If Crouch believed in Pearson....

[krissyboy31]

Anyway whilst we're on the subject of Pearson here's a juicy one.

Some are saying that Southgate will be sacked soon and that Pearson will replace him. Wonder how they'd feel about that a Leicester.

 

I don't see what relevance that has got. Are you saying that Lowe is vindicated because Pearson would only have left us in the lurch and gone to Boro? Well if only one of our two managers had been good enough to get interest from a Premiership club, then I, for one, would be delighted because we wouldn't be second bloody bottom, would we?

[Window Cleaner]

I don't see what relevance that has got. Are you saying that Lowe is vindicated because Pearson would only have left us in the lurch and gone to Boro? Well if only one of our two managers had been good enough to get interest from a Premiership club, then I, for one, would be delighted because we wouldn't be second bloody bottom, would we?

 

I'm not saying anything of the sort, wish I hadn't bothered.Just that he was rumoured to be in line for a bigger and presumably better job.

[um pahars]

Some are saying that Southgate will be sacked soon and that Pearson will replace him. Wonder how they'd feel about that a Leicester.

 

I reckon that like most of us, they would be upset at losing a promising young(ish) manager.

 

That's if they can afford him of course :rolleyes: End of.

[Window Cleaner]

I reckon that like most of us, they would be upset at losing a promising young(ish) manager.

 

That's if they can afford him of course :rolleyes: End of.

 

85 million in debt, perhaps not. Perhaps they'll hire Poortvliet instead.

If they can afford to pay off Southgate of course.

Edited 9 February, 2009 by Window Cleaner

[um pahars]

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....)

 

Getting back to the opening posts, I struggle to see where any blame can be directed at Crouch with regards the "Pearson" situation.

 

Firstly, given Pearson was somewhat of an unknown proposition, I see nothing wrong with inserting a get out clause if things went pear shaped, particularly given our financial issues.

 

Secondly, pretty soon into the Pearson's tenure it became apparent that both Lowe and Wilde were not overawed with Pearson and when coupled with the fact that they were likely to be back in charge come the end of the season, then I think Crouch would have been slaughtered by some had he given Pearson a new (longer or enhanced) contract, knowing full well that Lowe and Wilde were more than likely going to give him the elbow (in fact Lowe was critical of the basic contract Crouch gave him anyway!!!!!!).

 

Come the end of the season, there was no indication that Pearson would invoke the break clause from his side (BTW, you're wrong Frank as Pearson had a 17 month contract with a bi-party break clause exerciseable by either party in June 2008), so we could have honoured the remainder of his existing contract had we wanted to.

 

We were the ones who chose not to:rolleyes::rolleyes: There was another year left on the contract that we could have utilised.

 

And as I said above, if the insinuation of this thread was that Crouch missed a trick by not tying Pearson down, then it's missed the target, as Pearson was more than happy to stay following his relative success.

 

What this thread actually does is highlight the awful decision taken by Lowe in kicking Pearson out and replacing him with the disaster that was the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up".

[Give it to Ron]

That and the 320K salary he's purported to have asked for.

 

Even if he did ask for that salary which is rubbish as he was earning 100k less than Burley - we had the Scottish FA compensation that would of offset this against.

Do you believe our opening gate would of been 14k with the Pearson feel good factor?

But no as we spoke about earlier we go for the cheap option again and look where we are......Lowe is a good businessman my arse!

[slickmick]

 

But does Lowe's feck up, justify MC and LC making mileage out of the Pearson thing, given that at the time it would have been a very risky policy as well to keep in on - would they be using it if Leicester were mid to lower table and struggling?

 

 

I doubt for one minute they would making mileage out of it had Leicester been mid to lower table. I also think they would have known it would have still been a risk keeping him on, but a risk that they considered minimal in comparison.

The point is, they were willing to take a chance on him as they had faith that he would steer us out of trouble and they quite rightly can sit and gloat at how good a manager he is turning out to be.

So, yes they are justified in their gloating, just as much as someone who might gloat about how good their catering is.

[sadoldgit]

Even if he did ask for that salary which is rubbish as he was earning 100k less than Burley - we had the Scottish FA compensation that would of offset this against.

Do you believe our opening gate would of been 14k with the Pearson feel good factor?

But no as we spoke about earlier we go for the cheap option again and look where we are......Lowe is a good businessman my arse!

 

Do we know who much the banks wanted us to save? If JP and Woote combined cost us less than Pearson and kept us afloat at that point didn't the decision make sense business-wise?

I have no idea how much sh*t we were in, but given we were desparate to get shot of the high earners I would say quite a lot...so saving money on the coaching side must have been a big factor too.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Do we know who much the banks wanted us to save? If JP and Woote combined cost us less than Pearson and kept us afloat at that point didn't the decision make sense business-wise?

I have no idea how much sh*t we were in, but given we were desparate to get shot of the high earners I would say quite a lot...so saving money on the coaching side must have been a big factor too.

 

 

Bern - I have been told by those who would know (accept it could be spin, but...)

Burley was on 250k pa which is the amount the SFA gave us in the end

(although they originally offered us zilch). Pearson was on 160k pa and the Dutch duo ie MW and JP were on a combined salary of 200k. Make of that what you will - could be bull but like I said it came from the mouth of a horse.

[Give it to Ron]

Do we know who much the banks wanted us to save? If JP and Woote combined cost us less than Pearson and kept us afloat at that point didn't the decision make sense business-wise?

I have no idea how much sh*t we were in, but given we were desparate to get shot of the high earners I would say quite a lot...so saving money on the coaching side must have been a big factor too.

 

But what about bringing in Gorre, Van Waals as well though hardly saving any money with 4 is it?

Plus now gardening leave for Hockaday (who could of been Pearsons assistant) and Webster.

[um pahars]

Do we know who much the banks wanted us to save? If JP and Woote combined cost us less than Pearson and kept us afloat at that point didn't the decision make sense business-wise?

 

Considering we were happy to spend money acquiring Schneiderlin (and others), then that would suggest we had a degree of latitude with regards spending money last summer.

 

And top priority should have been an experienced and competent manager who would hit the ground running and who could lead this Club.

 

Instead we chose another direction and the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up has taken this Club to the edge of the abyss.

 

Money was not the main motivation for the change in managerial positions, it was mainly down to Lowe belieiving the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up would prove to be more fruitful then keeping Pearson.

 

Sadly for us, he was wrong (again).

[krissyboy31]

But what about bringing in Gorre, Van Waals as well though hardly saving any money with 4 is it?

Plus now gardening leave for Hockaday (who could of been Pearsons assistant) and Webster.

 

Plus the fact that Crouch had (according to him) had his budget for the season already agreed with the bank.

[slickmick]

Bern - I have been told by those who would know (accept it could be spin, but...)

Burley was on 250k pa which is the amount the SFA gave us in the end

(although they originally offered us zilch). Pearson was on 160k pa and the Dutch duo ie MW and JP were on a combined salary of 200k. Make of that what you will - could be bull but like I said it came from the mouth of a horse.

 

 

Is this new news to you ?

[saintwarwick]

Bern - I have been told by those who would know (accept it could be spin, but...)

Burley was on 250k pa which is the amount the SFA gave us in the end

(although they originally offered us zilch). Pearson was on 160k pa and the Dutch duo ie MW and JP were on a combined salary of 200k. Make of that what you will - could be bull but like I said it came from the mouth of a horse.

 

The link posted earlier suggested that MW & JP's combined wages were less than Pearson's :confused:

[saintwarwick]

Plus the fact that Crouch had (according to him) had his budget for the season already agreed with the bank.

 

Which would of involved cost cutting along the same lines as Lowe and co.

[um pahars]

Which would of involved cost cutting along the same lines as Lowe and co.

 

And which would have had a salary mass that included Pearson's being factored in there.

[Give it to Ron]

The link posted earlier suggested that MW & JP's combined wages were less than Pearson's :confused:

 

..and what about Gorre and van Waals????

Pearson could of used Hockaday so there are extra savings there!

[Thedelldays]

..and what about Gorre and van Waals????

Pearson could of used Hockaday so there are extra savings there!

are you suggesting pearsons coaching staff for him..

 

what if he wanted other coaches brought in..?

[saintwarwick]

And which would have had a salary mass that included Pearson's being factored in there.

 

Don't disagree that he may have been factored in but at what cost? Only Barclays can answer that.

[PAULACZT]

are you suggesting pearsons coaching staff for him..

 

what if he wanted other coaches brought in..?

 

He would have brought in Steve Walsh, who he had worked with at Newcastle United ( who he has taken with him to Leicester City ),and is the brother of his agent Mickey Walsh. HTH

[Dark Munster]

Getting back to the opening posts, I struggle to see where any blame can be directed at Crouch with regards the "Pearson" situation.

 

Firstly, given Pearson was somewhat of an unknown proposition, I see nothing wrong with inserting a get out clause if things went pear shaped, particularly given our financial issues.

 

Secondly, pretty soon into the Pearson's tenure it became apparent that both Lowe and Wilde were not overawed with Pearson and when coupled with the fact that they were likely to be back in charge come the end of the season, then I think Crouch would have been slaughtered by some had he given Pearson a new (longer or enhanced) contract, knowing full well that Lowe and Wilde were more than likely going to give him the elbow (in fact Lowe was critical of the basic contract Crouch gave him anyway!!!!!!).

 

Come the end of the season, there was no indication that Pearson would invoke the break clause from his side (BTW, you're wrong Frank as Pearson had a 17 month contract with a bi-party break clause exerciseable by either party in June 2008), so we could have honoured the remainder of his existing contract had we wanted to.

 

We were the ones who chose not to:rolleyes::rolleyes: There was another year left on the contract that we could have utilised.

 

And as I said above, if the insinuation of this thread was that Crouch missed a trick by not tying Pearson down, then it's missed the target, as Pearson was more than happy to stay following his relative success.

 

What this thread actually does is highlight the awful decision taken by Lowe in kicking Pearson out and replacing him with the disaster that was the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up".

 

Great post, as usual UP. One comment though regarding "inserting a get out clause if things went pear shaped": but "pear shaped" seems to be missing in Pearson's contract. Crouch should've made the June bi-party break clause exerciseable by either party contingent upon relegation. i.e. no relegation, no June break in contract.

 

I don't see what relevance that has got. Are you saying that Lowe is vindicated because Pearson would only have left us in the lurch and gone to Boro? Well if only one of our two managers had been good enough to get interest from a Premiership club, then I, for one, would be delighted because we wouldn't be second bloody bottom, would we?

 

Spot on.

 

Choice 1: Get rid of Pearson, replace him with a couple of Dutch amateurs, get relegated; at the same time NP does a great job at Leicester, then leaves them for a Premiership team.

 

Choice 2: Keep Pearson, he then does a great job at Saints (mid table or higher), then leaves us "in the lurch" for a Premiership team.

 

Hmm, tough choice that.

[um pahars]

Don't disagree that he may have been factored in but at what cost? Only Barclays can answer that.

 

Barclays will not be involved in such day to day matters.

 

They will agree overall targets with regards costs, income, cashflows etc, but will let the management use their discretion within those parameters.

 

It was up to us to decide as to whether or not we could afford Pearson and as to whether or not he would be the right one to lead us.

 

Lowe decided he wasn't, and we are now reaping the rewards (or not) of that decision.

[alpine_saint]

This thread makes fascinating reading.

 

Point after point is being made to totally amd unquivocally destroy any argument that Lowe's decision to release Pearson made any sense whatsoever, and the ususal suspects are making ever increasing paper-thin defences for him.........

[Ponty]

This thread makes fascinating reading.

 

Point after point is being made to totally amd unquivocally destroy any argument that Lowe's decision to release Pearson made any sense whatsoever, and the ususal suspects are making ever increasing paper-thin defences for him.........

TBF, it would've made sense to let Pearson go (after staving off relegation with 20 minutes to go) IF Lowe had someone else lined up who was actually any good.

[alpine_saint]

TBF, it would've made sense to let Pearson go (after staving off relegation with 20 minutes to go) IF Lowe had someone else lined up who was actually any good.

 

Bit academic though, isnt it ?

 

We know that he went for the cheap "malleable" option, meanwhile Pearson is just about the hottest young prospect in the country. One could try to argue about hindsight making it easy to wise after the event, but then we all know Lowe has made truly shiite tight-fisted ego-driven decisions like this before...

[jonah]

Crouch should've made the June bi-party break clause exerciseable by either party contingent upon relegation. i.e. no relegation, no June break in contract.

 

Yes you would have thought that's how it would be, it does seem rather strange having a completely free break clause - that's why it wasn't really a contract at all, it's about mutuality of obligation and there was none.

 

Anyway, I wonder how this thread would have been reading if Leicester were struggling in mid-table...

 

"You can't praise Lowe for not renewing NP, it was obvious he wasn't up to it even with better players, we couldn't win in 7 attempts away from home and even JP has won 5 half way through the season... including 2 of the top 4 teams!"

 

"Lowe didn't choose to sack NP knowing he was crap, his contract just expired... read it on the website FFS"

 

"NP was crap, we knew it, Leicester knew, even that mong RL knew it."

 

"You just don't get it do you, any half-competent chairman would have forced the EGM earlier, got rid of NP and got the new man in *before* the end of the season... Lowe ****ed it up again".

 

"Well as I said when NP first arrived, he was the solution to the short-term problem but clearly not a long-term solution. Our top priority was always an experienced and competent manager who would hit the ground running and who could lead this Club so getting rid of NP was obvious but taking on JP instead was a mistake and clearly Lowe screwed this up (again) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:"

[JohnnyFartPants]

This thread makes fascinating reading.

 

Point after point is being made to totally amd unquivocally destroy any argument that Lowe's decision to release Pearson made any sense whatsoever, and the ususal suspects are making ever increasing paper-thin defences for him.........

 

I don't think that it is an obvious decision that he should have stayed or a paper thin case that he should have gone. He had a pretty poor performance ratio really and you are merely allowing your vision of accounts to be blurred based on his theatrics on the sideline and that he has done okay at Leicester. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. What was also 20/20 before this season started was his poor win rate last season. Managers have good and bad times and I dare say you would have been one of those to saying "Lowe's decision to bring in WGS on the cheap is paper thin, he has a proven record of being rubbish." Football is all about gambles but on the evidence to use on Pearson, which was all we had to go on, it was not a huge risk to get rid, therefore not paper thin in the slightest.

[jonah]

We know that he went for the cheap "malleable" option, meanwhile Pearson is just about the hottest young prospect in the country.

 

I thought that was Paul Ince? No wait, Simon Grayson? Or is it Ady Boothroyd? No, hang on, it's Simon Davey?

 

Seriously alpine, you've got to stop believing everything that Chris McMenemy tells you.

[Scummer]

you are merely allowing your vision of accounts to be blurred based on his theatrics on the sideline.

 

I don't recall any touchline theatrics, I'm not sure where this idea has come from. He wasn't a particularly animated manager.

[krissyboy31]

I don't think that it is an obvious decision that he should have stayed or a paper thin case that he should have gone. He had a pretty poor performance ratio really and you are merely allowing your vision of accounts to be blurred based on his theatrics on the sideline and that he has done okay at Leicester. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. What was also 20/20 before this season started was his poor win rate last season. Managers have good and bad times and I dare say you would have been one of those to saying "Lowe's decision to bring in WGS on the cheap is paper thin, he has a proven record of being rubbish." Football is all about gambles but on the evidence to use on Pearson, which was all we had to go on, it was not a huge risk to get rid, therefore not paper thin in the slightest.

 

Hang-on! Neither side have ever said the decision was based on results or performance. Lowe made the decision on "cost" and he wanted to set up his revolutionary continental coaching team and Crouch's side are convinced it was because he was Crouch/McMenemy's man.

 

Pearson, who's record wasn't the greatest, had done enough to suggest he could have been a decent manager for us at this level and should have been retained. Bringing in the Dutch contingent has been an absolute disaster for this football club and it was wholly predictable by all bar people close to the current Boardroom.

[Wes Tender]

Do we know who much the banks wanted us to save? If JP and Woote combined cost us less than Pearson and kept us afloat at that point didn't the decision make sense business-wise?

I have no idea how much sh*t we were in, but given we were desparate to get shot of the high earners I would say quite a lot...so saving money on the coaching side must have been a big factor too.

 

We are given to believe that the banks were happy with Crouch's plans which included the cost of Pearson. If you have any evidence to dispute that, then kindly produce it for our edification. Until then, the differential between what Pearson and the double Dutch were paid is rather irrelevant. Seemingly it now appears if Duncan is right, that Pearson was earning less than the other two jokers combined, contrary to Club spin.

 

Anybody with any intelligence would have concluded that it might have been possible to have made savings on the players costs and still have survived with a decent manager. It could reasonably be argued that to a certain extent it would work the other way around, decent players with a manager who was poorer. What was fairly predictable was the outcome of the mad experiment which combined two inexperienced managers (in this country and at this level) with a squad of players where the best of them were out on loan and replaced with a bunch of kids.

 

When attendances at St Mary's are reaching record lows, the majority on here predict relegation, you still argue the toss over whether Lowe's crazy experiment might have made good business sense had it worked? It hasn't worked, has it? So when are you going to join the majority opinion that it was a disaster as many predicted? Come on Bern, admit it.

[Frank's cousin]

Purported being the operative word, because money was not discussed with regards Pearson and Lowe.

 

 

 

And even if it was, then what price for a decent manager???

 

If the insinuation of this thread is that Crouch should have tied up Pearson to enusre we retained him, then what this thread actually does is just highlight Lowe's incompetence even further, as Pearson was more than willing to stay on.

 

UP - so what is the truth here? First you say money was not discussed and then you as 'even if it was?' - Seems like you are contradicting yourself a little?? - or making it up?

 

The insinuation in this thread was to try and question why Crouch and MC were currently gloating pubilically because its easy to use Pearson as an example given his relative success at Leicester, but had he failed, they would probably also be keeping stum... just as some would criticise Lowe for appointing a risky 'Strachan' and then claiming some greater foresight when he was successful ;-)

 

This is the crux, the fact that too often some use the SAME sitaution to support their stance, yet criticise the openent and its this inconsistency that baffles me.

Edited 10 February, 2009 by Frank's cousin

[JohnnyFartPants]

Hang-on! Neither side have ever said the decision was based on results or performance. Lowe made the decision on "cost" and he wanted to set up his revolutionary continental coaching team and Crouch's side are convinced it was because he was Crouch/McMenemy's man.

 

Pearson, who's record wasn't the greatest, had done enough to suggest he could have been a decent manager for us at this level and should have been retained. Bringing in the Dutch contingent has been an absolute disaster for this football club and it was wholly predictable by all bar people close to the current Boardroom.

 

Are you basing him having done enough to be retained on being happy at the end of the season as we stayed up rather than points actually won? I mean, if he did enough then perhaps we should have been happier under Burley or considered Dodd and Gorman too.

[JohnnyFartPants]

We are given to believe that the banks were happy with Crouch's plans which included the cost of Pearson. If you have any evidence to dispute that, then kindly produce it for our edification.

 

Surely that argument cuts both ways. Typing "given to believe" is not making what you type a fact is it?

[alpine_saint]

I thought that was Paul Ince? No wait, Simon Grayson? Or is it Ady Boothroyd? No, hang on, it's Simon Davey?

 

Seriously alpine, you've got to stop believing everything that Chris McMenemy tells you.

 

You've never seen me mention any of those names in that light, Rupert.

[Frank's cousin]

We are given to believe that the banks were happy with Crouch's plans which included the cost of Pearson. If you have any evidence to dispute that, then kindly produce it for our edification. Until then, the differential between what Pearson and the double Dutch were paid is rather irrelevant. Seemingly it now appears if Duncan is right, that Pearson was earning less than the other two jokers combined, contrary to Club spin.

 

Anybody with any intelligence would have concluded that it might have been possible to have made savings on the players costs and still have survived with a decent manager. It could reasonably be argued that to a certain extent it would work the other way around, decent players with a manager who was poorer. What was fairly predictable was the outcome of the mad experiment which combined two inexperienced managers (in this country and at this level) with a squad of players where the best of them were out on loan and replaced with a bunch of kids.

 

When attendances at St Mary's are reaching record lows, the majority on here predict relegation, you still argue the toss over whether Lowe's crazy experiment might have made good business sense had it worked? It hasn't worked, has it? So when are you going to join the majority opinion that it was a disaster as many predicted? Come on Bern, admit it.

 

I have to agree Wes, I dont think /believe (as I dont know any facts - and nor does anyone it seems by the inconsistency of what we have been told) money really ahd anything to do with it - nor do I think Lowe made this decison based on some ingrained desire to rid the club of Crouch's choice - thats just daft. I think it was Lowe's longer term desire to see a youth policy in action - his vision of Saints as a mini Ajax with Dutch systems and dutch style. He finally got the opportunity because he probably thought there was nothing to lose, and it woudl fit within the budget at this time... I think Pearson was just unfornuate to be stuck in the middle. This does not excuse Lowe's handling of it - if what has been said is TRUE, nor am I supporting his decision - as its easy to see its well and truely failing - BUt I am honest enough to admit that in THEORY at least I liked the idea before the season started and after a couple of games despite teh initial results, it still looked promising, easy to fall into the trap of forgetting that this is a tough league for naive kids when you have a couple of games of neet pasing and attractive style....

[krissyboy31]

Surely that argument cuts both ways. Typing "given to believe" is not making what you type a fact is it?

 

It is "fact" in as much as Crouch actually said it. Now, if you think he was lying, then that's your perogative but I don't believe he would lie about something as fundemental as that.

[alpine_saint]

I have to agree Wes' date=' I dont think /believe (as I dont know any facts - and nor does anyone it seems by the inconsistency of what we have been told) money really ahd anything to do with it - nor do I think Lowe made this decison based on some ingrained desire to rid the club of Crouch's choice - thats just daft. I think it was Lowe's longer term desire to see a youth policy in action - his vision of Saints as a mini Ajax with Dutch systems and dutch style. He finally got the opportunity because he probably thought there was nothing to lose, and it woudl fit within the budget at this time... I think Pearson was just unfornuate to be stuck in the middle. This does not excuse Lowe's handling of it - if what has been said is TRUE, nor am I supporting his decision - as its easy to see its well and truely failing - BUt I am honest enough to admit that in THEORY at least I liked the idea before the season started and after a couple of games despite teh initial results, it still looked promising, easy to fall into the trap of forgetting that this is a tough league for naive kids when you have a couple of games of neet pasing and attractive style....[/quote']

 

 

FFS.....

 

The man who took the picture of Lawrie Mac down from the boardroom did not want to settle a score with Crouch at all, did he ? And Pearson has no record of working with youth, does he ???

 

The arguments in defence of Lowe get worse on here every f**king day..

[Give it to Ron]

 

"Our top priority was always an experienced and competent manager who would hit the ground running and who could lead this Club so getting rid of NP was obvious but taking on JP instead was a mistake and clearly Lowe screwed this up (again) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:"

 

Then compounded it by promoting within.......

[JohnnyFartPants]

You've never seen me mention any of those names in that light, Rupert.

 

Possibly not but to think it now of Pearson is a bit blinkered. Half a season with a club too big for the division they find themselves in is not conclusive proof of him being the best thing since sliced bread.

[alpine_saint]

Possibly not but to think it now of Pearson is a bit blinkered. Half a season with a club too big for the division they find themselves in is not conclusive proof of him being the best thing since sliced bread.

 

I personally though of him as the best thing since sliced bread after last season when he rescused a team of fat, unfit, lazy demotivated money-grubbing waankers from relegation with no money and only 13 games left, actually..

[Frank's cousin]

 

And as I said above, if the insinuation of this thread was that Crouch missed a trick by not tying Pearson down, then it's missed the target, as Pearson was more than happy to stay following his relative success.

 

Thisdoes not make any sense UP - the fact that Peasron was happy to stay is irrelevent, to the contract he had, was offered or agreed to with Crouch, but as I have pointed out else where the 'target' was simple: to question why Crouch was using this as spin now - given the recent success Pearson has had at Leicester - and if he is using it, as some indicator of greater foresight, why NOT tie him down - because then he REALLY could gloat and score a point or two if Pearson was a success at Saints...

[JohnnyFartPants]

It is "fact" in as much as Crouch actually said it. Now, if you think he was lying, then that's your perogative but I don't believe he would lie about something as fundemental as that.

 

Nieveity is spelt like this. Fact.

[Frank's cousin]

FFS.....

 

The man who took the picture of Lawrie Mac down from the boardroom did not want to settle a score with Crouch at all, did he ? And Pearson has no record of working with youth, does he ???

 

The arguments in defence of Lowe get worse on here every f**king day..

 

And your inabilty to read and understand what folk are posting get worse everyday...

 

FFS, so what Lawries pic was taken down... FFS LOwe/Lawrie dont get on, would you keep a fecking picture up...that is so insignificant its laughable - And for teh love of god, where is Pearson's yout record questioned in anything I have said? READ the feckin post before jumoping to inane and frankly idiotic conclusions.

 

There is NO defence of Lowe here, merely a criticism of CRouch - but you seem unable as I have said precviously to distinguish between the two... why is this?

[krissyboy31]

Are you basing him having done enough to be retained on being happy at the end of the season as we stayed up rather than points actually won? I mean, if he did enough then perhaps we should have been happier under Burley or considered Dodd and Gorman too.

 

No. Dodd and Gorman were a disaster and that period was the main reason we took until the final game of the season to be safe last season. If Pearson had taken over when Burley left, IMO (and I am convinced of this) we would have finished comfortably lower mid-table.

 

What he could have done with this seasons playing squad is anyones guess but I'd put money on us not being in the bottom 2 at any stage of the season.

Edited 10 February, 2009 by krissyboy31

[alpine_saint]

And your inabilty to read and understand what folk are posting get worse everyday...

 

FFS, so what Lawries pic was taken down... FFS LOwe/Lawrie dont get on, would you keep a fecking picture up...that is so insignificant its laughable - And for teh love of god, where is Pearson's yout record questioned in anything I have said? READ the feckin post before jumoping to inane and frankly idiotic conclusions.

 

There is NO defence of Lowe here, merely a criticism of CRouch - but you seem unable as I have said precviously to distinguish between the two... why is this?

 

Because its an incessant stream in one direction with you. You think you are being clever by not coming out with unequivocal fullsome praise of Lowe, probably because you are afraid of sounding like Scooby or Sundance Beast, but at least they had the balls for it.

[Greenridge]

Nieveity is spelt like this. Fact.

 

Is it really? Or am I being naive to believe this?

[JohnnyFartPants]

Because its an incessant stream in one direction with you. You think you are being clever by not coming out with unequivocal fullsome praise of Lowe, probably because you are afraid of sounding like Scooby or Sundance Beast, but at least they had the balls for it.

 

I think it's called being balanced, something you fail to be. If I said that ASDA were selling rotten apples you would blame Lowe.

[Frank's cousin]

Because its an incessant stream in one direction with you. You think you are being clever by not coming out with unequivocal fullsome praise of Lowe, probably because you are afraid of sounding like Scooby or Sundance Beast, but at least they had the balls for it.

 

FFS Alpine if I had unequivical support for LOwe, I would have no problem in comming on here and facing up about it - I actually wish it was true so I could really get you wound up... Jeez, if thats what you want to believe feel free, but it just proves to me that you simply are too blinkered in your views to see the wood for the trees - I just cant take you seriously at all....

[JohnnyFartPants]

Is it really? Or am I being naive to believe this?

 

No, it really is. Crouch told me.