So now Lowe says we couldn't afford Pearson!!!!!!!!

[um pahars]

I note with interest that amongst all the toing and froing, Lowe made the following quote:

 

Nigel Pearson was given the opportunity to do the job but we couldn't afford the salary you were paying him.

 

Now my little birdy from inside SMS Towers had informed me Pearson was on 160,000 a year (I also hear we got 250,000 compensation from the SFA for Burley, funding him for over 18 months!!!!!).

 

Are we really supposed to believe that we couldn't afford to find 3k a week to keep on Pearson.

 

Come on Rupert we're not stupid, it was a footballing decision, one that is spectacularly backfiring, so please don't try and back track now and make dopey claims that we couldn't afford 3k a week!!!!!!

 

(Even if it was because Lowe felt 3k a week was too much, then surely that would have to be one of the most spectacular own goals he has ever socred. False economy me up!!!!).

[OldNick]

I can see your point Ump 160k is nothing but it cant only be about salary.I accept that RL probably had made his mind up before then although we dont know how he came across in the interview.

[Gemmel]

Um. Look up posts by Barcelona Saint. Lowe met with Jan way before he was even back at the club. Pearsons meeting with lowe was a farce. The job had already been given to Jan. Pearson would have been sacked even if they had had to pay up his contract.

[1976_Child]

to be honest none of us knows what NP was earning. It does, however, go down as one of the most senseless, idiotic, moronic, cretinous, feeble-minded, sh!t-for-brains decisions ever in the history of bad decisions. We ended last season on a complete high. Nigel had - against all the odds - managed to turn around a team that was heading for disaster. The players respected him, the fans were either all ready won over or mostly prepared to back him and most importantly he was deeply, deeply pasionate about the job. (which is not to say that JP isn't).

 

Now NP is doing great things at Leicester. He will bring them back up to the CCC and we will pass them on the way down.

[Hopkins]

He's said that all along to be fair. Plus Pearson made us play some horrific football last season. At least under Jan were playing some decent football at times, even if we are ****e.

[1976_Child]

He's said that all along to be fair. Plus Pearson made us play some horrific football last season. At least under Jan were playing some decent football at times, even if we are ****e.

 

I don't want to see pretty footie. well, I do, but not if we could watch ugly footie and get the odd point every now and again...

[um pahars]

I can see your point Ump 160k is nothing but it cant only be about salary.I accept that RL probably had made his mind up before then although we dont know how he came across in the interview.

 

Lowe makes no mention of other reasons other than not being able to afford Pearson.

 

To suggest we can't afford 3k for the most important person at the Club shows a serious lack of understanding and a very odd sense of priorities.

 

That said, I don't believe a word of it, as Pearson was sacked to bring in his own man. It's just because now that his own man is struggling, history is being rewritten and the suggestion is being made that we only got him in because we couldn't afford the previous incumbent.

 

It just doesn't stack up!!!!!!!

 

This and other parts fo that transcript clearly show Lowe should be nowehere near any of the decision making at our Club.

 

It's time for everyone to come together to try and sort out an alternative, because Lowe continuing is not a viable option.

[Hopkins]

to be honest none of us knows what NP was earning. It does, however, go down as one of the most senseless, idiotic, moronic, cretinous, feeble-minded, sh!t-for-brains decisions ever in the history of bad decisions. We ended last season on a complete high. Nigel had - against all the odds - managed to turn around a team that was heading for disaster. The players respected him, the fans were either all ready won over or mostly prepared to back him and most importantly he was deeply, deeply pasionate about the job. (which is not to say that JP isn't).

 

Now NP is doing great things at Leicester. He will bring them back up to the CCC and we will pass them on the way down.

 

I wouldnt say he is doing great things. He's taken a championship squad and club to the top of League One. Not a hard job really is it?

 

Lets be honest at the end of last season, we scraped survival despite having a much better squad than alot of other teams around us, and we played some god awful football. I know a couple of players, and they much prefer working and playing for Jan than Pearson.

 

Pearson and our youngsters would not have worked well together and thats something I've heard from those youngsters themselves.

[Saint Matty 76]

I don't want to see pretty footie. well, I do, but not if we could watch ugly footie and get the odd point every now and again...

 

Agreed, anyone in the right mind would take a **** performance with a 1-0 win, rather than good football and a defeat.

[offix]

1 Pearson or 2 Dutchmen.

My guess is that 2 cost more than 1!

[St Marco]

Pearson said in his radio interview that he wanted the job and thought he was going to be kept on but was never offered a contract. So Lowe needs to stop using the we couldnt afford him line to justify why he brought in a complete **** up of a manager.

[1976_Child]

I wouldnt say he is doing great things. He's taken a championship squad and club to the top of League One. Not a hard job really is it?

 

Actually it is quite unique. Most clubs that go down end up staying down for a long time.

[Hopkins]

I don't want to see pretty footie. well, I do, but not if we could watch ugly footie and get the odd point every now and again...

 

I'd much prefer to watch the pretty footy and get the odd point that were getting than watch Pearson do the exact same job while playing some shocking long ball football.

 

Do you honestly honestly think that we would be doing any better under Pearson right now? Honestly ask yourself if you were expecting to be doing anything other than struggling this season when we scraped survival last year.

[offix]

do you honestly honestly think that we would be doing any better under pearson right now?

 

yes!

[1976_Child]

Do you honestly honestly think that we would be doing any better under Pearson right now? Honestly ask yourself if you were expecting to be doing anything other than struggling this season when we scraped survival last year.

 

I don't want to answer that. I always give the incumbent manager my total support. However, what is certain is that there would have at least been continuity. And I really do believe that NP was completely committed to the job and expected nothing less than 110% every game from his players. At the very least, you have to acknowledge that the fitness level went up after he came. NP would have been a fearsome Sgt Major!

[um pahars]

Pearson said in his radio interview that he wanted the job and thought he was going to be kept on but was never offered a contract. So Lowe needs to stop using the we couldnt afford him line to justify why he brought in a complete **** up of a manager.

 

Exactly.

 

Lowe went with this Revolutionary Coaching Set Up for footballing reasons.

 

The SOS boys, Barcelona Saint and many others with good contacts were aware Pearson was a dead man walking (ask yourself why C B Fry and I kissed and made up over it!!!).

 

So to now go back and claim it was because we couldnt afford his wages is pathetic.

 

And if Lowe does want to go down that track, then he deserves to be slaughtered for failing to sanction 3k a week for someone who the majority of the fanbase were starting to unite behind.

[1976_Child]

And if Lowe does want to go down that track, then he deserves to be slaughtered for failing to sanction 3k a week for someone who the majority of the fanbase were starting to unite behind.

 

3K a week is only 200 paying adults per every-other week. Of course the club could have found the cash. Especially as JP and MW will not be working for free either.

 

Or, as has happened in other clubs, why not one of the directors stump up the cash on a loan-note basis to be repaid when the club can afford it. It would not have been impossible to keep NP. RL didn't want to have the old regime's man so he fired him. plain and simple.

[Window Cleaner]

 

Now my little birdy from inside SMS Towers had informed me Pearson was on 160,000 a year (I also hear we got 250,000 compensation from the SFA for Burley, funding him for over 18 months!!!!!).

 

 

 

().

 

 

Little birdies are notoriously inaccurate, especially when they're squawking

about management salaries.I seem to remember at the the that another little birdy was supposed to be saying that Pearson's salary took a big hike if we stayed up.Don'tcha just love those feathery grasses.

[Give it to Ron]

I'd much prefer to watch the pretty footy and get the odd point that were getting than watch Pearson do the exact same job while playing some shocking long ball football.

 

Do you honestly honestly think that we would be doing any better under Pearson right now? Honestly ask yourself if you were expecting to be doing anything other than struggling this season when we scraped survival last year.

 

Well we did not play that football in many of the games I watched last year - Bristol City and Sheff Utd were not long ball games at all.

So you would rather see 25 passes in our half and then back to the keeper rather than 4 and in the net - well it takes all sorts.

You must of hated the Strachan era with Beattie as the target man.

[um pahars]

Little birdies are notoriously inaccurate, especially when they're squawking

about management salaries.I seem to remember at the the that another little birdy was supposed to be saying that Pearson's salary took a big hike if we stayed up.Don'tcha just love those feathery grasses.

 

This little birdy just happens to be a rather wise owl.

 

If Lowe thinks this figure is wrong, then trust me, Steve Grant will get to hear about it.

 

But just to humour you Mr Window Cleaner, at what point would you have said Pearson's salary was too much

 

a) 100,000

 

b) 160,000

 

c) 200,000

 

d) 250,000

 

e) 300,000

 

f) 350,000

 

g) 400,000

 

h) 450,000+

[Toomer]

Lowe could not lie straight in bed.

[Window Cleaner]

This little birdy just happens to be a rather wise owl.

 

If Lowe thinks this figure is wrong, then trust me, Steve Grant will get to hear about it.

 

But just to humour you Mr Window Cleaner, at what point would you have said Pearson's salary was too much

 

a) 100,000

 

b) 160,000

 

c) 200,000

 

d) 250,000

 

e) 300,000

 

f) 350,000

 

g) 400,000

 

h) 450,000+

 

I'd personally be OK with 250K,I thought he was so-so but on the right lines;

But then it's not me that decides is it.If he was Ok with the drastic cost cutting that would have been fine by me.

If we'd got Pearson in the first place instead of having a the near vacuum of D+G we may have been better off .

[1976_Child]

If we'd got Pearson in the first place instead of having a the near vacuum of D+G we may have been better off .

 

That is absolutely spot on. During the caretaker period of Doorman & God we suffered badly. Had Burley not gone to the Scotland job we would have finished mid table. He left and we tanked. If a permanent replacement had been found within days of him going then it would not have come down to an 83rd minute goal on the last day of the season.

Edited 24 December, 2008 by 1976_Child

[um pahars]

I'd personally be OK with 250K,I thought he was so-so but on the right lines;

 

Sounds about right, and I might have even been tempted to accept 300,000.

 

But let's just say, Pearson was nowhere near either of those figures!!!!!!

 

But then it's not me that decides is it.If he was Ok with the drastic cost cutting that would have been fine by me.

 

I agree it's not our decision and ultimately Lowe will be judged on the success or not of this appointment.

 

But I find it rather galling that rather than talking up the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up, which has somewhat hit the buffers, he's now going back to the "we couldn't afford Pearson" excuse.

 

3k a week is what we couldnt afford!!!!! Yeah right on Rupert.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

I'd much prefer to watch the pretty footy and get the odd point that were getting than watch Pearson do the exact same job while playing some shocking long ball football.

 

Do you honestly honestly think that we would be doing any better under Pearson right now? Honestly ask yourself if you were expecting to be doing anything other than struggling this season when we scraped survival last year.

 

Without a showdow of doubt YES.

 

And besides the so called "pretty football" has disappeared and we all are getting served up now is utter crap and if you believe otherwise you must be watching a different game to the rest of us.

 

When we were playing this much publicised "pretty football" it ended up producing very little by way of decent end result.

[Window Cleaner]

That is absolutely spot on. During the caretaker period of Doorman & God we suffered badly. Had Burley not gone to the Scotland job we would have finished mid table. He left and we tanked. If a permanent replacement had been found within days of him going then it would not have come down to an 83rd minute goal on the last day of the season.

 

I was glad to see Burley go, thought he should have been sacked very soon after he came. But Gorman and Dodd?? I blame L Crouch wholly and totally for that,unless Lawrie Mac (as was stated at the time) had a hand in it.

 

Know what I reproach them most?? The gutless loss at Bristol Rovers, we were so close to a big pay out which could have turned up trumps for us.

I'm not even anti-Crouch, just can't see any rhyme or reason in that decision

or the continued employment of Burley when it was obvious that his time was long past.The "execs" didn't want to sack him,they were past caring anyway, should have been Crouch's first job though..

[Chez]

Assuming Pearson would have cost £160,000, and JP costs about £50k, then Lowe has saved over £100,000. That is not to be sniffed at when trying to trim every possible cost (not easy when players have fixed contracts) and perhaps it was enough to sway Lowes decision, but there must have been a middle ground?

 

I'd like to point out that it wasn't just a case of Pearson or the three Dutchman. If we had gone for Pearson he would have needed an assistant as well, so further savings might have been made there as well.

 

I wanted Pearson and at this point it looks a very poor decision to not give him the job. Lets hope things improve result wise and then some of us can start forgetting about Pearson.

Edited 24 December, 2008 by Chez

[Weston Saint]

My little birdy on the inside who I trust said Pearson Salary was £340,000. But my other little birdy outside but with inside knowledge which I trust said £160,000

 

So the Lowe camp say £340,000 and unaffordable.

The Crouch camp say £160,000 and affordable.

 

What a mess!!!!!!!

[um pahars]

Assuming Pearson would have cost £160,000, and JP costs about £50k, then Lowe has saved over £100,000. That is not to be sniffed at when trying to trim every possible cost (not easy when players have fixed contracts) and perhaps it was enough to sway Lowes decision, but there must have been a middle ground?

 

I'd like to point out that it wasn't just a case of Pearson or the three Dutchman. If we had gone for Pearson he would have needed an assistant as well, so further savings might have been made there as well.

 

Still, it looks a very poor decision to me.

 

There are some things you really shouldn't do on the cheap and I would have to argue the appointment of the manager, the single most important person at any club, is one of them.

 

If ever there was a classic example of a false economy, then this is one.

[1976_Child]

I was glad to see Burley go, thought he should have been sacked very soon after he came. But Gorman and Dodd?? I blame L Crouch wholly and totally for that,unless Lawrie Mac (as was stated at the time) had a hand in it.

 

Know what I reproach them most?? The gutless loss at Bristol Rovers, we were so close to a big pay out which could have turned up trumps for us.

I'm not even anti-Crouch, just can't see any rhyme or reason in that decision

or the continued employment of Burley when it was obvious that his time was long past.The "execs" didn't want to sack him,they were past caring anyway, should have been Crouch's first job though..

 

Yes, The gutless lost at Rovers was shamefull. It remains the worst performance I have witnessed Saints do in years. If we had drawn a big club in the next round - just like Man U this time - then things might have been different. I was actually sick after the Rovers game. Couldn't believe that they would allow themselves to be so completely humiliated on national TV. They obviously had so little enthusiasm for what they were doing...

[um pahars]

My little birdy on the inside who I trust said Pearson Salary was £340,000. But my other little birdy outside but with inside knowledge which I trust said £160,000

 

So the Lowe camp say £340,000 and unaffordable.

The Crouch camp say £160,000 and affordable.

 

What a mess!!!!!!!

 

I wonder what Andrew Cowen has to say on this subject;)

[Window Cleaner]

My little birdy on the inside who I trust said Pearson Salary was £340,000. But my other little birdy outside but with inside knowledge which I trust said £160,000

 

So the Lowe camp say £340,000 and unaffordable.

The Crouch camp say £160,000 and affordable.

 

What a mess!!!!!!!

 

perhaps they're both right;

 

160K pro-rata for last season and 340K kicking in this season for keeping us up.

[The Rover]

I see Sky Sports News have been running interviews with Lawrie and Richard Chorley every hour this afternoon.

 

They probably won't make any difference to the situation but at least they are getting across the message that we don't want Lowe here.

[badgerx16]

1 Pearson or 2 Dutchmen.

My guess is that 2 cost more than 1!

Aren't we now up to three dutchies ?

[um pahars]

Aren't we now up to three dutchies ?

 

Buy two, get one free.

[Big Ron fan]

Well we did not play that football in many of the games I watched last year - Bristol City and Sheff Utd were not long ball games at all.

So you would rather see 25 passes in our half and then back to the keeper rather than 4 and in the net - well it takes all sorts.

You must of hated the Strachan era with Beattie as the target man.

 

You got in ahead of me. We played some excellent football against both BC and Sheff U at the end of last season, despite being under a lot of pressure.

[krissyboy31]

In fairness (and I'm not in any way advocating that the installation of the Dutch experiment was correct, because I think it was fatally flawed), we have dispensed of Dodd Gorman and Webster, in addition to NP.

[up and away]

Lowe makes no mention of other reasons other than not being able to afford Pearson.

 

To suggest we can't afford 3k for the most important person at the Club shows a serious lack of understanding and a very odd sense of priorities.

 

That said, I don't believe a word of it, as Pearson was sacked to bring in his own man. It's just because now that his own man is struggling, history is being rewritten and the suggestion is being made that we only got him in because we couldn't afford the previous incumbent.

 

It just doesn't stack up!!!!!!!

 

This and other parts fo that transcript clearly show Lowe should be nowehere near any of the decision making at our Club.

 

It's time for everyone to come together to try and sort out an alternative, because Lowe continuing is not a viable option.

 

Again the usual ******. If Wilde and Lowe state that Pearson was more expensive it would be deceiving shareholders, something Lowe would not do. Equally as Pearson's contract was just running out, you have no idea what amount he wanted to sign a new contract:rolleyes:

 

Not only Lowe went Dutch, but equally Wilde. So there must have been something in that decision making process that led them in that direction. You stop short in proposing Crouch as our saviour, but in reality that imbecile is the only alternative. It's amazing that Crouch managed to find his voice for this AGM, whereas all those points he was so anti against previously never got a mutter. The measures that Lowe has taken is in line with the financial position we find ourselves in and requires being done, rather than implying and doing fook all because the take over fairy is whispering in his direction.

 

So basically you are saying that Jan was selected as a footballing decision which you would have wanted anyway? If Lowe has lied that is a different affair, but his record on these matters are far better than yours. Just with last time when you started leaking these ****** rumours and whispers in support of Wilde, look where that got us. You got it so wrong last time in tripping over yourself to get rid of Lowe and you think you are any position to give direction again?

 

As for the division being created, it is obvious from the AGM what direction this is coming from. As has always been the case with every boardroom event we have had in recent time, the only effective route has been for all to work together.

[saintwarwick]

1 Pearson or 2 Dutchmen.

My guess is that 2 cost more than 1!

 

Aren't we now up to three dutchies ?

 

As Krissyboy31 pointed out these dutchies are in place of Pearson, Dodd, Gorman and Webster, my guess is that 4 cost more than 3! I would have been more comfortable with Pearson in charge though.

[eelpie]

I wouldnt say he is doing great things. He's taken a championship squad and club to the top of League One. Not a hard job really is it?

 

Lets be honest at the end of last season, we scraped survival despite having a much better squad than alot of other teams around us, and we played some god awful football. I know a couple of players, and they much prefer working and playing for Jan than Pearson.

 

Pearson and our youngsters would not have worked well together and thats something I've heard from those youngsters themselves.

 

How many were saying that it would not be a hard job for Saints to jump back into the premiership? Certainly the bookies thought so.

 

It won't be easy for us to return to the CCC once demoted.

 

Your post makes no sense.

Of course they prefer working for Jan to Pearson. He gives them an easier time.

[um pahars]

If Wilde and Lowe state that Pearson was more expensive it would be deceiving shareholders, something Lowe would not do. Equally as Pearson's contract was just running out, you have no idea what amount he wanted to sign a new contract:rolleyes:

 

I wasn't sure it was so possible to get so much so wrong in so few lines (then again given your record on the 75% to delist and your 50% cokkc up on wages, I know I shouldn't be too surprised).

 

Being more expensive is not the issue, I don't know of one person who disagrees that Pearson was more expensive than Jan, the issue is whether or not we could have afforded him. Sadly lost on you though.

 

And Pearson's contract was not running out, it had over a year left on it.

 

HTH.

 

It's amazing that Crouch managed to find his voice for this AGM, whereas all those points he was so anti against previously never got a mutter.

 

I bet those AGM notes did your nut in, particularly the bits where Jones conceded that the increases last summer were down to the Executives and how they ignored Crouch's call for a Plan B!!!! LOL.

 

PS We're still awaiting your reply on the delisting thread:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[badgerx16]

Of course they prefer working for Jan to Pearson. He gives them an easier time.

Some of them would never have got picked by NP; can you imagine DMcG's big-headed attitude fitting in with NP's work ethic, yet he's the first name on Jan's team sheet.

[offix]

I wonder what Andrew Cowen has to say on this subject;)

 

Who cares, he's one of the numpties keeping Ru**rt in charge. trust him at your peril!

[eelpie]

Some of them would never have got picked by NP; can you imagine DMcG's big-headed attitude fitting in with NP's work ethic, yet he's the first name on Jan's team sheet.

 

Head. Nail. On.

[um pahars]

As Krissyboy31 pointed out these dutchies are in place of Pearson, Dodd, Gorman and Webster, my guess is that 4 cost more than 3! I would have been more comfortable with Pearson in charge though.

 

Aha, but Keith Granger is now more high profile on matchdays!!!!

 

That said, I'm sure the Dutch 3 plus Keith are on more than the previous 4 (particularly as Webster was in a wedge!!!).

 

That said, I still would have gone with Pearson (and wouldn't have been fussed with losing 2 of the other 4 anyway).

Edited 24 December, 2008 by um pahars
I added anther Dutchy, then again you never know another one might pop up soon.

[lordswoodsaints]

I wouldnt say he is doing great things. He's taken a championship squad and club to the top of League One. Not a hard job really is it?

 

Lets be honest at the end of last season, we scraped survival despite having a much better squad than alot of other teams around us, and we played some god awful football. I know a couple of players, and they much prefer working and playing for Jan than Pearson.

 

Pearson and our youngsters would not have worked well together and thats something I've heard from those youngsters themselves.

 

try telling that to leeds!

 

it is well known that i wasnt a fan of pearson but thats not to say i wouldnt have backed him if he was given the job.i didnt rate him as i know for sure that more experienced managers were either interviewed or were being considered.the players are obviously going to prefer jan as they are getting a game,something which would probably have not happened under pearson.

we will never know what would have happened if pearson was still here but it wouldnt take a lot to improve on our current situation.

[sun of spain]

With three Dutchmen now on board,I doubt if there's much in it on the wages front ?What we do know is that Pearson showed the passion that most fans appreciated,and was not afraid to drop players that weren't doing the business.

 

It's now becoming apparent that Rupert has once again made a massive mistake appointing "the Dutch dream team",but don't hold your breath expecting him to admit it !

 

Many of us aren't taken in by his "couldn't afford Pearson" routine,why doesn't he just come clean and admit he didn't want him and had made other arrangements.The fans are sick of all the spin and being economical with the truth routine,where did all the honesty disappear to at our club ?

[Scottie]

My understanding was that Pearson's was paid £160k for the time he was at the club (i.e. approximately for about 4 months work, which works out nearer to £500k a year).

 

But the £160k was made up of basic wage and a bonus for keeping us up.

[1976_Child]

But the £160k was made up of basic wage and a bonus for keeping us up.

 

well in that case he totally deserved his bonus! (Hope he shares some of it with Stern John for slotting the crucial goal in!)

[Gordon Mockles]

I'd much prefer to watch the pretty footy and get the odd point that were getting than watch Pearson do the exact same job while playing some shocking long ball football.

 

WHAT? You'd rather watch us pass around from side to side in midfield, rarely threatening the opposition or braking the back line (and not likely to with Mc Goldrick having carte blanche regardless of performance) than watch us grind out some results?! Odd.

 

22 points from 24 games, with a goal difference of minus 16 (1 goal away from being the worst GD in the league), sitting right on top of the relegation zone at Xmas is relegation form and is not acceptable in my books! Pearson had a much harder job when he arrived, so to accuse him of producing shocking football is way off the mark. He did a grand job in very trying circumstances. He certainly made better use of the loan system than our current lemmings!

 

Do you honestly honestly think that we would be doing any better under Pearson right now? Honestly ask yourself if you were expecting to be doing anything other than struggling this season when we scraped survival last year.

 

Yes, I'm absolutely positive and confident we would be doing better if Pearson had remained. You couldn't get much worse than under our current, inexperienced and foolhardy Dutch experiment.

Edited 24 December, 2008 by Gordon Mockles