How long before the Bank tells Lowe to go?

[Lunatic Fridge]

You might be right Steve...personally I don't think so. Lowe must know that in the event that he and his chums buy all the shares it would have a massive affect on attendances. Possibly not THIS season, but next. The number of season ticket renewals would be down dramatically as would the number of tickets sold matchdays and prior to match day would deminish.

In all honesty even Lowe must now realise that his time is well and truly up in the eyes of the average "customer".

You cannot force people to like you anymore than you can force people to buy tickets.

The only real option left IMO is for Crouch to get more involved financially and bring someone like Mr Saltz

 

Totally agree. If Lowe is still involved next season there wont be an SFC as we know it. I and ALL the supporters I can say I know well (all season ticket holders for several years) have not been to one home match this season and have no intention of going until the current madness is well and truly over.

[Mole]

Totally agree. If Lowe is still involved next season there wont be an SFC as we know it. I and ALL the supporters I can say I know well (all season ticket holders for several years) have not been to one home match this season and have no intention of going until the current madness is well and truly over.

 

Keep it up, with gates under 15,000 we'll soon have the Lowe/Wilde PLC on it's knees.

[dubai_phil]

Yep, although I'm led to believe that the target average attendance was 17k.

 

 

I think players would be leaving in January regardless of whether the position had weakened, stagnated or even strengthened slightly.

 

Even an improvement on last year's projected figures (£13m operating loss) would most likely still see the club report another annual loss, which obviously still weakens the debt position.

 

If the recent reports about £5m interest from Arsenal (and others) for Schneiderlin are true then that could be the one bit of business that saves our skin, IMO. From calculations I did a while back, I reckon the wage bill has been cut by £5m. Add that to a potential £5m transfer windfall just from that one sale (personally, I doubt we'd get that much, but would bite their hand off if it was actually offered!) and that has clawed back the vast majority of last year's operating loss.

 

The problem in the bank's eyes, though, is almost certainly the "regular" income, i.e. gate receipts. There's only so long that they will accept a "firefighting" approach by the club while the regular and dependable income is slowly reducing match by match.

 

IMHO I think you actually hit a very large nail on the head here.

 

No matter WHO is in charge, even a zillionaire, their FIRST job has to be to make the club suited for the CCC in terms of it's operating costs.

Only when that is done would it be possible to class any money put in as an INVESTMENT to IMPROVE the club.

 

Now like it or not, even the Lowe haters understand that our salary structure was wrong, (and before the pro Rasiak/Saga/SJ crew moan, i ask is 460k a year allegedly for Thomas a good use of our salary budget?)

 

So, what you have is the world's worst job - the hatchet man - the fall guy. Let him take all the sh*t, let him get the costs down, and then finally when it is at a level that is sustainable, bingo, in march the rescuers.

 

Salz & Crouch have good business & PR sense, they don't want to be the ones reviled by all and sundry, they want to be the heroes, so the point being, that we still need to firefight for another 6 weeks or so and then

ah ha - plan B - the cavalry.

 

So obvious in many ways

[saintjay77]

OK, we are curently circa £24 M in debt ..... and rising

 

Now if YOU were a Business in that state, with less and less Revenue coming INTO the business ... how long would you survive ???

 

Forget about the points penalty ... that is the LEAST of our worries at the moment

 

The way we are being led at the moment, it will not be long before we go into Liquidation, let alone Administration

 

Makes me laugh, people saying Administration is a bad thing and must be avoided at all costs ...... How much worse could it be than the mess we are curently in ???

 

If we were riding high in the Prem, still getting circa 30000 crowds, in Europe, with an attractive Team to get you to go to St Mary's, then yes, we might be able to reduce the debt .... but we arn't .... we are a struggling CCC Team, with a bunch of youngsters lacking the experience to even keep us there. ......... We have a Chairman who has (again) split the Fanbase .... we have diminishing crowds ...... we do NOT have enough INCOME to even pay off the Interest on our loans

 

We have no future with Lowe .... simply spiralling Debts, that soon will be completely out of control.

 

HOW MUCH DEBT are you prepared to tolerate before you see the wood from the trees ????

 

You say that I don't have a clue .......... Really ??? ....... I think it is others who do not have a clue my friend

 

IMO the team is showing signs of not being too bad. If the defence can get meaner and we can be more productive in our shooting then I am confident that we will do pretty good considering. Right now we are just about better than relegation but I do think we will improve.

 

If we improve then the diminishing numbers will start to reverse and we will get more revenue. the bank will be a bit more leanient and give us more time to recoupe. If we can go this route without administration then I am all for it. and if things continue along this form then we will become more attractive to anyone wishing to buy a football club.

 

Look at it this way, if this system does work then we will be a club that is servicing its debt and moving forwards on very low running costs. If we achive better league postions year on year then we will have a club that is improving built on simple but effective policys.

 

I have no problem supporting that and dont give a monkeys if Lowe is at the top or if it was the banks idea.

 

If it doesnt work then we will be looking at relegation and hand in hand with that will be administration as the debts we have will be too much to cope with. If that is what comes then so be it and I will again support the club in its attempts to rebuild however it chooses to do so.

 

i dont think we should go jumping into administration just on the bases that it will get rid of some posh knob that has been a shareholder in our club for god knows how long.

[trousers]

Who said they weren't there? Not me. You have a pm Trousers.

 

Cheers - yep, apologies for my somewhat facetious post. I was just doing my usual sums (i.e. 2+2=5) born out of the usual frustration one gets on here as an innocent bystander. You're right....I don't think anyone has said they weren't actually at the game. Just people reading between the lines I guess.

 

Back to chasing my own tail.....

[Long Shot]

Cheers - yep, apologies for my somewhat facetious post. I was just doing my usual sums (i.e. 2+2=5) born out of the usual frustration one gets on here as an innocent bystander. You're right....I don't think anyone has said they weren't actually at the game. Just people reading between the lines I guess.

 

Back to chasing my own tail.....

 

Thanks for that - unfortunately sometimes you have to ask people to read between the lines because you can't really say what you really want to. That oftens gets peoples backs up. I certainly wouldn't want to be considered in the same vein as LLS or St David who were in my mind toying with the forum. It is all bloody frustrating I accept.

[rooney]

As long as Saints continue to trade as a going concern, the Bank will not get involved with RL departure otherwise they become "Interested Directors" under the Companies Act and thus can become liable for the affairs of the club, in particular its liabilities.

[Snowballs2]

Its all a question of personal choice, as far as most supporters are concerned we have a personal view on those who run our club and the reasons that they hold those positions.

Not just because they hold shares in the case of Lowe, its because HE is supported by a number of other shareholders.

Lowe has claimed that he has more experience than the others at running a business and in particular one which is involved in football in the past.

Wilde has been successful in house building and Crouch in Engineering.

Who do you trust ? is it Lowe based on past history...Wilde based on his disasterous introduction of the executives? or the short time that Crouch was in charge.

Probably its a toss up between Crouch (the more rounded experienced businessman ) or Lowe who cleverly or deviously engineered the reverse takeover.

My opinion is based on trust and I would be very happy to see a more experienced Crouch back with the assistance of someone like Saltz.

The real problem is that each faction or combination has its own supporters, therefore in looking at alternatives there is really no sure fire winner. Not a soul at the moment stands a chance at unifying the customers and bringing them back through the gates.

Administration for me is the best option.

[1976_Child]

basically the club is taking approx £100,000 LESS each home game, or 50 thousand pounds per week LESS than last year. So Lowe has cut costs. Whoppee. I thought it was necessary to cut costs too and am on record as giving Lowe's plan my support from a purely business rationale. But facts are facts and the club is now not receiving £50,000 per week which it did last season. Costs have come down but I will reckon that the net effect is actually still negative. In other words we are now in a worse situation than this time last year and we have no where near as strong or capable a squad. And who is in charge? Rupert Lowe.

[Guest Hacienda]

My best mate, who posts on here, used to travel from his Shropshire home for nearly every home game, even if he went on his own and has done for 20 years

 

He hasn't and won't go again whilst Lowe is there.

 

Now, if genuine hardcore fans like that aren't going then the club is in serious trouble.

[Gordon Mockles]

How much have attendances dropped compared to last season when we were also in a relegation fight?

Last season average = 21,253

This season average = 15,625

 

Drop on last season = 5,628

 

Therefore the new regime has lost us 5,000 attendees.

 

PS we have suffered the biggest loss in attendances of any CCC Club which was there in the previous season. Must be a reason? Cannot be the threat of relegation as we are getting used to that

 

TBF a lot of that drop is due to last season - The old regime, and how long it’s been since we won lots of home games or were in Premiership

 

Nicholas – Can you please explain the reasoning behind what must be the most ridiculous statement of the day on TSW? Or, have you just not thought that through?!

 

I’ll be a bit condescending and use capitals (in a CB Fry style) – THE DROP IN ATTENDANCE IS THIS SEASON, NOT LAST SEASON!!

 

Were you at the last game of the season? Can you not remember the ‘feel good’ atmosphere from staying up and the positive outlook for the new season…until the red glow of Lowe re-emerged over the horizon, along with his merry band of ‘Yes Men’ and his ridiculously risky model for the club’s future?! Obviously Pearson didn’t fit into that ethos, and this was one of the first steps in the gradual alienation and erosion of the fans.

 

Ok, the last game is exceptional circumstances, not the best example. But, how you can attribute the monumental failure of Lowe’s (and Wilde’s - in the loosest possibly sense) blatantly flawed doctrine to Crouch (and the previous regime) is paramount to madness. I’ll just assume that was a wind up or you’ve been drinking heavily. :drinkers:

[um pahars]

Let him take all the sh*t, let him get the costs down, and then finally when it is at a level that is sustainable, bingo, in march the rescuers.

 

Salz & Crouch have good business & PR sense, they don't want to be the ones reviled by all and sundry, they want to be the heroes, so the point being, that we still need to firefight for another 6 weeks or so and then

ah ha - plan B - the cavalry.

 

So obvious in many ways

 

The only flaw there Phil is that Crouch was in no mood to walk away. He was more than willing to stay, work with Pearson and try and get things moving.

 

It was Lowe and his cabal's decision to put him and Pearson on the sidelines.

[saintjay77]

Nicholas – Can you please explain the reasoning behind what must be the most ridiculous statement of the day on TSW? Or, have you just not thought that through?!

 

I’ll be a bit condescending and use capitals (in a CB Fry style) – THE DROP IN ATTENDANCE IS THIS SEASON, NOT LAST SEASON!!

 

Were you at the last game of the season? Can you not remember the ‘feel good’ atmosphere from staying up and the positive outlook for the new season…until the red glow of Lowe re-emerged over the horizon, along with his merry band of ‘Yes Men’ and his ridiculously risky model for the club’s future?! Obviously Pearson didn’t fit into that ethos, and this was one of the first steps in the gradual alienation and erosion of the fans.

 

Ok, the last game is exceptional circumstances, not the best example. But, how you can attribute the monumental failure of Lowe’s (and Wilde’s - in the loosest possibly sense) blatantly flawed doctrine to Crouch (and the previous regime) is paramount to madness. I’ll just assume that was a wind up or you’ve been drinking heavily. :drinkers:

 

1st season out fo the prem and people think we will bounce straight back up so attendances will stay high.

 

change in the board gets fans thinking there is some kind of revival going on so attendances stay up

 

play offs give us hope that the following season will be our time so attendances stay up

 

completly arse season ending in a relegation fight followed by really bad finances which leads to losing our best players/highest earners and guess what? our attendances go down and they keep going down while the results continue to get worse.

 

Some of that is down to the return of lowe cause TBH I dont want to go there and support him but I know many people that just cant be bothered to waste there money when they know we are half the team we once were. Its peoples choice to be like that and maybe if Lowe wasnt around people would have a bit more loyalty with the club while it goes through its bad times. But the only replacements dont seem much better TBH so do we support the club and hope it drags its self out of this mess or do we stand back and continue to watch it rot?

 

 

this statement has been backed up several times so its not a wind up. im sure some of the stay aways are down to the fact that lowe and co are back but if people are going to stay away while lowe is here then they may as well stay away until someone buys his shares. its doesnt matter what title he has got as he has proved that he can still change things from behind the scenes when crouch was in charge.

[saintjay77]

The only flaw there Phil is that Crouch was in no mood to walk away. He was more than willing to stay, work with Pearson and try and get things moving.

 

It was Lowe and his cabal's decision to put him and Pearson on the sidelines.

 

if pearson was on half as much as has been reported then getting rid of him was more than likly down to wages seeing as anyone who was on a wedge was either shipped out or benched for a long time. its only since stern has been out of the door that skacel got his place back in the team and my guess is that if the kids had done better he wouldnt have got his place back either.

 

lowe must have had a pretty solid argument to convince wilde to join up with him and give crouch the boot as when crouch was sitting on the fence it was he that would have been happy for all 3 to work together and wilde wanted no part of lowe.

[Saint Bones]

Keep it up, with gates under 15,000 we'll soon have Southampton FC on it's knees.

 

 

[um pahars]

if pearson was on half as much as has been reported then getting rid of him was more than likly down to wages seeing as anyone who was on a wedge was either shipped out or benched for a long time..

 

If you really think the reason Pearson was shipped out was because of hs wages, the you are really rather out of touch with reality. Ask Frank's Cousin for the reasons, he spoke to Wilde directly about it.

 

its only since stern has been out of the door that skacel got his place back in the team and my guess is that if the kids had done better he wouldnt have got his place back either.

 

If, if, if.

 

If my aunty ... ........ ....... ...... .......

[saintjay77]

If you really think the reason Pearson was shipped out was because of hs wages, the you are really rather out of touch with reality. Ask Frank's Cousin for the reasons, he spoke to Wilde directly about it.

 

 

 

If, if, if.

 

If my aunty ... ........ ....... ...... .......

 

hey I can only give my opinion but if you dont think that counts thats up to you. I dont doubt that lowe had other reasons too but considering the financial mess we are in then its not beyond the relms of reality sheding pearson made sence in a cost cutting excersise also.

 

or next will you be telling me that saints are not really skint and there is a massive cash reserve at SMS that Lowe is hiding just so he can pay divedends to his supporters while he blows rasberrys at all that oppose him?

 

Ps....... your not saintrichmond in disguise are you?

[benjii]

Who said they weren't there? Not me. You have a pm Trousers.

 

May I have one too please?

 

Haven't had one for a while.

 

I am discrete. I knew Mike Wilde was saintmarc for ages but never told anyone.

[um pahars]

or next will you be telling me that saints are not really skint and there is a massive cash reserve at SMS that Lowe is hiding just so he can pay divedends to his supporters while he blows rasberrys at all that oppose him?

 

No, I'll just stick with telling you that if you think the reason Pearson was elbowed out was becuase of his wages, then you are very, very wrong.

[Amesbury Saint]

Who said they weren't there? Not me. You have a pm Trousers.

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=102095#post102095

 

post 323

[NickG]

Nicholas – Can you please explain the reasoning behind what must be the most ridiculous statement of the day on TSW? Or, have you just not thought that through?!

 

I’ll be a bit condescending and use capitals (in a CB Fry style) – THE DROP IN ATTENDANCE IS THIS SEASON, NOT LAST SEASON!!

 

Were you at the last game of the season? Can you not remember the ‘feel good’ atmosphere from staying up and the positive outlook for the new season…until the red glow of Lowe re-emerged over the horizon, along with his merry band of ‘Yes Men’ and his ridiculously risky model for the club’s future?! Obviously Pearson didn’t fit into that ethos, and this was one of the first steps in the gradual alienation and erosion of the fans.

 

Ok, the last game is exceptional circumstances, not the best example. But, how you can attribute the monumental failure of Lowe’s (and Wilde’s - in the loosest possibly sense) blatantly flawed doctrine to Crouch (and the previous regime) is paramount to madness. I’ll just assume that was a wind up or you’ve been drinking heavily. :drinkers:

 

its been explained in simple terms sorry if you can't follow it -obvious and clear to most!

[Gordon Mockles]

 

its been explained in simple terms sorry if you can't follow it -obvious and clear to most!

 

I'll take that as a "down the pub all afternoon" then! LOL

[saintjay77]

No, I'll just stick with telling you that if you think the reason Pearson was elbowed out was becuase of his wages, then you are very, very wrong.

 

I have no idea what the actual reasons for it were but the financial reasons were probably the ones used to make it look like it wasnt lowe throwing his toys out of the pram.

 

But if Lowe (and the bank) want the club to go down the route of using the kids as opposed to expensive experienced players then Lowe needs a manager that is prepared to follow this system. the chance was there to blood more of them a few years ago when we had much better experience to help them along and it was mnot taken fully due to the manager at the time not believing in it.

 

Pearson IMO is the type of manager that believes in older work horse type players rather than nifty skillful kids so there looks to be a clash of interests before anyone gets going.

 

It took pearson a while to get a couple of wins, how well do you think he would do with the current crop of players?

[Snowballs2]

I have no idea what the actual reasons for it were but the financial reasons were probably the ones used to make it look like it wasnt lowe throwing his toys out of the pram.

 

But if Lowe (and the bank) want the club to go down the route of using the kids as opposed to expensive experienced players then Lowe needs a manager that is prepared to follow this system. the chance was there to blood more of them a few years ago when we had much better experience to help them along and it was mnot taken fully due to the manager at the time not believing in it.

 

Pearson IMO is the type of manager that believes in older work horse type players rather than nifty skillful kids so there looks to be a clash of interests before anyone gets going.

 

It took pearson a while to get a couple of wins, how well do you think he would do with the current crop of players?

 

 

 

That is just too simplistic a view!!! The real problem is that we should NEVER have relied on youth at all, but a blend of youth and experience fom loan players...that fact is undeniable.

All our problems relate to falling income, the reason ? Lowe thought he could con the punters to pay money thinking we would field a normal team. He waited till all season tickets that could be sold, were, before announcing his total football with youth. ...Now THAT is Dishonest.

[Gordon Mockles]

Pearson IMO is the type of manager that believes in older work horse type players rather than nifty skillful kids so there looks to be a clash of interests before anyone gets going.

 

It took pearson a while to get a couple of wins, how well do you think he would do with the current crop of players?

 

Despite Pearson formely being formerly assistant coach to Stuart Pearce for the England under 21s?!

 

How can you assume what Pearson would have done without the benefit of a pre-season to judge? I doubt he'd have brought in a squad of soley kids, leaving out all the more experiencing players until they were forced to sign vastly reduced contracts (both in wages and duration of contract). I am also sure he would certainly have used the loan system more wisely than Jan (and brought in the steadying heads of experience, rather than injured kids of questionable quality).

 

If Pearson hadn't brought in Lucketti, Perry and Wright, I wonder where we'd be now?! Certainly better off than playing a defence full of inexperienced kids, having sold your best defender for a pittance and refused to bring in full backs at the necessary time.

Edited 12 November, 2008 by Gordon Mockles
typo

[saintjay77]

Despite Pearson formely being formerly assistant coach to Stuart Pearce for the England under 21s?!

 

How can you assume what Pearson would have done without the benefit of a pre-season to judge? I doubt he'd have brought in a squad of soley kids, leaving out all the more experiencing players until they were forced to sign vastly reduced contracts (both in wages and duration of contract). I am also sure he would certainly have used the loan system more wisely than Jan (and brought in the steadying heads of experience, rather than injured kids of questionable quality).

 

If Pearson hadn't brought in Lucketti, Perry and Wright, I wonder where we'd be now?! Certainly better off than playing a defence full of inexperienced kids, having sold your best defender for a pittance and refused to bring in full backs at the necessary time.

 

I was assuming based on my opinion. I think with a pre season and being able to bring in the players he wanted then he would do very well for us. I would have been happy for him to be given a chance at least.

 

but its obvious that some players have been shown the door due to finances as no manager in there right mind would let some of the best CCC strikers go if they had the option to keep them. Even when Stern was still here he was hardly getting a game and was forced out by a kid that has proved nothing. So I very much doubt Pearson would have been allowed to bring in anyone of note and it would all been with kids who are cheaper. some of the players we have brought in have done pretty well and others we havent seen yet.

 

full back positions is a big mistake and i dont understand the thinking behind settling with what we have. No recognised Right back and freezing out skacel cost us in points and confidence and should have been addressed by now. Saying that it wasnt addressed when Burly was here either so I am not having a dig at anyone in particular.

[Topcat]

Some say that attendances were already in decline last season.......

Looking at the last 3 home games before Sheff utd.

 

Burnley = 21,762

Bristol City = 22,890

Coventry =22,014

[Wes Tender]

 

Pearson IMO is the type of manager that believes in older work horse type players rather than nifty skillful kids so there looks to be a clash of interests before anyone gets going.

 

It took pearson a while to get a couple of wins, how well do you think he would do with the current crop of players?

 

What a load of rot! If you look at the last match they played against Yeovil, there was an 18 year old, three 20 year olds and a 22 year old in the team. Pearson does what we should be doing, which is to mix youth and experience to produce the best blend. One of the oldest of their players was a certain Matt Oakley and I for one would be happy with him in our team, also Howard, who knows better where the goal is than our strikers.

 

Pearson's team are currently top of League one and it is a distinct possibility that we might swap divisions with them this season.

Edited 12 November, 2008 by Wes Tender
3 twenty year olds played thei last match

[Morph]

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=102095#post102095

 

post 323

 

What I should said was I didn't see them in Leon's box.

 

That is not to say they were not there of course.

 

I suspect Trousers is now up to speed on this now, from his previous response to LS.

 

Regards

 

 

Morph

[saintjay77]

What a load of rot! If you look at the last match they played against Yeovil, there was an 18 year old, three 20 year olds and a 22 year old in the team. Pearson does what we should be doing, which is to mix youth and experience to produce the best blend. One of the oldest of their players was a certain Matt Oakley and I for one would be happy with him in our team, also Howard, who knows better where the goal is than our strikers.

 

Pearson's team are currently top of League one and it is a distinct possibility that we might swap divisions with them this season.

 

problem with that is Oakley is probably on more of a wedge than we would pay likwise howard. that blend of experience would be there with pearson in charge IF he was alloud to get the players he wanted in. My argument is based on the players he would want would cost more than we are willing or able to pay.

 

How much would Pearson be on compared to JP?

How much would Pearson want to spend compared to JP?

 

We could argue that the money pearson would want is justified as we sit hovering above the relegation spots but financial restrictions seem to be there more on the banks choice than ours. OK Lowe wants the youth to be used but even he must see that total youth does not win games which IMO is why we have seen Skacel return but otherwise the cheap option is always used above the perfered.

 

If the finacial side wasnt a problem then we could all come up with dream situations going from the possible to the fantasy but all else is guess work and opinions.

[SaintRichmond]

hey I can only give my opinion but if you dont think that counts thats up to you. I dont doubt that lowe had other reasons too but considering the financial mess we are in then its not beyond the relms of reality sheding pearson made sence in a cost cutting excersise also.

 

or next will you be telling me that saints are not really skint and there is a massive cash reserve at SMS that Lowe is hiding just so he can pay divedends to his supporters while he blows rasberrys at all that oppose him?

 

Ps....... your not saintrichmond in disguise are you?

 

 

NOPE ... there's only one of me, and this is he ...... Tp prove it ...

 

Lowe got rid of Pearson because :-

A) He didn't appoint him in the first place

B) Pearson can in no way be classed as a YES man

 

PS ...... Who's TOP of Div 1 at present ????

 

As regards the Finance issue ..... yes, of course it had to be addressed, but, purely on BUSINESS terms, (at which Lowe is supposed to excel) ......... who gets rid of a Company's BEST assets, ( ie, players that could have BLENDED in with the Youth strategy and stabilised us mid table) ... and leaves a Team of virtual novices to do the best they can ? .... answer .... Lowe

 

In addition, it will be shown, that we will have NOT in any way reduced our overal DEBT, with Interest on it accumalating all the time. We are at best Standing still ......... Come January, Lowe's Fire Sale of some of the promising Team will be sold off, and we will face the second half of the season with a Team EVEN WEAKER than the one we have at present

 

Finally, re the "raspberry's" .... could well be. People seem to forget that Lowe is on record as stating that he works for the PLC, NOT Saints Football Team ......... a very vital distinction

 

There ..... I hope this proves I am Saint Richmond ....... Best Regards

[Snowballs2]

How surprising it is to find that in spite of his past, Lowe appears to still have some supporters on here. Its a bit like the Austrian guy who is in denial that the holocaust actually happened. A bad and possibly tasteless comparrison I know.

Having almost killed the club off before he has returned to finish the job he started about 4 soul less years ago.

If there is justice he will not be around much longer at our club.

[St. Jason]

as a missing attendee I can assure people on here that lowe has nothing to do with falling attendances. it's purely because Saints are rubbish.

 

you can try and pin that on lowe, but the fact is we are rubbish because we can't afford anything better. regardless of whether that was lowe's fault in the first place, it remains fact, and there is no-one lining up who can do any better without major cash injections, and who is going to want to do that when they can find clubs with much better support than saints have? I think people should be resigned to the fact that we are not going to be a play-off challenging side in the championship for the foreseeable. probably not in our lifetimes.

 

so given that, either enjoy the relegation battle in an half-empty stadium, or, be sensible, and change teams. Maybe not pompey because they are on the slide, but someone like Arsenal - fantastic football, heroic performances etc. etc. saints are a waste of everyones time.

 

You are 1 fan my freind, I have 12 ex-season ticket holder mates, who will not set foot in St. Mary's whilst Lowe is there. Not 1 said they were not going because of the **** football, we all felt things had changed at the end of last season. The team, management, players & fans all seemed united, passionate, together. Then the return of Lowe saw 7 mates say straight away "I'm not renewing" quickly followed by the other 5 when Lowe closed the Itchen corner!

 

I'm not saying you are wrong or I am right, just giving my story, I now sit in St. Mary's alone :-(

[Wes Tender]

problem with that is Oakley is probably on more of a wedge than we would pay likwise howard. that blend of experience would be there with pearson in charge IF he was alloud to get the players he wanted in. My argument is based on the players he would want would cost more than we are willing or able to pay.

 

How much would Pearson be on compared to JP?

How much would Pearson want to spend compared to JP?

 

We could argue that the money pearson would want is justified as we sit hovering above the relegation spots but financial restrictions seem to be there more on the banks choice than ours. OK Lowe wants the youth to be used but even he must see that total youth does not win games which IMO is why we have seen Skacel return but otherwise the cheap option is always used above the perfered.

 

If the finacial side wasnt a problem then we could all come up with dream situations going from the possible to the fantasy but all else is guess work and opinions.

 

I responded to your statement below:-

Saintjay77. Pearson IMO is the type of manager that believes in older work horse type players rather than nifty skillful kids so there looks to be a clash of interests before anyone gets going.

 

I proved that a fair blend of Pearson's current recent teams comprised a decent number of youngsters, which disproves your contention. You've not disputed that he has a decent blend of youth in his squad, but gone off on other tangents instead. We also have some older players still at the club, like Wotton, Euell, Scacel, Killer and Thomas, so I could be mischievous and contend that JP likes to play naive inexperienced youngsters rather than the more experienced and reliable older players.

[Tamesaint]

problem with that is Oakley is probably on more of a wedge than we would pay likwise howard. that blend of experience would be there with pearson in charge IF he was alloud to get the players he wanted in. My argument is based on the players he would want would cost more than we are willing or able to pay.

 

How much would Pearson be on compared to JP?

How much would Pearson want to spend compared to JP?

 

We could argue that the money pearson would want is justified as we sit hovering above the relegation spots but financial restrictions seem to be there more on the banks choice than ours. OK Lowe wants the youth to be used but even he must see that total youth does not win games which IMO is why we have seen Skacel return but otherwise the cheap option is always used above the perfered.

 

If the finacial side wasnt a problem then we could all come up with dream situations going from the possible to the fantasy but all else is guess work and opinions.

 

 

This is one of the most crazy things about Lowe. One of the reasons that we were relegated IMHO was that we had a bloated squad of mediocre players. Rather than ditch his pay policy Lowe preferred quantity rather than quality. We ended up going down because we did not have enough quality players.

 

Fast forward to this season and Lowe is back to his old tricks. We cannot afford Stern. We cannot afford Rasiak or Saga or Andrew Davies . According to this post Oakley in League 1 is out of our price range.

 

Instead though we can afford to fill the squad with no end of loanees and "cheap" buys - most of whom are not making the team - eg Forecast, Gasmi, Pulis, Smith, Robertson, Peckhart to name a few off the top of my head.

 

If financial constraints are so tight wouldn't we be better to concentrate our resources on one or two quality players rather than the current scattergun approach?

[saintjay77]

I responded to your statement below:-

 

 

I proved that a fair blend of Pearson's current recent teams comprised a decent number of youngsters, which disproves your contention. You've not disputed that he has a decent blend of youth in his squad, but gone off on other tangents instead. We also have some older players still at the club, like Wotton, Euell, Scacel, Killer and Thomas, so I could be mischievous and contend that JP likes to play naive inexperienced youngsters rather than the more experienced and reliable older players.

 

Sorry bud I stand corrected. I was basing my assumptions on seeing him while he was with us. Admitedly he was the one who gave lallana a chance so maybe my view on him is unjust. He does seem to be more of an old fasioned manager and he got better performances out of our players in a few games than they did in a whole season so yet again I say I would have liked to have seen him get the chance.

 

I suppose i am playing devils advocate and trying to provide possible reasons as to why he is not with us. If your were a chairman/boss of a footy club and knew the banks were going to twist your arm into reducing costs all over the place do you go against them and go for the more expensive all round option or replace with cheap alternatives and hope the kids are good enough to keep you up?

[ottery st mary]

Whatever is said the Dutch duo were in place and being placed in the coaching role regardless of Pearson.....Don'T EVEN START TALKING ABOUT WAGES AS IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED THAT COST AS MUCH AS pEARSON.

 

Why will people keep on about choices....It was never going to happen with Pearson under Lowey and Wildey.....Lowey was going to Direct Football and JP and Wotte would do as required.....Pearson was eased out the door no longer needed we will make the story as we go along.....The Golden duo had already been placed.

[saintjay77]

This is one of the most crazy things about Lowe. One of the reasons that we were relegated IMHO was that we had a bloated squad of mediocre players. Rather than ditch his pay policy Lowe preferred quantity rather than quality. We ended up going down because we did not have enough quality players.

 

Fast forward to this season and Lowe is back to his old tricks. We cannot afford Stern. We cannot afford Rasiak or Saga or Andrew Davies . According to this post Oakley in League 1 is out of our price range.

 

Instead though we can afford to fill the squad with no end of loanees and "cheap" buys - most of whom are not making the team - eg Forecast, Gasmi, Pulis, Smith, Robertson, Peckhart to name a few off the top of my head.

 

If financial constraints are so tight wouldn't we be better to concentrate our resources on one or two quality players rather than the current scattergun approach?

 

this has been a problem for years but allot of it comes down to the ammount of managers we went through. they all brought people in but not many shiped players out and we ended up with an over inflated squad. most of that is down to Lowe going through managers so much but it didnt change all that much when the others stepped in for there small stints at the top.

 

its impossible for us to work out the maths but if we cant afford to keep the likes of john and rasiak yet we bring in all those loanee's and kids then the wages or bonus must be massivly different. it doesnt exactly add up to me but i cant see any other way round it.

[saintjay77]

Whatever is said the Dutch duo were in place and being placed in the coaching role regardless of Pearson.....Don'T EVEN START TALKING ABOUT WAGES AS IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED THAT COST AS MUCH AS pEARSON.

 

Why will people keep on about choices....It was never going to happen with Pearson under Lowey and Wildey.....Lowey was going to Direct Football and JP and Wotte would do as required.....Pearson was eased out the door no longer needed we will make the story as we go along.....The Golden duo had already been placed.

 

I didnt know that but it woudnt surprise me and if JP and Wotte cost as much as pearson surly thats 2 for the price of 1 so cost has at least got something to do with it?

[MOSaint.]

as a missing attendee I can assure people on here that lowe has nothing to do with falling attendances. it's purely because Saints are rubbish.

 

you can try and pin that on lowe, but the fact is we are rubbish because we can't afford anything better. regardless of whether that was lowe's fault in the first place, it remains fact, and there is no-one lining up who can do any better without major cash injections, and who is going to want to do that when they can find clubs with much better support than saints have? I think people should be resigned to the fact that we are not going to be a play-off challenging side in the championship for the foreseeable. probably not in our lifetimes.

 

so given that, either enjoy the relegation battle in an half-empty stadium, or, be sensible, and change teams. Maybe not pompey because they are on the slide, but someone like Arsenal - fantastic football, heroic performances etc. etc. saints are a waste of everyones time.

How can you say that you must be a glory hunter!! you can only support one team that's it, through thick and thin its "Saints till I die" for me I just dont support LOWE never have and never will LOWE OUT!!

but for good this time

[NickG]

You are 1 fan my freind, I have 12 ex-season ticket holder mates, who will not set foot in St. Mary's whilst Lowe is there. Not 1 said they were not going because of the **** football, we all felt things had changed at the end of last season. The team, management, players & fans all seemed united, passionate, together. Then the return of Lowe saw 7 mates say straight away "I'm not renewing" quickly followed by the other 5 when Lowe closed the Itchen corner!

 

I'm not saying you are wrong or I am right, just giving my story, I now sit in St. Mary's alone :-(

 

putting it bluntly that's up to them -but I support the same team that I did from the chocolate boxes didn't know or care who was in the board room then and whoever is there now won't stop me go. Lowe/Couch/Askham/Wilde/Allen/Salz etc do not cross my mind when I am watching the team come out to play

[NickG]

Whatever is said the Dutch duo were in place and being placed in the coaching role regardless of Pearson.....Don'T EVEN START TALKING ABOUT WAGES AS IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED THAT COST AS MUCH AS pEARSON.

Why will people keep on about choices....It was never going to happen with Pearson under Lowey and Wildey.....Lowey was going to Direct Football and JP and Wotte would do as required.....Pearson was eased out the door no longer needed we will make the story as we go along.....The Golden duo had already been placed.

 

not arguing but when was that proven?

[ottery st mary]

not arguing but when was that proven?

 

It has been proven to me and that is what counts..Time will make the final judgement.After all has been disclosed...Surely You from your position and association, could attempt to, PROVE ME WRONG...in my statement.

 

I am a Saints supporter...Please tell me you are and truly, JUST curious, how I know it is a factual statement that I have put forward...

[NickG]

sorry?

[Weston Saint]

It has been proven to me and that is what counts..Time will make the final judgement.After all has been disclosed...Surely You from your position and association, could attempt to, PROVE ME WRONG...in my statement.

 

I am a Saints supporter...Please tell me you are and truly, JUST curious, how I know it is a factual statement that I have put forward...

 

From one camp Pearson was on £360,000 a year. From another camp he was on £160,000 a year. Both camps have full access to details and have reconfirmed the figures recently (don't ask!) . Which one is correct? Only those camps know the truth. Not us supporters.

[John B]

It has been proven to me and that is what counts..Time will make the final judgement.After all has been disclosed...Surely You from your position and association, could attempt to, PROVE ME WRONG...in my statement.

 

I am a Saints supporter...Please tell me you are and truly, JUST curious, how I know it is a factual statement that I have put forward...

 

I think Nick G is saying that some of your comments may not be correct they maybe how you interpret things and may not be real facts

 

We are all Saints fans but have differing views

[John B]

From one camp Pearson was on £360,000 a year. From another camp he was on £160,000 a year. Both camps have full access to details and have reconfirmed the figures recently (don't ask!) . Which one is correct? Only those camps know the truth. Not us supporters.

 

Probably only Pearson knows the true answer I certainly dont

[NickG]

I do not know at all the facts of the relative salaries of JP and NP if that helps!

[saintjay77]

From one camp Pearson was on £360,000 a year. From another camp he was on £160,000 a year. Both camps have full access to details and have reconfirmed the figures recently (don't ask!) . Which one is correct? Only those camps know the truth. Not us supporters.

 

maybe the roling contract would have worked out to be £160,000 and the full contract he wanted was £360,000?

 

no idea so just guessing but we all know how each camp choose what facts and figures to spout off to suit there own needs so maybe both camps are correct in there own way.

[NickG]

what is the gossip (assuming no-one actually knows?) of JP's salary?