Saints couldn't afford Pearson - it all sounds very familiar..

[Mole]

SCAPEGOAT!

 

From the archive, first published Tuesday 24th May 2005.

 

JIM SMITH has blasted Rupert Lowe for giving misleading reasons for his departure from St Mary's.

 

The former Saints assistant boss, 64, believes he has been made a scapegoat for the club's relegation.

 

The chairman has decided not to renew Smith's contract when it expires next month, citing cost-cutting as the reason.

 

Harry Redknapp will be staying on at St Mary's but Smith says it's impossible to justify the cost-cutting claim when he believes he is making way for Sir Clive Woodward to join the staff after the British Lions tour of New Zealand.

 

Smith said: "I enjoyed my time there. I'm disappointed to be relegated obviously and I'm not happy in so much as I look to be carrying the can because I'm the only football person leaving.

 

"You said it's a cost-cutting exercise and yet they are bringing in Clive Woodward, who I am sure will be on four times as much money than I am on.

 

"I'm the only football guy who is going so it does make you more than a little bit disappointed.

 

"I don't know how much he (Woodward) is going to earn but it will be more than what I was earning.

 

"When giving the excuse it was cost-cutting, I feel let down.

 

"Obviously, I do know what football is like.

 

"It's a hard life and these decisions have to be made when one is relegated and you haven't got a contract so I knew the difficulties.

 

"But I just feel I've been let down - that's the whole point.

 

"Harry's intimated the changes he was going to make and said the other week I was going to have to go but he would try and keep me there, and obviously that didn't work."

 

Lowe said: "We are all sad that Jim will not be with us next year, particularly Harry.

 

"Jim did as much as he could to keep us up but we are now in the Championship and have to tighten our belts."

 

Redknapp added: "It's not easy for anybody to take and nobody could have worked harder and tried to keep us up than Jim did.

 

"He's been terrific with me and he's been a big part of everything I've achieved over the last three years so it's a big blow for me to lose him.

 

"It's not my decision."

 

Lowe again reiterated that no final decision on Woodward has been made and last week said he would only come in with Redknapp's blessing.

 

Woodward, however, has cast doubt over whether he would arrive anyway, saying he has other job offers to consider.

 

Smith continued: "I've been around a lot. I know the serious financial things that happen to you when you get relegated.

 

"You've got to be responsible enough to accept that you might have to reduce the wages, as everyone has had to do, and it's been highly documented about the players at Southampton.

 

"The chairman mentioned to me the fact that Woodward is going to come in and organise certain aspects of the club.

 

"I've been told that; I'm just repeating what I've been told.

 

"If he says `you're not good enough and I want you out', that's okay - but don't start saying it's cost-cutting when obviously that's not going to be the case."

 

Despite his age - and having started out in management way back in 1972 - Smith is STILL looking for another job in football.

 

He added: "It's always sad when you lose a relationship that I thought was very strong and always very disappointing when it happens.

 

"But we've got to get on now with the rest of our life.

 

"I feel good, football is such a great game and a great game to be involved in.

 

"The short-term plan is to go on holiday and get the batteries recharged and see what happens after that."

 

 

http://archive.dailyecho.co.uk/2005/5/24/5654.html

[Ponty]

Yep, we should've kept Jim Smith on. Lowe out!

[Weston Super Saint]

Yep, we should've kept Jim Smith on. Lowe out!

 

Couldn't be any worse than what we have

[Ponty]

I used to see him around Woodstock when he was the Oxford United manager for the last time. Miserable looking bloke.

[Weston Super Saint]

[brmbrm]

In retrospect the whole Woodward fiasco was just a total embrrassing fukcup. Shocking waste of money and a negative impact at the club. One of Lowe's best moments. Not top mention Clifford! Roflmao on the floor laughing my ar$e off.

 

How someone as inept as lowe gets to do it I don't know. Eh? wassat? Money? But please explain why the shareholders permit Lowe trashing the value of the club???

 

Admin will clear out the dead wood.

[davefoggy]

In retrospect the whole Woodward fiasco was just a total embrrassing fukcup. Shocking waste of money and a negative impact at the club. One of Lowe's best moments. Not top mention Clifford! Roflmao on the floor laughing my ar$e off.

 

How someone as inept as lowe gets to do it I don't know. Eh? wassat? Money? But please explain why the shareholders permit Lowe trashing the value of the club???

 

Admin will clear out the dead wood.

 

admin will allow RL to own the club outright which must be stopped at all costs

[Mole]

admin will allow RL to own the club outright which must be stopped at all costs

 

Or it may have the opposite effect - which is my belief. You may be right, I may be right, but i'll continue to boycott in the hope i'm right.

[sidthesquid]

Or it may have the opposite effect - which is my belief. You may be right, I may be right, but i'll continue to boycott in the hope i'm right.

 

Have you ever considered how effective boycotting this site might be - it could be the clincher to getting Rupert out. I dare you, give it a go

[Mole]

Have you ever considered how effective boycotting this site might be - it could be the clincher to getting Rupert out. I dare you, give it a go

 

I notice how you are avoiding the original point of the thread. I wonder why.

[JustMike]

im confused by this, why is it relevant to current situation and NP?

[Mole]

im confused by this, why is it relevant to current situation and NP?

 

It's relevent because Lowe sacked Jim Smith citing cost cutting measures then went on to appoint Woodward (at greater cost). Pearson was too expensive too according to the Lowe. Pesronally i don't buy it that the Dutch trio (there's the mystery man in the stands too) cost less than NP.

[JustMike]

It's relevent because Lowe sacked Jim Smith citing cost cutting measures then went on to appoint Woodward (at greater cost). Pearson was too expensive too according to the Lowe. Pesronally i don't buy it that the Dutch trio (there's the mystery man in the stands too) cost less than NP.

 

ah right ok, i thought you were saying that NP was made a scapegoat

[Mole]

ah right ok, i thought you were saying that NP was made a scapegoat

 

NP was appointed by Crouch so i'm sure Lowe took great delight in orchestrating his removal.

[JustMike]

yes im sure he did. Really worried about the future at the moment, i cant help thinking that things are going to get alot worse :-(

[SaintRobbie]

Not sure I would have wanted Jim Smith to be honest... but he does reveal here Lowe's lack of integrity.

 

I think that's the most important part of the story... and frankly he's not the first to highlight this common theme with regards to Lowe. Lowe is a liar according to shareholders and ex managers... quite consistent theme that.

 

How can you run a united club when your chairman is not trusted, has no integrity and is a liar? Perhaps we should be forwarding all such comments directly to Barclays Bank?

[SaintRobbie]

admin will allow RL to own the club outright which must be stopped at all costs

 

That's what worries me. I can't work out exactly how he is planning to do it but I have a strangely informed feeling that it may be part of his array of options upon relegation.

[SaintRobbie]

It's relevent because Lowe sacked Jim Smith citing cost cutting measures then went on to appoint Woodward (at greater cost). Pearson was too expensive too according to the Lowe. Pesronally i don't buy it that the Dutch trio (there's the mystery man in the stands too) cost less than NP.

 

also Stanley - add the very high agents fees to this list (via Kim van the man) and you have some errrr 'interesting' further aspects to Lowe's integrity.

 

Duncan is going to have a bestselling football book on Saints to retire on methinks.

[Kadeem Hardison]

I can't believe this story has been sat on since 2005. We should have been talking about this every day. It is so relevant it almost burns my laptop screen.

[ottery st mary]

SCAPEGOAT!

 

From the archive, first published Tuesday 24th May 2005.

 

JIM SMITH has blasted Rupert Lowe for giving misleading reasons for his departure from St Mary's.

 

The former Saints assistant boss, 64, believes he has been made a scapegoat for the club's relegation.

 

The chairman has decided not to renew Smith's contract when it expires next month, citing cost-cutting as the reason.

 

Harry Redknapp will be staying on at St Mary's but Smith says it's impossible to justify the cost-cutting claim when he believes he is making way for Sir Clive Woodward to join the staff after the British Lions tour of New Zealand.

 

Smith said: "I enjoyed my time there. I'm disappointed to be relegated obviously and I'm not happy in so much as I look to be carrying the can because I'm the only football person leaving.

 

"You said it's a cost-cutting exercise and yet they are bringing in Clive Woodward, who I am sure will be on four times as much money than I am on.

 

"I'm the only football guy who is going so it does make you more than a little bit disappointed.

 

"I don't know how much he (Woodward) is going to earn but it will be more than what I was earning.

 

"When giving the excuse it was cost-cutting, I feel let down.

 

"Obviously, I do know what football is like.

 

"It's a hard life and these decisions have to be made when one is relegated and you haven't got a contract so I knew the difficulties.

 

"But I just feel I've been let down - that's the whole point.

 

"Harry's intimated the changes he was going to make and said the other week I was going to have to go but he would try and keep me there, and obviously that didn't work."

 

Lowe said: "We are all sad that Jim will not be with us next year, particularly Harry.

 

"Jim did as much as he could to keep us up but we are now in the Championship and have to tighten our belts."

 

Redknapp added: "It's not easy for anybody to take and nobody could have worked harder and tried to keep us up than Jim did.

 

"He's been terrific with me and he's been a big part of everything I've achieved over the last three years so it's a big blow for me to lose him.

 

"It's not my decision."

 

Lowe again reiterated that no final decision on Woodward has been made and last week said he would only come in with Redknapp's blessing.

 

Woodward, however, has cast doubt over whether he would arrive anyway, saying he has other job offers to consider.

 

Smith continued: "I've been around a lot. I know the serious financial things that happen to you when you get relegated.

 

"You've got to be responsible enough to accept that you might have to reduce the wages, as everyone has had to do, and it's been highly documented about the players at Southampton.

 

"The chairman mentioned to me the fact that Woodward is going to come in and organise certain aspects of the club.

 

"I've been told that; I'm just repeating what I've been told.

 

"If he says `you're not good enough and I want you out', that's okay - but don't start saying it's cost-cutting when obviously that's not going to be the case."

 

Despite his age - and having started out in management way back in 1972 - Smith is STILL looking for another job in football.

 

He added: "It's always sad when you lose a relationship that I thought was very strong and always very disappointing when it happens.

 

"But we've got to get on now with the rest of our life.

 

"I feel good, football is such a great game and a great game to be involved in.

 

"The short-term plan is to go on holiday and get the batteries recharged and see what happens after that."

 

 

http://archive.dailyecho.co.uk/2005/5/24/5654.html

 

It is a good read but I enjoy more pictures and less words..Easier for my old pork pies.:cool:

[NickG]

SCAPEGOAT!

 

From the archive, first published Tuesday 24th May 2005.

 

JIM SMITH has blasted Rupert Lowe for giving misleading reasons for his departure from St Mary's.

 

The former Saints assistant boss, 64, believes he has been made a scapegoat for the club's relegation.

 

The chairman has decided not to renew Smith's contract when it expires next month, citing cost-cutting as the reason.

 

Harry Redknapp will be staying on at St Mary's but Smith says it's impossible to justify the cost-cutting claim when he believes he is making way for Sir Clive Woodward to join the staff after the British Lions tour of New Zealand.

 

Smith said: "I enjoyed my time there. I'm disappointed to be relegated obviously and I'm not happy in so much as I look to be carrying the can because I'm the only football person leaving.

 

"You said it's a cost-cutting exercise and yet they are bringing in Clive Woodward, who I am sure will be on four times as much money than I am on.

 

"I'm the only football guy who is going so it does make you more than a little bit disappointed.

 

"I don't know how much he (Woodward) is going to earn but it will be more than what I was earning.

 

"When giving the excuse it was cost-cutting, I feel let down.

 

"Obviously, I do know what football is like.

 

"It's a hard life and these decisions have to be made when one is relegated and you haven't got a contract so I knew the difficulties.

 

"But I just feel I've been let down - that's the whole point.

 

"Harry's intimated the changes he was going to make and said the other week I was going to have to go but he would try and keep me there, and obviously that didn't work."

 

Lowe said: "We are all sad that Jim will not be with us next year, particularly Harry.

 

"Jim did as much as he could to keep us up but we are now in the Championship and have to tighten our belts."

 

Redknapp added: "It's not easy for anybody to take and nobody could have worked harder and tried to keep us up than Jim did.

 

"He's been terrific with me and he's been a big part of everything I've achieved over the last three years so it's a big blow for me to lose him.

 

"It's not my decision."

 

Lowe again reiterated that no final decision on Woodward has been made and last week said he would only come in with Redknapp's blessing.

 

Woodward, however, has cast doubt over whether he would arrive anyway, saying he has other job offers to consider.

 

Smith continued: "I've been around a lot. I know the serious financial things that happen to you when you get relegated.

 

"You've got to be responsible enough to accept that you might have to reduce the wages, as everyone has had to do, and it's been highly documented about the players at Southampton.

 

"The chairman mentioned to me the fact that Woodward is going to come in and organise certain aspects of the club.

 

"I've been told that; I'm just repeating what I've been told.

 

"If he says `you're not good enough and I want you out', that's okay - but don't start saying it's cost-cutting when obviously that's not going to be the case."

 

Despite his age - and having started out in management way back in 1972 - Smith is STILL looking for another job in football.

 

He added: "It's always sad when you lose a relationship that I thought was very strong and always very disappointing when it happens.

 

"But we've got to get on now with the rest of our life.

 

"I feel good, football is such a great game and a great game to be involved in.

 

"The short-term plan is to go on holiday and get the batteries recharged and see what happens after that."

 

 

http://archive.dailyecho.co.uk/2005/5/24/5654.html

 

have you noticed how long threads get when people quote a long post all the time?

[ottery st mary]

Bring back Smithy and Woggy.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

They both should have went at the time, Redcrap is quoted as saying "nobody could have worked harder and tried to keep us up than Jim did." You could and should have c unt, certain players at the time could and should have, their appointment was the onset of the apathy that now engulfs this club.

[ottery st mary]

They both should have went at the time, Redcrap is quoted as saying "nobody could have worked harder and tried to keep us up than Jim did." You could and should have c unt, certain players at the time could and should have, their appointment was the onset of the apathy that now engulfs this club.

 

Nothing to do with Lord Rupert and his Lavender Hill Mob then?:smt049

 

Sir Clive where for art thou.:smt049

[sidthesquid]

I notice how you are avoiding the original point of the thread. I wonder why.

 

Not avoiding it - just couldn't be bothered to address the removal of a 64 year old assistant manager of a relegated team 4 years ago. Who the F cares?

[Mole]

Not avoiding it - just couldn't be bothered to address the removal of a 64 year old assistant manager of a relegated team 4 years ago. Who the F cares?

 

The point is, as you well know, Lowe said Smith was removed to reduce costs (he then appointed SCW). Pearson was removed to cut cost too. Would you say Lowe lied both times?

[aintforever]

Not avoiding it - just couldn't be bothered to address the removal of a 64 year old assistant manager of a relegated team 4 years ago. Who the F cares?

 

It does illustrate the point that Lowe's excuse for sacking Pearson is complete ******. Managers wages are always pretty insignificant in comparison to all the other costs.

[St Paul]

A friend of mines Dad played with Jim Smith at Aldershot and has remained friendly with him since. Smith has a "George Burley" type lifestyle (without the women) and this has caught up with him in recent years. It was one of the reasons he left Pompey, with Redknapp not putting up much of a fight to retain him.

I am totally against Lowe, but on this occasion, dont think he's done too much wrong. The line around the finaces whilst a lot of BS, was proberly better than the truth coming out in this particular instance.

[sidthesquid]

A friend of mines Dad played with Jim Smith at Aldershot and has remained friendly with him since. Smith has a "George Burley" type lifestyle (without the women) and this has caught up with him in recent years. It was one of the reasons he left Pompey, with Redknapp not putting up much of a fight to retain him.

I am totally against Lowe, but on this occasion, dont think he's done too much wrong. The line around the finaces whilst a lot of BS, was proberly better than the truth coming out in this particular instance.

 

I was always under the impression that he enthusiastically shared George's (alleged) pastime, but I wasn't sure I was allowed to mention that, & I don't supposed the club were either, hence a polite line on 'finances'. Also, I thought SCW was appointed when we were still in the Prem.

You have to try harder Stanley, this week's conspiracy theory really isn't very compelling.

[Mole]

I was always under the impression that he enthusiastically shared George's (alleged) pastime, but I wasn't sure I was allowed to mention that, & I don't supposed the club were either, hence a polite line on 'finances'. Also, I thought SCW was appointed when we were still in the Prem.

You have to try harder Stanley, this week's conspiracy theory really isn't very compelling.

 

So it was OK for Lowe to lie about the reason for sacking Jim Smith then.

 

Using your questionable morals i presume you think it was OK for Lowe to use the same trick with Pearson aswell.

 

The implications are endless. When Lowe shipped Saga out to Aalborg are we to believe it was for financial reasons too?

[Mole]

“I'm always sincere even when I'm lying.”

 

Anyone guess who said this?

 

Go on Sid have a go.

Edited 15 March, 2009 by Mole

[Dalek2003]

I can't believe this story has been sat on since 2005. We should have been talking about this every day. It is so relevant it almost burns my laptop screen.

 

Sometimes it takes a while for key facts to surface. However, it is true, to understand our current plight it is necessary to understand the events of the past, especially the long term causes.

 

There are bound to be many key issues that will come to light, hidden by those who have a vested interest at keeping them in the dark.

[SaintRobbie]

Sometimes it takes a while for key facts to surface. However, it is true, to understand our current plight it is necessary to understand the events of the past, especially the long term causes.

 

There are bound to be many key issues that will come to light, hidden by those who have a vested interest at keeping them in the dark.

 

... as I say, I look forward to Duncan's consolidated history of 'Saints - The Low(e) Years'... its going to make very interesting reading. He who wins the war writes the history.

 

Lowe will lose.

[St Paul]

There is a lot of things Lowe has done to damage SFC. There have been plenty of times Lowe has lied to the supporters, however this is making a mountain out of a molehill. This was not a question of being able to afford Smith ( as Bassett was brought in to do the same job), but a question of value for money. The Club couldn't afford to pay an Asst Manager, who spent more time in the bar, than on the training pitch.

[sidthesquid]

So it was OK for Lowe to lie about the reason for sacking Jim Smith then.

 

Using your questionable morals i presume you think it was OK for Lowe to use the same trick with Pearson aswell.

 

The implications are endless. When Lowe shipped Saga out to Aalborg are we to believe it was for financial reasons too?

 

This is reality. Do you live in a nunnery or something where everyone's virtue is beyond reproach? People (ALL people) in football, like in life, use the truth when it suits them and are economic with it when it doesn't. Find something worthwhile to make an issue about. This really isn't it

[Mole]

This is reality. Do you live in a nunnery or something where everyone's virtue is beyond reproach? People (ALL people) in football, like in life, use the truth when it suits them and are economic with it when it doesn't. Find something worthwhile to make an issue about. This really isn't it

 

It isn't an issue that Pearson was removed for non financial reasons and arguably because of his removal we face life in League 1 next season. Sid what planet are you on?

[Mole]

There is a lot of things Lowe has done to damage SFC. There have been plenty of times Lowe has lied to the supporters, however this is making a mountain out of a molehill. This was not a question of being able to afford Smith ( as Bassett was brought in to do the same job), but a question of value for money. The Club couldn't afford to pay an Asst Manager, who spent more time in the bar, than on the training pitch.

 

Smith is just an example of Lowe using the same reasons for the removal of an employee as he did with Pearson. You and Sid have both agreed that you think Lowe lied so if he lied then it's reasonable to think his reason for removing Pearson wasn't the truth.

[sidthesquid]

It isn't an issue that Pearson was removed for non financial reasons and arguably because of his removal we face life in League 1 next season. Sid what planet are you on?

 

It isn't an issue about Jim Smith

[sidthesquid]

Smith is just an example of Lowe using the same reasons for the removal of an employee as he did with Pearson. You and Sid have both agreed that you think Lowe lied so if he lied then it's reasonable to think his reason for removing Pearson wasn't the truth.

 

The only two people who know exactly what was discussed are Pearson & Lowe. I don't know & you don't know. Financial can mean a lot of things - NP's wages, the transfer budget, player's wages, the fact that if he became manager he was going to have to drastically cut costs. Or maybe Rupert said he was going to offer him half what he'd been on before, or maybe NP said I've been given a massive offer from Moneybags Mandaric who hates Lowe even more than you and are you going to match it. Who the hell knows? Outside your little sanctuary of purity & honesty people don't always feel obliged to tell us every detail & it dangerous to fill in the gaps to suit your own agenda

[Lord Duckhunter]

If Jim Smith was "let go" because he had a drink problem, then Lowe did the right thing by citing finance as an issue. Better that than drag a respected football man's name through the mud (even if he was a Skate).

[aintforever]

The only two people who know exactly what was discussed are Pearson & Lowe. I don't know & you don't know. Financial can mean a lot of things - NP's wages, the transfer budget, player's wages, the fact that if he became manager he was going to have to drastically cut costs. Or maybe Rupert said he was going to offer him half what he'd been on before, or maybe NP said I've been given a massive offer from Moneybags Mandaric who hates Lowe even more than you and are you going to match it. Who the hell knows? Outside your little sanctuary of purity & honesty people don't always feel obliged to tell us every detail & it dangerous to fill in the gaps to suit your own agenda

 

You are ignoring the fact that if Lowe had offered Pearson ANYTHING then he would have announced as such to avoid the inevitable bad PR. It is crystal clear what happened, Lowe had his own guys lined up before the season even ended.

 

Pearson was sacked because he wasn't Lowe's man and we are going to be in League 1 next season as a direct result.

[Mole]

It isn't an issue about Jim Smith

 

So you are saying it's fine (in your book) for Jim to be sacked and it doesn't matter if the reason given is the truth or not.

 

So this basically means that in your opinion Lowe is fully entitled to use any excuse (even if it's not the truth) to get his own way.

 

The Jim Smith issue (and you gave your opinion that you thought Lowe lied) is relevent today because it puts questions marks over the reasons given for the removal of Pearson and the loaning out of Saganowski. Given your belief that Lowe lied about Jim Smith do you think we can believe anything he ever says?

[Mole]

If Jim Smith was "let go" because he had a drink problem, then Lowe did the right thing by citing finance as an issue. Better that than drag a respected football man's name through the mud (even if he was a Skate).

 

So it's OK for Lowe to lie. Is that what you are saying?

[Saint Bones]

So it's OK for Lowe to lie. Is that what you are saying?

 

In the above case I'd say Yes - As it was in the interest of both parties.

 

 

NP - Well i'm sure no many of us are now buying the cost comments - But what does one do exactly Stanley ?

[Frank's cousin]

In retrospect the whole Woodward fiasco was just a total embrrassing fukcup. Shocking waste of money and a negative impact at the club. One of Lowe's best moments. Not top mention Clifford! Roflmao on the floor laughing my ar$e off.

 

How someone as inept as lowe gets to do it I don't know. Eh? wassat? Money? But please explain why the shareholders permit Lowe trashing the value of the club???

 

Admin will clear out the dead wood.

 

To counter these IMHO

 

The Woodward 'fiasco' - not such a bad idea - lots of positives to be gained, but badly timed, badly media managed and **** poor communicated - no one really sure of the role, not helped sadly by old school media and 'football' people mocking it - no doubt in part because they probably had their noses put out of joint by the fear it might work and highlight them for the dinosaurs many of them are. Also financially, it was not appropriate at the time even if the figures bandied around were way off the mark - spread to undermine the decision

 

Shareholders - simple - the current majority who are bothered , for some reason believ whatever plan he is overseeing is the still the best way to get us out of the mire LONG TERM. Unfortunately its obvious that what this means SHORT TERM is a very visable belt tightening which negatively impacts on the playing side - From a fans perspective this is naturally sh!te, but without knowing the detail of what is happening behind the scenes, why and what the long term stability is going to be like does make it really just speculation to try and fathom out - more communication would certainly be beneficial.

 

Admin, would be a feckin disaster and IMHO thats why everything is being done to avoid it. But the things being done impact most on the playing squad - the biggest financial drain - so from a fans perspective it looks hideous.

 

Jim Smith/Pearson 'we cant afford it' - Come on - stop be so naive!!! FFS. Everyone knows that Pearson having the break clause instigated had nothing to do with money directly, but was due to Lowe's Dutch/youth plan of which Pearson was not seen as a part of, same as Jim smith was most likely relieved of his duties for other reasons. BUT all businesses and clubs will AGREE on how these things are communicated to the media - usually with the backing of all parties to minimise any negative media coverage or to cover any personal embarassment - its COMMMON PRACTICE in most business which are under public and media scrutiny - come on ho many managers are 'sacked' these days? They are all inevitably 'mutually consented'. I suspect that actually you are not that naive, but recognised another opportunity to support an accustaion of lowe allegedly being a 'liar' - be careful with those statements as we know Mr Lowe is no stranger to the libel courts.

[sidthesquid]

So it's OK for Lowe to lie. Is that what you are saying?

 

Come on, then, Mother Theresa, was it better to say 'he had to go because he was a washed up drunk?'

[St_Tel49]

Or it may have the opposite effect - which is my belief. You may be right, I may be right, but i'll continue to boycott in the hope i'm right.

 

The problem is that you don't KNOW what the outcome of Admin would be so how can you be such an enthusiatic advocate? IMHO admin could easily result in the wholesale destruction of the club. Bournemouth's future looks very dodgy to me!

[Mole]

Come on, then, Mother Theresa, was it better to say 'he had to go because he was a washed up drunk?'

 

And in the case of Pearson it was OK to say it was done for cost cutting reasons when he already had Wotte and Portvliet lined up?

[sidthesquid]

And in the case of Pearson it was OK to say it was done for cost cutting reasons when he already had Wotte and Portvliet lined up?

 

Answer my question & I'll answer yours

[Mole]

Come on, then, Mother Theresa, was it better to say 'he had to go because he was a washed up drunk?'

 

Lowe could simply have said "the board have decided to bring in sir Clive Woodward and Jim smith needs to make way for the appointment." i.e THE TRUTH.