brisfox Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 When Nigel got sacked everybody assumed it was because of the scandal involving his son. I have a different theory. The press release said it was because the board and the manager had fundamental differences in perspective. Could it be that the owners wanted to buy certain players that Pearson didn't want? It all seems very strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 When Nigel got sacked everybody assumed it was because of the scandal involving his son. I have a different theory. The press release said it was because the board and the manager had fundamental differences in perspective. Could it be that the owners wanted to buy certain players that Pearson didn't want? It all seems very strange. Being reported now that the owners wanted to splash cash including Austin and Pearson was focused on adding a small number of select players to the squad and that's what the issue became "we own the club if you don't like it goodbye " The owners want to revamp the squad All over Very little to do with his son , although it was noted pearson was no where to be seen when jap guy was signed and made little or no comment on the signing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedX Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 When Nigel got sacked everybody assumed it was because of the scandal involving his son. I have a different theory. The press release said it was because the board and the manager had fundamental differences in perspective. Could it be that the owners wanted to buy certain players that Pearson didn't want? It all seems very strange. Definitely. But this is Foxes Talk, which is why such conjecture - that has been already debated to death, accounted for hundreds of posts already across a score of topics and continues to consume limitless bandwidth now has a thread. Given that you have a 'different theory' - which is incidentally the same as many of the others - perhaps the existing 'theory' thread might have served as a pointer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 I was told this earlier on in the week by a very reliable source and posted what I knew on the forum, unfortunately whoever was modding the forum must not have taken me very seriously and moved it into the theories thread so I don't believe many on here saw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wasyls Pec Deck Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 I think this is plausible. Seeing as Walsh came out and said they'd been watching Okazaki for 2 years, and tried to sign him before etc - either he was lying, or maybe the scouting network had differences of opinion with NP in terms of recruitment. I had assumed that Walsh (and Shakey...) would follow NP out, but this suggests they - or a least Walsh - might not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 I think this is plausible. Seeing as Walsh came out and said they'd been watching Okazaki for 2 years, and tried to sign him before etc - either he was lying, or maybe the scouting network had differences of opinion with NP in terms of recruitment. I had assumed that Walsh (and Shakey...) would follow NP out, but this suggests they - or a least Walsh - might not. Couldn't sign him in Championship, Robinson couldn't land him last summer & we couldn't get Mainz to sell in Jan... we could however sign him on survival. Nothing suspicious in that at all However the picture building up is that they want to do a QPR which could just as easily fail, Pearson as we know believes in sustainable development of the squad and player's mental attributes are just as important as ability, because he knows hardwork and talent beats talent alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep blue Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 When Nigel got sacked everybody assumed it was because of the scandal involving his son. I have a different theory. The press release said it was because the board and the manager had fundamental differences in perspective. Could it be that the owners wanted to buy certain players that Pearson didn't want? It all seems very strange. Look at the Theories thread. It's certainly far from the truth that everybody assumed it to be to do with the Thailand incident. My post 184 of 2 days ago, along with many others around it, posits a theory which is to do with differences with the speed of our ambitions and transfer decisions, a theory that appears to be confirmed by our recent transfer activity (Austin). And this, and similar, theories, dismissed the Thailand incident as having only peripheral impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 As I mentioned in another thread, I found Pearson's comments at the end of the season regarding Okazaki quite odd. When asked if he was interested he didn't simply refuse to talk about another clubs player as he ALWAYS did previously, but instead he said something along the lines of "we've tried to sign him in the last two windows, so make of that what you will". It was out of character and looking back it could have been a bit of frustration creeping out from the fact he had no say in it. Also, Jermaine Defoe. The least 'Pearson' signing ever but we tried to sign him. Add to that the odd situation of bidding for Austin, a player available at £15M since May, a couple of days after Pearson is sacked and it all starts to add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 As I mentioned on another thread, I found Pearson's comments at the end of the season regarding Okazaki quite odd. When asked if he was interested he didn't simply refuse to talk about another clubs player as he ALWAYS did previously, but instead something along the lines of "we've tried to sign him in the last two windows, so make of that what you will". It was out of character and looking back it could have been a bit of frustration creeping out from the fact he had no say in it. Also, Jermaine Defoe. The least 'Pearson' signing ever but we tried to sign him. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Being reported now that the owners wanted to splash cash including Austin and Pearson was focused on adding a small number of select players to the squad and that's what the issue became "we own the club if you don't like it goodbye " The owners want to revamp the squad All over Very little to do with his son , although it was noted pearson was no where to be seen when jap guy was signed and made little or no comment on the signing Was it noted that chief scout Steve Walsh was absolutely beaming and gave an interview about the signing? Yep. Where was Pearson when we confirmed the other two signings? Nonsense post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4everfox Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 As I mentioned in another thread, I found Pearson's comments at the end of the season regarding Okazaki quite odd. When asked if he was interested he didn't simply refuse to talk about another clubs player as he ALWAYS did previously, but instead he said something along the lines of "we've tried to sign him in the last two windows, so make of that what you will". It was out of character and looking back it could have been a bit of frustration creeping out from the fact he had no say in it. Also, Jermaine Defoe. The least 'Pearson' signing ever but we tried to sign him. Add to that the odd situation of bidding for a Austin, a player available at £15M since May, a couple of days after Pearson is sacked and it all starts to add up. Cant disagree with that, the signs have been there all season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wasyls Pec Deck Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 As I mentioned in another thread, I found Pearson's comments at the end of the season regarding Okazaki quite odd. When asked if he was interested he didn't simply refuse to talk about another clubs player as he ALWAYS did previously, but instead he said something along the lines of "we've tried to sign him in the last two windows, so make of that what you will". It was out of character and looking back it could have been a bit of frustration creeping out from the fact he had no say in it. Also, Jermaine Defoe. The least 'Pearson' signing ever but we tried to sign him. Add to that the odd situation of bidding for a Austin, a player available at £15M since May, a couple of days after Pearson is sacked and it all starts to add up. I like this. Well don't like, but I think there's something in it. The NP comment posted above - I remember it well. Out of character, but reading between the lines and eliciting some meaning out of that - the implication is that Okazaki wasn't his signing. I do think the owners want to move 'faster', perhaps than NP wanted - illustrated by the bids placed since he was sacked. There is merit in the NP approach - we've all witnessed it, and it makes sense. Footballers first and foremost are human beings, and it's about assembling the right mix. The obvious extreme is QPR, but hopefully we're savvy enough to find a middle ground if we want to spend big, be ambitious and develop at a faster rate. Rudkin is no mug re spending willy billy, but is he being listened to? If not, then I'd he concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RizLCFC Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 I like this. Well don't like, but I think there's something in it. The NP comment posted above - I remember it well. Out of character, but reading between the lines and eliciting some meaning out of that - the implication is that Okazaki wasn't his signing. I do think the owners want to move 'faster', perhaps than NP wanted - illustrated by the bids placed since he was sacked. There is merit in the NP approach - we've all witnessed it, and it makes sense. Footballers first and foremost are human beings, and it's about assembling the right mix. The obvious extreme is QPR, but hopefully we're savvy enough to find a middle ground if we want to spend big, be ambitious and develop at a faster rate. Rudkin is no mug re spending willy billy, but is he being listened to? If not, then I'd he concerned. I think Rudkin is being listened to far too much. No secret owners hold him in high regard. I remember when he was appointed DoF people said he and Pearson didn't get on, those comments were backed up by the reliable Albert. Since he got the role, Pearson has been sacked twice, but on the first occasion Aiyawatt knew it was wrong, he may have this time too, but couldn't win the same argument twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bettsj2 Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 I like this. Well don't like, but I think there's something in it. The NP comment posted above - I remember it well. Out of character, but reading between the lines and eliciting some meaning out of that - the implication is that Okazaki wasn't his signing. I do think the owners want to move 'faster', perhaps than NP wanted - illustrated by the bids placed since he was sacked. There is merit in the NP approach - we've all witnessed it, and it makes sense. Footballers first and foremost are human beings, and it's about assembling the right mix. The obvious extreme is QPR, but hopefully we're savvy enough to find a middle ground if we want to spend big, be ambitious and develop at a faster rate. Rudkin is no mug re spending willy billy, but is he being listened to? If not, then I'd he concerned. We're signing Willy Billy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wasyls Pec Deck Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 We're signing Willy Billy? Haha my iPhone corrected it... Nah it's the upcoming and talent Willy Nilly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 As I mentioned in another thread, I found Pearson's comments at the end of the season regarding Okazaki quite odd. When asked if he was interested he didn't simply refuse to talk about another clubs player as he ALWAYS did previously, but instead he said something along the lines of "we've tried to sign him in the last two windows, so make of that what you will". It was out of character and looking back it could have been a bit of frustration creeping out from the fact he had no say in it. Also, Jermaine Defoe. The least 'Pearson' signing ever but we tried to sign him. Add to that the odd situation of bidding for Austin, a player available at £15M since May, a couple of days after Pearson is sacked and it all starts to add up. This really is starting to sound more than plausible now and certainly makes sense after recent developments. If it is true, it's beyond depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungry Hungry Fox Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 If you thought it was anything to do with his son, then you really are stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Plenty of people have questioned the link with his son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 It's probably a combination of all three main mentioned factors. Issues over recruitment, issues over the sacking of his son and his bizarre conduct off the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Never made any sense to me that it was to do with James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullet Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 The issue at the minute seems to be that the owners seems to be acting like "children in a sweet shop" Where as Pearson was the adult who kept the "children" grounded from spending all there pocket money in one go Now that hes gone its seems that all that is left is the children in the sweet shop with there pocket money? (i hope they spend wisely) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxes_rule1978 Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Spending money doesn't instantly mean fail, it needs to just be spent wisely and not all over the place and overpaying like QPR did. You need to maintain your team structure but add quality by paying out a bit for some top players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 What concerns me is it looks like they are making the same mistakes as what happened with Sven, more players doesn't automatically mean more talent and selection to pick from it also has a detrimental effect on the players. This is why Pearsons teams have always done well because the players are always playing for the club not for the money he would rather have 4 strikers of similar talent than 8 if you have 8 then they will find it harder to find confidence and form. I don't think its even about money sometimes Pearson was happy to splash the cash on several players last season but don't spend more than you need to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ithuriel Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 I was told that it was a number of things, one being the fall out over his sons dismissal leading to an attitude with certain members of the board. In the end things got to a point that it was just a bad working relationship between manager and the board and he had to go. As for the Sven thing, well, his first season in charge using some known quality players nearly paid off, it was his second season and building a team with average players he knew nothing about with ridiculous contracts that was a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parafox Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Definitely. But this is Foxes Talk, which is why such conjecture - that has been already debated to death, accounted for hundreds of posts already across a score of topics and continues to consume limitless bandwidth now has a thread. Given that you have a 'different theory' - which is incidentally the same as many of the others - perhaps the existing 'theory' thread might have served as a pointer? Can't the modes merge all the "Pearson sacked - what/who's next.- I'm pissed off - they don't know what theyre doing - he was the greatest manager ever" threads into one collossal topic? Or would that need servers the size of those of NASA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.