Bailey Posted 27 April, 2009 Share Posted 27 April, 2009 http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11724 An honest account on Saints' troubles. Sums up what the majority of us fans are thinking too, especially with his last sentence . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick1976.4.38 Posted 27 April, 2009 Share Posted 27 April, 2009 He didnt leave,duck f***er got rid,if only we had kept pearson,ho hum,dutch football was brill.coyr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 27 April, 2009 Share Posted 27 April, 2009 What's even more tragic is that we could so easily have kept both Oakley and Pearson. Can't argue with anything in that article though. Was gutted when he left. I honnestly reckon if he hadn't got injured in '03 he could have played for England. I'm not saying he'd have been the cornerstone of a World Cup winning side, but if players like Scott Parker and Jermaine Jenas can get capped in central midfield... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Shango Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Fair play to Oakley for taking the time to come down on Saturday for the game and show his support. He could have easily not bothered after celebrating Leicester's title win the night before, and nobody would have minded. I thought it was a really nice touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 It caught my attention when Oakley said "I think players like Jason Euell have been in and out of the team because of wages and things like that". This suggests that some of the older heads we desperately needed as things started to unravel in mid season were kept out of the team because the club didn't want to pay appearance money or - god forbid - a win bonus. Players like Euell were going to get their base wages anyway, so those decisions had to be down to the extra money items. If so, that must surely have come from Rupert. Who else? It would be yet another example of interference in team affairs and false economies from the king of interference and false economies. It makes me want to scream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Chuckle Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 I think you will find Burley got rid not Lowe. To be fair Oakley was injured loads leading up to us releasing him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Fair play to Oakley for taking the time to come down on Saturday for the game and show his support. He could have easily not bothered after celebrating Leicester's title win the night before, and nobody would have minded. I thought it was a really nice touch. Mainly because Matt is a top bloke and a very down to earth footballer. Was gutted when he was shipped out and is yet ianother shining example of someone who is having the last laugh whilst not really enjoying it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 I think you will find Burley got rid not Lowe. To be fair Oakley was injured loads leading up to us releasing him Not true. The issue for Oakley was solely down to money and contract. Even at the last minute Burley asked Oakley to come back in to discuss staying on, but as the deal on the table was still the same, Oakley refused to accept it. You ether have to blame Lowe for not offering enough, Oakley for wanting too much, somehwere in between, or alternatively just accept this is just one of these things that happens in fooball. His comments about Pearson don't make pleasant reading for Saints fans!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Not true. The issue for Oakley was solely down to money and contract. Even at the last minute Burley asked Oakley to come back in to discuss staying on, but as the deal on the table was still the same, Oakley refused to accept it. You ether have to blame Lowe for not offering enough, Oakley for wanting too much, somehwere in between, or alternatively just accept this is just one of these things that happens in fooball. His comments about Pearson don't make pleasant reading for Saints fans!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But he would have cost too much money Um! Compared to the golden duo who were an obvious bargain.... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 But he would have cost too much money Um! Compared to the golden duo who were an obvious bargain.... lol ;)Aha, but it's also because he didn't want to work with the youngsters, in addition to being so much more expensive than Little & Large. He also found the sea air a problem with his respiratory system, the particular pollen at Staplewood gave him a tight chest and he didn't like stripes. It wasn't Lowe's fault you see, it all went wrong in the two years he was away[-X:smt018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Not true. The issue for Oakley was solely down to money and contract. Even at the last minute Burley asked Oakley to come back in to discuss staying on, but as the deal on the table was still the same, Oakley refused to accept it. You ether have to blame Lowe for not offering enough, Oakley for wanting too much, somehwere in between, or alternatively just accept this is just one of these things that happens in fooball. His comments about Pearson don't make pleasant reading for Saints fans!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It wasn't money, Oakley has stated before that it was length of contract. Burley/Lowe/Someone was only willing to give him a one year contract given his appalling injury record in the two previous seasons he thought he deserved a least two. Saints were not willing to match this so off he went to Derby played 99% of the games and got player of the season in a promotion winning side. Personally I wasn't to sad to see him go he had been garbage for saints for a couple of seasons and really failed to show his class once we were relegated, I think the move re-invigorated him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ron fan Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Having read his very sensible comments and bearing in mind (A) his Saints background; (B) the fact that he has a good 2 or 3 years playing time left; and © he has recent experience of getting out of both League 1 and the CCC, can I be the first to say... Matt Oakley for player-manager!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabrone Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Good article and interesting to note that now Lowe has gone the official site appears to be willing to publish articles that are more critical of the way this club has been run. Best of luck to Matt Oakley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SP Saint Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 ;)Aha, but it's also because he didn't want to work with the youngsters, in addition to being so much more expensive than Little & Large. He also found the sea air a problem with his respiratory system, the particular pollen at Staplewood gave him a tight chest and he didn't like stripes. It wasn't Lowe's fault you see, it all went wrong in the two years he was away[-X:smt018 Yes that's about it. In Lowe's mind I doubt that it will ever be his fault. I have absolutely no doubt who put most of the coffin nails into this club's Premiership dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plumstead_Saint Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11724 An honest account on Saints' troubles. Sums up what the majority of us fans are thinking too, especially with his last sentence . . . You hit the nail on the head there mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 (edited) It wasn't money, Oakley has stated before that it was length of contract. Burley/Lowe/Someone was only willing to give him a one year contract given his appalling injury record in the two previous seasons he thought he deserved a least two. Saints were not willing to match this so off he went to Derby played 99% of the games and got player of the season in a promotion winning side. Personally I wasn't to sad to see him go he had been garbage for saints for a couple of seasons and really failed to show his class once we were relegated, I think the move re-invigorated him. I think this is about right - often a move does a player good - at Derby he suddenly had to establish himself at a new club a new city etc. I'm not sure a Matt Oakley signing on for another two years at home-sweet-home Saints would have been the same Matt Oakley that went to Derby. As Um says above, it is more than likely just one of those things. Lowe obviously made some catastrophic decisions, but I don't see this as being one of them - esp when you think that equally crock-a-delic Idiakez was given longer term contract than Oakley was offered, suggesting that it wasn't a case of what could be afforded, more what the manager wanted at the time: let's assume II was higher priority than Oakley, rightly or wrongly. (Wrongly!). I think some people need to brace themselves to the fact that the next regime will make some decisions that you don't agree with too. Not everything can be traced back to "Rupert Lowe wants to destroy us on purpose". Edited 28 April, 2009 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 From the last bit it sounds like Oakley has some inside knowledge which he can't really divulge (yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Not true. The issue for Oakley was solely down to money and contract. Even at the last minute Burley asked Oakley to come back in to discuss staying on, but as the deal on the table was still the same, Oakley refused to accept it. You ether have to blame Lowe for not offering enough, Oakley for wanting too much, somehwere in between, or alternatively just accept this is just one of these things that happens in fooball. His comments about Pearson don't make pleasant reading for Saints fans!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, all hail the master knowledge that is Chump Pahars. So, do you know this for fact, do you? Do you remember what Oakley was touted to be on at the time? Do you remember the past 2 seasons injury record? Do you remember how divisive opinion was of him, and whether it was that bad a deal to let him go? Obviously not. Maybe you could dredge up some of those old threads - you like doing that, especially if it flavours your curry, so to speak. As for Pearson... for someone who took over the team 8 points clear of relegation and only managing to keep them up on the last day.. I'd say his managerial capabilities are still questionable... as is your recall of the events. LOL @ Chumpy being pwnd again... good job adriansfc mentioned Idiakez.... hahahaha... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Faz Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Oh, all hail the master knowledge that is Chump Pahars. So, do you know this for fact, do you? Do you remember what Oakley was touted to be on at the time? Do you remember the past 2 seasons injury record? Do you remember how divisive opinion was of him, and whether it was that bad a deal to let him go? Obviously not. Maybe you could dredge up some of those old threads - you like doing that, especially if it flavours your curry, so to speak. As for Pearson... for someone who took over the team 8 points clear of relegation and only managing to keep them up on the last day.. I'd say his managerial capabilities are still questionable... as is your recall of the events. LOL @ Chumpy being pwnd again... good job adriansfc mentioned Idiakez.... hahahaha... Are you ok? there seem to be a whole series of very negative posts from you regarding particular posters and all saints fans in general since lowe went - whats the story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Oh, all hail the master knowledge that is Chump Pahars. So, do you know this for fact, do you? Do you remember what Oakley was touted to be on at the time? Do you remember the past 2 seasons injury record? Do you remember how divisive opinion was of him, and whether it was that bad a deal to let him go? Obviously not. Maybe you could dredge up some of those old threads - you like doing that, especially if it flavours your curry, so to speak. As for Pearson... for someone who took over the team 8 points clear of relegation and only managing to keep them up on the last day.. I'd say his managerial capabilities are still questionable... as is your recall of the events. LOL @ Chumpy being pwnd again... good job adriansfc mentioned Idiakez.... hahahaha... Did you even read the post before you went off on one replying to it? You're making yourself look rather stupid lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 I thought Oaks looked tired and stale towards the end of his Saints career. I think the move to Derby perked him up (in a similar way Big Sam did to KD). Personally, although out of position I thought his performance at Fratton (4-1) was one of the most gutless I've seen from a Saints player in nearly 40 years (along with about 8 others). Lets not look back with rose tinted glasess, he did not deserve more than a year on his form at the time. However as he is a Saint through and through, I'm pleased by his sucsess since leaving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 I thought Oaks looked tired and stale towards the end of his Saints career. I think the move to Derby perked him up (in a similar way Big Sam did to KD). Personally, although out of position I thought his performance at Fratton (4-1) was one of the most gutless I've seen from a Saints player in nearly 40 years (along with about 8 others). Lets not look back with rose tinted glasess, he did not deserve more than a year on his form at the time. However as he is a Saint through and through, I'm pleased by his sucsess since leaving. only 8 others were gutless , so which 2 were ok that dreadful day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 I thought Oaks looked tired and stale towards the end of his Saints career. I think the move to Derby perked him up (in a similar way Big Sam did to KD). Personally, although out of position I thought his performance at Fratton (4-1) was one of the most gutless I've seen from a Saints player in nearly 40 years (along with about 8 others). Lets not look back with rose tinted glasess, he did not deserve more than a year on his form at the time. However as he is a Saint through and through, I'm pleased by his sucsess since leaving. Whilst I think everyone would agree Oakley was off the pace for most of the first season in CCC, I don't think that would have been the norm had he stayed. I think the constant changes in management and being played out of possition a lot didn't help his cause. He was also rushed back into service during the relegation season long before he was ready. They say it takes the length of time you've been out injured to regain full fitness. Given that Oakley had been injured for well over a year, he should have been regaining full fitness around the time he was released. This turned out to be 100% accurate as he played and scored on his Derby debut and was pretty much ever present and on top for all season. Whilst I can understand people's doubts over offering him a 2 year deal, I think he was a much better (i.e. younger and fitter) candidate than Wright or Idiakez, who both got 2 year contracts a month later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 only 8 others were gutless ' date=' so which 2 were ok that dreadful day[/quote'] Well, I think that should be 9 if you include Crouch bottling it before we'd even kicked off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Well, I think that should be 9 if you include Crouch bottling it before we'd even kicked off. I JUST CANNOT SEE who showed any bottle that day, other than us poor fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 It caught my attention when Oakley said "I think players like Jason Euell have been in and out of the team because of wages and things like that". This suggests that some of the older heads we desperately needed as things started to unravel in mid season were kept out of the team because the club didn't want to pay appearance money or - god forbid - a win bonus. Players like Euell were going to get their base wages anyway, so those decisions had to be down to the extra money items. If so, that must surely have come from Rupert. Who else? It would be yet another example of interference in team affairs and false economies from the king of interference and false economies. It makes me want to scream. Skacel wasn't picked against Burnley due the appearance fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Oh, all hail the master knowledge that is Chump Pahars. So, do you know this for fact, do you? Do you remember what Oakley was touted to be on at the time? Do you remember the past 2 seasons injury record? Do you remember how divisive opinion was of him, and whether it was that bad a deal to let him go? Obviously not. Maybe you could dredge up some of those old threads - you like doing that, especially if it flavours your curry, so to speak. As for Pearson... for someone who took over the team 8 points clear of relegation and only managing to keep them up on the last day.. I'd say his managerial capabilities are still questionable... as is your recall of the events. LOL @ Chumpy being pwnd again... good job adriansfc mentioned Idiakez.... hahahaha... I know exactly what Oakley was on, I knew exactly what his drop was when we got relegated and I know exactly what was on offer on the table for his new contract. I also know that Lee Hoos was renting out Matty's house in Winchester etc etc etc as I just happen to have very good connections to the guy. Sorry to burst your bubble (then again I'm always bursting your bubble LMFAO) but on this one I did know the facts. I don't know why you're getting your knckers in a twist LOL (although it's quite funny to show you up - again), because as I have sadi it's just one of those things in football (I certainly wasn't looking to blame anyone) As for AdrianSFC, well after owning you I'll be posting in a minute to own him, as Oakley and his agent were dealing with Lowe as he was in charge at that time (the new lot came in after Oakley had left). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Hang on, was Lowe even here when Oakley was released? Thought it was the summer the new board came in. The "pay idiakez whatever he wants" board? Lowe was at the Club when Oakley decided to exercise freedom of contract. Oakley and his agent were dealing direct with Lowe all throughout that season and right up until Oakley walked. Lowe would not budge in his offer of a one year deal (which was his perogative). Burley wanted Oakley to sign and was continually ringing him & his agent up, right up until Oakley did not show up for training on 27th June 2006. Burley couldn't get Lowe to move on the one year deal and he couldn't get Oakley to move either. Here is a link showing that Oakley had decided prior to Lowe's departure on June 30th 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/5121624.stm Funny thing is if Oakley hadn't got it into his mind to go to pastures new, then the new lot might well have given him a longer deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Another Lowe classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marino Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Mainly because Matt is a top bloke and a very down to earth footballer. Was gutted when he was shipped out and is yet ianother shining example of someone who is having the last laugh whilst not really enjoying it... Yep, I was gutted too. A real Saint shown the door due to someone else's ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_mears Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Oakley was crap in his last season at Saints. He was after a loaded salary and was rightly told to poke it. Out of contract he amusingly struggled to find a team after being turned down by Charlton and Fulham. He got desperate and went to Derby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Oakley was crap in his last season at Saints. He was after a loaded salary and was rightly told to poke it. Out of contract he amusingly struggled to find a team after being turned down by Charlton and Fulham. He got desperate and went to Derby. I am sure that Charlton offered him a one year deal, and also thought Ipswich were interested as well at some point, but it was the fact that Derby offered him a three year deal that swung it. Can't remember any link with Fulham, but understood Charlton and Ipswich were offering more than we were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Chuckle Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 Oakley was crap in his last season at Saints. He was after a loaded salary and was rightly told to poke it. Out of contract he amusingly struggled to find a team after being turned down by Charlton and Fulham. He got desperate and went to Derby. Oakley was always crap for us the moment he went off injured at home to Boro in 2003. Yes he had a couple of brief moments after that time but nothing more. Why are we even going over this again? Didnt we debate this when he left in 06? Seriously it's time to stop blaming. What's happened has happened let's just move on FFS!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicSaint Posted 28 April, 2009 Share Posted 28 April, 2009 So Oakley was invigorated by his move to Derby, how many of the incoming players were invigorated by their move to St Marys, from what I witnessed not many. I think that is a reflection on the type of management we had following WGS. They did not appear to care or were not able to motivate the team. I believe it reflects the easy going attitude that has been at Saints for to long. Even this season too many players have looked unfit for the 95 minutes required to last a full game. We need a complete clear out and a new manager who will work the players hard, because that is the only way we will survive in Div 1 let alone get out of it. Oakleys words should be posted on the changing room walls for all to see. Any potential new owner needs a manager with Div 1 experience. I would suggest MAD DOG Martin Allen and poor mans WGS and boy are we poor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now