Jump to content

Why no takers before Admin?


Recommended Posts

Seems purely to have been the "Lowe won't sell" issue - tends to be backed up by the complete lack of any investor/investment sought commentary on the OS when he was in charge compared to the (failed) efforts of the others.

 

 

In a nutshell ..... Lowe would NEVER contemplate anything which would have led to him losing control of HIS PLC ....

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll not argue everything that you've written in response, as I'm not net savvy enough to do multiple quotes and frankly I can't be arsed anyway. But I'll respond to this bit above, as it is essentially the nub of the matter.

 

Firstly, as far as I'm aware, it is impossible to have an affect before the cause. If I'm wrong, perhaps you would kindly give me an anecdotal example to illustrate the point.

 

In your comment that the numbers at the start of the season were down on last year's, I had covered that by saying that some was as a result of Lowe and Wilde's return, some because of the dismissal of Pearson, economic factors, pricing, playing the kids, etc. So there was already a cause that pre-dated the effect, not the other way about.

 

Also, as has been argued many times before, it was not a financial necessity to farm out all three of the main strikers; we could have kept at least one and rationalised the cost by more prudent outlay on other purchases and loans. Neither was it an imperative to play only the kids, only to have brought in the inexperienced Double Dutch, only to play one up front, etc. It is clearly the case that these were the causes of our predicament and the effect was certainly the relegation and probably also the resultant administration.

 

As for saying that Lowe only did what any other businessman would have done, that is plainly absurd. Even he had other options, different perspectives and emphasis that he could have applied. But then, his record is plain to see over a period in excess of a decade and he made some mistakes and errors of judgement even when things were relatively OK and he wasn't so forced into a corner by financial pressures. Did he do only what other businessmen would have done then? So your contention that anybody who could not read between the lines was blinded by their hatred of Lowe, holds no water.

 

It is patently clear that things could have been done differently even within the financial straitjacket and yet a different approach might have produced better results on the pitch, which in return would have resulted in better attendances and therefore more revenue, thus less financial pressure.

 

All cause and effect, not effect and cause.

 

I agree Wes you can't have effect before the cause but IMO fans tried to pre-empt the cause hence the effect came before the the results were known if you get my drift.

 

The only way our top 3 strikers could have been retained IMo was if we had been able to release Euell and/or Skacel. The financial straitjacket IMO did lead us to release players where they were wanted and those who weren't or refused to accept terms remained on our books and in the case of Skacel hindered our chances of survival on and off the pitch.

 

Of course things could have been different and we could see where Crouch was going to take us but perhaps the real bottom line is that it was a still a very difficult juggling act and differnet decisions than Lowe made would have given no guarantee of success. The fact we got to just a handful of games from the end of the season and for the sake of an O/d limit exceeded by about 5% then with new S?T sales we may have made it.

 

Better results were not guaranteed as Pearson proved the season before but the only way to guarantee an increase large or small was for Lowe to walk away. That action would have been counter-intuitive to his desire to save the club and strange that a personality could cause fans to deliberately harm their club.

 

I guess Wes we will never agree and I've just realised I said I wouldn't respond. Not keeping to my promises i must be turning into Leon 'investment is 3 months away' Crouch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems purely to have been the "Lowe won't sell" issue - tends to be backed up by the complete lack of any investor/investment sought commentary on the OS when he was in charge compared to the (failed) efforts of the others.

 

In a nutshell ..... Lowe would NEVER contemplate anything which would have led to him losing control of HIS PLC ....

 

I'm just going to pick up on the continual reiterance of this urban myth.

 

What was MJ/LLS doing then before he tried to "save B'mouth"? Wasn't he, allegedly, whoring around RL's Cabal's shares to anyone that would listen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})