What is it with the blame game?

[Wes Tender]

The first bit in bold is what gets me, It seems ok for someone else to come in and say we are in financial poo and make unpopular decisions but when Lowe says it he gets castrated? How would you feel if Salz said he was going to sell 5 of our best players in January?

 

The difference being that many hold Lowe and indeed Wilde responsible for the the mess we're in. An outsider with the reputation that Salz has would be more respected in his assessments, especially if he was part of a board of similarly respected businessmen with no past association with the club.

 

Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing Salz at the helm, but I don't expect things to change for some time yet, in the same way as I don't under Lowe's leadership. Gates will not suddenly go up 5000 overnight, that has little to do with what man is at the healm.

 

I believe that the difference with a board like that is that they would have the moral high ground that enabled them to make a rallying call to the fans to get behind the club and save it in its hour of most need. I feel that many woud respond to such a call who wouldn't if it were made by Lowe or Wilde.

 

Second bit in bold, you don't think Jan could do this ?

After all he has to take some credit for the attractive football we play. But as you have pointed out, there are areas that need addressing. We are only a couple of players short of being a very good team, until January that is.

 

I agree to a certain extent, but wonder why Jan hasn't addressed our shortcomings yet in those departments; he's had plenty of time. Pearson didn't take long to address our defensive shortcomings and we became a team hard to beat. I also worry about the quality of those players that we have brought in, many of whom seem a total waste of space. And whereas I agree that the football is often attractive, we do seem too one dimensional and incapable of a cutting edge that hurts teams.

[Wes Tender]

Wes, first of all I would endorse your view of Salz and agree with you and SlickMick that without investment he would have to adopt a similar strategy. Where I'm not clear, is when you say that he would have to adopt cost cutting but not in the same way. Without any antagonism, I would like to understand how he could adopt a cost cutting approach in a different way other than the softer skills that you allude to with regard to his demeanour. Would it be simply a case that he will still have to sell our best assets but would have the personaility to be able to deliver the news in a different way that would make some fans feel better or others feel hoodwinked who prefer Lowe's more robust approach?

 

Whereas undoubtedly people skills are important in any business, especially right now when such a great proportion of our income comes through the turnstiles, I was thinking of other things. For example, although I don't deny that there was a desperate need to make cost cuts, it wasn't necessary to have placed the emphasis on the same strategy with the same balance. OK, the major savings could be made by shipping out the highest earners or failing that, loaning them out for a hopeful future sale. But I feel strongly that we should have kept at least one of our strikers who had proven to be a goalscorer, even if his pay was rationalised against other savings. As it has turned out, there were several players brought in who do not appear to add anything to the squad and who seem to be gambles. The whole thing with JP, Wotte and playing the Dutch style of play was a massive gamble. There was no real need IMO to have jettisoned Pearson and changed the style of play and the balance of the team so dramatically. That was what I was alluding to.

 

I agree the board structure should not represent the major shareholders, in a post Lowe world, but the executive board should consist of shareholders simply because I believe it encourages them to act more diligently in the interests of the company although I prefer the term 'our club'. This is based on the premise if you own something, and spent a lot of money on it, relatively speaking, you tend to look after it . The non-execs are key and they need to be completely impartial with real business acumen, or with professional clout in their field of expertise and a personality to match. Our previous non-execs IMO have been toothless and readily ignored which is a concern when I see their role as ensuring the executive directors are acting in the best interests of the shareholders and therefore our club.

 

Agree to a certain extent. It would be imperative to have a balance between the various shareholding factions and the exec directors with the casting vote going to somebody highly respected like Salz. Any other scenario would just end up with the battle of egos that ended with the last lot of execs getting fed up with all the bickering and sidelining the shareholder directors. Perhaps Lowe could have somebody like Cowen representing the interests of their grouping, which would further remove an antagonistic element.

 

All this of course is assuming the PLC status is maintained which may actually be the crux of the matter and not about Lowe, or whoever should or should not be chairman. I don't have enough expertise in how to dissolve a PLC to comment only to say as a PLC those in charge are at least accountable to the SEC and not just to themselves and therefore it could be argued we have as fans actually more transparency and can actually buy into the club if we wish but at the moment that may not be advisable.

 

Like you, I hold little expertise on this.

 

I'm happy with the manager at the moment and can see what he is trying to build. Pearson was erudite compared with what we were use to but perhaps if we all spoke Dutch we may say the same about JP. Pearson, IMO would not have been able to adopt the strategy the board have taken as his skills appear to lie with motivating senior pros who should frankly know better.

 

I agree that older pros should know better. Pearson though did have experience with youngsters, as has been covered by others. Whether there would have been a personality clash with the board is another matter open to conjecture. Perhaps Lowe can't understand half of what JP is saying to him.

 

Apart from someone like Cotterill or even Craig Levene if he could be persuaded to risk the English game again, there are not many managers who we could afford that I would welcome over JP. We are hamstrung by our finances and whilst Lowe may have made some poor decisions (who hasn't) they were compounded beyond all recognition in the ensuing two years for which he cannot be blamed nor proverbially and habitually beaten up if he has taken it on again on our behalf (and his as a shareholder) to try and turn it around.

 

Maybe the removal of Lowe is not in the best interests of club unity and that unity may actually lie with us fans who perhaps should develop a little humility and forgive, forget and support until such time as a character like Salz throws his hat in the ring.

 

There's where our opinions differ greatly. Lowe is the reason that deep wounds continue to lay open and festering. His departure would be the single best reason that would allow those wounds to heal, the fan base to unite.

 

 

Until then I don't see any potential candidate doing anything different to Lowe that will benefit the club and admidst a worldwide economic slowdown how realistic is it going to be to expect the £100m investment that I would consider the minimum amount required to elevate this club back to pre 2003 the easy way.

 

Agreed that the current World financial climate is not exactly condusive to investment in football clubs at the moment.

 

If we make it the current way, even if it takes 5 years it will make us all puff out our chest with some pride that I doubt a modern day Chelsea or even Pompey fan has ever experienced. What was the greater achievement Gaydamak winning the FA Cup this year or us reaching the final in 2003. Personally, I prefer my success is earned and not brought and my support of the club is intrinsic to me and my core belief, love and motivation for the club and not extrinsicly motivated by boardroom personalities or stories of fairytale investment.

 

Agreed mostly.

 

 

We are doing it the hard way pretty much as Bates did and the club needs us all to unite and rally behind the team because at the moment there is no other realistic alternative.

 

When Lowe is gone, I'm right behind you all the way on this.

 

BTW - I appreciated your comment above and whilst I may have changed my approach I am still the same passionate fan. If I have changed it was due to the fact you backed me when I retalitated against the usual rabid nonsense I'm subjected to like many supporters of Lowe and in my experience do not get the support of the mods. That backing didn't go unappreciated from someone who I considered to be an arrogant enemy in an ill-conceived civil war of words. Time to agree to disagree and support and when Lowe's leadership is challenged then let the debate begin but until we are back on some kind of secure footing what is all this undignified and disunified approach actually acheiving? IMO it's more damaging than any boardroom policy in the last 5 years and like it or not it is manifesting itself on the pitch with some players looking almost scared to have a shot or a searching pass for fear of reprisal

 

Part of the problem with the youngsters has more to do with them having been thrown into the deep end before some were ready IMO. That was always going to be a problem if they had a knock to their confidence and why it is important that they have one or two experienced old hands next to them to give them the benefit of their experience and put an arm around their shoulders and a few words of encouragement. I don't believe that many fans at the actual match get on their backs though, but perhaps it is best that they don't read any of the internet forums if they have fragile egos.

 

Whereas our opinions might differ, I welcome serious adult debate, a bit of verbal jousting. Nothing at all in your current style that is antagonistic, but it's well written and argued and if anybody wishes to dismiss it with insults, then that reflects more on them than on you.

[Whitey Grandad]

Whereas our opinions might differ, I welcome serious adult debate, a bit of verbal jousting. Nothing at all in your current style that is antagonistic, but it's well written and argued and if anybody wishes to dismiss it with insults, then that reflects more on them than on you.

Well said! (or written, anyway) This should be engraved in stone at the top of every internet forum.

[ottery st mary]

How much longer does A Director of Football and his ten Dutch Coaches/Scouts need to put a team together even under the financial restraints they have far exceded in the 20 loans to date of which only about 3/4 are worthwhile team players....Posters on this forum would have accrued more points to date...

 

Then again Lowey is looking at the five year plan...Sorry I forgot.

[RinNY]

Ah. That great fount of all wisdom Eddie Izzard; right up their with the World's great philosophers. So what you have learned from your experience is that because we tried having others running the club and that wasn't entirely successful, we should never attempt to try anybody else again? Lowe will be happy to know that he has managed to grind down some former dissenters who will accept him purely on the basis that they believe that it is worthless attempting to oust him, as whoever takes his place just conceivably could be worse than him.

 

You have an interesting style of argument: you make broad, sweeping claims. When specific examples are cited against those claims, they are each dismissed as exceptions that do not invalidate your claims. So the older experienced players in our squad do not count for one reason or another, the experienced managers who have proved failures here or at other clubs each do not count for one reason or another, the foreign managers with no experience of the English game who have been successful in it do not count for one reason or another. Your sweeping generalisations, however, do count and are valid, all facts to the contrary notwithstanding. As I said: an interesting style of argument, but not a convincing one.

 

Now I see you are touting Anthony Salz as the great white hope who could take over the club in Lowe's place. Another interesting argument that founders on some basic facts, which you will doubtless dismiss in similar fashion to all other inconvenient facts. The facts are these: Anthony Salz has been touted on fan boards as the potential saviour of SFC since at least Crouch's dismissal of Hone & Dulieu a year or so ago. Over and over rumour suggested, at times very confidently, that Salz would use his influence to bring in wealthy investors and/or would take a leading position at SFC to set the ship right. And what has actually come of all that? Nothing. After all the months of rumour and speculation, Salz produced nothing (if he was ever really trying to produce investment for SFC, which I doubt) and took no position with the club. So far as I can see, there is not the faintest reason to suppose that he has any interest in doing anything for SFC whatsoever, and the same goes by the way for the likes of Gavin Davies and David Frost. If any of these supposed rich fans had an interest in doing anything for SFC, they have had years in which to do it and have not. They have, as the saying goes, voted with their feet: in staying clear of SFC, they have shown their lack of interest. Proposing Anthony Salz or his ilk is at best a red herring, at worst a delusion. Second fact: it is not rumour and debate on fan message boards that determines who will run SFC, it is votes by shareholders. Wilde has some 16 to 18% of the shares, Lowe around 6.5% if memory serves, and exceptionally loyal Lowe allies (Askham, Cowan, and so on) have beween them another 15% or more I believe. That means the Lowe/Wilde axis controls in excess of 40% of the shares and votes. Since at any general meeting of shareholders, you can count on some 10 to 30% of the shares to go unvoted, that means that Lowe/Wilde and their allies can easily win any vote held at a general meeting: this is why Crouch stepped aside for them. Two other major players can potentially have a say on the running of the club: the mortage holder on the stadium, and Barclay's Bank which finances the club's day to day operations and holds the line of credit and (importantly) overdraft. If either of those institutions were to express strong lack of faith in the Lowe/Wilde regime, that could likely lead to a change: to the contrary, both have given every sign of being satisfied with how Lowe/Wilde are runing the club. What all of that means is this: as a plain matter of fact -- not rumour, not speculation, not opinion or belief -- there will be no regime change at Saints in the immediate future, so long as the Lowe/Wilde alliance holds. You can talk all you want about Salz or other supposed alternatives, but unless you have actual evidence of a desire to take control of Saints and the real means to do so -- in the form of voting shares and/or the money to buy shares -- it's all just empty words.

 

If you want to support Saints at present and for the foreseeable future, you will be supporting a club led by Lowe & Wilde: them's the facts. You can criticise their style and decisions, but pretending that there is some genuine immediate alternative to them is laughable.

 

Those of us who don't truly care who runs the club, so long as the club is solvent and seems to be headed in the right direction, have no problem with that. Those who care more about their dislike of Lowe than about the club, do. That is their right.

 

But as for constantly expressing as facts biased opinions about the merits of Pearson, Poortvliet, foreign managers, experienced vs. inexperienced managers, or denying that our squad has experienced players when it clearly does have a nucleus of them: all of that is not rational argument but sheer prejudicial blather, I'm afraid. You don't like what you call "antagonistic language", but a spade is a spade even if one tones it down and calls it an excavational implement -- something I've never been prone to.

 

Sorry you don't like Eddie Izzard: it comes as no surprise, however, to learn that humour holds little apeal for you.

[Sundance Beast]

Some well thought out points SB. What I'm not sure I understand is the basis for the view that Pearson would not cope dealing with youngsters bearing in mind he has worked with England at many levels including the U21's where he was also caretaker manager for a while. It seems to be a convenient argument from the pro-Lowe / anti-Pearson camp that appears to lack any substance. Or is there evidence to suggest otherwise that I'm missing?

 

Greenridge, I don't dispute Pearson worked with and managed the England U21's for a while on a level playing field against other U21 sides. His time at Saints he seemed to prefer the seasoned pro to get us out of trouble as oppose to adopting the approach of mixing youth with senior professional as touted as a solution to our current problems by many on this forum.

 

IMO Pearson was released because he was unable to evidence in his short league management career an ability to use the youth more intelligently. Most of the talent JP is having to rely on was presumably available to Pearson (and Burley for that matter) but he chose to hardly play Lallana and an out of sorts Surman at left back? Its just an opinion backed by the evidence of his team selection whilst trying to get us out of trouble and actually in the process leaving our destiny outside our own control.

 

I don't particular favour managers like Warnock who appear to be in the same mould as Pearson and vice versa but even Warnock mixed youth with the old pros successfully last season, to pull Palace up the table.

[um pahars]

Juat a couple of quick points about some issues I majr issues with:

 

but the executive board should consist of shareholders simply because I believe it encourages them to act more diligently in the interests of the company although I prefer the term 'our club'. This is based on the premise if you own something, and spent a lot of money on it, relatively speaking, you tend to look after it .

 

Firstly, I really do not buy into this at all.

 

Just because you are shareholders and have a financial interest in a company (or club) does in no way mean you are therefore the best person to run such an enterprise.

 

Of course you have a vested interest and a desire for the Club to do well, but there is simply no rationale for saying that you will therefore you will be the best person to deliver this.

 

Quite simply the best CEO should be appointed to run the Club.

 

Pearson was erudite compared with what we were use to but perhaps if we all spoke Dutch we may say the same about JP. Pearson, IMO would not have been able to adopt the strategy the board have taken as his skills appear to lie with motivating senior pros who should frankly know better.

 

Pearson has great experience of working with youngsters and throughout his career has always spoken positively of the need and his desire to ue youngsters.

 

I have often put a number of quotes up here showing how much Pearson believed in the youth team players coming through the ranks.

[solentstars]

You have an interesting style of argument: you make broad, sweeping claims. When specific examples are cited against those claims, they are each dismissed as exceptions that do not invalidate your claims. So the older experienced players in our squad do not count for one reason or another, the experienced managers who have proved failures here or at other clubs each do not count for one reason or another, the foreign managers with no experience of the English game who have been successful in it do not count for one reason or another. Your sweeping generalisations, however, do count and are valid, all facts to the contrary notwithstanding. As I said: an interesting style of argument, but not a convincing one.

 

Now I see you are touting Anthony Salz as the great white hope who could take over the club in Lowe's place. Another interesting argument that founders on some basic facts, which you will doubtless dismiss in similar fashion to all other inconvenient facts. The facts are these: Anthony Salz has been touted on fan boards as the potential saviour of SFC since at least Crouch's dismissal of Hone & Dulieu a year or so ago. Over and over rumour suggested, at times very confidently, that Salz would use his influence to bring in wealthy investors and/or would take a leading position at SFC to set the ship right. And what has actually come of all that? Nothing. After all the months of rumour and speculation, Salz produced nothing (if he was ever really trying to produce investment for SFC, which I doubt) and took no position with the club. So far as I can see, there is not the faintest reason to suppose that he has any interest in doing anything for SFC whatsoever, and the same goes by the way for the likes of Gavin Davies and David Frost. If any of these supposed rich fans had an interest in doing anything for SFC, they have had years in which to do it and have not. They have, as the saying goes, voted with their feet: in staying clear of SFC, they have shown their lack of interest. Proposing Anthony Salz or his ilk is at best a red herring, at worst a delusion. Second fact: it is not rumour and debate on fan message boards that determines who will run SFC, it is votes by shareholders. Wilde has some 16 to 18% of the shares, Lowe around 6.5% if memory serves, and exceptionally loyal Lowe allies (Askham, Cowan, and so on) have beween them another 15% or more I believe. That means the Lowe/Wilde axis controls in excess of 40% of the shares and votes. Since at any general meeting of shareholders, you can count on some 10 to 30% of the shares to go unvoted, that means that Lowe/Wilde and their allies can easily win any vote held at a general meeting: this is why Crouch stepped aside for them. Two other major players can potentially have a say on the running of the club: the mortage holder on the stadium, and Barclay's Bank which finances the club's day to day operations and holds the line of credit and (importantly) overdraft. If either of those institutions were to express strong lack of faith in the Lowe/Wilde regime, that could likely lead to a change: to the contrary, both have given every sign of being satisfied with how Lowe/Wilde are runing the club. What all of that means is this: as a plain matter of fact -- not rumour, not speculation, not opinion or belief -- there will be no regime change at Saints in the immediate future, so long as the Lowe/Wilde alliance holds. You can talk all you want about Salz or other supposed alternatives, but unless you have actual evidence of a desire to take control of Saints and the real means to do so -- in the form of voting shares and/or the money to buy shares -- it's all just empty words.

 

If you want to support Saints at present and for the foreseeable future, you will be supporting a club led by Lowe & Wilde: them's the facts. You can criticise their style and decisions, but pretending that there is some genuine immediate alternative to them is laughable.

 

Those of us who don't truly care who runs the club, so long as the club is solvent and seems to be headed in the right direction, have no problem with that. Those who care more about their dislike of Lowe than about the club, do. That is their right.

 

But as for constantly expressing as facts biased opinions about the merits of Pearson, Poortvliet, foreign managers, experienced vs. inexperienced managers, or denying that our squad has experienced players when it clearly does have a nucleus of them: all of that is not rational argument but sheer prejudicial blather, I'm afraid. You don't like what you call "antagonistic language", but a spade is a spade even if one tones it down and calls it an excavational implement -- something I've never been prone to.

 

Sorry you don't like Eddie Izzard: it comes as no surprise, however, to learn that humour holds little apeal for you.

 

i think you sumed it up perfectly but i expect we are still going to get the lunatic fringe posting the same old crap on this thread and made up storys.

[trousers]

Blimey, Sundance. Whereas I don't agree with some of what you say, I must say that your posts since your return have been a lot more measured and reasonable and long may it continue.

 

Might have something to do with 'his' user id now being used by a different person.

 

HTH

[solentstars]

Juat a couple of quick points about some issues I majr issues with:

 

 

 

Firstly, I really do not buy into this at all.

 

Just because you are shareholders and have a financial interest in a company (or club) does in no way mean you are therefore the best person to run such an enterprise.

 

Of course you have a vested interest and a desire for the Club to do well, but there is simply no rationale for saying that you will therefore you will be the best person to deliver this.

 

Quite simply the best CEO should be appointed to run the Club.

 

 

 

Pearson has great experience of working with youngsters and throughout his career has always spoken positively of the need and his desire to ue youngsters.

 

I have often put a number of quotes up here showing how much Pearson believed in the youth team players coming through the ranks.

 

i would have been very happy with pearson even when he was getting stick from the posters on here for being out of his depth.

[um pahars]

His time at Saints he seemed to prefer the seasoned pro to get us out of trouble as oppose to adopting the approach of mixing youth with senior professional as touted as a solution to our current problems by many on this forum.

 

That was probably to do with the fact that he inherited a side that was falling apart and realised we were in a real battle to stay in this division.

 

I think times like that call for experience, grit and mettle (our current experience of a point a game is testament to the problems of throwing kids in at the deep end).

 

Quite frankly, that part of the season was a one off where it was a case of needs must, with the priority being surviving relegation as opposed to building for the future.

 

pearson said as much not long after he took over:

 

"A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club.

 

"It cannot be my priority at the moment, but it will get my total support in terms of fitting in with the philosphy of the Club".

 

IMO Pearson was released because he was unable to evidence in his short league management career an ability to use the youth more intelligently. Most of the talent JP is having to rely on was presumably available to Pearson (and Burley for that matter) but he chose to hardly play Lallana and an out of sorts Surman at left back? Its just an opinion backed by the evidence of his team selection whilst trying to get us out of trouble and actually in the process leaving our destiny outside our own control.

 

As has been said above he inherited a mess that needed a short term solution.

 

He probably recognised that for a 12 game run where we had to battle to stay up, it wasn't the best idea to start blooding youngsters such as Mills, Lancashire, James and giving debuts to more than the odd player.

 

That was not his long term aim though, as he also said the following not long after taking over:

 

"A lot of my background is working with youngsters. 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."

[Tamesaint]

IMO Pearson was released because he was unable to evidence in his short league management career an ability to use the youth more intelligently. Most of the talent JP is having to rely on was presumably available to Pearson (and Burley for that matter) but he chose to hardly play Lallana and an out of sorts Surman at left back? Its just an opinion backed by the evidence of his team selection whilst trying to get us out of trouble and actually in the process leaving our destiny outside our own control.

 

 

Interesting view but I do not agree. When Pearson first arrived he did play the youth. Gillett for example had been at the club for several seasons and had only made one fleeting appearance as substitue under Strachan / Sturrock / Wigley / Redknapp / Burley. The first thing that Pearson did was to put him into the squad and he played several times under Pearson. A similar story applied to the likes of McGoldrick.

 

Pearson stopped playing the youth after the defeat at Hull. Our backs were well up against the wall at that stage and he (rightly as it turned out) preferred to depend upon the experience of the likes of Lucketti, Wright and Perry. Blooding kids into the first team in August is one thing. Blooding them in the middle of a relegation battle with a handful of games left is a completely different scenario. I think Pearson's credentialsas Under 21 manager says a lot more about his ability with kids than making deductions from a relegation struggle.

 

Nice to see the change in style Sundance.

[trousers]

Nice to see the change in style Sundance.

 

Might have something to do with 'his' user id now being used by a different person.

 

HTH

[Tamesaint]

Might have something to do with 'his' user id now being used by a different person.

 

HTH

 

 

Do you reckon??

 

The best way to see if Sundance has changed will be to get Darren W to post. If it doesn't end in vitrolic abuse we will know that Sundance has turned over a new leaf!! ;-) :-)

[Fowllyd]

Might have something to do with 'his' user id now being used by a different person.

 

HTH

 

He certainly seems like a new alias now. Are you sure of your facts here T (if you'll pardon the familiarity)?

[Wes Tender]

You have an interesting style of argument: you make broad, sweeping claims. When specific examples are cited against those claims, they are each dismissed as exceptions that do not invalidate your claims. So the older experienced players in our squad do not count for one reason or another, the experienced managers who have proved failures here or at other clubs each do not count for one reason or another, the foreign managers with no experience of the English game who have been successful in it do not count for one reason or another. Your sweeping generalisations, however, do count and are valid, all facts to the contrary notwithstanding. As I said: an interesting style of argument, but not a convincing one.

I express my opinions. You have just expressed your opinion. That is what the forum is for, or didn't you realise? Unless you produce specific examples of what the hell you're talking about, then ironically you could also be accused of exactly the same thing that you accuse me of.

 

Now I see you are touting Anthony Salz as the great white hope who could take over the club in Lowe's place. Another interesting argument that founders on some basic facts, which you will doubtless dismiss in similar fashion to all other inconvenient facts. Well, I won't disappoint you then, will I?.

 

The facts are these: Anthony Salz has been touted on fan boards as the potential saviour of SFC since at least Crouch's dismissal of Hone & Dulieu a year or so ago. Over and over rumour suggested, at times very confidently, that Salz would use his influence to bring in wealthy investors and/or would take a leading position at SFC to set the ship right. And what has actually come of all that? Nothing. After all the months of rumour and speculation, Salz produced nothing (if he was ever really trying to produce investment for SFC, which I doubt) and took no position with the club. So far as I can see, there is not the faintest reason to suppose that he has any interest in doing anything for SFC whatsoever, and the same goes by the way for the likes of Gavin Davies and David Frost. If any of these supposed rich fans had an interest in doing anything for SFC, they have had years in which to do it and have not. They have, as the saying goes, voted with their feet: in staying clear of SFC, they have shown their lack of interest.

 

For someone as intelligent as you obviously are, I would have thought that you could easily have sussed out the reason if you spared a few moments thought. Why would they want to do that unless they had control of the club? To keep all the charlatans in charge?

 

And then you go on below to explain why it is difficult for them to gain control of the train set....

 

Proposing Anthony Salz or his ilk is at best a red herring, at worst a delusion. Second fact: it is not rumour and debate on fan message boards that determines who will run SFC, it is votes by shareholders. Wilde has some 16 to 18% of the shares, Lowe around 6.5% if memory serves less than 6% if memory serves, but we won't quibble about his titchy little holding, and exceptionally loyal Lowe allies (Askham, Cowan, and so on) have beween them another 15% or more I believe. That means the Lowe/Wilde axis controls in excess of 40% of the shares and votes. Since at any general meeting of shareholders, you can count on some 10 to 30% of the shares to go unvoted, that means that Lowe/Wilde and their allies can easily win any vote held at a general meeting: this is why Crouch stepped aside for them. and why Lowe stepped aside when the Quisling voted the other way. Two other major players can potentially have a say on the running of the club: the mortage holder on the stadium, and Barclay's Bank which finances the club's day to day operations and holds the line of credit and (importantly) overdraft. If either of those institutions were to express strong lack of faith in the Lowe/Wilde regime, that could likely lead to a change: to the contrary, both have given every sign of being satisfied with how Lowe/Wilde are runing the club. What all of that means is this: as a plain matter of fact -- not rumour, not speculation, not opinion or belief -- there will be no regime change at Saints in the immediate future, so long as the Lowe/Wilde alliance holds. And as long as sufficient number of fans pay to attend and as long as we can sell enough players to keep our head above water. I have said on numerous occasions that if there was to be the desire from the fans to get shot of Lowe, a mass boycott would have the Bank tell him to go after a very short while. So theoretically the fans do also have the power to bring about change of the board, even if it were the Bank making the decision for him. Otherwise, if numbers continued to fall at the current rate, they might still make that decision anyway, but over a longer timespan

 

You can talk all you want about Salz or other supposed alternatives, but unless you have actual evidence of a desire to take control of Saints and the real means to do so -- in the form of voting shares and/or the money to buy shares -- it's all just empty words.

 

Slickmick asked what alternatives there were to the current board and several others like you had suggested that there was no alternative. I was merely discussing some other possibilities amongst which was a board of independent directors including Salz or somebody of his ilk, but also I said that other options were a board comprising representatives of the major shareholders but not those whose egos didn't allow them to get on together. You say there is no alternative, I say there is.

 

If you want to support Saints at present and for the foreseeable future, you will be supporting a club led by Lowe & Wilde: them's the facts. You can criticise their style and decisions, but pretending that there is some genuine immediate alternative to them is laughable.

 

Well, go ahead and laugh as the club dies the death of a thousand cuts.

 

Those of us who don't truly care who runs the club, so long as the club is solvent and seems to be headed in the right direction, have no problem with that. Those who care more about their dislike of Lowe than about the club, do. That is their right.

 

I care about the club more than you, obviously, as I care about who is running it and whether they are doing a good job or not. We're only just about solvent and I think that most believe that we are NOT headed in the right direction.

 

 

But as for constantly expressing as facts biased opinions about the merits of Pearson, Poortvliet, foreign managers, experienced vs. inexperienced managers, or denying that our squad has experienced players when it clearly does have a nucleus of them: all of that is not rational argument but sheer prejudicial blather, I'm afraid. You don't like what you call "antagonistic language", but a spade is a spade even if one tones it down and calls it an excavational implement -- something I've never been prone to.

 

Repetitive. Your post was so long that you obviously forgot what you had said at the beginning.

 

Sorry you don't like Eddie Izzard: it comes as no surprise, however, to learn that humour holds little appeal for you.

 

One man's meat is another man's poisson. (sic) The fact that Izzard appeals to you says as much about you as my dislike of him says about me. Whatever that conclusion means.

[RinNY]

RinNY: You have an interesting style of argument: you make broad, sweeping claims. When specific examples are cited against those claims, they are each dismissed as exceptions that do not invalidate your claims. So the older experienced players in our squad do not count for one reason or another, the experienced managers who have proved failures here or at other clubs each do not count for one reason or another, the foreign managers with no experience of the English game who have been successful in it do not count for one reason or another. Your sweeping generalisations, however, do count and are valid, all facts to the contrary notwithstanding. As I said: an interesting style of argument, but not a convincing one.

 

Wes Tender: I express my opinions. You have just expressed your opinion. That is what the forum is for, or didn't you realise? Unless you produce specific examples of what the hell you're talking about, then ironically you could also be accused of exactly the same thing that you accuse me of.

 

 

RinNY: My point, clearly, is that I adduced examples of all of these in previous posts: experienced players in our squad (Davis, Wotton, Perry, Killer, Skacel, Euell, BWP, even Surman), experienced managers who succeed in one job but fail in another (Strachan, Hoddle, Redknapp, Burley), foreign managers with no experience in English management who nevertheless succeeded at English clubs (Wenger, Houllier, Benitez, Mourinho; one could add plenty of others: Jol, Gullit, Ranieri, Tigana). Each time you disallowed my examples as being somehow or other exceptions, and stuck to your generalisations. Since you bring up intelligence, you are clearly intelligent enough to see that such argumentation is flawed.

 

I understand your dislike of Lowe, though I think you take it too far. I do not understand your evident dislike of Poortvliet, which seems to be based on nothing more than the fact that Lowe appointed him. I do not understand your admiration for Pearson, a good man no doubt but not a man with a stellar record as manager of football clubs, including his record with us other than his last match in charge. It seems to be based on nothing more than that Lowe did not retain him. Making Lowe the litmus test for everything strikes me as absurd, and seems to deform your ability to argue sensibly.

[Sundance Beast]

Do you reckon??

 

The best way to see if Sundance has changed will be to get Darren W to post. If it doesn't end in vitrolic abuse we will know that Sundance has turned over a new leaf!! ;-) :-)

 

Very true Tamesaint. I can put up with reading some of the anti-Lowe stuff from the passionate fan, the typical man on the street, whose only avenue to vent his spleen is the fans forum. I don't like it but everyone is entitled to an opinion in a forum of fellow passionate fans be a boring place otherwise.

 

What I do despise is people like Wheeler using their position as a part time journo to peddle their own private agenda against the club and potentially move it outside the forum. That's not to mention his veiled threats and challenges to me hoping to reveil my identity or enticing me for a chat, would that be a civil meeting do you think? The way he reacts when someone doubts his stance, must get through a lot of dummies. He gives me the impression he types his posts with his boots on.

 

Would any self-respecting journalist, proud of their craft, take offence at the use of a legitamate use of vocabulary just because he has a close relative who is seriously ill with cancer? Statistically 1 in 3 of us will die from it so why was he the only one to kick up such a stink over it? Chances our some 300 of us currently have a close association with the disease. IMO it's overtly pious individuals like Wheeler that are the cancer on this forum (as I considered McMenemy to be IMO in the corridors of SMS) as they have the potential to spread their self-interested views to an audience who perhaps wouldn't ordinarily be aware of some of the unjust bile that gets put up as 'facts' and on this forum.

 

I trust that answers your question and Mr Conspiracy Theorist aka Trousers. Its not only Mr Wilde who can change tact for the common good.

[St Landrew]

Really, the only thing I miss from the last couple of seasons is Rasiak, when he couldn't stop scoring at away matches. Saganowski, when he was on fire during the run-in a season and a half ago. And Stern John's ability to find the net during last season. At the time these strikers were able to score despite abysmal service from midfielders who sometimes couldn't find their own teammates even if there were no opposition in the way. This season, it's all service and virtually no delivery. It's a great shame we can't afford both, and unfortunately, yesterday's classier strikers don't seem to be able to keep up with today's gung-ho youngsters, in any case.

[Wes Tender]

RinNY:

My point, clearly, is that I adduced examples of all of these in previous posts: experienced players in our squad (Davis, Wotton, Perry, Killer, Skacel, Euell, BWP, even Surman),

 

The points I made about this seemed to be perfectly valid to me. Yes, Davis is a regular older player, but a bit of an exception, not being an outfield player. The point I made about the others is valid IMO. How frequently have we played those other players, let alone several in the team together? Why was my response regarded as a sweeping generalisation? Enough experience in the squad, granted; but on the pitch, together? As I said, it is only comparatively recent that we have started to use Perry, Scacel and Euell.

 

experienced managers who succeed in one job but fail in another (Strachan, Hoddle, Redknapp, Burley), foreign managers with no experience in English management who nevertheless succeeded at English clubs (Wenger, Houllier, Benitez, Mourinho; one could add plenty of others: Jol, Gullit, Ranieri, Tigana). Each time you disallowed my examples as being somehow or other exceptions, and stuck to your generalisations. Since you bring up intelligence, you are clearly intelligent enough to see that such argumentation is flawed.

 

Did I disallow your examples? I thought that I had put up counter arguments. For example, I asked you to supply names of any foreign managers who have come here and succeeded in the lower divisions, or foreign managers from the lower divisions abroad who have succeeded over here. Perectly reasonable debating points, surely? Even with your extended list with further examples, you still include managers who went to the big clubs with plenty of money for them to spend on the best players. Those points are valid IMO. Where you are on much firmer ground is on the subject of the lottery on whether a manager succeeds or fails, which has so many more variables to it, such as finance available, squad inherited, support of the board or not, etc. Sometimes as you say, it is a matter of the right man at the right time in the right place. Even so, in the interests of debate, I did attempt to furnish some reasons for why I thought some managers had success or failure in their careers. If you disagree with my points or have counter examples of your own, then surely that is entirely the point of this forum. I wasn't trying to be deliberately dismissive of your views, just attempting to put some counter arguments.

 

I understand your dislike of Lowe, though I think you take it too far.

 

You could well be right.

 

I do not understand your evident dislike of Poortvliet, which seems to be based on nothing more than the fact that Lowe appointed him.

 

I don't dislike Poortvliet as a person. I think he has an engaging personality. But I do believe that he is out of his depth. There is a niggle that is the other side of the coin for me though, not that Lowe appointed Poortvliet, but that Lowe dismissed Pearson. I think that had more to do with the fact that Lowe didn't want to keep the man appointed by Crouch. I could be mistaken, but remain to be convinced on any of the arguments put forward as to why he did it.

 

I do not understand your admiration for Pearson, a good man no doubt but not a man with a stellar record as manager of football clubs, including his record with us other than his last match in charge. It seems to be based on nothing more than that Lowe did not retain him. Making Lowe the litmus test for everything strikes me as absurd, and seems to deform your ability to argue sensibly.

 

See above. I admit having my doubts about Pearson when he was first appointed and expressed those doubts at the time. I agree that his record before comnig here wasn't stellar, but he won over my respect and admiration with the way that he went about things and his record with us was better than Poortvliet's over the same period of time. If you believe that my admiration for Pearson has more to do with Lowe dismissing him, then please give me some convincing reasons why Pearson had to be replaced by Poortvliet as the other side of the coin. As I say, I've heard most of the excuses and don't find them convincing. Perhaps you can put a different slant on it.

 

I apologise if it appears that I am dismissive of your comments or use broad sweeping generalisations. I am just trying to debate these things sensibly and intelligently; perhaps as you say, it is just my style that niggles some.

[slickmick]

 

I understand your dislike of Lowe, though I think you take it too far. I do not understand your evident dislike of Poortvliet, which seems to be based on nothing more than the fact that Lowe appointed him. I do not understand your admiration for Pearson, a good man no doubt but not a man with a stellar record as manager of football clubs, including his record with us other than his last match in charge. It seems to be based on nothing more than that Lowe did not retain him. Making Lowe the litmus test for everything strikes me as absurd, and seems to deform your ability to argue sensibly.

 

 

Having read most of Wes Tenders posts on this subject I have to agree with you RinNY.

He seems to agree that unpopular cut backs have to be made, but somehow, someone like Salz would have adopted it in a different way. His main argument is that we should have kept one of our three strikers that are out on loan instead of bringing in Roberson and Pekart. In hindsight I would agree, but Pekart in particular sounded very promising. Wes has insinuated that the loan signing we have brought in would equal the wages of one of our loaned out strikers.

What we don't know is the figures involved on these loan dealings.

 

I would ask Wes if he would have been so critical had Salz been the one that made these decisions ?

Would he blame Salz if the 5000 missing fans didn't return overnight ?Would he blame Salz if he appointed someone like Billy Davies, and they then ended up as bad as Burley,Redknapp ?

 

We are going through radical surgery and it wont be until February time at least until we might start to see signs of recovery. Wether its Lowe in Charge or someone else, all we can do is be patient, realistic and supportive.

 

Many on here predicted that we would be in a relegation scrap or worse this season, so as I see it, we are still within a good chance of avoiding relegation and administration.

 

Get ready for this post to be dissected with red ink.

[John Smith]

Very true Tamesaint. I can put up with reading some of the anti-Lowe stuff from the passionate fan, the typical man on the street, whose only avenue to vent his spleen is the fans forum. I don't like it but everyone is entitled to an opinion in a forum of fellow passionate fans be a boring place otherwise.

 

What I do despise is people like Wheeler using their position as a part time journo to peddle their own private agenda against the club and potentially move it outside the forum. That's not to mention his veiled threats and challenges to me hoping to reveil my identity or enticing me for a chat, would that be a civil meeting do you think? The way he reacts when someone doubts his stance, must get through a lot of dummies. He gives me the impression he types his posts with his boots on.

 

Would any self-respecting journalist, proud of their craft, take offence at the use of a legitamate use of vocabulary just because he has a close relative who is seriously ill with cancer? Statistically 1 in 3 of us will die from it so why was he the only one to kick up such a stink over it? Chances our some 300 of us currently have a close association with the disease. IMO it's overtly pious individuals like Wheeler that are the cancer on this forum (as I considered McMenemy to be IMO in the corridors of SMS) as they have the potential to spread their self-interested views to an audience who perhaps wouldn't ordinarily be aware of some of the unjust bile that gets put up as 'facts' and on this forum.

 

I trust that answers your question and Mr Conspiracy Theorist aka Trousers. Its not only Mr Wilde who can change tact for the common good.

 

Hmmm, is the Sundance back? The one I used to debate with and agree that we could quite openly discuss things if we were neighbours, without digressing into verbal abuse?

 

The only thing that still gives me doubt, especially with your last comments on cancer. You attacked me for suggesting that, at the end of a well constructed post (IMO), I intimated that "my only solace is that RL will die before me". You accused me of many things, when all I was suggesting, rather than all of those killer diseases, plagues, natural disasters and war, if old age gets us both (which, IMO holds no malice), then in all equality (ie, we both pass on at the same age), RL should pass on before I do, thus giving me X amount of years without Lowe being in charge. It was totally not suggesting in anyway that I wished Lowe dead, and I have never suggested that he dies in any pain or any tragedy, especially because I don;t wish that on anyone and never would.

 

So, I understand if you were wound up that day, but similarly to you, sometimes I am gobsmacked by people's perception of a post we make. I hope you (with the return of SB) find it in you to place these comments of mine into some sort of context and maybe we could engage in debate once again?

 

JS

[Thedelldays]

someone like Salz would have adopted it in a different way. .

 

 

see..am I the only one who doesnt get this salz thing...who the hell is he...how does anyone know he would be any good?

 

im assuming here is a just nothing more than a name to these people that they like to throw around..

 

unless of course, im missing something here...

[slickmick]

see..am I the only one who doesnt get this salz thing...who the hell is he...how does anyone know he would be any good?

 

im assuming here is a just nothing more than a name to these people that they like to throw around..

 

unless of course, im missing something here...

 

The answer is, any one but......

Apparently there are hundreds out there waiting that have better credentials than Lowe.

Weve seen a few of them already in the last couple of years.

[Thedelldays]

The answer is, any one but......

Apparently there are hundreds out there waiting that have better credentials than Lowe.

Weve seen a few of them already in the last couple of years.

 

 

i thought everyone would have learned their lesson with anyone 'but' after uncle mike wilde....

 

mentioning salz is quite laughable.....might as well mention andy pandy as he is as likely to be as good

[Wes Tender]

Having read most of Wes Tenders posts on this subject I have to agree with you RinNY.

He seems to agree that unpopular cut backs have to be made, but somehow, someone like Salz would have adopted it in a different way. His main argument is that we should have kept one of our three strikers that are out on loan instead of bringing in Roberson and Pekart. In hindsight I would agree, but Pekart in particular sounded very promising. Wes has insinuated that the loan signing we have brought in would equal the wages of one of our loaned out strikers.

What we don't know is the figures involved on these loan dealings.

 

I would ask Wes if he would have been so critical had Salz been the one that made these decisions ?

Would he blame Salz if the 5000 missing fans didn't return overnight ?Would he blame Salz if he appointed someone like Billy Davies, and they then ended up as bad as Burley,Redknapp ?

 

We are going through radical surgery and it wont be until February time at least until we might start to see signs of recovery. Wether its Lowe in Charge or someone else, all we can do is be patient, realistic and supportive.

 

Many on here predicted that we would be in a relegation scrap or worse this season, so as I see it, we are still within a good chance of avoiding relegation and administration.

 

Get ready for this post to be dissected with red ink.

 

I'm not going to dissect it with red ink. I'm only going to say that I think this has run its course and we'll have to agree to differ, accepting I hope on the other side that when some say that there is no alternative to the current set-up, that there is and that when some say that there was only this one course of action that could have been taken, that again there were other options and different degrees of change available. As I said, otherwise it is akin to stating that there is no alternative to either Gordon Brown as PM, or a Labour Government as the only realistic choices to run this country.

 

Your further questions are purely a matter of conjecture, so no response can be made without that being conjecture also.

 

But the main point is that it won't be until February when we see the real picture now, as the January transfer window will have the greatest potential effect on where we go from there, depending on who we see leave for how much money and whether we ourselves are able to bring in (or back to us)somebody with the ability to score goals regularly at one end and others able to firm up the defence at the other.

 

Until then, there isn't much more that can said.

[Wes Tender]

i thought everyone would have learned their lesson with anyone 'but' after uncle mike wilde....

 

mentioning salz is quite laughable.....might as well mention andy pandy as he is as likely to be as good

 

But obviously not as good as Bill and Ben, as you get both of them as a package.

[John Smith]

i thought everyone would have learned their lesson with anyone 'but' after uncle mike wilde....

 

mentioning salz is quite laughable.....might as well mention andy pandy as he is as likely to be as good

 

Without getting drawn into this whole 'anyone but Lowe' debate, purely because I think each individual, that puts themselves forward, should be debated on their own merits, do we really need to 'learn any lessons'? I mean, the whole Wilde thing was debated at the time, as it should've been. If someone else comes forward, then we will undoubtebly debate them also.

 

The thing that gets me is that people that 'support' Lowe, ask for names that 'could' replace Lowe, when they are given, they then ask for information on how this person would do it differently than Lowe. Now, I understand the need to ask these questions, when you support the current Chairman (be that because you 'like' him or think he is the best option for now), but seriously, in asking these questions, what do you really expect as a response? Detailed manifestos and pledge's?

 

At the end of the day, let's all agree that Lowe is doing a job. Some think as well as anybody, others think badly. These are opinions based on some tangible knowledge and evidence, and this tangible evidence can be viewed in different ways.

 

The truth is, IF Lowe was never voted back in and someone else was given the charge, it is very likely that they would have done it differently to Lowe in some area's, the same in others and maybe not even have done some things that Lowe has done, I suppose, they may have done some things that Lowe hasn't considered. We all have to accept that, as I have to accept that Lowe is in charge.

 

So let's drop this, 'anyone but Lowe' debate. It's infantile and unquantifiable. IMO, a chimpanzee would do it 'differently' to Lowe, doesn't mean that's better or worse. And before anyone jumps on that and says I advocate a chimp instead of Lowe, I'm not, I'm simply using an analogy, in relation to the expression, 'if you give a 'chimp' a typewriter, eventually it will write the entire works of Shakespeare'. Now, the people that said that, aren;t saying a chimp could do a better job at writing plays than Shakespeare, and in no way suggesting the Shakespeare may have well been a chimp, just that it is possible. So, please accept that someone, somewhere, may do a better job of things than Lowe. It is also possible that they will do a worse job than Lowe. But there really isn't a debate in it, because unless someone comes forward, then all we have is Lowe.

 

Some will then say, let's get on with it, others, like me, will say, that I won't go then. But then, that's a debate, so I won't go into that, because I will be accused of being logical and talking sense, and I can;t have that now, can I?

[slickmick]

 

Until then, there isn't much more that can said.

 

 

But I'm sure you will anyway.

[Lunatic Fridge]

My god, this place is like the Marie Celeste these days and no wonder! Posters like Navyred being forced out by the continual bitterness and shrewing of the crowd.

 

Whenever we don't win a game, posters always have to find a scapegoat...be it McGoldrick, Lallana, Patterson, whomever - and most of those throwing the stones have not even been there to see the game!

 

Why all the constant threads about Lowe? He's kept a low profile and it's about the team - our hands are tied by the Banks and we should be giving all our support to the young lads who are trying to move us forward.

 

Yes, it's frustrating when we throw away 3 points like on Saturday but it's all part of the learning curve.....for those that preferred to watch last seasons overpaid, useless good for nothings......I am surprised.

 

For goodness sake, get behind the team and manager instead of constantly slagging them off - for the first time in years we have a group of players who WANT to play for Saints rather than the money.

 

 

I think you are completely mis-guided, missing the point and know f all about football.

 

I want to play for Saints, so would many fans I know. But guess what -we are not good enough and no one would pay to watch us.

 

Overpaid, useless gfn's almost got us promoted 2 seasons ago despite a clueless and illogical manager. And last season some of the same kept us in the league with a change of manager who knew the ropes

 

I am not going to SMS because at my mature age I am thoroughly ****ed off with watching so-called professional footballers missing open goals from 6 yards out and giving the oppo a goal or two in the last 2 minutes or later. Notwithstanding this the present management and coaching staff do not address the problem which has been obvious to most since day one.

 

There is ONLY ONE answer to the demise of a once great club and a loyal and good natured supporter base: The Removal of the Lowe regime (again!) and the fundamental change to the methods we employ to try and WIN games against totally ordinary if not crap opposition.

 

By doing this:

 

We will have a united club with hope for its advancement.

A united supporter base (apart from a handfull of Lowe luvvies)

A minimum of 6000 supporters returning to watch home matches.

The enjoyment of watching again a proper team.

Supporting again a proper club - not one run as Lowe Disunited rather than SFC.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by Thedelldays

see..am I the only one who doesnt get this salz thing...who the hell is he...how does anyone know he would be any good?

 

im assuming here is a just nothing more than a name to these people that they like to throw around..

 

unless of course, im missing something here...

The answer is, any one but......

Apparently there are hundreds out there waiting that have better credentials than Lowe.

Weve seen a few of them already in the last couple of years.

 

I have been wanting these actions we now see for the last two years, it does not worry who is making them, they just have to have been made. The further and further we have slipped down the financial pole, the more and more draconian the remedial measures required. Done a lot earlier and we could of afforded the utopian blend of correct senior and youth players for many years into the future.

I look at the set up that has been installed and cannot really fault what has been done considering the position we are in. The experience of Hockaday and Henderson have been used to find players along with Prost's contacts. When we come to the question of coach I can easily see that being argued either way and again wonder if Prost may have had some input? Irrespective of Pearsons + points, is coaching by continuously screaming going to get the best out of these youngsters? And the youngsters would not be playing the same system as they have been playing all their formative years. Against that you can acknowledge that Pearson would be more at home with the rigours of the CCC, but no way from last season can you say he would have been any better.

Lowe I believe is now on less than Lawries bar bill, just exactly who can you go out and get to fill all the criteria required on that sort of money? Cowen was honest enough to admit he did not have the skill sets to pull the job off, which really gives a good indication of the prospects finding a more suitable replacement. He's even managed to keep his head down and mouth shut this time, until spotted through 3 closed windows and via a reflection to set the muppets off.

 

I am glad he is here and taking the actions he is, that does not mean I would not accept some idiot with sufficient money (even far less as time goes on) in an instant.

[Wes Tender]

But I'm sure you will anyway.

 

Only if goaded.

[Village Saint]

I really can't be bothered to go through the whole post and debate every point, as I am shortly going out.

 

But having read the statement above, perhaps it illustrates your shakey grasp of the situation last season compared to this:-

 

Pearson's record excluding the Plymouth game when he was not nominally in charge, was won three, drew 6, lost three. If thta equates in your mind to losing far more games than we won, then continue to delude yourself.

 

Brilliant manipulatiion of statistics. Omit one of the games where Pearson was manager and then say they more accurate poster was wrong. Priceless!

[hughieslastminutegoal]

is coaching by continuously screaming going to get the best out of these youngsters?

 

Is that how Pearson coached?

 

Apart from seeing him kick a few water bottles on the touchline, what evidence do you have of that?

[Whitey Grandad]

Brilliant manipulatiion of statistics. Omit one of the games where Pearson was manager and then say they more accurate poster was wrong. Priceless!

On a point of order! Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the team for the first game picked by Dodd & Gorman and wasn't Pearson only appointed a few hours before kick-off?

[Wes Tender]

Brilliant manipulatiion of statistics. Omit one of the games where Pearson was manager and then say they more accurate poster was wrong. Priceless!

 

If you cared to read the thread more carefully, you would realie that there is some dispute about whether Pearson was actually in charge for the Plymouth game or not. Certainly, as far as I understand things, the team was picked for him and he had not had time to train with the players. Contrast that with JP having had the closed season to assess exactly what he had at his disposal.

 

But let's be generous to you, as you might otherwise throw a wobbly and I'll include the Plymouth game just for your benefit.

 

Then the respective records over 14 games would read:-

 

Nigel Pearson - Won 3, lost 4, drew 7, a total of 16 points

Jan Poortvliet - Won 3, lost 7, drew 4, a total of 13 points.

 

So which ever way you want to look at it, as I said perfectly correctly, Pearson had a better record than Poortvliet. Didn't he?

[Wes Tender]

Up and away:

Against that you can acknowledge that Pearson would be more at home with the rigours of the CCC, but no way from last season can you say he would have been any better.

 

Again, just look at the statistics between the two of them. They prove that Pearson's record was better than Poortvliet's. Or are you and Village Saint both totally oblivious to the truth?

[NickG]

I think you are completely mis-guided, missing the point and know f all about football.

 

I want to play for Saints, so would many fans I know. But guess what -we are not good enough and no one would pay to watch us.

 

Overpaid, useless gfn's almost got us promoted 2 seasons ago despite a clueless and illogical manager. And last season some of the same kept us in the league with a change of manager who knew the ropes

 

I am not going to SMS because at my mature age I am thoroughly ****ed off with watching so-called professional footballers missing open goals from 6 yards out and giving the oppo a goal or two in the last 2 minutes or later. Notwithstanding this the present management and coaching staff do not address the problem which has been obvious to most since day one.

 

There is ONLY ONE answer to the demise of a once great club and a loyal and good natured supporter base: The Removal of the Lowe regime (again!) and the fundamental change to the methods we employ to try and WIN games against totally ordinary if not crap opposition.

 

By doing this:

 

We will have a united club with hope for its advancement.

A united supporter base (apart from a handfull of Lowe luvvies)

A minimum of 6000 supporters returning to watch home matches.

The enjoyment of watching again a proper team.

Supporting again a proper club - not one run as Lowe Disunited rather than SFC.

 

whilst I agree with your wish for a united fan base, I believe that the change of Lowe to another business type (not exciting sugar daddy or football icon) will have no noticeable effect on gates, until/unless results improve significantly

[up and away]

Up and away:

Against that you can acknowledge that Pearson would be more at home with the rigours of the CCC, but no way from last season can you say he would have been any better.

Again, just look at the statistics between the two of them. They prove that Pearson's record was better than Poortvliet's. Or are you and Village Saint both totally oblivious to the truth?

 

Then factor in that this season you would not have had the options of Saga, John, J Wright, Licka, Idiakez, Viafara. Hammil, Lucketti, R Wright.

 

What a total muppet.

[NickG]

and Safri, and Idiakez and Vignal

 

quite a list, worth remembering when comparing Jan's performance

[Greenridge]

Then factor in that this season you would not have had the options of Saga, John, J Wright, Licka, Idiakez, Viafara. Hammil, Lucketti, R Wright.

 

What a total muppet.

 

However he joined a team in disarray and freefall at the tail end of the season whose slide needed halting and turning before any progress could be made as opposed to having a complete pre-season and a team entirely made up of players of his choosing.

[um pahars]

Again, just look at the statistics between the two of them. They prove that Pearson's record was better than Poortvliet's. Or are you and Village Saint both totally oblivious to the truth?

 

Up and Away doesn't like facts, instead he likes to quote things that are totally wrong (often by 50%:rolleyes:) and then disappears for a bit.

 

I put an analysis of points per game on another thread, but i won't put a link because he'll have a heart attack LMFAO!!!!!

[um pahars]

I have been wanting these actions we now see for the last two years,

 

Were you berating Lowe when he spent £2m on Rasiak, with a further £4m committed on wages over the 4 year deal???

 

Were you berating Lowe when he was promising to fund Burley in the summer two seasons ago (remember the warchest)???

 

You must be the only person who advocated implementing Plan B before the parachute payments ran out.

 

Even Lowe was up for giving it a push in the parachute period as he knew the only place to be was the Prem. You must be really stupid if I'm advocating Lowe's strategy over yours:smt119:smt119:smt119

Edited 11 December, 2008 by um pahars

[Wes Tender]

Then factor in that this season you would not have had the options of Saga, John, J Wright, Licka, Idiakez, Viafara. Hammil, Lucketti, R Wright.

 

What a total muppet.

 

Aren't these the very players that you and the other muppets decried as being the overpaid primadonnas that couldn't be bothered to play with their heart and soul for the club and that you were glad had gone because you preferred watching the youngsters?

 

You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind. Were they an asset or a liability?

[NickG]

apart from Hammil -all come back all is forgiven!

[trousers]

I trust that answers your question and Mr Conspiracy Theorist aka Trousers.

 

..

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

Then factor in that this season you would not have had the options of Saga, John, J Wright, Licka, Idiakez, Viafara. Hammil, Lucketti, R Wright.

 

What a total muppetAren't these the very players that you and the other muppets decried as being the overpaid primadonnas that couldn't be bothered to play with their heart and soul for the club and that you were glad had gone because you preferred watching the youngsters?

You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind. Were they an asset or a liability?

 

Don't try and make things up that do not exist. There are certain players there that I would love to retain, but the important point would be the players Jan would like to keep. If you gave him that option I am sure there would several that he would keep if free from the finanacial pressures.

 

But if you want a definitive answer, just remove Stern John from Pearsons squad and see where we finish then. And that is only one player from a whole host of others Pearson employed. Not that I do not appreciate Pearson, but you are not comparing apples with apples.

[Wes Tender]

Don't try and make things up that do not exist. There are certain players there that I would love to retain, but the important point would be the players Jan would like to keep. If you gave him that option I am sure there would several that he would keep if free from the finanacial pressures.

 

But if you want a definitive answer, just remove Stern John from Pearsons squad and see where we finish then. And that is only one player from a whole host of others Pearson employed. Not that I do not appreciate Pearson, but you are not comparing apples with apples.

 

What am I making up that didn't exist?

 

Look, stop wriggling. I was responding to the following part of a post by you.

 

Against that you can acknowledge that Pearson would be more at home with the rigours of the CCC, but no way from last season can you say he would have been any better

 

Which to my mind seems to be inviting a comparison between how Pearson did against how Poortvliet has fared this season within the same time span. If you don't want the debate, then don't make the conjecture that Pearson would not have been better than Poortvliet.

 

And how disingenous to suggest that the highest scorer of the season be removed to help your argument. You might as well suggest that Leicester's current position at the top of League 1 under Pearson might look a lot different without the 17 league goals scored by Matt Fryatt so far.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

Don't try and make things up that do not exist. There are certain players there that I would love to retain, but the important point would be the players Jan would like to keep. If you gave him that option I am sure there would several that he would keep if free from the financial pressures.

But if you want a definitive answer, just remove Stern John from Pearsons squad and see where we finish then. And that is only one player from a whole host of others Pearson employed. Not that I do not appreciate Pearson, but you are not comparing apples with apples.

What am I making up that didn't exist?

 

Look, stop wriggling. I was responding to the following part of a post by you.

 

I have never said that I wanted all of these players to go, in fact the opposite with certain players. But it does not worry a flying jump what my preferences are, it is what Jan would want that is relevant in this matter. You are manufacturing points that do not exist.

 

Originally Posted by up and away

Against that you can acknowledge that Pearson would be more at home with the rigours of the CCC, but no way from last season can you say he would have been any better

Which to my mind seems to be inviting a comparison between how Pearson did against how Poortvliet has fared this season within the same time span. If you don't want the debate, then don't make the conjecture that Pearson would not have been better than Poortvliet.

 

And how disingenous to suggest that the highest scorer of the season be removed to help your argument. You might as well suggest that Leicester's current position at the top of League 1 under Pearson might look a lot different without the 17 league goals scored by Matt Fryatt so far.

 

Again, I never said that Pearson or Poortvliet was the better, but that it was not possible to differentiate between the two, with such a vast difference in resources made available to one but not the other. And what is the point of you referencing Fryatt? Unless you are underlining the point regarding Stern John. Stern John was available regularly to Pearson but not Poortvliet, so you have a direct comparison. Take Stern John away and it's probably relegation, allow Poortvliet to use Stern John and it's more than likely we would have scored more goals and subsequently some more points. Fryatt does not even come on the radar except in your "any logic if it's against Lowe", what a total fool.

[um pahars]

"any logic if it's against Lowe", what a total fool.

 

Au contraire.

 

I am one person who has spelt out how I preferred Lowe's approach to giving it a go during the parachute period compared to your noddy approach.

 

You must have missed my post, so please refer to post 144 LOL.