If Crouch believed in Pearson....

[Frank's cousin]

Why did he not offer him a decent contract term before the season end? would have made Lowe and Wilde think twice about the change if a big payout was needed? Would Pearson still be with Saints had we been relegated and Crouch still in charge?

 

(There is again teh miscionception on another thread that Pearson was sacked....by Lowe, when he simply did not have his contract renewed....)

[Ponty]

Well, I heard a rumour at the time (and that's all it is - no substantiation at all) that Crouch wasn't planning on retaining NP for this season either, and that he had another manager lined up. I've never been able to establish the validity of that but it would make sense of what you said.

[slickmick]

Why did he not offer him a decent contract term before the season end? would have made Lowe and Wilde think twice about the change if a big payout was needed? Would Pearson still be with Saints had we been relegated and Crouch still in charge?

 

(There is again teh miscionception on another thread that Pearson was sacked....by Lowe, when he simply did not have his contract renewed....)

 

 

Good point.

[corky morris]

Maybe he realised that Saints were in a financial mess from the Wilde debacle & decided it would be prudent to not commit Saints to a long term contract that they could not afford in either the Championship or Division 1?

Allowing Pearson to earn his new contract by keeping us up. Something that JP wont do (as he has been sacked) & Wotte is very unlikely to do.

[Frank's cousin]

Maybe he realised that Saints were in a financial mess from the Wilde debacle & decided it would be prudent to not commit Saints to a long term contract that they could not afford in either the Championship or Division 1?

Allowing Pearson to earn his new contract by keeping us up. Something that JP wont do (as he has been sacked) & Wotte is very unlikely to do.

 

But its been stated many times that Pearson was not demandeing re remuneration - eg cheapper than what we currently have?

[Scummer]

Why did he not offer him a decent contract term before the season end? would have made Lowe and Wilde think twice about the change if a big payout was needed? Would Pearson still be with Saints had we been relegated and Crouch still in charge?

 

(There is again teh miscionception on another thread that Pearson was sacked....by Lowe, when he simply did not have his contract renewed....)

 

Well, for starters it wouldn't be very professional. Might even be in breach of some directors code or other if you signed up to future expenses for your company when you knew you were about to leave.

 

I'm not even sure Pearsons contract was up, I heard there was a break clause in there at the end of the season, and it's that that Lowe invoked.

[Wes Tender]

Would it be good business practice to put a relatively untried and untested manager on a long term contract right away?

 

I would have said that Pearson had shown promise by the end of his spell here, but when he first arrived it would have been silly. Did you have the foresight to imagine for one second that the Quisling would swing his shares behind the very man that he had forced out a couple of years previuosly?

 

I don't think that the premise of this thread has any legs at all, Frank.

[Lowestoft-Saint]

I think that Lowe knew well before the end of the season that he would be back in Power at SFC, and like most supporters actually thought relegation was a real possibility.

With that in mind, they set about a plan for life in league 1 and thats where the Dutch set up came into play.

Its possible the Lowe & Wilde thought that if we were going to be relegated, the Dutch set with the emphasis on youth would have coped in League 1 and given us a platform to rebuild the club.

IMO NP messed up the Lowe & Wildes plans by keeping us up on the last day, but by this time JP and Co had already been assured of their jobs.

 

NP was then surplass to requirements, as Lowe & Wilde had already committed to the Dutch set up.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Pathetic attempt to divert focus on the extremely poor performance put in (once again) by Agent Lowe and The Quisling. Fact is Agent Lowe had his disastrous plan hatching well before the last match of the season was played. Pearson did not even get a phone call from Agent Lowe...his contract was not renewed.

 

Lets stick to what has actually happened eh? And the impending 2nd relegation in 6 years (after 27 year in the top flight) that is looming large thanks to Agent Lowes failed strategies.

[WealdSaint]

From memory many of us were uncertain about NP's appointment at the time, so the short term contract Crouch arranged seems very sensible. He would have been criticised (fairly for once) if we had gone down a league with a managers contract to pay off

[Frank's cousin]

Would it be good business practice to put a relatively untried and untested manager on a long term contract right away?

 

I would have said that Pearson had shown promise by the end of his spell here, but when he first arrived it would have been silly. Did you have the foresight to imagine for one second that the Quisling would swing his shares behind the very man that he had forced out a couple of years previuosly?

 

I don't think that the premise of this thread has any legs at all, Frank.

 

Quite... I believe Crouch acted very responsibly and as I would have expected him to... but as you probably guessed, that was kind of the point. When previous regimes have appointed managers untried or otherwise, there has been a lot of critism about the so called lack of faith resulting in rolling or short trem contracts for managers... 'if you believe its right...why not back it up' etc, but more importantly, it highlights that CRouch like the rest of us had NO idea how Pearson would pan out - it would ahve been fantastic had we known he would begin to develop very rapidly into a strong figure at this level, and I do think had even Lowe known how well he is currently doing, it would haev swayed hisopinion, but no one had teh benefit of hindsight at that time...

[alpine_saint]

Why did he not offer him a decent contract term before the season end? would have made Lowe and Wilde think twice about the change if a big payout was needed? Would Pearson still be with Saints had we been relegated and Crouch still in charge?

 

(There is again teh miscionception on another thread that Pearson was sacked....by Lowe, when he simply did not have his contract renewed....)

 

More stuff from PR Central....

 

He didnt offer him a decent contract because :

 

1. He didnt know he'd be any good. So what ? If he'd still been in charge last summer, Pearson would have got a decent contract. How bizarre you criticise Crouch for this behaviour when you would have applauded its "prudence" if Lowe had done it...

 

2. He thought relegation was touch-and-go, and with his clear awarness of our developing financial crisis (you know, the one you are so certain he was c lueless about ) and did not know if we could afford his wages next season. Again, the irony here is that the the likes of you and nickh would have tossed off if Lowe had exhibited such "prudence"

 

Why cant you admit you are not on the fence at all ?

[Frank's cousin]

I think that Lowe knew well before the end of the season that he would be back in Power at SFC, and like most supporters actually thought relegation was a real possibility.

With that in mind, they set about a plan for life in league 1 and thats where the Dutch set up came into play.

Its possible the Lowe & Wilde thought that if we were going to be relegated, the Dutch set with the emphasis on youth would have coped in League 1 and given us a platform to rebuild the club.

IMO NP messed up the Lowe & Wildes plans by keeping us up on the last day, but by this time JP and Co had already been assured of their jobs.

 

NP was then surplass to requirements, as Lowe & Wilde had already committed to the Dutch set up.

 

Think thats a bit of a leap - the league 1 bit... unless it was thought that relgation would have seen those high wage earners WANT to terminate their own contracts and leave on frees etc? bit far fetched surely?

[Frank's cousin]

More stuff from PR Central....

 

He didnt offer him a decent contract because :

 

1. He didnt know he'd be any good. So what ? If he'd still been in charge last summer, Pearson would have got a decent contract. How bizarre you criticise Crouch for this behaviour when you would have applauded its "prudence" if Lowe had done it...

 

2. He thought relegation was touch-and-go, and with his clear awarness of our developing financial crisis (you know, the one you are so certain he was c lueless about ) and did not know if we could afford his wages next season. Again, the irony here is that the the likes of you and nickh would have tossed off if Lowe had exhibited such "prudence"

 

Why cant you admit you are not on the fence at all ?

 

I am not supportive of Crouch Alpine... that does not mean one is automatically a supporter of Lowe, when you finally grasp that, maybe we will spot the flying pigs?

[alpine_saint]

I am not supportive of Crouch Alpine... that does not mean one is automatically a supporter of Lowe' date=' when you finally grasp that, maybe we will spot the flying pigs?[/quote']

 

Whatever.

 

There is no point debating with you when you cannot even be honest with yourself.

 

Every, and I mean EVERY post you make on here questions the actions, intentions or integrity of whoever is pitched against Lowe at that time.

[Wade Garrett]

Why did he not offer him a decent contract term before the season end? would have made Lowe and Wilde think twice about the change if a big payout was needed? Would Pearson still be with Saints had we been relegated and Crouch still in charge?

 

(There is again teh miscionception on another thread that Pearson was sacked....by Lowe, when he simply did not have his contract renewed....)

 

Interesting way to twist facts to suit your anti-Crouch agenda.

 

Wilde and Lowe had every opportunity to retain Pearson. Don't try blaming anyone else, it's ridiculous.

[Frank's cousin]

Interesting way to twist facts to suit your anti-Crouch agenda.

 

Wilde and Lowe had every opportunity to retain Pearson. Don't try blaming anyone else, it's ridiculous.

 

Wade, have a read of the follow up and then let me know what you think

[solentstars]

Why did he not offer him a decent contract term before the season end? would have made Lowe and Wilde think twice about the change if a big payout was needed? Would Pearson still be with Saints had we been relegated and Crouch still in charge?

 

(There is again teh miscionception on another thread that Pearson was sacked....by Lowe, when he simply did not have his contract renewed....)

i wondered why pearson was not given a contract at the time and posted it on this message board ,its a pity because i think that was the boards biggest mistake this year on not keeping pearson on.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Why did he not offer him a decent contract term before the season end? would have made Lowe and Wilde think twice about the change if a big payout was needed? Would Pearson still be with Saints had we been relegated and Crouch still in charge?

 

(There is again teh miscionception on another thread that Pearson was sacked....by Lowe, when he simply did not have his contract renewed....)

 

Frank you are wrong about Pearson.

He was given an 18 month contract with both parties having a get out clause in the summer. Lowe exercised that option.

[Frank's cousin]

Whatever.

 

There is no point debating with you when you cannot even be honest with yourself.

 

Every, and I mean EVERY post you make on here questions the actions, intentions or integrity of whoever is pitched against Lowe at that time.

 

SEriously Alpine, I am honest with myself - I believe we need change and that Lowe/Wilde axis of evil doers needs to be replaced - I freely admit that sadly some of teh rationale for this is not justified, some very muuch is... I will also freely admit that I have and probably will continue to support//defend ideas and approaches that often does not get much support from the traditionalists - because I really do like the 'idea' of new approaches be it woodward (in the right role), utilizination of youth and home grown talen (in the right balnace with experience as necessary) etc... If an idea has merit IMHO, I will say so even if it comes out of the devils mouth...

 

I have not to date however, seen any evidence from Mr Crouch that he has the answers - merely the fan friendly stuff in abundance - for me he is old school multiplied by populist = little contrete substance - that is my opinion that all. If he comes out with something concrete and interesting I will listen.

 

If you see conspiracy and agenda in every post and believe this is wrong, why are you not equally critical of Duncan's blatent and addmitted propoganda on CRouch's behalf? Or is it just posts that disagree with your POV that you have a problem with?

[Greenridge]

Why did he not offer him a decent contract term before the season end? would have made Lowe and Wilde think twice about the change if a big payout was needed? Would Pearson still be with Saints had we been relegated and Crouch still in charge?

 

(There is again teh miscionception on another thread that Pearson was sacked....by Lowe, when he simply did not have his contract renewed....)

 

It would have been foolhardy to risk giving a long-term contract to an as-yet untried manager at this level - I would have thought that would be considered a very prudent and appropriate approach. I would imagine that there was some informal agreement to see how things went to the end of the season then review it from there. Hardly a stick to beat Crouch with - quite the opposite I would say but then as you have said FC you don't have any time for Crouch so the reasoning behind your posting is clear for all to see.

 

I'm not a huge fan of hiw either but I'd take him above the other two urchins but, like most, I'd rather see a clean sweep full stop.

[Frank's cousin]

Frank you are wrong about Pearson.

He was given an 18 month contract with both parties having a get out clause in the summer. Lowe exercised that option.

 

Does it no amount to the same difference? he was not 'sacked' per sae.... Duncan I will happily admit, that he deserved a chance and with the benefit of hindsight its easy to see this as another MISTAKE, but had we lost against SU that day and been relegated it would ahve perhaps been a totally different story and that's what some fail to recognise when turning this into a simple 'example' of another feck up.

[Wade Garrett]

Quite... I believe Crouch acted very responsibly and as I would have expected him to... but as you probably guessed' date=' that was kind of the point. When previous regimes have appointed managers untried or otherwise, there has been a lot of critism about the so called lack of faith resulting in rolling or short trem contracts for managers... 'if you believe its right...why not back it up' etc, but more importantly, it highlights that CRouch like the rest of us had NO idea how Pearson would pan out - it would ahve been fantastic had we known he would begin to develop very rapidly into a strong figure at this level, and I do think had even Lowe known how well he is currently doing, it would haev swayed hisopinion, but no one had teh benefit of hindsight at that time...[/quote']

 

You could have put that on the first post to avoid being 'misunderstood'.

 

As for Lowe and hindsight, he had enough information to make an informed decision on Pearson. The truth is, he had this dutch plan lined up before the end of last season. Wilde isn't blameless on this either, he was trying to stir the sh*t as soon as Pearson was appointed. 'Did you know Chris Mac was his agent?', supportive he was not. Once they took over Pearson had no chance.

 

Still, at least if the 'total football way' doesn't work out they could say that 'hindsight is a wonderful thing'.

[Frank's cousin]

It would have been foolhardy to risk giving a long-term contract to an as-yet untried manager at this level - I would have thought that would be considered a very prudent and appropriate approach. I would imagine that there was some informal agreement to see how things went to the end of the season then review it from there. Hardly a stick to beat Crouch with - quite the opposite I would say but then as you have said FC you don't have any time for Crouch so the reasoning behind your posting is clear for all to see.

 

I'm not a huge fan of hiw either but I'd take him above the other two urchins but, like most, I'd rather see a clean sweep full stop.

 

Hi

 

Have a look at the later post to as I am supportive of Crouch's decision, but was using this to illustrate a point.

[Frank's cousin]

You could have put that on the first post to avoid being 'misunderstood'.

 

As for Lowe and hindsight, he had enough information to make an informed decision on Pearson. The truth is, he had this dutch plan lined up before the end of last season. Wilde isn't blameless on this either, he was trying to stir the sh*t as soon as Pearson was appointed. 'Did you know Chris Mac was his agent?', supportive he was not. Once they took over Pearson had no chance.

 

Still, at least if the 'total football way' doesn't work out they could say that 'hindsight is a wonderful thing'.

 

Uhm.. The Whole politics of this is sad really... it shows the dangers that agents pose really - as at all clubs there are those that are in favour and those that are not welcome... its very possible that Pearson was a victim of these politics - the obvious link to CM etc... but as is also known the Dutch plan was in place before... I believe it was a mistake for Lowe and Wilde to not percieve the reaction of fans to this, and also to misread the situation. BUt from a pure footballing perspective, it would have been impossible to predict where we would be unfder each under the same circumstances... although the more I see of pearson, the more I ma inclined the believe we would be more comfortable.... hindsight is a wonderful yet annoying thing!

 

PS. The 'misunderstood' was kinda intended - a debate needs its kick off.

[SP Saint]

Does it no amount to the same difference? he was not 'sacked' per sae.... Duncan I will happily admit' date=' that he deserved a chance and with the benefit of hindsight its easy to see this as another MISTAKE, but had we lost against SU that day and been relegated it would ahve perhaps been a totally different story and that's what some fail to recognise when turning this into a simple 'example' of another feck up.[/quote']

 

No it doesn't amount to the same thing at all.

 

Crouch gave Pearson an 18 month contract, therefore this thread has been started on the false premise that Crouch did not trust Pearson beyond the end of the season and is therefore both fallacious and totally pointless.

[ART]

I believe neither Crouch, Lowe or Wilde were responsable for Pearson getting a new contract or not. It was all dictated by the BANK. They came up with the amount we could afford and whilst Crouch was still in charge no approval was forthcoming.

[krissyboy31]

Why did he not offer him a decent contract term before the season end? would have made Lowe and Wilde think twice about the change if a big payout was needed? Would Pearson still be with Saints had we been relegated and Crouch still in charge?

 

(There is again teh miscionception on another thread that Pearson was sacked....by Lowe, when he simply did not have his contract renewed....)

 

None of us know the full facts but my take is that Crouch knew he was taking a gamble on Pearson and had tasked him with the job of keeping us in the division. He could afford to pay 'X' amount (reported to be c £200,000 pro rata) until the end of the season and this would be renegotiated at the end of the season. I suspect Crouch had promised that if Pearson was successful, then the job was his long-term and for probably a similar salary.

 

Once Lowe returned it was immediately clear that he wouldn't be paying anything like £200,000 to the 'Head Coach' and the position would have to be renegotiated (even though they had saved half a season's Burley salary on top of £300,000 compensation paid by Scotland). I believe that Pearson would have worked for whatever the new salary level was (although no proof) but Lowe had already lined up the Dutch Dynamic Duo.

 

To learn that you have been removed from your managerial duties by TELETEXT and never being told face to face is despicable and unforgivable.

[Wade Garrett]

Uhm.. The Whole politics of this is sad really... it shows the dangers that agents pose really - as at all clubs there are those that are in favour and those that are not welcome... its very possible that Pearson was a victim of these politics - the obvious link to CM etc... but as is also known the Dutch plan was in place before... I believe it was a mistake for Lowe and Wilde to not percieve the reaction of fans to this' date=' and also to misread the situation. BUt from a pure footballing perspective, it would have been impossible to predict where we would be unfder each under the same circumstances... although the more I see of pearson, the more I ma inclined the believe we would be more comfortable.... hindsight is a wonderful yet annoying thing![/quote']

 

Yet again Lowe's judgement was poor.

 

Whilst not being an uber fan of Crouch, I do think he's the best of a bad bunch.

[Frank's cousin]

No it doesn't amount to the same thing at all.

 

Crouch gave Pearson an 18 month contract, therefore this thread has been started on the false premise that Crouch did not trust Pearson beyond the end of the season and is therefore both fallacious and totally pointless.

 

Why is it it pointless? the discussion ahs been interesting and actuially for once quite balanced from both sides, no one is forcing you to read it.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Does it no amount to the same difference? he was not 'sacked' per sae.... Duncan I will happily admit' date=' that he deserved a chance and with the benefit of hindsight its easy to see this as another MISTAKE, but had we lost against SU that day and been relegated it would ahve perhaps been a totally different story and that's what some fail to recognise when turning this into a simple 'example' of another feck up.[/quote']

 

Frank - of course it is not the same difference. As far as he was concerned he had another 12 months on his contract.

As for whether Pearson would have been any good for us I really do not know. I do know we were - thanks to Burley completely losing interest once money got tight - on skid row when Crouch (belatedly) arrested the decline by appointing Pearson. All the people I since spoke to at SMS (not including Crouch here, because he is biased) have told me the transformation under NP was very noticeable and they were not only talking about the playing side. He was like a breath of fresh air.

 

Lowe had already decided in March that he would come back and Wilde told us they had their eye on some foreign coaches so it doesn't matter how well or badly NP subsequently did because Lowe was never prepared to give him a chance. That is not a criticism of Lowe - presumably he thought the Dutch experiment was the only way forward. Unfortunately for him, JP and us, it looks as if he has got it wrong (again).

[Roger]

Well, I heard a rumour at the time (and that's all it is - no substantiation at all) that Crouch wasn't planning on retaining NP for this season either, and that he had another manager lined up. I've never been able to establish the validity of that but it would make sense of what you said.

 

Well your'e rumour is complete garbage. Of course crouch would have kept pearson on. He came out and told lowe to keep him on. What the hell are you on about? If crouch had given pearson a longer contract, then lowe would have come in and paid him off and the club would have lost more money. Wake up for heavens sake ponty.

[Roger]

I believe neither Crouch, Lowe or Wilde were responsable for Pearson getting a new contract or not. It was all dictated by the BANK. They came up with the amount we could afford and whilst Crouch was still in charge no approval was forthcoming.

 

Again absolute rubbish. Pearson was on 100k less than lowe paid burley. He was prepared to take a big pay cut too.

[St Paul]

I've started to see this "why didn't Crouch give Pearson a longer contract" line on a couple of forums now. So it's obviously the new Lowe PR line (shows he must be getting desperate). As someone pointed out, it was an 18 month contract with a get out after 6. Entirely sensible in the circumstances, afterall if Pearson had turned out as poor as Jan, and on a 3 year contract, Crouch would have been critised left right and centre.

[eelpie]

Why did he not offer him a decent contract term before the season end? would have made Lowe and Wilde think twice about the change if a big payout was needed? Would Pearson still be with Saints had we been relegated and Crouch still in charge?

 

(There is again teh miscionception on another thread that Pearson was sacked....by Lowe, when he simply did not have his contract renewed....)

 

We know that Pearson did not have his contract renewed. We also know that Lowe did not wish to renew it because he had his own 'revolutionary' scheme of things to set up.

 

Lowe's explanation that he could not afford Pearsdon because JP and Wotte together were

'cheaper' (if correct) has now been discredited by falling attendances and wasteful signings.

 

I agree that Crouch should have offered Pearson a longer contract, but this would not have been possible until survival was guaranteed, which was not until the last minute of the last match. Was Lowe in place soon afterwards? There was a window of opportunity of a few days. Perhaps Crouch knowing that Lowe would sack Pearson anyway wanted to save SLH the large severance fee that this would have entailed?

 

Interesting.

[slickmick]

Frank you are wrong about Pearson.

He was given an 18 month contract with both parties having a get out clause in the summer. Lowe exercised that option.

 

 

So he was offered an 18 month contract, but could have it cancelled whenever Crouch or Lowe felt like it ? That is not a contract, otherwise he would have been due compensation.

Can you explain what kind of get out clause could possibly have been written in his contract, taken into account that he kept us up ?

Doesn't add up.

Sounds to me that he was offered the job until the end of the season and would be offered another years contract if he kept us up. Then Lord **** up came back and the rest is history.

Edited 9 February, 2009 by slickmick

[jonah]

Frank - of course it is not the same difference. As far as he was concerned he had another 12 months on his contract.

 

It's interesting that the break clause was not conditional upon relegation - does that not imply to you that there was a second reason that unconditional break clause was inserted? Like not having the bank's support? I can't remember any manager having break clauses in their contract that were unconditional, quite bizarre... I would love to hear Crouch's explanation for this (I assume he's not explained how it came about?).

 

I do know we were - thanks to Burley completely losing interest once money got tight - on skid row when Crouch (belatedly) arrested the decline by appointing Pearson.

 

I think this is a rather selective view of our position at the time (although I appreciate this place is nearly as anti-Burley as it is anti-Lowe ;-)) - when Burley left at the end of January we were comfortably mid-table, unbeaten in 5 away games (see below), safely through 2 rounds of the FA Cup and scoring goals.

 

We can ignore the calamatous month with D&G in charge (thanks Leon), but with NP we struggled in all departments apart from "work rate". No wins in 7 away games including a 5-0 tonking at Hull (who we beat 4-0 at home under Burley) and 20 minutes away from relegation which was out of our hands anyway. Whilst I think NP has done a great job at Leicester in a lower league, the evidence of his time here shows nothing in terms of promise beyond the black and white fact we didn't eventually get relegated thanks to those Leicester strikers missing 3 sitters in the last 5 minutes of their final game and us finally scoring 3 goals in our final match in charge, a common occurrence under Burley yet NP had averaged less than a goal a game.

[JohnnyFartPants]

I've started to see this "why didn't Crouch give Pearson a longer contract" line on a couple of forums now. So it's obviously the new Lowe PR line (shows he must be getting desperate). As someone pointed out, it was an 18 month contract with a get out after 6. Entirely sensible in the circumstances, afterall if Pearson had turned out as poor as Jan, and on a 3 year contract, Crouch would have been critised left right and centre.

 

Obviously. Has to be doesn't it? It couldn't possibly be the truth and that Crouch has done something not in keeping with those on here that think he is the saviour, despite having dragged us down further.

[slickmick]

It's interesting that the break clause was not conditional upon relegation - does that not imply to you that there was a second reason that unconditional break clause was inserted? Like not having the bank's support? I can't remember any manager having break clauses in their contract that were unconditional, quite bizarre... I would love to hear Crouch's explanation for this (I assume he's not explained how it came about?).

 

 

 

I think this is a rather selective view of our position at the time (although I appreciate this place is nearly as anti-Burley as it is anti-Lowe ;-)) - when Burley left at the end of January we were comfortably mid-table, unbeaten in 5 away games (see below), safely through 2 rounds of the FA Cup and scoring goals.

 

We can ignore the calamatous month with D&G in charge (thanks Leon), but with NP we struggled in all departments apart from "work rate". No wins in 7 away games including a 5-0 tonking at Hull (who we beat 4-0 at home under Burley) and 20 minutes away from relegation which was out of our hands anyway. Whilst I think NP has done a great job at Leicester in a lower league, the evidence of his time here shows nothing in terms of promise beyond the black and white fact we didn't eventually get relegated thanks to those Leicester strikers missing 3 sitters in the last 5 minutes of their final game and us finally scoring 3 goals in our final match in charge, a common occurrence under Burley yet NP had averaged less than a goal a game.

 

 

You seem to keep forgetting, Leicester could have scored all three of those sitters and we would have still stayed up.

[Frank's cousin]

So he was offered an 18 month contract, but could have it cancelled whenever Crouch or Lowe felt like it ? That is not a contract, otherwise he would have been due compensation.

Can you explain what kind of get out clause could possibly have been written in his contract, taken into account that he kept us up ?

Doesn't add up.

Sounds to me that he was offered the job until the end of the season and would be offered another years contract if he kept us up. Then Lord **** up came back and the rest is history.

 

Thats what I thought t, happy to be corrected though.

 

I agree not keeping Pearson was indeed a feck up, and the Dutch thing is turning into a right mess, but it is a knife edge really - Pearson could very easily have not had enough in the tank to keep us up, and the dutch duo could have worked...

 

I agree with Duncan though on the 'change' Pearson brought with him, but at the time, i thought this was more down to the fact that we as fans seemed galvanised to try and avoid the drop... because early results were not that improved... dio we have that spirit this time around or are we resigned to the fact?

[jonah]

You seem to keep forgetting, Leicester could have scored all three of those sitters and we would have still stayed up.

 

I must be, who was it we were relying on?

[saintjay77]

Frank - of course it is not the same difference. As far as he was concerned he had another 12 months on his contract.

As for whether Pearson would have been any good for us I really do not know. I do know we were - thanks to Burley completely losing interest once money got tight - on skid row when Crouch (belatedly) arrested the decline by appointing Pearson. All the people I since spoke to at SMS (not including Crouch here, because he is biased) have told me the transformation under NP was very noticeable and they were not only talking about the playing side. He was like a breath of fresh air.

 

Lowe had already decided in March that he would come back and Wilde told us they had their eye on some foreign coaches so it doesn't matter how well or badly NP subsequently did because Lowe was never prepared to give him a chance. That is not a criticism of Lowe - presumably he thought the Dutch experiment was the only way forward. Unfortunately for him, JP and us, it looks as if he has got it wrong (again).

 

Just a random point but if the team was doing better and the fans came flooding back earlier maybe the money leaving the club due to crouch's decissions would have been compensated by ticket sales and the 2 ronnies wouldnt have had a stick to beat Crouch with?

 

IMO our club is in trouble no matter who is in charge and its about time we all stopped looking for someone to blame and looked for a solution.

[krissyboy31]

I must be, who was it we were relying on?

 

Coventry would have gone down.

[eelpie]

 

I agree with Duncan though on the 'change' Pearson brought with him, but at the time, i thought this was more down to the fact that we as fans seemed galvanised to try and avoid the drop... because early results were not that improved... dio we have that spirit this time around or are we resigned to the fact?

 

This time last season, we had Pearson who was and is a motivator who inspires team and supporters (even despite some appalling results).

This season we have Lowe, who is divisive, and his ill equipped appointees who do not inspire. Lowe has previous relegation form too. He is a loser. He has sapped the 'spirit of Southampton' out of St Mary's. That is why 86% on this forum expect us to be relegated.

 

It is clear now that Lowe's 'experiment' in replacing Pearson with two inexperienced coaches at this level will be remembered as the biggest disaster in Saints history.

[jonah]

Coventry would have gone down.

 

Ahh thank you, I had obviously tried to blank out the whole thing! I did remember seeing the Leicester highlights that night and thinking how unlucky they had been not to win.

[St Paul]

Obviously. Has to be doesn't it? It couldn't possibly be the truth and that Crouch has done something not in keeping with those on here that think he is the saviour, despite having dragged us down further.

 

Funny how there was no criticism of this contract at the time, or when Lowe exercised the get out. It's starting to attract a bit of flack as we move nearer to a Lowe inspired relegation, strange..........

[JohnnyFartPants]

Funny how there was no criticism of this contract at the time, or when Lowe exercised the get out. It's starting to attract a bit of flack as we move nearer to a Lowe inspired relegation, strange..........

 

Why is that strange? It was a non event back then and would have been a bit like arguing with yourself about the weather. All I am saying is that everyone seems to try to associate every bit of news with Lowe conspiracies. It's all very childish.

[saintjay77]

This time last season, we had Pearson who was and is a motivator who inspires team and supporters (even despite some appalling results).

This season we have Lowe, who is divisive, and his ill equipped appointees who do not inspire. Lowe has previous relegation form too. He is a loser. He has sapped the 'spirit of Southampton' out of St Mary's. That is why 86% on this forum expect us to be relegated.

 

It is clear now that Lowe's 'experiment' in replacing Pearson with two inexperienced coaches at this level will be remembered as the biggest disaster in Saints history.

 

This highlights one of the problems we have at our club.

 

It doesnt matter what Lowe does as even if he does everything right many fans still see him as the problem.

 

This time last season we had Pearson who made our squad run around allot more than we had seen for any of the matches previously. We liked that and he got out support even though the results were not any better than the rest of the season.

 

This time this season we dont have Lowe we have Wotte who has got our squad running around allot more than we have seen for any of the matches previously. We dont like this as the results are not magically better than we have ever seen before and because Wotte is Lowe's choice.

 

I dont actually see Wotte as a manager to get excited about but then neither did I get excited about Pearson. But the least some of us could do is give the same level of support/leway to either manager?

[JohnnyFartPants]

This highlights one of the problems we have at our club.

 

It doesnt matter what Lowe does as even if he does everything right many fans still see him as the problem.

 

This time last season we had Pearson who made our squad run around allot more than we had seen for any of the matches previously. We liked that and he got out support even though the results were not any better than the rest of the season.

 

This time this season we dont have Lowe we have Wotte who has got our squad running around allot more than we have seen for any of the matches previously. We dont like this as the results are not magically better than we have ever seen before and because Wotte is Lowe's choice.

 

I dont actually see Wotte as a manager to get excited about but then neither did I get excited about Pearson. But the least some of us could do is give the same level of support/leway to either manager?

 

Pretty much how I see things.

[St Marco]

Why did he not offer him a decent contract term before the season end? would have made Lowe and Wilde think twice about the change if a big payout was needed? Would Pearson still be with Saints had we been relegated and Crouch still in charge?

 

(There is again teh miscionception on another thread that Pearson was sacked....by Lowe, when he simply did not have his contract renewed....)

 

I can answer this question i think

 

When an EGM has been called i don't think people in control are allowed to make decisions like appointing a new manager etc.. I could be wrong but with other businesses if i remember right that is how it goes. Because the guy who is about to be kicked out could be spiteful and screw up the company because of being removed.

 

On the other question i know for 100% fact that Pearson was informed by Crouch that if he kept us up he would be given the job full time. I know that because when i spoke to Pearson in the summer i asked him that. Plus Crouch has since repeated it on the radio, Mary said it on the radio the other day and even Pearson himself said it on the radio during his farewell interview. So i think we can say it is fact that if the old regime remained he would of stayed. Didn't Mary even say the other day she still keeps in contact with him?