night, not forward 6 months.

[AwaySaint1]

Sorry to **** on your wake, but we haven't actually been relegated yet, or is it May already. I put my clocks back an hour last night, not forward 6 months.

 

HAY sh*t for brains, if you read the thread you will see I am talking about us being relegated on a financial balance sheet.

 

I would go back to bed for an hour if I was you.

[stthrobber]

But surely the £7mil spent by Wilde would have been spent by Lowe too?

 

Don't you remember Lowe talking of the fabled "War Chest"?

 

I put it to you that the fans were behind (even demanded) this outlay because Lowe led us to believe we could afford it.

 

I can't possibly speculate on what Lowe might have done, the fact is he didn't because he was ousted. Wilde's own crew shafted him and their stupidity has left us where we are.

 

I keep saying it didn't have to be this way and all people seem to do is look at relegation and Lowe. As I've said I can't and won't rewrite history and I'm well aware of the mistakes that led to relegation and Lowe leaving the club.

 

It's what happened afterwards that has directly led us to the savage cutbacks we have suffered and the consequences of putting our faith in a very risky strategy of an untested foreign coach and a bunch of kids.

 

Many good people have lost their jobs at the club because people like Hone and Crouch didn't do theirs.

[um pahars]

It's what happened afterwards that has directly led us to the savage cutbacks we have suffered and the consequences of putting our faith in a very risky strategy of an untested foreign coach and a bunch of kids.

 

Many good people have lost their jobs at the club because people like Hone and Crouch didn't do theirs.

 

Rich, what do you think Plan B entailed????

 

Plan B that should have been implemented when the parachute money ran out entailed redundancies and cut backs on and off the pitch.

 

Hone's few million overspend certainly did not help in any shape or form and probably made the cutbacks a tad more savage, but cutback would have had to have been made.

 

You can't have yout revenue fall from circa £50m to £14m and nt expect any pain!!!!!!!

[Mole]

It's what happened afterwards that has directly led us to the savage cutbacks we have suffered and the consequences of putting our faith in a very risky strategy of an untested foreign coach and a bunch of kids.

 

It's pure Lowe spin that we are "playing the kids" because we have to. This crack-pot idea is nothing more than Lowe thinking he knows best. What about all the clubs below us in the football league and in non league football - they don't put all their eggs in one basket and play a youth team.

 

There's no reason why Nigel Perason could not have stayed. Certainly there is no financial reason.

[Faz]

HAY sh*t for brains, if you read the thread you will see I am talking about us being relegated on a financial balance sheet.

 

I would go back to bed for an hour if I was you.

 

Nice one.

 

Just to help you out I'll quote your original post below:

 

This football club got relegated before the first ball of the season was kicked.

 

Why? because the board made the decision to cut our cloth to division one spending on wages, expected gates and revenue in the summer.

 

We will go down but the share price may still have a possitive value.

 

So the fans get division one football and RL gets to retain his shares.

 

Everything is being done to protect the boards money without any thought for the supporters and sfc.

 

I suppose you could say they have done nothing wrong as they MUST put shareholders before fans as board members of a plc.

 

HTH

[Mole]

Many good people have lost their jobs at the club because people like Hone and Crouch didn't do theirs.

 

What a typical post from a Lowe Luvvie.

 

In case it slipped your mind it was Wilde who appointed the Execs and it was Crouch who got rid of them. 6 months Crouch was in charge and yet you lot blame him for everything.

[Saint_John]

I still cannot see anyone taking us over in our current state and in the current UK financial situation but we can hope.

 

Why does everyone assume it is Takeover or Nothing.

 

Remember in July 2006 we were told there were 10 Investors (note it says Investors NOT people to take us over) if "the conditions are right"

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/search/824722.Ten_out_of_ten_for_Saints_investors/

 

And then when the SISU offer was rejected by the Open Letter - point (d) said "The securitisation arranagements are subject of a change of control clause that was subject to much debate during the EGM campaign of 2006. Has ....."

The important words there are MUCH DEBATE which I have been told is the DoF refusing to sign over the "change of control clause" in 2006. Hence I believe the 10 investors walked away.

 

What is needed now is "investment" and like you don't see a Takeover as likely therefore I can only see the investment coming from Loans (i.e. what Long Shot has hinted at from Crouch) or a Rights Issue.

 

However, BOTH would mean the DoF leaving and his blocking 25.1% of the shares being removed, which he is not going to agree to.

 

LOWE OUT !

[stthrobber]

Rich, what do you think Plan B entailed????

 

Plan B that should have been implemented when the parachute money ran out entailed redundancies and cut backs on and off the pitch.

 

Hone's few million overspend certainly did not help in any shape or form and probably made the cutbacks a tad more savage, but cutback would have had to have been made.

 

You can't have yout revenue fall from circa £50m to £14m and nt expect any pain!!!!!!!

 

Exactly the point I've been trying to make. The cutbacks should have happened when the parachute payment ceased, but we all know that the reality was that player wages increased beyond our ability to pay them.

 

The fact that they didn't led to money leaking out of the club at an unsustainable rate and somehow it had to stop, the result being what we are seeing now. Unpalatable as it is, it has to be done to stop the bank from calling in the loans

[stthrobber]

What a typical post from a Lowe Luvvie.

 

In case it slipped your mind it was Wilde who appointed the Execs and it was Crouch who got rid of them. 6 months Crouch was in charge and yet you lot blame him for everything.

 

Please don't patronise me with that Lowe Luvvie crap. I'm just a fan who is desperately sorry to see our club where it is.

 

Crouch didn't get rid of Hone and his crew, they left because they weren't going to get the nice little earners that the SISU deal would have got them.

 

However, my point is that some cutbacks should have been made by the previous boards instead of our wage bill increasing to dangerous levels and their failure to keep finances under control has led us to where we are.

[benjii]

Why does everyone assume it is Takeover or Nothing.

 

Remember in July 2006 we were told there were 10 Investors (note it says Investors NOT people to take us over) if "the conditions are right"

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/search/824722.Ten_out_of_ten_for_Saints_investors/

 

And then when the SISU offer was rejected by the Open Letter - point (d) said "The securitisation arranagements are subject of a change of control clause that was subject to much debate during the EGM campaign of 2006. Has ....."

The important words there are MUCH DEBATE which I have been told is the DoF refusing to sign over the "change of control clause" in 2006. Hence I believe the 10 investors walked away.

 

What is needed now is "investment" and like you don't see a Takeover as likely therefore I can only see the investment coming from Loans (i.e. what Long Shot has hinted at from Crouch) or a Rights Issue.

 

However, BOTH would mean the DoF leaving and his blocking 25.1% of the shares being removed, which he is not going to agree to.

 

LOWE OUT !

 

The "change of control" point is a complete red herring.

 

Lenders insist on these clauses to protect themselves in the event that a parent company divests itself of the borrower or in the event that people assume control who the lender would have not wished to lend to in the first place.

 

The clause would typically allow the lender to accelerate the loan, make a demand under a guarantee... etc

 

There is no way in the world that Norwich Union would invoke such a clause if we were being taken over by anyone with a pot to **** in. They would welcome such a takeover as the current lot are clearly incapable, unwiling or both, to do anything to help the company financially.

[Mole]

However, my point is that some cutbacks should have been made by the previous boards instead of our wage bill increasing to dangerous levels and their failure to keep finances under control has led us to where we are.

 

Sacking Sturrock, replacing him withWigley and bringing in Redknapp too late led us to where we are and Lowe's air-brained appointment of Portvliet and playing kids will lead us to League 1.

 

The reason we're in the sh1t is because Lowe is clueless when it comes to football.

[dubai_phil]

But Lowe would argue that he has 10 years experience of the game, has worked with some senior managers etc etc etc.

 

We have a DOF, it's just not been publicly acknowledged for fear of the backlash it would cause.

 

Yep.

 

On the experience side I'd actually agree with him on that and then say, yes but it is 10 years of football BUSINESS experience.

 

Unfortunately we need that in the Boardroom right now to battle the bank and other creditors. As DoF we need experience gained ON THE PITCH and IN THE DUGOUT.

 

Successful businesses focus on the strengths of ALL the members of the team from the bottom down. Unsuccessful businesses have too many Jack's of all trades and masters of none.

 

The concept of a DoF in the "Rupert" vision being one of planning and continuity is I think a good one. (But VERY difficult to get right as Spuds have shown)

 

The PROBLEM is that at the moment, JP needs some HELP which can best be given by a "wise old footballing head".

 

The day I meet or find a way to create the "perfect employee" who knows how to do everything without any coaching/mentoring/training is the day I could conquer the world in ANY line of business.

 

I sure as heck never succeeded in my career without a lot of help from outsiders.

 

I think that JP has the talent. He needs a helping hand right now, as he is floundering, and while Rupert (in this structure) has a small part to play in that help, there is a jigsaw piece missing.

 

(Maybe Hoddle's visit this week is a place to start, at least let him and his experts (Javi lol) have a long lunch with JP & the guys)

[stthrobber]

Sacking Sturrock, replacing him withWigley and bringing in Redknapp too late led us to where we are and Lowe's air-brained appointment of Portvliet and playing kids will lead us to League 1.

 

The reason we're in the sh1t is because Lowe is clueless when it comes to football.

 

I can't debate this with people like you because you fail to read exactly what I have already written.

 

I'll spell it out for you before I go and check on the pork chops I'm roasting.

 

I have acknowledged Lowe's part in our downfall.

 

My point is in response to the original poster's suggestion that we will be relegated by the decisions that the current board made on their return to the club.

 

Those unsavoury decisions have had to be made because the previous boards who had control of the club allowed spending and our overdraft to increase to levels that have led to the savage cuts that have had to be made to stop the club leaking money and put it back on a sound financial basis.

 

There. That was my point in a nutshell. Please excuse me whilst I go and make the gravy

[Alucard]

Hone's £3m, £4m, £5m overspend on wages last season isn't the reason we are now cutting back (as we should actually have implemented the cutbacks of Plan B before that overspend even happened).

 

But that overspend wasn't just limited to last season was it, It was over the 3 years of players contracts which equates to £9m, £12m £15M overspend over the players contracts. It's the reason we are not able to shift Skacel, Saga, John, BWP, Euell etc because nobody else considers it worth paying them the wages we offered them. They'll pay them or a proportion of them to get the player on loan but they won't stump up the transfer fee as well which is what we really needed (as well as getting the wage off the payroll). It shows that we've blatently overpaid Skacel when Ipswich wouldn't offer him more than half what he is on here.

 

We could have brought in alternative players to the 8 or 9 we did.

 

We could have concentrated all the money spent on the 8 or 9 players in getting in a couple of hardnosed CCC experienced palyers to augment the talented youngsters.

and those couple of hardnosed CCC experienced palyers to augment the talented youngsters could have easily gone the same way as Svensson, Holmes, Schneiderlin, Euell, and Thomas as spent most of the season on the treatment table leaving us an even less experienced team. We've struggled to fill the squad with the injuries we've had, how would we have coped with 7 players less (I'll concede Pullis & Gasmi haven't played yet but we would still have been 5 less players in the squad

 

We could have concentrated all the money spent on the 8 or 9 players in working hard to retain some of the existing quad.

Which of the existing squad who took us within 20 minutes of relegation last were worth working hard on to retain. With the exception of Stern John whose goals kept us up I can't think of any whose performances last season warranted a contract extension.

[Mole]

I can't debate this with people like you because you fail to read exactly what I have already written.

 

I'll spell it out for you before I go and check on the pork chops I'm roasting.

 

I have acknowledged Lowe's part in our downfall.

 

My point is in response to the original poster's suggestion that we will be relegated by the decisions that the current board made on their return to the club.

 

Those unsavoury decisions have had to be made because the previous boards who had control of the club allowed spending and our overdraft to increase to levels that have led to the savage cuts that have had to be made to stop the club leaking money and put it back on a sound financial basis.

 

There. That was my point in a nutshell. Please excuse me whilst I go and make the gravy

 

Nonsense. Playing the kids under a puppet manager ala Wigley/Gray is not a necessity, it's Lowes masterplan. We could just have easily kept Pearson, trimmed the squad and let him bring in players (of a prime age) from the lower leagues. This is what every other club does that is below us in both the football league and non league, but of course Lowe knows better than everyone else.

Edited 26 October, 2008 by Mole

[AwaySaint1]

Nice one.

 

Just to help you out I'll quote your original post below:

 

 

 

HTH

 

No other member had a problem working out the thread who has replied.

 

Maybe your just special?

 

The whole point of my original post was to say that Lowe set the club up for league one football during the summer to protect shareholders with no thought for the fans.

 

Rather than stroking your thesaurus why dont you join in and give us the benefit of your opinion.

 

Thanks for the replies guys,its a good thread.

Edited 26 October, 2008 by AwaySaint1

[AwaySaint1]

Nonsense. Playing the kids under a puppet manager ala Wigley/Gray is not a necessity, it's Lowes masterplan. We could just have easily kept Pearson, trimmed the squad and let him bring in players (of a prime age) from the lower leagues. This is what every other club does that is below us in both the football league and non league, but of course Lowe knows better than everyone else.

 

I am not sure if Pearson left because he was not part of the Lowe/Woodward masterplan or because his agent demanded to much money?