Dan LCFC Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 If it isn't true then surely Pearson can get them in trouble? I find it believable. I just still believe there is some hypocrisy about the whole thing, and that the decision was incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wymsey Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 How's the 'petition', to get Pearson back, going?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank to be Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 If it isn't true then surely Pearson can get them in trouble? I find it believable. I just still believe there is some hypocrisy about the whole thing, and that the decision was incorrect. Where the hypocrisy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shailen Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Sorry whether or not this is the reason, this is obviously just lazy journalism. They have put two and two together it's not information they know. Until I hear the owners or Pearson speak out I won't believe anything. Anyway personally I don't believe this because NP may not have liked his son being sacked, but he would have not given an ultimatum for an issue that he really did not have any standing on. And if that scenario was the case he would have not been shocked to lose his job as reported. I think the owners want people to think this was the reason, but secretly wanted to get rid of Pearson to get a higher calibre of manager in. NP was there to take us to the Prem, and then they wanted a big name to attract better players. This was a convenient time and excuse to get rid. We can talk about a breakdown I'm relationships, but people are saying that the owners wanted certain players and signings and maybe they tried to make NPs job difficult and quote a breakdown in relations. Obviously, I'm speculating but I think this is the more likely scenario. Let's face it. NP wouldn't be a good brand to King Power compared to Hiddink or someone along those lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hack Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Why is this story hard to believe? For those who always look for a conspiracy it want sit well, but it seems the most likely and believable of all reasons. If Rudkin did suggest that James also had to go and it became a battle between Nigel and Rudkin then the board had to decide who they would back. To back Nigel would mean either preferential treatment to Nigel's son or not sack any player as well as then have to sack Rudkin as they would have to support Nigel. or as in the real world Rudkin and the board agreed on the decision that all the players had to go and that Nigel had to agree also or also go. Well we now know that Nigel would not agree to his son's firing and then lost the battle and lost his job. I really do think this is what happened and in the real world of business these types of disputes almost always mean someone has to leave. In this case Nigel played his cards wrong. I love Nigel Pearson and have always supported him when everyone on this board wanted him gone. But If this is the case and it seems someone on the inside did leak this to let the fans know what happened, I am in full support for the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Eatfood Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Sorry whether or not this is the reason, this is obviously just lazy journalism. They have put two and two together it's not information they know. Until I hear the owners or Pearson speak out I won't believe anything. Anyway personally I don't believe this because NP may not have liked his son being sacked, but he would have not given an ultimatum for an issue that he really did not have any standing on. And if that scenario was the case he would have not been shocked to lose his job as reported. I think the owners want people to think this was the reason, but secretly wanted to get rid of Pearson to get a higher calibre of manager in. NP was there to take us to the Prem, and then they wanted a big name to attract better players. This was a convenient time and excuse to get rid. We can talk about a breakdown I'm relationships, but people are saying that the owners wanted certain players and signings and maybe they tried to make NPs job difficult and quote a breakdown in relations. Obviously, I'm speculating but I think this is the more likely scenario. Let's face it. NP wouldn't be a good brand to King Power compared to Hiddink or someone along those lines. The article doesn't mention anything about an ultimatum, just that Pearson fought it all the way, possibly to the point that a working relationship was no longer viable. And surely the most convenient time to get rid of him would've been last season after McArthur incident when he was allegedly sacked. Personally I don't think they secretly wanted to sack him but because Pearson was unable to separate the personal from the professional the difference in perspective was too great and ultimately he had to go. This is the simplest hypothesis and in my opinion the most likely. Let's just all hope that a new man is in place soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagworthblue Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 one thing is for sure - this is leaked info as a source is quoted but the source isn't revealed. it's also odd that they don't allege but simply quote an unnamed source. I'll pose this to any lawyers but doesn't this potentially leave the Mirror exposed to a legal challenge whereby they may have to reveal the source and hope they confirm having made the statement or face potential libel action? I'm not a lawyer hence may be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wymsey Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Can't see any 'hidden agenda' that would've caused Pearson's departure, as the Mirror would've pointed it out (even if it made things up again). Surely, the Thais were impressed (if not surprised) with how the team performed under him in a very difficult end-of-season period; and can only imagine it's 90% due to his daft son. All in all, it's over a few minutes' event that's fvcked the club's situation currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxfanazer Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Well finally some clarity on the situation from a reliable and reputable source. At least we can move on now......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hack Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 one thing is for sure - this is leaked info as a source is quoted but the source isn't revealed. it's also odd that they don't allege but simply quote an unnamed source. I'll pose this to any lawyers but doesn't this potentially leave the Mirror exposed to a legal challenge whereby they may have to reveal the source and hope they confirm having made the statement or face potential libel action? I'm not a lawyer hence may be wrong. No. Media/Journalist's are not required in law to reveal sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shailen Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 The article doesn't mention anything about an ultimatum, just that Pearson fought it all the way, possibly to the point that a working relationship was no longer viable. And surely the most convenient time to get rid of him would've been last season after McArthur incident when he was allegedly sacked. Personally I don't think they secretly wanted to sack him but because Pearson was unable to separate the personal from the professional the difference in perspective was too great and ultimately he had to go. This is the simplest hypothesis and in my opinion the most likely. Let's just all hope that a new man is in place soon. The bit about the ultimatum was me saying I cannot see him go as far as doing that. It's not mentioned anywhere. Just my thoughts. Yes it would have been viable to sack him then, but I don't think the Leicester job would have been attractive to any high profile manager with the considerable threat of relegation. And ironically NP would be best suited if we did get relegated to get us back up. I think there may have been a disagreement about certain issues, but I cannot for the life of me believe that would be the reason for his dismissal. The great escape showed how good a manager he was, and that the football we played in most of the season was fantastic. Surely if they wanted him they would have found some compromise. For all NP has achieved for them, he deserved that. His stock was high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hack Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 The bit about the ultimatum was me saying I cannot see him go as far as doing that. It's not mentioned anywhere. Just my thoughts. Yes it would have been viable to sack him then, but I don't think the Leicester job would have been attractive to any high profile manager with the considerable threat of relegation. And ironically NP would be best suited if we did get relegated to get us back up. I think there may have been a disagreement about certain issues, but I cannot for the life of me believe that would be the reason for his dismissal. The great escape showed how good a manager he was, and that the football we played in most of the season was fantastic. Surely if they wanted him they would have found some compromise. For all NP has achieved for them, he deserved that. His stock was high. That is the point! he did show how good a manager he was for us and would have been a contributing factor in the board doing anything but sack him. I am sure the last thing they wanted to do before the start of the season was to look for a new manager. This had to be a major breakdown in the relationship. No one in their right mind could believe the board did this to bring in someone else. This was pure and simple a matter of support the company position or not. He must of said and done things in the discussion to suggest to those in the meeting that they could no longer work with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Eatfood Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 The bit about the ultimatum was me saying I cannot see him go as far as doing that. It's not mentioned anywhere. Just my thoughts. Yes it would have been viable to sack him then, but I don't think the Leicester job would have been attractive to any high profile manager with the considerable threat of relegation. And ironically NP would be best suited if we did get relegated to get us back up. I think there may have been a disagreement about certain issues, but I cannot for the life of me believe that would be the reason for his dismissal. The great escape showed how good a manager he was, and that the football we played in most of the season was fantastic. Surely if they wanted him they would have found some compromise. For all NP has achieved for them, he deserved that. His stock was high. Why couldn't it be the reason for his dismissal? If he tried to keep his son at the club after he was involved in a scandal that took place on a tour to promote the club in the owner's homeland why wouldn't that lead to a breakdown in the working relationship? For all the owners have done for the club they deserve more respect than that. If Pearson had the ability to wind his neck in a bit on occasion I firmly believe he'd still be here. At times last season his behaviour was odd and embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narborough_fox Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Was speaking to someone who knows a couple of people down at the club today and he told me something very similar... Nigel believed that the owners had a part to play in the 'racist orgy' due to the fact that they own the hotel in Thailand that the players stayed at and therefore the prostitutes that were provided for the players were provided by the hotel, and indirectly the owners. With James cleared of racism by the internal investigation Nigel therefore asked what they had sacked him for as he was not involved in any racism towards the women and should therefore have been given a less severe punishment. The relationship between the owners then took another hit when Pearson said that he didn't want Austin and would prefer the money to be spent elsewhere if it was available which, coupled with his reaction of James being sacked, was the final straw and he was sacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 I think its very clear the sacking is related to his son's sacking. The moment I read his son was sacked I was immediatly curious what would happen to nigel. Although by the time Nigel was actually sacked I had stopped wondering. End of the day its business and there will likely be two prime reasons behind it. 1 - They want someone loyal to the club, the brand and focused on the job at hand, pearson's will disagreeing with the sacking would have clearly been tarnished. Also it would be even worse if pearson then made it clear to the media and/or players he didnt agree with the decision whilst still employed as first team manager. Such a situation isnt viable in business. 2 - Its likely the thai's have been embarassed in their home country by the events, because if our press have the story then their press will also have it. Note as well it was top that sacked nigel, so top his previous ally that saved his job last time, was either in agreement or persuaded to go along with the sack, once the relationship with top broke down it was over. As I think the father never liked pearson much anyway. Lets be clear on this, do we want to be associated which such publicised racists? and pearson was acting weird numerous times last season putting himself in the light for the wrong reasons. A new manager might take us further then pearson ever could, look at what southampton have done since sacking adkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shailen Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Why couldn't it be the reason for his dismissal? If he tried to keep his son at the club after he was involved in a scandal that took place on a tour to promote the club in the owner's homeland why wouldn't that lead to a breakdown in the working relationship? For all the owners have done for the club they deserve more respect than that. If Pearson had the ability to wind his neck in a bit on occasion I firmly believe he'd still be here. At times last season his behaviour was odd and embarrassing. Firstly we do not know whether NP was asking for clarification or was seriously asking for James Pearson to be reinstated. I don't think he is daft enough to ask for that given the proof is one click away. I'm not backing James Pearson in any way here, because if NP said I'm walking if he doesn't get his contract back then the owners have made the right call. But ever since the owners have come in they've not made it shy that they want us a) in the Pl and b) in Europe. When Sge was here, they openly trusted him and spent a vast amount with no reward. Since Pearson has come back we have tightened the purstrings and if the rumours are correct, the owners have tried to influence footballing decisions, which will anger any manager and put a bolt in the relationship with any manager. I think they've been waiting for the moment that NP gets us to complete part a) and then go hard with another big name to achieve part b). I've said this season, the relationship between the two hasn't felt the same. I know some of you will point to the media issues Pearson has faced, but none of them really damaged the club but only really made him look like a fool. Obviously I'm just expressing my opinion but I believe there is something amiss because if they really wanted him they would have found some compromise. And it doesn't look like they tried that if you listen to sources close to NP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_from_USA Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 If you insist on blaming the owners you are just plain stubborn and wrong. Read my blog on it here: http://www.premierpunditry.com/2015/07/goodbye-nigel-pearson/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishOxide Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 If you insist on blaming the owners you are just plain stubborn and wrong. Read my blog on it here: http://www.premierpunditry.com/2015/07/goodbye-nigel-pearson/ That is total shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Eatfood Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Firstly we do not know whether NP was asking for clarification or was seriously asking for James Pearson to be reinstated. I don't think he is daft enough to ask for that given the proof is one click away. I'm not backing James Pearson in any way here, because if NP said I'm walking if he doesn't get his contract back then the owners have made the right call. But ever since the owners have come in they've not made it shy that they want us a) in the Pl and b) in Europe. When Sge was here, they openly trusted him and spent a vast amount with no reward. Since Pearson has come back we have tightened the purstrings and if the rumours are correct, the owners have tried to influence footballing decisions, which will anger any manager and put a bolt in the relationship with any manager. I think they've been waiting for the moment that NP gets us to complete part a) and then go hard with another big name to achieve part b). I've said this season, the relationship between the two hasn't felt the same. I know some of you will point to the media issues Pearson has faced, but none of them really damaged the club but only really made him look like a fool. Obviously I'm just expressing my opinion but I believe there is something amiss because if they really wanted him they would have found some compromise. And it doesn't look like they tried that if you listen to sources close to NP. Well if Pearson had been willing to resign over it then the owners would've let him and saved themselves a pay-out. It states in the article that he had said he believed that James should've been given a second chance, the owners didn't think so, so what compromise is to be had? That is a fundamental difference in perspectives. Ultimately it looks like this was the final straw in a catalogue of incidents that finally tested their patience to breaking point. And since Pearson returned I've not been aware of any time that the owners have tried to influence footballing decisions, which rumours are you alleging to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 If you insist on blaming the owners you are just plain stubborn and wrong. Read my blog on it here: http://www.premierpunditry.com/2015/07/goodbye-nigel-pearson/ That second paragraph just screams 'I am the enlightened one, heed my words, uneducated masses!' Your argument seems to be as follows The fans wanted the Trip-to-Thailand-trio (including James Pearson) sacked Nigel did not want James Pearson to be sacked Therefore, the fans were effectively calling for Nigel to be sacked This is not correct. It is not contradictory to want James out of the club while being content to see anyone who disagrees with you remain at the club. All we were doing was disagreeing with him, nothing more. If this is indeed what happened the owners are at fault because they sacked the manager for something that wasn't a sackable offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmpii8 Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Thought it'd be suitable for Hopper to be the one sacked with the other two disciplined. I don't think it'd have taken week or more for the owners to understand Pearson would back his son. As pointed out earlier regarding the faults of the article already, and also the point of transfers is what seems to be the key problem. Assuming also that the owners would have wanted a lot more Asian players but Pearson may not have been impressed by them hence "fundamental differences" and also the fact that Rudkin was behind his sacking someone had mentioned. Since he'd become DoF, Pearson has been sacked "twice". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littletoe Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Who would honestly trust a labour driven newspaper? It's the complete worst of a bad bunch. Speculation is all this is. I don't care about the reasons, Pearson dug this club from rubble, end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enmac Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Narbborough fox- " the owners own the hotel", which provided the prostitutes" - of all the things that's been written- this makes sense- hence the contracted silence. Can't wait for the autobio. Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIAMI_FOX Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 This is boring now. Let's move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 I love the way that some on here have dismissed The Mirror story as a lie based on the fact they've imagined it differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.