If Crouch believed in Pearson....

[slickmick]

No I dont mean financially as in transfers but as in contracts.

 

I dont know but I doubt there was any big pay-offs for Wigley, Gray and even Sturrock as i would have thought all of there contracts would have been small and with get out's built in. Yet at the time Lowe was hounded for not backing his man with decent contracts and supporting them.

 

Like I said before, I am not saying it is right but they are all similar situations yet get treated differently because of who made the decissions,

 

 

I thought he was hounded for picking them in the first place.

[jonah]

The team that played Hull was Poke, Ostlund, Powell, Viafara, Thomas, Licka (62 Gillett) Euell, Safri, Vignal, McGoldrick (46 Pericard) John (70 Wright)

 

I don't see any mention of Pearce, Lucketti or Perry there, do you?

 

And I don't remember saying they played in that game - the point was that NP brought in 4 defenders to try to shore up the defence as a whole. In fact, it is you who hasn't checked your details since there was only 1 change in that line-up from the one which beat Leicester 1-0 earlier in the week - a positive one in Powell being passed fit to return in defence.

 

Combined with those players we already had, it's not great to see the focus on defence resulting in a 5-0 defeat is it - presumably that's why NP called it "embarassing and unacceptable" [and actually I liked what he said about that performance, but that's a different story]. It's easy to take a single result in isolation, but you might as well say the same about the severely weakened team GB took to Wolves that we thought would get a hiding - yet we won that one 6-0.

[jonah]

Feck me I got confused with the Reading lad.

You can have that one Jonah.

Thats 1 v 1 now.

 

No worries, I think he was injured all the time anyhow!

[slickmick]

And I don't remember saying they played in that game - the point was that NP brought in 4 defenders to try to shore up the defence as a whole. In fact, it is you who hasn't checked your details since there was only 1 change in that line-up from the one which beat Leicester 1-0 earlier in the week - a positive one in Powell being passed fit to return in defence.

 

Combined with those players we already had, it's not great to see the focus on defence resulting in a 5-0 defeat is it - presumably that's why NP called it "embarassing and unacceptable" [and actually I liked what he said about that performance, but that's a different story]. It's easy to take a single result in isolation, but you might as well say the same about the severely weakened team GB took to Wolves that we thought would get a hiding - yet we won that one 6-0.

 

 

Who was in charge when we lost 7 v 1 to Watford in cup game ?

[saintjay77]

I thought he was hounded for picking them in the first place.

 

maybe a bit of both but your coment fits both situatuions anyway.

 

How many of us would have gone banana's had Rupes given Pearson the un-known a shot at running our team? How many of us would have been happy that the team was running around a bit more but still finding it almost impossible to buy a win? How many would have thout Pearson was something special when it was thanks to other results that we stayed up?

 

All I am saying is that depending on who made the appointment we all make differing opinions and dont give the same level of slack or outrage.

 

Is that because 1 or the other is rubbish at there job or is it because we just dont like 1 or the other?

[OldNick]

Who was in charge when we lost 7 v 1 to Watford in cup game ?

LM wasnt it? You've got mee thinking now we won the first leg 4-0 with Nick holmes scoring from long distance..yes?

[St Paul]

Whilst not being "Britains hottest prospect" as a Manager, I still think he'll be a Premier League Manager before Lowe's a Premier league Chairman again.

 

I dont think Leicester would be top of the league with Wotte or Jan in charge.

[slickmick]

maybe a bit of both but your coment fits both situatuions anyway.

 

How many of us would have gone banana's had Rupes given Pearson the un-known a shot at running our team? How many of us would have been happy that the team was running around a bit more but still finding it almost impossible to buy a win? How many would have thout Pearson was something special when it was thanks to other results that we stayed up?

 

All I am saying is that depending on who made the appointment we all make differing opinions and dont give the same level of slack or outrage.

 

Is that because 1 or the other is rubbish at there job or is it because we just dont like 1 or the other?

 

 

I for one will be delighted if Wotte turns things around, just enough to survive. I will reluctantly give RL the credit, but will still wonder why he didn't start with him.

From what I can recall, the appointment of Pearson got a similar response as Wotte's. That is because on both occasions we were heading for the drop with the predecessors, so any changed would have seemed an improvement.

This season is almost identical to last years situation. One got it right, the other remains to be seen.

[slickmick]

LM wasnt it? You've got mee thinking now we won the first leg 4-0 with Nick holmes scoring from long distance..yes?

Thats the one and they were in a league below us.

[alpine_saint]

Maybe the excitement of having Britain's "hottest young prospect" in charge made you forget NP's first signing:

 

http://www.skysports.com/football/player/0,19754,11681_6743,00.html

 

So, he got injured.

 

Look at two of Lowes signings - Pulis and Gasmi....

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[alpine_saint]

Oh, and Forecast, Robertson, Pekhart, Smith....

 

Jesus, do I need to go on ???

[krissyboy31]

And I don't remember saying they played in that game - the point was that NP brought in 4 defenders to try to shore up the defence as a whole. In fact, it is you who hasn't checked your details since there was only 1 change in that line-up from the one which beat Leicester 1-0 earlier in the week - a positive one in Powell being passed fit to return in defence.

 

Combined with those players we already had, it's not great to see the focus on defence resulting in a 5-0 defeat is it - presumably that's why NP called it "embarrassing and unacceptable" [and actually I liked what he said about that performance, but that's a different story]. It's easy to take a single result in isolation, but you might as well say the same about the severely weakened team GB took to Wolves that we thought would get a hiding - yet we won that one 6-0.

 

Actually Jonah, were you at that game? Because I was and it was embarrassing but there were mitigating circumstances. You correctly say that Powell played but as for being fit, I beg to differ. Hull City were on a run that we could only dream about and they exploited Powell's lack of mobility perfectly. Fraiser Campbell was near on unplayable that day and we actually did pretty well to keep it down to five. Oh yes, we also had the 3rd/4th keeper in goal, who happened to injure himself in the warm-up and played the whole game virtually on one leg. As I say, it was annoying, it was embarrassing but would probably have happened whoever was in charge.

[jonah]

So, he got injured.

 

Look at two of Lowes signings - Pulis and Gasmi....

 

Not Lowe's signings, JP's signings... or at worst you could say Wilde's signings. Just like Pearce was Crouch's signing.

 

More schnapps please fraulein.

[jonah]

Actually Jonah, were you at that game? Because I was and it was embarrassing but there were mitigating circumstances. You correctly say that Powell played but as for being fit, I beg to differ. Hull City were on a run that we could only dream about and they exploited Powell's lack of mobility perfectly. Fraiser Campbell was near on unplayable that day and we actually did pretty well to keep it down to five. Oh yes, we also had the 3rd/4th keeper in goal, who happened to injure himself in the warm-up and played the whole game virtually on one leg. As I say, it was annoying, it was embarrassing but would probably have happened whoever was in charge.

 

No, I rarely go to away games now so didn't see it. You think Powell was unfit, NP thought he was fit and better brought back into the team... the point is that you can easily make excuses either way for any given match, but for a team with focus on defence, 4 loan signings in defence, a senior defender brought back in, the same team who kept a clean sheet at home... shipping 5 is not good. It's not the end of the world (unlike losing to Doncaster of course), but it's hardly evidence that we had Britain's hottest managerial prospect either.

 

By the way, do you think there would have been "mitigating circumstances" when we lost to Doncaster? Or if we'd lost 5-0 at Wolves under GB instead of winning 6-0? No, because there is an agenda led by Crouch to exaggerate NP's credentials to try to make a point he should be making in the boardroom - and if he really knew better he'dobviously have tied NP to a 5 year contract with get-out clauses for relegation. And there is no way RL could have afforded to pay that off... so if Crouch didn't like NP's departure he should be taking a look in the mirror.

[alpine_saint]

Not Lowe's signings, JP's signings... or at worst you could say Wilde's signings. Just like Pearce was Crouch's signing.

 

More schnapps please fraulein.

 

And you claim you have no agenda against Crouch.

 

What a hypocrite..

[saintjay77]

I for one will be delighted if Wotte turns things around, just enough to survive. I will reluctantly give RL the credit, but will still wonder why he didn't start with him.

From what I can recall, the appointment of Pearson got a similar response as Wotte's. That is because on both occasions we were heading for the drop with the predecessors, so any changed would have seemed an improvement.

This season is almost identical to last years situation. One got it right, the other remains to be seen.

 

Your POV is few and far between sometimes on here and I can do nothing other than agree with it. I dont think there really is anyone that is genuinly happy that Lowe is here but many would rather see any of his decissions as bad ones even when the same decissions made by there prefered chairman are seen as good ones.

 

Evidence shows that Rupes bad decissions far outway his good ones but the others who had brief chances either made the same decissions or other bad ones. How come the ones who shout the loudest on here fail to see that is beyond me?

[Frank's cousin]

but will still wonder why he didn't start with him.

 

Think that may be due to Lowe believing we would be MORE receptive to someone like JP due to his playing success with Holland, rather than Wotte, who appeared to have tye better coaching record (Dutch U21s) but less of a playing one?

[um pahars]

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?

 

Behave yourself Frank, and there I was thinking you were semi intelligent.

 

As I said, money was not discussed, something that even Lowe and Cowen would be able to confirm (as I'm presuming you have a route in to them). W

 

My second line of "even if it was", was a hypothetical line to try and point out that even that defence would have no substance, even if it were true (which it wasn't).

 

Maybe for the more challenged on here I should have put "even if it was true, (which it wasn't, but I'm just highlighting what a lame excuse it would be anyway).

 

In future Frank, it looks as though I'll have to go a bit slower for you!

 

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' date=' but had he failed, they would probably also be keeping stum... .[/quote']

 

I think the use of that term really sums up why you are struggling here.

 

No one, not even Crouch, Corbett et al are gloating about the dismissal of Pearson and the subsequent failure of the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up".

 

Instead, I think they are smarting at the thought of how something that had potential was so nonchalantly thrown away and replaced by something that turned out to be a right, royal cck up (in the same way that most of the fanbase are smarting from that decision).

 

I also think you miss the point that it's not as much about how good Pearson was (he was average-ish with potential), but as much to do with the toatl fcking rubbish that replaced him.

 

If your opening premise is that they are gloating at our demise, then it's pretty obvious why som much of your posts on this thread are scoring spectacular own goals.

 

Thisdoes not make any sense UP - the fact that Peasron was happy to stay is irrelevent' date=' 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... [/quote']

 

With all due respect, I think you need to read through this reply, because it is your reply that doesn't make sense.

 

Feel free to try and rephrase the above, becasuse after reading it several times, I still have no idea of where you're coming from

 

 

I'm really struggling to understand just what your problem is with Crouch and Pearson.

 

When Crouch appointed Pearson, there was an element of risk involved. Given the degree of risk, given our financial situation and given the ownership struggles, I think the idea of giving him a contract with a bi-partisan break clause was fairly canny.

 

If it didn't work out, then there would be no further exposure to the Club, and if it did, then hopefully both sides would agree to honour the remaining year and then maybe look to extend.

 

What is wrong with the above approach?

 

And as for tying Pearson up on a longer or improved deal, then a couple of obvious points come into play.

 

Firstly, right from the off Wilde and Lowe were vocfierous in their opposition to Pearson (I thought you were privy to their thoughts when you were a part of the SOS group?), so when it became apparent very early on into Pearson's reign that there was a very good chance that they would take over at the helm, then I think there was obvious concern over Pearson's future.

 

What would people have been saying had Crouch tied him down for a 5 year deal just before Lowe & Wilde returned? If Lowe wanted to go through with the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up", then we would have been paying Pearson a big sum to walk.

 

With those two hovering over SMS, I don't think there is any way that Crouch could have (or indeed should have) been committing the Club to contracts that he had an inkling would be compromised when Lowe and co rolled back in to town.

 

And to conclude, Pearson had one year left on the contract he had agreed with Crouch.

 

Crouch was willing to honour it and Pearson was willing to honour it, so we had him for at least another year (and maybe more if we could have agreed an extension).

 

We could have had Pearson for all of this season and then reviewed again at the end. Pearson had no qualms working for Lowe and no qualms working under the financial constraints.

 

We had Pearson if we wanted him, Lowe decided he didn't. Ultimatley that's his right, but he has to be judged by it.

[Wes Tender]

And I don't remember saying they played in that game - the point was that NP brought in 4 defenders to try to shore up the defence as a whole. In fact, it is you who hasn't checked your details since there was only 1 change in that line-up from the one which beat Leicester 1-0 earlier in the week - a positive one in Powell being passed fit to return in defence.

 

Combined with those players we already had, it's not great to see the focus on defence resulting in a 5-0 defeat is it - presumably that's why NP called it "embarassing and unacceptable" [and actually I liked what he said about that performance, but that's a different story]. It's easy to take a single result in isolation, but you might as well say the same about the severely weakened team GB took to Wolves that we thought would get a hiding - yet we won that one 6-0.

 

You're being rather disingenous, aren't you? This is what you said:-

 

But of course in fact we did get 5 loan players in - Wright (thanks to Webster), and then Pearce, Pericard, Lucketti and Perry. Not a hugely succesful set of old-timers there really - 4 new defenders and we still got tonked 5-0 at Hull

 

I think that most would have read it as I did, that having mentioned the loan defenders as you did and then in the same breath connected it with the 5-0 defeat against Hull, that you had used a bad example in light of the fact that those players were not in that match. Anyway, as you say, pulling the rug out from under your feet in the process, it's easy to take one match in isolation, isn't it? Burley's teams had two 5 goal drubbings that season against Preston and Sheffield Wednesday.

 

Did I have to check my details on which players played the game before? There you are being disingenous again, attempting to put my reply in a bad light because I hadn't bothered to check the team in the match before, even though I had made no points referring to the team in that game. Would you like to berate my incompetance for not pointing out who played in the game after the Hull match, or should I post that team list just in case?

 

So which way do you want to play it? That the 5-0 loss against Hull was a match in isolation (as it was, as we were hard to beat after that) or is it excused by you in the light of the two drubbings handed out to Burley's team earlier?

[Frank's cousin]

UP

 

Behave? Get off your high horse or Crouch's ring for a moment - You cant backtrack on that comment - fair enough if it was a slip up, but insulting intelligence is a lame way out of it and you know it...

 

You seem again to be making it all up as you go along, something that you seem to do alot off UP, selectively editing posts, taking comments out of context to support the very rubbish you accuse others of.

 

You are also debating over semantics of the contractual issue - someone is NOT sacked if either party exercise a contractual break clause.

 

I have repeatedly said that all things considered NOW, it was a fecking huge blunder by Lowe to let him go, but I have the benefit of hindsight. AND so does everybody else - to now be making vocalising this in public as part of ramping up the PR and support is no differnt from Lowe and Wilde blundering heavyhanded with their threats this time last year - NO DIFFERENT - and to suggest it is is demonstrating ignorance.

 

 

You are firmly behind Crouch, fair enough, that's your choice, I am not, thats mine, I find it irrating that he is allowed to get away with (in your opinion) what you and others have RIGHTLY accused Lowe of doing - medling publically at a sensitive time.

 

I have no beef with Pearson and if you had really bothered to read everything you would clearly see that. I have no direct issue with CRouch apart from 1) his lack of a viable plan, 2) his sychophantic approach which he seems too hope masks the fact he has no plan (which was and remains my biggest issue with Wilde) and 3) the fact he is using Lowe's crap tactics yet its OK because he is not Lowe.

 

Lowe and Wilde were not vociferous in their oposition to Perason - as you claim, not from anything revealed to any group I was with... Wilde suggested that they might eventually look at a 'European set up' possibly with or without Pearson involved - and the backing for pearson from a fans perspective was communicated at the time.... but you can be supportive og bothe pearson and see teh logic in other solutions - its not an eitehr or from a fans perspective - and to make it so is again making mileage..which is pathetic really.

[Wes Tender]

And I don't remember saying they played in that game - the point was that NP brought in 4 defenders to try to shore up the defence as a whole. In fact, it is you who hasn't checked your details since there was only 1 change in that line-up from the one which beat Leicester 1-0 earlier in the week - a positive one in Powell being passed fit to return in defence.

 

Combined with those players we already had, it's not great to see the focus on defence resulting in a 5-0 defeat is it - presumably that's why NP called it "embarassing and unacceptable" [and actually I liked what he said about that performance, but that's a different story]. It's easy to take a single result in isolation, but you might as well say the same about the severely weakened team GB took to Wolves that we thought would get a hiding - yet we won that one 6-0.

 

With a few minutes extra digging, I gain more concrete evidence that renders your assertions regarding the Hull defeat more full of holes than I could have imagined.

 

Both Lucketti and Perry didn't even arrive at the club until the 27th March and the Hull game was on 15th. So Pearson couldn't have played them anyway, as they weren't with us for another 12 days! Even Pericard only arrived the day before the match, so not much time for him to prepare and get to know his team mates, eh?

 

Mind you, my information might not be infallible, as Wikipedia reckons that our manager at the time of the signings was Kevin Blackwell!

 

I'm sure that if my inormation as to the date of those defenders' arrival was wrong, you will not hesitate to correct me.

[um pahars]

You're being rather disingenous, aren't you? This is what you said:-

 

There's two lines of attack in this thread and I'm struggling to get my head around either of them.

 

Jonah's premise is that Pearson wasn't much cop and that Poortvliet wasn't that bad.

 

As for Pearson, well I have to say whilst he didn't set the world on fire, he did what was asked, engendered a spirit of togetherness and was definitely worth giving it a go again for the remainder of the contract we had with him. His success at Leicester gives an indication that he's OK, but of course it doesn't guarantee he would have been a success here.

 

Not as good as some try and make him out to be, but also not as bad as some like Jonah like to make out.

 

As for Poortvliet not being that bad, well I think he's out on a limb here, even given the parameters that Poortvliet had to operate within.

 

I read somewhere that Jonah was actually blaming Crouch for Poortvliet walking, when everyone else (including Lowe and Wilde) were actually saying "thank fck he's gone".

 

Of course it's all subjective, but I think you'd be stretched to find many who would say poortvliet was a better bet than Pearson.

 

 

And Frank's premise seems to be that either (a) Crouch et al shouldn't be gloating about Pearson's success, or (b) Crouch should have tied him down to a longer contract, both of which I don't think have been justifed on this thread.

[krissyboy31]

With a few minutes extra digging, I gain more concrete evidence that renders your assertions regarding the Hull defeat more full of holes than I could have imagined.

 

Both Lucketti and Perry didn't even arrive at the club until the 27th March and the Hull game was on 15th. So Pearson couldn't have played them anyway, as they weren't with us for another 12 days! Even Pericard only arrived the day before the match, so not much time for him to prepare and get to know his team mates, eh?

 

Mind you, my information might not be infallible, as Wikipedia reckons that our manager at the time of the signings was Kevin Blackwell!

 

I'm sure that if my inormation as to the date of those defenders' arrival was wrong, you will not hesitate to correct me.

 

Indeed, Wright was signed on 20th, Perry on 27th and Lucketti on the 28th. All in the aftermath of the Hull City game, where the back four were Ostlund Thomas Powell and Vignal (all Burley signings if I'm not mistaken).

[um pahars]

UP

 

Behave? Get off your high horse or Crouch's ring for a moment - You cant backtrack on that comment - fair enough if it was a slip up, but insulting intelligence is a lame way out of it and you know it...

 

You seem again to be making it all up as you go along, something that you seem to do alot off UP, selectively editing posts, taking comments out of context to support the very rubbish you accuse others of.

 

You are also debating over semantics of the contractual issue - someone is NOT sacked if either party exercise a contractual break clause.

 

I have repeatedly said that all things considered NOW, it was a fecking huge blunder by Lowe to let him go, but I have the benefit of hindsight. AND so does everybody else - to now be making vocalising this in public as part of ramping up the PR and support is no differnt from Lowe and Wilde blundering heavyhanded with their threats this time last year - NO DIFFERENT - and to suggest it is is demonstrating ignorance.

 

 

You are firmly behind Crouch, fair enough, that's your choice, I am not, thats mine, I find it irrating that he is allowed to get away with (in your opinion) what you and others have RIGHTLY accused Lowe of doing - medling publically at a sensitive time.

 

I have no beef with Pearson and if you had really bothered to read everything you would clearly see that. I have no direct issue with CRouch apart from 1) his lack of a viable plan, 2) his sychophantic approach which he seems too hope masks the fact he has no plan (which was and remains my biggest issue with Wilde) and 3) the fact he is using Lowe's crap tactics yet its OK because he is not Lowe.

 

Lowe and Wilde were not vociferous in their oposition to Perason - as you claim, not from anything revealed to any group I was with... Wilde suggested that they might eventually look at a 'European set up' possibly with or without Pearson involved - and the backing for pearson from a fans perspective was communicated at the time.... but you can be supportive og bothe pearson and see teh logic in other solutions - its not an eitehr or from a fans perspective - and to make it so is again making mileage..which is pathetic really.

 

Without wanting to appear rude, that's a hell of alot of waffle to not really say anything!!

 

Just what is your issue with Pearson and Crouch?

 

Do you think he should have tyed him down to a longer contract? If yes, then how would that be judged against the premise that the new boys weren't keen on him and were lining up their own men. Additionally, what was wrong with honouring the year he had left on the existing contract and then renegotiate again from that point.

 

Do you really think Crouch and Corbett are gloating?? If yes, then I think you are making the same mistake as when you recently accused MANY of wanting Saints to lose, which is just not the case.

[Verbal Kint]

I have no direct issue with CRouch apart from 1) his lack of a viable plan' date=' 2) his sychophantic approach which he seems too hope masks the fact he has no plan (which was and remains my biggest issue with Wilde) and 3) the fact he is using Lowe's crap tactics yet its OK because he is not Lowe.[/quote']

 

I really don't understand this. You say he lacks a viable plan? His plan was very simple. He brought Pearson in as manager and was going to extend his contract, telling him to wheel and deal in the free transfer merket to bring in some experienced players and blend them in with the younger ones. On the financial side he was cutting costs (Skacel adn Rasiak on loan, closing down the corners etc) so how is this not a viable plan?

 

And using Lowe's tactics? What do you mean by that?

[Frank's cousin]

And Frank's premise seems to be that either (a) Crouch et al shouldn't be gloating about Pearson's success, or (b) Crouch should have tied him down to a longer contract, both of which I don't think have been justifed on this thread.

 

 

Slowly for you UP....

 

Your assumption is not quite true - Crouch should not be publically using Pearsons current success as a stick because it has no credibilty - Like I said its no different from Lowe claiming superiour foresight following STrachan's success - which we are constantly told was luck from certain quarters - but thats only the start - the issue is that he should not be doing the public slagging at all, because he is lowering himself to the same standards of Lowe and Wilde... yet is not criticised for it... by others - but hey thats why I'm here!

 

The 'keep Pearson on' thing was the teaser, the hook to get the debate going which I believe it has - back on page 1, I acknowledge that the type of contract was a very correct and wise approach - (although Jonah I believe argued that had Lowe offered this contract he would have been slagged for it being unsupportive...blah blah... which I guess is also true)... the point that is made by this and other debates is about consistency in our criticisms is sadly lacking - we are happy to slag Lowe and then you become morally outraged when anyone dares to criticise Crouch for doing the very same thing....simple really.

[Thedelldays]

UP did you back wilde way back when..?

 

were you part of the trust then and did you look into wilde and his credentials being part of a supports group that wanted on the board (if you were)..?

[Frank's cousin]

Do you really think Crouch and Corbett are gloating?? If yes, then I think you are making the same mistake as when you recently accused MANY of wanting Saints to lose, which is just not the case.

 

Here you go again - gloating, whatever - they are publically speaking out about to get milage from it - PR spin at a sensitive time - Same ****e LOwe and Wilde used at a sensitive time last year - BOTH wrong.

 

The issue wit MANY saints fans and Wanting them to lose - you are are now just trying to be clever, but even then you failed to see the subtle difference between what you say their and what was insinuated - the fact reamins when that was debated, that there are probably many fan out there who would be happy to se us lose if it meant the end of Lowe - thats different to happy to see us lose...but why worry about detail or accuracy if it does not suit your agenda?

[krissyboy31]

It's a pretty futile argument now though isn't it? But I wouldn't blame Pearson for a little bit of gloating as he waves to us in passing between CCC and League1.

[exit2]

UP did you back wilde way back when..?

 

were you part of the trust then and did you look into wilde and his credentials being part of a supports group that wanted on the board (if you were)..?

 

 

I'll but in on this one.

 

I made contact with Wilde on behalf of the trust on the evening he brought his first load of shares. From that conversation we arranged several meetings and to be fair everything he said sounded great. His vision, what he wanted, the guys he had lined up (although we didnt know their names) So everything sounded good. I know others had spoken to Mary Corbett who also felt he was the right man to lead things forward.

 

So when you say credentials what did mean? Are you after anything specific

[alpine_saint]

 

I have repeatedly said that all things considered NOW, it was a fecking huge blunder by Lowe to let him go, but I have the benefit of hindsight. AND so does everybody else - to now be making vocalising this in public as part of ramping up the PR and support is no differnt from Lowe and Wilde blundering heavyhanded with their threats this time last year - NO DIFFERENT - and to suggest it is is demonstrating ignorance.

 

 

You are firmly behind Crouch, fair enough, that's your choice, I am not, thats mine, I find it irrating that he is allowed to get away with (in your opinion) what you and others have RIGHTLY accused Lowe of doing - medling publically at a sensitive time.

 

 

What's benefit of hindsight got to do with it ? Some of us have been saying it since June.

 

Yes it is his choice to be behind Crouch, but unlike you he's got the f**king balls to nail his colours to a mast.

[um pahars]

Crouch should not be publically using Pearsons current success as a stick because it has no credibilty

 

Why does it have no credibility?

 

Everything to do with this area is subjective and impossible to substantiate either way, but I think it is a fair position to take, in that, like many others, he believes Pearson would have been more successful than Poortvliet.

 

Like I said its no different from Lowe claiming superiour foresight following STrachan's success - which we are constantly told was luck from certain quarters -

 

But (a) we had a period to judge and gauge Pearson, and (b) we are now discussing the Poortvliet position from the benefit of hindsight.

 

Given where we are, I see no problem in using it as an example of the poor decision making that has go us into that mess, particularly if we don't want to repeat those mistakes.

 

Just as I'm sure Lowe would claim Strachan was a success, then why shouldn't Crouch claim the same with Pearson.?

 

After all, if Poortvliet had come good, then I'm sure Lowe would have been crowing about it. It's all about taking the rough with the smooth.

 

but thats only the start - the issue is that he should not be doing the public slagging at all' date=' because he is lowering himself to the same standards of Lowe and Wilde... yet is not criticised for it... by others - but hey thats why I'm here![/quote']

 

I think you'll find that in a reply to Jonah on another thread recently (I'll try and dig it out), I stated that there was arguably no difference between Lowe and Wilde causing a distraction last Spring, and Crouch causing one this Spring.

 

HERE GOES MY COMMENT LAST WEEK:

 

I'm sure Pearson, and maybe the other coaches and even some players, felt really comfortable knowing that he/they would have potential new bosses in the summer!!!!!

 

Now of course there may be the same issues this time around with regards upsetting the apple cart, but let's please not pretend that last summer was any different in general context and substance.

 

However, just as Lowe and Wilde would argue that their interference was a necessary evil to get us on the straight and narrow last year, then those against Lowe this Spring would argue it's for the same valid and honourable reasons, as sticking with the status quo is failing us.

 

the point that is made by this and other debates is about consistency in our criticisms is sadly lacking - we are happy to slag Lowe and then you become morally outraged when anyone dares to criticise Crouch for doing the very same thing....simple really.

 

As my quote from last week, above, shows, there is consistency and balance.

 

I'm just really struggling to understand the original premise of this thread and what you were trying to achieve?????

Edited 10 February, 2009 by um pahars

[alpine_saint]

Without wanting to appear rude, that's a hell of alot of waffle to not really say anything!!

 

Just what is your issue with Pearson and Crouch?

 

 

At last.

 

Another person sees FC for what he is.

[Thedelldays]

I'll but in on this one.

 

I made contact with Wilde on behalf of the trust on the evening he brought his first load of shares. From that conversation we arranged several meetings and to be fair everything he said sounded great. His vision, what he wanted, the guys he had lined up (although we didnt know their names) So everything sounded good. I know others had spoken to Mary Corbett who also felt he was the right man to lead things forward.

 

So when you say credentials what did mean? Are you after anything specific

all well and good..how come guided missile and one or two others showed us (and they did) on here the very reasons why wilde was bad news just by using the internet...

 

I just dont get how people on the trust (who were more of a voice at the time) failed their members in doing basic research into the biggest change at SFC for a generation...and fell for his talk...

[um pahars]

UP did you back wilde way back when..?

 

were you part of the trust then and did you look into wilde and his credentials being part of a supports group that wanted on the board (if you were)..?

 

I personally backed Wilde back in the summer of 2006.

 

I was also a member of the Trust Board back than and as Rob said we met with Wilde a couple of times and put a number of member's questions to him (we also tried to set up meetings with all the other prominent parties eg Lowe, Cowen, Crouch etc).

 

Just as a financial advisor would say, there was no way we were going to go out on a limb and verify and be accountable for all his assets, promises, cash etc. and the Trust Board (some of whom were Lowe supporters) did not make the decision one way or the other to support Wilde, Crouch or Lowe. That was left up to a membership vote at an AGM.

[Thedelldays]

I personally backed Wilde back in the summer of 2006.

 

I was also a member of the Trust Board back than and as Rob said we met with Wilde a couple of times and put a number of member's questions to him (we also tried to set up meetings with all the other prominent parties eg Lowe, Cowen, Crouch etc).

 

Just as a financial advisor would say, there was no way we were going to go out on a limb and verify and be accountable for all his assets, promises, cash etc. and the Trust Board (some of whom were Lowe supporters) did not make the decision one way or the other to support Wilde, Crouch or Lowe. That was left up to a membership vote at an AGM.

 

 

you did not have to go out on a limb to look into wilde...GM and a few did it in minutes on the internet...showed what they found on S4E and some were banned...NO ONE wanted to know..

 

sad but true..

[um pahars]

you did not have to go out on a limb to look into wilde.....

 

I meant out on a limb in that, just like a financial adivsor, we were not going to tell people what to do one way or the other (and then bear the responsibility). Ultimately it was up to the individual members (just as it was for other individual shareholders with their own shares) to decide how the Trust's 20,000 shares would be voted.

 

As you say, we were more of a voice echoing what the membership were saying and the Trust itself only came out one way or the other after polling it's members.

Edited 11 February, 2009 by um pahars

[SP Saint]

Just noticed this:

 

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.

 

I'm not really into listening to horses, but if true it make Rupert's excuse of saving money for embarking on the lame experiment even more inexcusable.

 

It would seem that the Dutch imports have cost us more in salaries in addition to decimating the gates.

[jonah]

I'll get this out the way first, as for once I seem to hold a similar opinion to UP on something, although as usual he is trying to say otherwise:

 

Jonah's premise is that Pearson wasn't much cop and that Poortvliet wasn't that bad.

 

As for Pearson, well I have to say whilst he didn't set the world on fire, he did what was asked, engendered a spirit of togetherness and was definitely worth giving it a go again for the remainder of the contract we had with him. His success at Leicester gives an indication that he's OK, but of course it doesn't guarantee he would have been a success here.

 

Not as good as some try and make him out to be, but also not as bad as some like Jonah like to make out.

 

On the contrary, I have said just about the same about Pearson - brought in team spirit and discipline, but nothing to suggest more than being "OK". Just because I am arguing back against people like alpine who think he was "Britain's hottest young manager" (I hope you mean that in a footballing way alpine), is more a question of showing up the trite stupidity of those claims than trying to say NP was a disaster - he wasn't, at least not by 20 minutes.

 

I read somewhere that Jonah was actually blaming Crouch for Poortvliet walking, when everyone else (including Lowe and Wilde) were actually saying "thank fck he's gone".

 

Yes, I'm sure the 2nd largest shareholder telling him that we should have an English manager (FFS, welcome to deepest darkest 'ampshire) steeled his resolve!

 

Of course it's all subjective, but I think you'd be stretched to find many who would say poortvliet was a better bet than Pearson.

 

The problem is it depends on what you look at - I would summarise that JP was better for style of football, especially for away games, and long-term development of players. I would say NP was better for team work and discipline, and better for home matches in terms of style of play. Much of a muchness, perhaps JP more of a long-term "vision", which was not necessarily the right decision - but it's all in hindsight and it's very easy to pick individual things to criticise in both managers.

[OldNick]

Just noticed this:

 

 

 

I'm not really into listening to horses, but if true it make Rupert's excuse of saving money for embarking on the lame experiment even more inexcusable.

 

It would seem that the Dutch imports have cost us more in salaries in addition to decimating the gates.

I was under the impression GB and NP were on more than is stated on that article. FF is very friendly with MC so he could be very much closer to the truth.

[jonah]

I meant out on a limb in that, just like a financial adivsor, we were not going to tell people what to do one way or the other (and then bear the responsibility). Ultimately it was up to the individual members (just as it was for other individual shareholders with their own shares) to decide how the Trust's 20,000 shares would be voted.

 

But if you, and exit2 and the Trust, were really Financial Advisors then you'd all be struck off by now if not in prison. It is just ridiculous that anyone can think a "chat with Wilde" is anything worthwhile to base a decision on. Myself and GM spelled it out on W4E and suffered a Legging for it, whilst you and the Trust pretended nothing was amiss. Not only Wilde, I posted a load of stuff about Dulieu's background with CapCon and Vantis and how Wilde would most likely subsequently charge his personal costs back to the club - which he did. It was endemic, even Lee Hoos thought it "all sounded good" but didn't check anything out.

 

But it's worse than that because unlike your claim above, you and the Trust continually claimed that Wilde and Crouch had proxied you their shares - you stated it to the Echo, to the club, to the fans, and on your website. Even when I complained to the Trust, the club, Wilde and finally Supporters Direct you all covered each other's arses to pretend it was true. So even if you ignore the downright ineptitude (and Corbett and Co are included in that list), it's a damn site worse because you knowingly lied about the share proxies to help support Wilde and Crouch.

[Wes Tender]

but it's all in hindsight and it's very easy to pick individual things to criticise in both managers.

 

No it's not. Even a super intelligent person like you tried to pick individual things to throw brickbats against Pearce's loan signings and then mistakenly laid the loss against Hull at his door saying that even with those defensive loan signings Hull thrashed us, when those players only arrived at the club 11 or 12 days later.

[OldNick]

I meant out on a limb in that, just like a financial adivsor, we were not going to tell people what to do one way or the other (and then bear the responsibility). Ultimately it was up to the individual members (just as it was for other individual shareholders with their own shares) to decide how the Trust's 20,000 shares would be voted.

 

As you say, we were more of a voice echoing what the membership were saying and the Trust itself only came out one way or the other after polling it's members.

All due respect Ump, you didnt need to give advice to the members as you had your colours nailed to the mast and if your tone and talk was anything like it was on S4E it was abundantly clear what your thoughts were.

As you may well know your views would be respected as you would, like FF ,be seen as an ear to the truth of things.Every word by you to the members would be worth 10 of fans who were not known.You held sway and when LC was wavering the outpouring of outrage and disbelief he might side with RL made him change his mind.

Dont misunderstand the power your words had at that time as your standing in the Trust.

[OldNick]

No it's not. Even a super intelligent person like you tried to pick individual things to throw brickbats against Pearce's loan signings and then mistakenly laid the loss against Hull at his door saying that even with those defensive loan signings Hull thrashed us, when those players only arrived at the club 11 or 12 days later.

 

Wes to be fair it was NP's team that day as it was his 6th game in charge. The loans did come in later no doubt but you say it was not NP's selection that day.We were knackered in the goalkeepers getting injured.

[Frank's cousin]

What's benefit of hindsight got to do with it ? Some of us have been saying it since June.

 

Yes it is his choice to be behind Crouch, but unlike you he's got the f**king balls to nail his colours to a mast.

 

Ha ha ha LOL you really are a joke... I may not agree we UP, we may even verge on the insult during the post sparing, but at least I can respect him for replying in depth and taking the time to read (albeit sometimes selectively it appears) and respond to points made rather than simple one line bull....

[Frank's cousin]

 

As my quote from last week, above, shows, there is consistency and balance.

 

I'm just really struggling to understand the original premise of this thread and what you were trying to achieve?????

 

Fair enough on the consistency point from you there, but can that be said for many others?

 

The premise is discussion and debate on a point of interest, whether it appeals to you or others to join is your choice, as to what I am trying to achieve its that simple - a discussion. Having a discussion or debate about it with 20 posters and a few lurkers is not going to have any impact on things so whats the problem?

 

You support Crouch and argue your case to anyone who will listen and thats your right. I dont support Crouch, and in this and other posts have raised the reasons why. When you can come up with something that is a solid reason for changing my mind on this, I will be more than happy to 'join the throng' - but to date there is nothing.

 

Alpine seems determined that I make some claim that I support Lowe for some strange reason, I would if it were true, but I cant support the failure of the current system anymore than I could welcome Crouch and his pandering sychophantic claims.

 

I have stated quite clearly that I have supported some of the decisions Lowe has made, and even stated my support/hope in the idea behind the dutch apprach at the start (Alpine of course has the largest chrystal ball and was able to predict its failure... because it was Lowe behind it rather than.... anyone else) I did not have that luxury of staring at his ball (thanksfully) so could not predict with such certainty it would fail - I believed we woudl struggle with the kids only approach, but that we woudl ahve enough to survive and teh experience they gained this year woudl be invaluable next seaosn... I have been proved wrong, fair enough and as a result am equally shocked that system ahs been continued - despite naturally hoping beyond hope that somehow Wotte squeezes enough points out of the reamining games to keep us up....

 

As you know I have NOTHING against Pearson, and if you fancy digging through posts I am sure you find posts of mine at the time indicating that I would have been more than happy to see him be given a chance - BUt tell me, what is different between Craouch illustraing teh Pearson release as a mistake and highlighting this publically, or Lowe defenders claiming his superior foresight in appointing strachan and using this as a positive? The point of this thread was to illustrate that there is none - if you are enlightened fine, but there are many who continue to differentiate because its suits their purpose.

[Wes Tender]

Wes to be fair it was NP's team that day as it was his 6th game in charge. The loans did come in later no doubt but you say it was not NP's selection that day.We were knackered in the goalkeepers getting injured.

 

You miss the point, Nick. Nobody is disputing that it was Pearson's team that was beaten convincingly by Hull. But if you read back on other posts by Jonah, he clearly implied that Pearson had made loan signings including those of Perry, Lucketti, Wright and Pericard and yet had been thrashed by Hull despite having those two defenders and the goallie on the books. Where Jonah has egg all over his face is the fact that of all those players, only Pericard was at the club at the time of the Hull match. Undoubtedly the Hull match showed clearly that there were defensive frailties and Pearson addressed them immediately, unlike Burley who hardly did anything about our defence all the time he was here, bar a little tinkering by playing players out of position whilst at the same time signing ever more midfielders. With Perry, Lucketti and Wright shoring up the defence, his record after was much improved and attention should also be focussed on those results after those loans. It implied that he certainly knew how to get in some decent experienced professionals short term. This is an area where JP and Wotte have nil experience, which has since been borne out by the signings that they have made.

[Big Bad Bob]

It implied that he certainly knew how to get in some decent experienced professionals short term.

 

Wes, I have an issue with the statement above.

 

I don't think the loans bought in were purely down to Pearson. I strongly believe, with no empirical evidence whatsoever (have I said this before?), that LM and his son had more to do with the loans we got than NP.

 

I'm going to go further and say the NP was bought in to motivate the team and get them playing whilst LM acted in a DoF role, using his son's "skills"!!

[Wes Tender]

Wes, I have an issue with the statement above.

 

I don't think the loans bought in were purely down to Pearson. I strongly believe, with no empirical evidence whatsoever (have I said this before?), that LM and his son had more to do with the loans we got than NP.

 

I'm going to go further and say the NP was bought in to motivate the team and get them playing whilst LM acted in a DoF role, using his son's "skills"!!

 

Whoever is credited with it, the Chairman sanctions it, presumably once it has also been passed by the manager who again presumably had identified weak spots in the team and its cover and asked for those loans to be made.

 

Ultimately though, the appointment of the manager is down to the Chairman which is probably the main childish and spiteful reason why Lowe couldn't stomach it and the results attained by the team reflect on the manager who had inherited the basis of the existing squad from his predecessors. The results reflect on Pearson, not on those who may have acted effectively as scouts for those players loaned in.

 

Going along with your contention though, makes it seem foolish to jettison the services of such a good motivator of the players and such a good D of F and such a skillful agent with decent players on his books.

[Big Bad Bob]

Going along with your contention though, makes it seem foolish to jettison the services of such a good motivator of the players and such a good D of F and such a skillful agent with decent players on his books.

 

Laying it on a bit thick there but in essence correct!

 

TBH it probably was done with about 50% of spite because of LM's role (had it been purely LC I think it might have been somewhat different). The rest because of 'the plan'.

 

the last 2-3 years have all been a **** measuring competition to be honest, and I am getting fed up of it.