Raw Dykes

Apologies in advance for waffling on... I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying the owners haven't done anything for the club. Far from it. I think we have the best owners any football club could ever wish for. I couldn't be any more grateful for what they've done for us. However, we were talking specifically about who deserves credit for promotion to the PL. You want to give them all the credit, and Pearson none, whereas I think Pearson clearly deserves the lion's share. You said it was all down to Thai money, but if it was the case that money is the sole reason a club gets promoted, then surely we would have gone up when they spent big in their first season at the club with Sven in charge. Why is it that only after re-appointing Pearson, and considerably reining in the spending, did we achieve our goal? If money's the only factor, why is any league table not just a table of the richest clubs in order? How do you explain us winning the PL title with a team that cost a tenth of Man City's? Please bear with me on this, but it's extremely likely that the owners actually delayed our promotion to the PL. They made the mistake of getting rid of the manager responsible for an astronomical climb up the tables. I know this will sound disrespectful to the owners to you, but I do not blame them for it - I'm sure I would have done the same if I was in their shoes at the time - new to the game, lots of money to spend on my new plaything, wanting to put my stamp on the club, etc. What you seem to be failing to acknowledge is that Pearson joined us at the nadir of our entire history and oversaw a root and branch rebuild of the club. The league tables clearly show its success. At the first time of asking, we'd blitzed our one and only season in the third tier, and reached the Championship play-offs straight after. This was all done on a shoestring budget. Compare that to the Sousa/Sven debacle - millions pissed down the drain all for a measly 10th place finish. This is why I'm not having it that money is the sole reason we were promoted. It's as clear as day. We were heading for promotion before a penny of the owners' money was spent, and after they'd blown an absolute fortune in Championship terms, we ended up mid-table. The owners deserve huge credit for re-hiring Pearson and backing him, but I think Pearson himself is a much bigger factor re: promotion than money was. Making us debt free is fantastic, but I'm not sure how much it helped directly re: promotion. I believe King Power, and not the club, own the stadium - it makes little difference to us if so. Also, not much to do with promotion, anyway. The back room staff were people that NP brought in, and many, if not most, were appointed during Pearson's first spell - two years prior to the current owners buying the club.. I'd argue the person responsible for spotting talent probably deserves more credit than the person paying for it. You can easily spend big money on useless staff, after all. Was NP's season in the PL poor, though? You're speaking as though the winning streak at the end can just be dismissed as if it didn't happen. It can't. Would you have regarded it a good season if those wins had been spread more evenly over the season, despite it making absolutely zero difference to the end result of a 14th place finish? (Actually, it probably would have made a difference - it would have meant we didn't finish on great form that we carried into the next season to win the PL title with) I think relegation has to be a realistic expectation for any newly-promoted PL club, no matter how good you look in the Championship, such is the financial divide between the divisions. It's a gap that's constantly growing, as well. I was hopeful that we'd stay up, but I never expected it. You say NP escaped relegation by "stumbling by accident on a style he had stubbornly resisted all season until it was forced on him chance." I'm sorry, but this just reads as desperation to avoid giving credit where it is due. With time running out, he tried something different, and it paid off. He didn't have to do that. Other managers might not have, or they might have tried something else that wasn't so successful. NP's no master tactician, but he made the right change at that time. Pearson's remit for that season would have been to attempt to avoid relegation, and 14th place was an overachievement. That's all that matters. If you want to twist it to make it look like a failure, that's your prerogative. Pearson rebuilt the club not once, but twice, took us from our lowest ebb, in the third tier, to safe in the PL, and assembled the players and backroom staff that won the Premier League. If you don't believe me about how much credit he's due, just ask Kasper, Mahrez, Huth, etc. https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/nigel-pearson-bristol-city-leicester-5442793 To ignore or downplay the instrumental role Nigel Pearson has played in our rise to prominence is not only pure fantasy it’s rather ungrateful, if not downright disrespectful.

Commentator's curse!

Re: paying the biggest contracts - Not necessarily. We've got where we are today by being better than most at spotting players before they've made a name for themselves. If we can carry on doing that, we'll be fine.

Should have easily reached the play-offs with that squad, at least. Poor start to the next season, as well. A disaster considering the money spent.

Other posters have said all I wanted to say, really. This is bewildering rewriting of history. Did Pearson buy his way out of the Championship? I don't think he spent much more than £1m on any single player. Vardy £1m, Morgan £1m, Mahrez £450k, Drinkwater £700k, etc. We spent £5m on Mills and £3m on Beckford under Sven. Promotion was down to good management far more than it was money. The Sven era illustrates this perfectly by contrast. In Pearson's first spell, we won League 1 at a canter, and reached the Championship play-offs in the first season back up after we had been struggling at the wrong end of that table for years before finally going down to the third tier. That was all before a penny of Thai money had been spent. Doesn't that suggest he should be given more credit than you are giving him? You seem to be using his season in the PL as a stick to beat him with, which is weird. Newly promoted clubs are always favourites to be relegated, and yet we finished 14th. It was a success, not a failure. What infrastructure and good admin are you talking about? The great recruitment you mention was down to Pearson. Ranieri had to be pestered every day by Pearson's staff about signing Kante as he wasn't keen.

Mendy and Ndidi in midfield was horrendous to watch. You might have forgotten, but I've not. You're not having KDH in midfield?

Welcome to the forum. We're having an awful season. We're still scoring goals, but we can't defend to save our lives. Our best defenders have all been out injured for either the whole season or most of it. Fofana and Justin might return soon, but they'll be rusty. I'm not sure, but I think Brendan Rodgers has only just won his first European knock-out tie (is that right?) with the win over Randers, but we were far from convincing in the second leg, and that's being very generous. I think there's a slim chance we might play our way into some form by the time we face each other, but I won't be holding my breath. You won't need to be near your best to get through to the quarters if we're still in this rut, I'm sure. Not surprised to learn about Spurs. It's a cursed club with weird fans.

Good call! Never noticed that before. It's also a rip off of this...

I saw a bit of an interview with Hall and Oates the other day. He said Michael Jackson once said to him that he hoped he didn't mind that he ripped off I Can't Go For That when he wrote Billie Jean. I'd never noticed before. Don't think they're that similar. Here's the Marvin Gaye track the interviewer from that clip was talking about. And the cheap copy...

Great topic! Was just talking about this the other day when I heard Dave Chappelle recite the opening lyrics to 1999 by Prince (1982). Reminded me that the last time I heard Sussudio (1985) by Phil Collins, it was the first time I'd heard it since I was a kid, and I couldn't believe the nerve. Here's a really blatant one. Jimmy Eat World, 2001 Kelly Clarkson, 2015.

No Vardy or Evans?

True.

I think we'll probably be losing this one. They've won their last two and are just the sort of side we can't cope with, although I would have said the same about West Ham, and that should have been a pretty straight forward win in the end. If we play like we did 2nd half v West Ham or against Wolves, then we'll have a chance, but we'll be praying during every set piece the opposition get as usual. Play like we did last night and we'll be deservedly battered senseless. I guess it's a plus that Burnley play tomorrow and we get the weekend off.

Do you live under a rock?

Apart from anything else, do you not think "Watford (1.68) 1-4 (0.74) C Palace" is a bit more succinct than that? That tells you everything you wrote in that sentence, and more, and more accurately. As I understand it, xG is really just shots stats, but it also takes into account the distance and angle from goal, i.e. the quality of the chance. I think that's more helpful than shots/shots on target stats. Your team might be taking desperate pot shots from 40 yards out all game, while the opposition create several well-worked tap-in opportunities. Simple shots stats wouldn't tell the whole story.

I don't know what you expect from xG stats. No-one's saying they should be more important that actual goals or points or anything. They just tell you about the amount and quality of chances created. Re: Watford v Palace - the xG tells you that Palace were extremely lucky to score 4 with the chances they made. That's all, really. If you're not at all interested in that, you can just ignore it, can't you? The bitterness towards it seems very strange to me. Do you have a problem with any other stats? Shots, shots on target, etc.?

He's got 10 goals and 4 assists in his first 24 games. I wouldn't call that not doing much.

No, it won't be. Burnley would be well out of the relegation zone in that case.

Was just about to post the same thing. Since half time against West Ham, we've played well. Our fixture list in the PL is pretty kind, as well. The best run-in on paper for a long time. Don't have to play Man City or Liverpool again this season.

@ScrumpyJack I can't remember exactly what Tanner said, but it did sound like he thinks the club have learnt a lesson and will listen to the scouts more than Rodgers now. If BR is staying, I don't think he'll have as much say in transfers as he had before. Whether the noise around Congerton leaving lends weight to this, I don't know, but it can't be a bad thing.

I don't know about confirmed, but I think Tanner said that was the case.

I love it! I will say it scans better without Barnes in there, though. You could add him to the next verse.

I did say without a signing - it may well have been the case that we'd used the budget up. I think it did have to be a CB, though. That was clearly the biggest priority at the time, and it still is.

Maybe BR saw some improvement in Benkovic at the time, and/or he believed he could get him playing well enough to contribute something before January. We were pretty desperate for CBs when the initial squad was decided, and CM wasn't a problem. Without a signing, how could that squad place have been better utilised?